Monthly Archives: November 2016

Recount effort hits $6 million, Billary joins in, Pussygrabber cries ‘scam’

Image result for Wisconsin recount

Reuters photo

Billary Clinton campaigns in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in March. Official election results are that Donald Trump beat Billary in Wisconsin by more than 27,000 votes, in Pennsylvania by more than 70,000 votes, and in Michigan by more than 10,000 — relatively small margins. Yet if statewide recounts find that Billary — who already leads in the popular vote by more than 2 million votes — actually won those three states, then she won the Electoral College and thus should be inaugurated in January. That probably is unlikely to happen, but if even one of those three recounted states flips to Billary, it will put other states’ official results into deep question. 

Thus far Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s fundraising to pay for recounts of the votes for president in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania has hit more than $6.1 million.

Stein has declared that the recount efforts for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are now fully funded, and the total fundraising goal is $7 million.

The state of Wisconsin, where Stein filed the recount request on Friday, has announced that the recount is commencing there, and Stein plans to file for recounts in Pennsylvania by tomorrow and in Michigan by Wednesday.

Of course Stein’s effort has faced all kinds of criticism, not only from the fascists who support Der Fuhrer-“elect” Donald Trump, but also from the establishmentarian sellouts (many of whom call themselves “Democrats”) who hold that recounts just aren’t proper. They argue this because the anti-democratic, anti-populist, pro-corporate, pro-plutocratic partisan duopoly keeps these hacks in their positions of power and thus is their bread and butter, and so they don’t really care which of the two duopolistic parties wins the White House. It’s all pretty much the same to them.

Stein’s recount effort also has faced criticism for having raised its fundraising goals once the lower fundraising goals have been met. But this is common in fundraising when you have no idea of how much money you’ll be able to raise. Ask for too much at the onset, and people might be too hesitant to give you anything at all, feeling that the effort is overwhelmingly difficult. Also, of course, it’s common to find out as you do more research that a herculean effort is going to cost significantly more than you had initially anticipated.

But the bottom line is that the recount effort (1) is following the letter of the law, (2) is part of the democratic process, so those who don’t like it don’t like the democratic process and thus can go fuck themselves, and (3) is being funded by private, grass-roots donors whose fucking choice it is as to whether to give or not, and it’s no one’s fucking business if we private individuals want to give money to the recount effort; it’s our constitutional right to do so, and those who think otherwise don’t believe in constitutional rights and thus can go fuck themselves.

On that note, the two most despised presidential candidates in U.S. history, El Trumpo and Billary Clinton, have been true to themselves in their reaction to Jill Stein’s leadership on the recount effort.

Team Billary, true to form, has joined the recount effort now that someone else has initiated it. Billary has always operated that way: Let someone else take the risk of going first — of leading — and then jump on board only if it looks like they’re going to be successful. Billary always has led from behind — or, perhaps to phrase it more accurately, she always lets history get there first and then decides that it’s safe to catch up.

And El Trumpo, true to form, issued this fatwa:

“… This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than 1 percent of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount.

“This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing.”

It’s funny that President-“elect” Pussygrabber, who just settled one of his many actual scams for $25 million, should accuse anyone else of a “scam,” but we’re talking about President-“elect” Pussygrabber, of course.

Pussygrabber tells us, as though he were psychic, that Stein will spend the money that she’s raising on herself, even though by law she’ll have to account for every penny of the money that she raises.

As far as the November 8 presidential election already having been conceded is concerned, there are reports, such as this one, that the Obama White House pushed Billary to concede on election night — you know, for “propriety.” (This also is in character with President Hopey-Changey, whose disappointing, incredibly politically squandered two terms at best have shown him to be little to no more than a caretaker in chief.)

Further, a concession means nothing if the given results of the election weren’t correct. A concession is issued only on the trust — often if not usually on the fairly blind trust — that the election results as given are correct. If they are not correct, then it is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional for the loser of an election to actually take office, concession or no concession.

We already know that Billary Clinton garnered more than 2 million more popular votes than Pussygrabber did.

It’s entirely worth checking into whether or not Pussygrabber actually narrowly won three states that had been won by the Democratic presidential candidates since the 1980s.

Of course Pussygrabber’s greatest fear is that the recount effort might actually uncover significant error and/or malfeasance — thus revealing that Billary Clinton actually won the Electoral College (ideally) or, at the least, casting even further doubt on the legitimacy of Pussygrabber’s “win.” Therefore, Pussygrabber must attack it the recount effort advance.

Pussygrabber’s rhetoric and pathetic strategy at this point is so fucking predictable. He must libelously attack Jill Stein as a “scammer,” even though he’s one of the biggest scammers that the planet has ever seen — he’s a walking, talking Ponzi scheme — and he must point out that she received a relatively small number of votes (as though that has anything to do with whether or not he actually won the three states that are being recounted).

Pussygrabber can’t attack the recounts, which are part of the democratic process and which are allowed by law, so he’ll attack Stein (who is, you know, “such a nasty woman”). And he’ll try to turn the whole thing around by asserting that a recount doesn’t “respect” election results but instead “abuses” them.

No, refusing to ensure an accurate and fair vote count is what’s abusive and disrespectful. Of course, President-“elect” Pussygrabber is abusive and disrespectful, so there you go.

Fascists like Der Fuhrer-“elect” Trump just want power; they don’t give a fuck how they get it.

Just as the Germans had had ample warning about how Adolf Hitler would turn out, we Americans have had ample warning about how Donald J. Trump — who as president-“elect” is surrounding himself with neo-Nazis and neo-Nazi sympathizers — would turn out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

RIP, Fidel; if you were a monster, the United States of America created you

Image result for fidel castro

Fidel Castro, the “dictator” next door to the United States for decades, died yesterday. If Castro was a monster — and like almost all human beings are, he was, of course, neither a devil nor an angel but a mixed bag — then the United States of America created him.

As I’ve written before, love him or hate him, Cuban leader Fidel Castro was a survivor. He made it to 90 years before he died yesterday.

Within the United States, Castro very mostly was a bogeyman — but rarely have we Americans been given much, if any, detail as to why we’re supposed to hate him blindly obediently. (At most, we’re told simplistically that he’s a “bad” man, a “Commie,” a “dictator,” a “tyrant” who “hates the United States of America,” “hates freedom,” etc., etc.* Even to question this knee-jerk, right-wing narrative is to risk being called anti-American.)

All of that is because intellectually and ethically honest detail would reveal how the United States of America has meddled anti-democratically in Latin American affairs for decades, having imperialistically and anti-democratically considered the entire Western hemisphere subject to its own jurisdiction at least since the Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823.

There were so many attempts by the United States to assassinate or otherwise topple Castro — we’re talking not just the Bay of Pigs (the miserably failed U.S.-backed attempt to overthrow Castro in April 1961), but also numerous unsuccessful assassination attempts that were perpetrated by the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. State Department — as well as by the American Mafia — that it’s no fucking wonder that over the years Castro became more autocratic.

You’re not paranoid if they really are trying to kill you or oust you, and had Castro not ruled Cuba with an iron fist, no doubt his greedy, self-serving detractors would have done their damnedest to turn the sovereign nation of Cuba into an American colony for corporate profiteering once again.

We saw the dynamic with Fidel Castro repeated with the late socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez; a U.S.-backed anti-democratic coup attempt against Chavez in April 2002 failed (Chavez was only briefly deposed and replaced with an unelected right-wing oil magnate before the people of Venezuela took to the streets and demanded Chavez’s return), and that failed anti-democratic coup attempt (which was a bit like a Bay of Pigs 2.0) no doubt made Chavez more autocratic, and of course Chavez’s detractors conveniently acted thereafter as though the failed 2002 coup attempt by anti-democratic right-wingers had never happened at all.

The United States made Chavez, and before him it had made Castro.

If a Latin American nation wants a left-of-center, truly democratic government that, entirely unlike the U.S. government, actually does its job — which is to serve the needs and wishes of its people instead of the greed of American and transnational corporations and the treasonous plutocrats and kleptocrats who own them and profiteer from them — then it must protect itself from anti-democratic, toxic capitalist infiltration from abroad.

American wingnuts criticize Latin America for simply defending itself from foreign invasion and infiltration, although of course the United States always reserves the right to protect itself from such. Latin America is to disarm unilaterally, you see, and just allow American and other corporate robber barons to destroy it.

Fidel Castro stood up to the foreign anti-democratic and capitalist invasion and infiltration of his nation for decades. He was so hated because he was so successful; he was so hated because he refused to simply hand over his nation’s resources and well-being to the American and transnational corporations in exchange for for his own selfish, treasonous enrichment, like a “good” Latin American leader “should.”*

None of this is to simply and wholly overlook Castro’s wrongdoings.

Amnesty International’s nutshell on Cuba is this:

Government critics continue to be imprisoned; many report that they were beaten during arrest. Restrictions on freedom of expression is widespread. The government curtails freedom of association and assembly. The U.S. embargo against Cuba remains, despite increasing opposition to it within and outside the U.S.A.

Human Rights Watch’s nutshell on Cuba is similar:

The Cuban government continues to repress dissent and discourage public criticism. It now relies less on long-term prison sentences to punish its critics, but short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others have increased dramatically in recent years. Other repressive tactics employed by the government include beatings, public acts of shaming, and the termination of employment.

I don’t defend all of this, but at the same time it’s not ethically or intellectually honest to strip Cuba from its historical, sociopolitical context, including having the world’s most imperialist nation ever-lurking and ever-looming just to its north.

If Castro had governed Cuba with a laissez-faire philosophy, as the capitalists always have claimed that he should have, how long would Cuba have been free from foreign corporate domination?

Um, yeah.

We Americans can hate Fidel Castro all that we want, but we can’t deny that we created him.

Cuba’s first struggle was to free itself from imperialist Spain; then its struggle was to free itself from the imperialist United States of America.

And Cuba still struggles to be free, because the “freedom” that the United States would impose upon it — and yes, the United States ironically and hypocritically believes in imposing “freedom” — would only once again make it a slave to the United States.

P.S. I would be remiss of me not to note Cuba’s world-class education and health-care systems.

Cuba’s literacy rate of 99.8 percent and high-school graduation rate of 94 percent is higher than the United States’ official literacy rate of 99 percent (which some believe is quite inflated) and high-school graduation rate of 82 percent, and Cuba’s life expectancy of 79.1 years puts it just behind the United States’ life expectancy of 79.3 years.

Castro’s Cuba achieved this despite the United States’ having tried to destroy it (again, in the name of “freedom,” ironically and hypocritically) — and having desired to turn it back into a subservient slave state — for decades.

*And let’s fucking face it: Whether the American right wing calls you a “dictator” or a “tyrant” or the like depends not upon whether you were democratically elected, but depends entirely upon whether you have done the bidding of the American right wing.

Brutal Chilean dictator Augosto Pinochet, for instance, was a mass murderer and torturer who most definitely was not elected but who — with the help of the U.S. government (surprise, surprise!) — overthrew the actually democratically elected socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 and ruled Chile until 1990.

However, the American right wing (as well as the fascist Margaret Thatcher) loved Pinochet because he did their bidding.

The right wing hated Castro because unlike Pinochet did, Castro refused to be their lapdog.

May the sovereign nation of Cuba continue to resist colonization by the rapacious, imperialist United States of America — and work on improving human rights while preserving the gains of the Cuban Revolution.

P.S. I didn’t even need to mention Pinochet, although he’s a textbook example of a U.S.-backed dictator in Latin America. I could have stayed within Cuba itself.

Most “news” write-ups of Fidel Castro’s death conveniently ignore the fact that Castro overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, who ruled Cuba in the 1950s while unelected.

Wikipedia notes of Batista’s reign (links are Wikipedia’s):

… Back in power, and receiving financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.

Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70 percent of the arable land. As such, Batista’s increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba’s commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with both the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.

To quell the growing discontent among the populace — which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations — Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from hundreds to 20,000 people. …

Again: In the right-wing United States of America, drunk on toxic capitalism, a dictator is called a dictator only if he isn’t a right-wing dictator and doesn’t do what the American right wing wants him to do. Treasonously selling out his own nation to American profiteers makes him a “good” dictator (only, of course, in that event, we don’t even call him a dictator).

It doesn’t matter in and of itself if a dictator suspends his nation’s constitution, revokes his nation’s citizens’ rights, tortures and kills his political dissidents, refuses to stand for election, etc.; all that matters is whether or not he does the bidding of the hypocritical assholes of the United States of America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Green Party’s Jill Stein to the rescue with push for three-state recount

Updated below (on Friday, November 25, 2016)

Although on November 8 she garnered only around 1 percent of the presidential vote — and although she was shit and pissed upon mercilessly by the shameless, anti-democratic, Democrat-in-name-only, “feminist” Billarybots — two-time Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (shown above) is pushing for a recount in three battleground Rust-Belt states that some experts say Billary Clinton might actually have won: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And thus far Stein has raised more than $4.3 million for the recount effort while Team Billary, of course, has done exactly nothing.

As has been reported for the past day or two or three, “A group of election lawyers and data experts has asked Hillary Clinton’s campaign to call for a recount of the vote totals in three battleground states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — to ensure that a cyberattack was not committed to manipulate the totals.”

Deadlines for requesting — and paying for — recounts in these three states are quickly approaching, with Wisconsin’s deadline being tomorrow, according to The Associated Press.

Just as Al Gore essentially rolled over and played dead apparently in order to stay “above it all” (my words) in 2000 when George W. Bush & Co. blatantly stole the White House (with a deficit in the popular vote of more than 500,000), thus far Team Billary similarly pussily hasn’t requested any recount, of course (and the deficit in the popular vote this time thus far is more than 2 fucking million).

To the potential rescue has come Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who, although of course no recount will put her in the White House, has the standing to request recounts in these states because she appeared on their November 8 ballots.

It’s quite possible that the recounts will turn up nothing, but it wouldn’t be surprising if they turned up some surprising shit. Malfeasance or “innocent error” (my words) certainly would explain how the pussy-grabbing Donald J. Trump “beat” Billary Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, when Wisconsin hadn’t gone to a Repugnican since 1984, Michigan hadn’t gone to a Repugnican since 1988, and ditto for Pennsylvania.

As of this writing, Stein has raised more than $4.3 million in donations for recount efforts in the three states.

Establishmentarians are scoffing, of course, because, just as we were supposed to do in 2000, we commoners are just supposed to shut the fuck up while the White House possibly has been stolen yet again. We’re certainly not supposed to point out that it’s possible that a presidential election still can be stolen, because such information is inconvenient and possibly even — gasp! — unsettling!

Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania together have 46 electoral votes. Should it turn out that Billary actually won them, that would boost her current electoral vote count from 232 to 278 — meaning that she, not Der Fuhrer Donald Trump, won the Electoral College.

Even if it turns out that just one of these three states actually has flipped to Billary, it it puts the entire presidential election into question (as if Billary’s 2-million-plus popular-vote lead hasn’t done that already!).

The recounts are worth it. At the very least, presumably they’d give us some degree of insight into how much we can — or cannot — trust our presidential elections.

I’ve given $20 to the recount effort; I encourage you to give to the effort too if you can.

Stein’s recount fundraising page right now says that the cost of the Wisconsin recount has been covered through the donations received thus far, and says that the recount request deadlines are tomorrow for Wisconsin, Monday for Pennsylvania, and Wednesday for Michigan.

This thing is worth a shot. Democracy — true, actual democracy — is worth it.*

Update (Friday, November 25, 2016): Politico reports that today Jill Stein filed her recount petition in Wisconsin.

Interestingly, though, the Politico writer, a Zach Montellaro, apparently can’t help himself from editorializing throughout his “reportage.” He notes that Stein “barely [made] the 5 p.m. EST deadline,” as though that were relevant (it would have been newsworthy had she missed the deadline), and he feels it important to note all of the fundraising webpage’s changes and updates, even though this (the plan to request a three-state recount) has been a rather fast-moving and quickly changing last-minute development — and even though it’s unprecedented, to my knowledge.

Montellaro also used this slanderous language in his “reportage”: “On the back of a debunked fear of election tampering in key swing states, the Green Party presidential candidate raised nearly $5 million to fund a recount effort.”

“Election tampering in key swing states” has not been debunked, not with actual physical evidence, and while Nate Silver’s widely has been quoted as having thrown cold water on the idea that some swing states’ reported vote totals are wrong, actually concluded thusly:

… It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. (And the best hackers are experts in erasing their tracks.)

Maybe hackers knew which control variables we’d look at and manipulated the vote in a way that it would look like it was caused by race, education and population driving different voting preferences.

Maybe hackers didn’t manipulate the share of votes in individual counties, but rather the turnout, increasing the number of votes in counties likely to favor one candidate or another.

Maybe some irregularities at the county level in early Wisconsin vote-counting are signs of wider problems. Maybe we’d find something if we dug down to the precinct level, or if we looked at other states with mixed voting systems.

But at a time when the number of voters without confidence in the accuracy of the vote count is rising, the burden of proof ought to be on people claiming there was electoral fraud.

The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote. got it right there until it totally pussed out at the end for whatever reason or reasons (knee-jerk, self-serving establishmentarianism, apparently, but who knows?).

“The burden of proof ought to be on people claiming there was electoral fraud,” but when they don’t have access to the voting system equipment, computers, ballots, etc. — which are in the sole possession of local governmental entities — how, exactly, can they prove their allegations without being in possession of the physical evidence?

And which is more important: “confidence in the accuracy of the vote count” (which easily could be just blind confidence) or a good reason to have confidence in the vote?

There apparently is a widespread belief (which has persisted at least since the 2000 theft of the White House) that it’s more important to have quick election results that aren’t questioned — you know, so that we don’t “undermine confidence in the vote” — than that we have election results that are accurate, and that’s incredibly fucked up.

Anyway, again, the subtext of Politico’s Montellaro’s “reportage” is to cast aspersions upon Stein, apparently. Among other things, he snidely notes that much of the money that Stein has been raising — more than $5.2 million thus far, per Stein’s recount fundraising webpage as I type this sentence — will go toward lawyers’ fees, as though it were Stein’s fault that you need lawyers to handle this shit and that lawyers, always the opportunists, frequently go on their legal-fee feeding frenzies.

I just gave another donation to the recount effort. That’s what unfair, hypocritical, usually establishmentarian attacks on people who have courage and who are trying to do the right thing often spur me to do.

P.S. Politico does make one interesting, fairly newsworthy note, which it saves for the very last paragraph; it reports that Jill Stein has raised more money for the three-state recount than she raised for her 2016 presidential bid.

I mean, that’s interesting. How relevant it is I’m not sure, but it’s interesting.

But it’s also interesting that enough people have questioned the “official” November 8 presidential election results that thus far they have donated more than $5 million to have the votes in three swing/Rust-Belt states recounted — and that they have done this outside of the partisan duopoly of the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party. (On that note, it recently was reported on MSNBC that the Obama White House encouraged Billary Clinton to concede to Donald Trump quickly you know, in order to avoid ugliness, because, you know, it’s more important to avoid ugliness and to remain “above it all” than it is to have elections in which the winners, and not the losers, actually take office.)

Again: Democracy is worth it; $5 million is chump change toward what election integrity is worth.

Anyone who has read me for the past year-plus knows that I’m no fan of Billary Clinton, but while Team Billary and the Billarybots totally fucked Bernie Sanders out of the party’s presidential nomination, the fact remains that on November 8 Billary Clinton indisputably won the popular vote by a huge margin, and Trump’s reported wins in the traditionally Democratic Rust-Belt states look suspicious enough to double check.

*Jill Stein’s fundraising webpage for the recount effort gives this important background information:

In 2004, the Cobb/LaMarche [Green Party presidential] campaign demanded a recount in Ohio. Because of their efforts, an election administrator went to jail. We also exposed the profound problems with DRE machines [link is mine], which helped launch an election integrity movement. That provoked California to engage in a “top-to-bottom” review of [its] voting system, which culminated in the abolition of DRE machines.

The Green Party Platform calls for “publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.”

Election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where “statistical anomalies” raised concerns. Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.

These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is. [Emphasis is mine.]

All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state.

We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.

If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.

Here are the filing fees and deadlines for each state:

  • Wisconsin: $1.1 million by November 25 [tomorrow]
  • Pennsylvania: $0.5 million by November 28 [Monday]
  • Michigan: $0.6 million by November 30 [Wednesday]

Those are filing fees alone. The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law. Attorney’s fees are likely to be another $2 million to $3 million, [and] then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6 million to $7 million. …

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Past time for the Democratic Party to walk and chew gum at the same time

As Billy Joel rather cornily announced in 1989, we didn’t start the fire. (And I’d add that our fire today, compared to past conflagrations, is, at best, just a tiny brush fire.)

To us denizens of the United States of Amnesia (as Gore Vidal called us), it’s shocking that Vice President-elect Mike Pence* should be booed by the audience and spoken to by one of the performers at a performance of the popular Broadway musical Hamilton before he even has taken office.

Hey, when Abraham Lincoln went to the theater (no, I’m not comparing piece of shit Pence to Lincoln) the outcome was much worse for him

And while we’re witnessing all kinds of anti-Trumpence protests throughout the nation before the fascistic duo even takes over the White House — protests that I wholly support, condone and endorse — we should remind ourselves that in between the time that Abraham Lincoln was elected and then inaugurated, seven of the slave states seceded.

While a tiny minority of us Californians led by a politically confused young man have called for us to exit from the United States — a “Calexit,” of course — that very most likely will never happen in my lifetime, so yeah, unlike Lincoln in this and in pretty much every other conceivable way, Der Fuhrer Donald Trump gets to take the White House without any state having seceded before his inauguration.

So the anti-Trumpence protests are important and should continue. If the mostly stupid old white male members of Team Trumpence don’t see this opposition to them on a daily basis, they’ll be even more emboldened to enact their fascist agenda to “make America great again” — “great” again only for them and for their ilk.

My best guess, though, is that like the similarly unelected George W. Bush-Dick Cheney regime did, the unelected Trumpence regime will do whatever it wants to do, regardless of the protests in the streets. That’s the fascist way. Once you don’t care whether or not you even won the popular vote, of course you’re not going to be troubled by the wishes of the majority of the masses later.

This predictable overreach, though, should only shorten the life of the Trumpence regime. I can’t really see Trump, the only individual in U.S. history who became president without first having held some elected office or having served in the U.S. military, having a second term.

While we watch what seems to me the inevitable (or at least probable) implosion of the Trump administration, the Democratic Party needs to continue to reform itself meaningfully.

I support U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison as the new head of the Democratic National Committee. He’s progressive, comparatively youthful, he was one of only a handful of U.S. representatives with the guts, wisdom and foresight to endorse Bernie Sanders instead of the widely despised Billary Clinton, and as the first black American from Minnesota to be elected to the U.S. House and the first Muslim American ever to be elected to the U.S. Congress, I’d say that he knows something about how important it is to stick up for the rights of minorities.

On that note, the battle within the Democratic Party right now seems to be between those who want the party to continue to focus primarily on identity politics and those who want the party to also focus — as Bernie Sanders tried to get the party to do — on socioeconomic matters, especially class and income inequality.

In a nutshell, the Clintonesque Democratic Party, which has been “led” by Bill Clinton, Billary Clinton and Barack Obama, long ago decided to make identity politics its centerpiece.


Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they knew that their corporate sugar daddies don’t care so much about identity politics; they care only about money.

Our corporate overlords want our money more than they care about our race or our sex or our sexual orientation or our religion or our national origin or our ethnicity. They don’t just want our consumer dollar; they want to continue to fuck us commoners over in a million ways (such as ensure that tax breaks are given to the super-rich while our schools and infrastructure crumble and our military budget remains the most bloated in all of the world, despoil our environment for obscene profiteering, make students pay for their college education, make Americans pay more and more for their health care, engage in subprime lending, etc., etc.), and they have succeeded, as evidenced by the growing chasm between the rich and the poor, which, per Wikipedia, “has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability,” and while we Americans like to crow jingoistically that “We’re Number One!”, Wikipedia also notes that “The United States ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70 percent of countries have a more equal income distribution [than does the United States].”

So, again, it has been safe for the sellouts of the Democratic Party establishment to focus on identity politics, since their corporate sugar daddies aren’t going to complain about it; they’re still making mountains of money hand over fist.

Still, though, many if not even most Democrats compliantly stupidly and self-defeatingly focus on identity politics even while socioeconomically they are sheep being led to the slaughter by Democrats who are wolves in sheep’s clothing guarding the hen house.

On the last episode of Bill Maher’s show on HBO, self-identified “liberal redneck” Trae Crowder, a comedian and commentator from Tennessee, tried to make the point that the Democratic Party has neglected poor white Americans and the struggling white American working class (many if not most of whom we might term “rednecks”).

Indeed, had Billary not lost Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, bastions of the white working class — and which together have 48 electoral votes — she’d have won the Electoral College:

Right now Billary stands at 232 electoral votes; 232 plus 48 is 280. (Two hundred seventy electoral votes are required to win the White House.) Right now Trump stands at 290 electoral votes; 290 minus 48 is 242. Michigan is the only state that hasn’t yet officially been called, but even if you add its 16 electoral votes to Trump’s 242 had he lost Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that would be 258 and so Billary still would have won the Electoral College.

Were the denizens of the Rust Belt states smart to vote for Donald Trump? Very probably not. It’s very probably a huge fucking mistake to believe that a billionaire, whose billions came from fucking over the working class and the middle class, actually cares about the working class and the middle class.

But very apparently the Rust Belt voters weren’t at all confident that Billary Clinton would do anything for them, not substantively, and that’s because they’re probably right that she wouldn’t have. For many years now the Democratic Party establishment has only paid lip service to socioeconomic matters. (No, income inequality in the United States under President Barack Obama hasn’t gone down. In fact, many experts say that it’s worse now than it ever has been.)

Still, for many if not most of those who call themselves Democrats, we’re to ignore income inequality and focus only on identity politics.

For instance, when the aforementioned Trae Crowder on Bill Maher’s show tried to talk about the importance of trying to get economically struggling whites back into the party, black singer John Legend, who also was a guest on the show, shot Crowder down, proclaiming that he’d heard enough about the white working class. (And none of the limousine liberals [who are cowards by definition] on the show would contradict Legend on that, of course, lest they be deemed “racist.”)

Legend’s is a conveniently selfish position to take if you’re a black American, that no white American has any grounds for any complaint at all merely because of his or her whiteness, but the fact remains that more than 60 percent of Americans still are white.

The graph below is still pretty accurate; the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates for the United States’ racial breakdown in 2015, the latest year for which it has made estimates, is 61.6 percent white, 17.6 percent Latino, 13.3 percent black, 5.6 percent Asian, 2.6 percent two or more races, 1.2 percent Native American or Alaskan native, and 0.2 percent Pacific Islander or Hawaiian native.

Image result for graph united states race and ethnicity 2015

I’m not picking on John Legend, who is as adorable as he is demographically and politically misguided, but his racial group makes up only about 13 percent of the American population. Focusing only or primarily on his own relatively small group is not a politically winning strategy. To Legend’s credit, I suppose, on Maher’s show he also mentioned the plight of Latino Americans (although he unfortunately — and perhaps tellingly — referred to them as “Mexican,” while many Latino Americans aren’t of Mexican descent and while “Mexican” means a citizen of Mexico). Mentioning the plight of other racial minority groups is something that many if not most black Americans rarely to never do, but even if we add Latino Americans and black Americans together, that’s still only about 31 percent of Americans.

You can’t win a national (that is, presidential) election by focusing on the needs and wants of no more than a third of the population.

And very apparently, given the states that Billary Clinton lost on November 8 — including Wisconsin, which since 1984 had gone to the Democratic presidential candidates and where Billary Clinton incredibly stupidly didn’t visit once, making her since 1972 the first presidential candidate of either party who didn’t even bother to visit the state — many white American voters believe that the Democratic Party has told them that it cares only about non-whites and that they can go fuck themselves.

All of that said, the Democratic Party, if it is to survive, must be able to walk and to chew gum at the same time.

The Democratic Party of course must continue to stand up and fight for the rights of those of us who are minorities. (I am a gay man, and while I’ve been in an exclusive relationship for more than nine years now, I’ve had my constitutional right to marry recognized in all 50 states for not even a full year and a half now, so I know something of what it’s like to be a minority who has been oppressed by the majority. And we non-heterosexuals continue to be oppressed not only by white heterosexuals, by also by heterosexual members of racial minorities who talk incessantly about how awful oppression is. [Only race-based oppression is bad, you see, but even then it often if not usually depends upon which race is the oppressor and which is the oppressed…])

The Democratic Party must continue to stand up and fight for minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and at the same time must return to its progressive, truly populist roots and actually do something about our insane level of income inequality and other socioeconomic problems — for every American, not just those who aren’t white.

Lip service isn’t enough. It certainly wasn’t enough for Billary Clinton on November 8.

American voters, as stupid as they certainly can be, know fully well that Barack Obama — President Hopey-Changey — did little to nothing to significantly improve their socioeconomic conditions over the past eight years and that a President Billary only would have been a continuation of that dereliction of duty.

No, President Trump wasn’t the answer, but when people are desperate enough, they will try all kinds of perceived solutions.

Bernie Sanders had the answer: to win, the Democratic Party had to return to its progressive socioeconomic roots.

But Bernie ultimately was defeated by the selfish, toxic identity politicians who supported Billary Clinton (including the legions of misandrists who actually call themselves “feminists”) and who very apparently support income inequality, at least tacitly (only identity politics matters to them).

But on November 8, Bernie was vindicated when Billary was blown out of the fucking water in the Rust Belt by Donald J. Trump.

Although I’m white, I’m no fan of rednecks, either. Most of them, for starters, are homophobes, and not only am I gay, but I’m an atheist and I’m a democratic socialist, and what pathetically passes for Christianity and capitalism are pillars of their existence. I wouldn’t want to sit at a Thanksgiving dinner with them, so trying to bring them into the partisan fold (even if that feat is even possible) isn’t very appealing to me.

But if the Democratic Party doesn’t start listening to the rednecks white working class and poor whites (and doesn’t, say, stop believing, like Billary Clinton did, that you can just skip visiting an entire swing state with political impunity) — right now — then President-elect Pussygrabber might get a second term.

P.S. Actually, had Billary just won Ohio and Pennsylvania, that would have put her right at the 270 electoral votes needed for the win (232 electoral votes plus Ohio’s 18 and Pennsylvania’s 20 is 270). She didn’t need Wisconsin for the win, not mathematically.

But the way that both Billary and Barack Obama have ignored the largely white-working-class state of Wisconsin is illustrative of how far the Democratic Party, under the influence of the Clintonistas, has gone to toxic identity politics and has ignored the socioeconomic problems of all of the American people.

I never have set foot in the state of Wisconsin, either, but I care more about the state than either Obama or Billary does, very apparently.

*Well, actually, well more than a million voters voted for Tim Kaine for vice president than for Pence, but that’s America, claiming to be democratic even when it brazenly is being anti-democratic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave the anti-Trump protesters alone — and abolish the Electoral College

Anti-Trump protesters march Sunday in Santa Ana, California. (Ana Venegas,/The Associated Press)

Associated Press photo

Billary Clinton right now leads Donald Trump in the popular vote by about 800,000 votes, yet Trump “won” the presidential election — and yet we still criticize those who believe that their votes don’t count. Above, anti-Trump protesters demonstrate on Sunday in Santa Ana, California. (I especially like the “Make Fascism Afraid Again” sign.)

Often the intentions and the mind-control methods of our corporate overlords are made evident; often they’re barely even veiled or not even veiled at all, and the corporately owned and controlled “news” media are instrumental in controlling us commoners for our corporate overlords and their own selfish, treasonous interests.

This  “news” story from McClatchy News is an excellent example of how corporate-backed groupthink is to be imposed on all of us commoners:

After Donald Trump’s upset victory last week made him the next president of the United States, thousands of protesters marched in Portland’s streets to proclaim the businessman was “not my president.”

But, according to KGW, state election records indicate that at least half of those arrested didn’t register to vote or turn in a ballot in Oregon.

The television station cross-checked a list of 112 people arrested by Portland police and determined that 34 of those arrested did not return a ballot and another 35 were not registered to vote in the state. The voting records for another 17 protesters had yet to be confirmed, according to KGW. …

Just: Wow.

The fact that anyone’s personal voter registration status and voting activity shouldn’t be made available like that aside — that it even could be used against you like this is a reason in and of itself not to vote, I easily could argue — the “news” story actually is a pro-establishmentarian commentary and propaganda posing as a “news” story.

The subtext of the “news” story, of course, is that If you didn’t vote, you may not protest!

But voting and protesting are two different freedoms. One has the freedom to vote or not to vote, and one has the freedom to protest if he or she wishes — whether he or she votes or not.

Of course, the “news” story never delves meaningfully into why some of these arrested protesters aren’t registered voters and/or didn’t vote on November 8.* Because that would change the narrative of them being bad people (or, at the very least, spoiled, big ol’ hypocrites) to a potential exposé of the utter bullshit that we call the American “democracy.”

First and foremost, the “choice” between Repugnican Lite Billary Clinton and right-wing chameleon Donald Trump was not a choice.

Billary and El Trumpo are the two candidates whom the corporate sponsors of the duopolistic corporate parties found acceptable.

Bernie Sanders, for example, was not acceptable to the Democratic Party’s corporate sponsors, and he paid the price for it when the pro-corporate, DINO weasels of the Democratic National Committee did their best to shoot him down. And they (the Billarybots within and without the DNC) killed Bernie through a thousand cuts, such as through (in no certain order) e-mails discussing using his possible atheism against him, leaking presidential primary debate questions to Billary in advance, lying about “violence” committed against poor, wholly innocent Billarybots by savage “Bernie bros” (because while misogyny isn’t acceptable, misandry is A-OK), and even e-mails discussing leaking a photo of a shirtless Bernie, for fuck’s sake.

The powers that be do their fucking damnedest to deny us commoners any real, significant, meaningful choice on Election Day, yet we commoners are to be blamed if any of us don’t want to vote because we believe that voting is bullshit. The corrupt American system of “democracy,” as usual, is to get off scot-free while the individual is to be excoriated.

Fuck. That. Shit.

For the record, I vote, quite consistently (and I voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein both this year and in 2012, fuck you very much), but one easily could make the argument that we vote and we vote and we vote, yet everything magically stays the fucking same; the sociopoliticoeconomic status quo never fucking budges.

I vote, at least in part, because I know that the mean, old, right-wing white fucks consistently vote for everything evil, and therefore my vote is needed to help cancel out their anti-progressive, regressive vote.**

I choose to vote, but I don’t condemn those who don’t, especially if they don’t vote because they view the exercise as futile, because to a large extent, it is. So many of the important decisions already are made for us by the powers that be before we even get a ballot before our faces.

As far at the anti-Trump protesters go, knock yourselves out.

Whether you voted on November 8 or not, alone you have the right to protest the fact that thus far Billary Clinton won almost 800,000 more popular votes (with many thousands of votes, including vote-by-mail votes and provisional votes, remaining to be counted throughout the United States) than Donald Trump did, yet Trump, not Billary, is to be inaugurated in January.

I mean, the insanity of telling people that they’re bad when they don’t vote when twice in the past 16 years the loser, not the winner, of the popular vote went on to the White House — that’s at least as hypocritical as participating in anti-Trump protest when one didn’t vote him- or herself.

P.S. Of course the Electoral College must be abolished, and if we give a flying fuck about actual democracy at all, we must pick our presidents based upon the popular vote alone.

Unfortunately, the Electoral College is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution — the Electoral College was designed to protect the slave states and it still gives the former slave states more power than they’re entitled to — and to amend the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Congress and the ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Don’t expect the Repugnican Tea Party members of Congress and the red states to do away with the unfair Electoral College, since it gives the red states an unfair advantage over the blue states. The Repugnican Tea Party traitors don’t care about democracy; they care about power, whether they come to it democratically and fairly and squarely or not, as evidenced (in part) by how they’ve been wholly untroubled that both George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump lost the popular vote in 2000 and this year.

The workings of the Electoral College mean that the strength of your vote depends upon where you live; not every American’s vote is equal. And that’s fucking unconstitutional.

Fortunately, there exists the National Popular Vote bill. From its website’s explanation:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes — 61 percent of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii and D.C.), three medium- size states (Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington), and four big states (New Jersey, Illinois, New York and California). The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states — most recently by a bipartisan 40-16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28-18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57-4 vote in the New York Senate, and a 37-21 vote in the Oregon House.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the president stem from state winner-takes-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).

Because of these state winner-takes-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.

State winner-takes-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7 percent more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Also, state winner-takes-all statutes have allowed candidates to win the presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in four of our 57 presidential elections—1 in 14 times. [The webpage has yet to be updated; including President Pussygrabber, it’s now five out of 58 presidential elections in which the “winner” of the White House didn’t win the popular vote.] A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Mitt Romney despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The winner-takes-all rule was used by only three states in 1789.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough to elect a president (270 of 538). Under the compact, the winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and D.C.) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states. [Emphasis mine, because that language is key.]

The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. … [Actually, it seems to me, the National Popular Vote bill actually so alters the current functioning of the Electoral College that while under it the Electoral College might still technically exist, it would be rendered pointless. Therefore, it seems to me, the National Popular Vote bill actually pretty much would scrap the Electoral College for the popular vote. It’s a roundabout way of scrapping the Electoral College — but a way that would be easier to realize than amending the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College outright.]

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at …

Click that link above to ask your state legislators to adopt the National Popular Vote bill/interstate compact if your state’s legislature has yet to adopt it.

P.P.S. also reports that two-thirds of the 2016 general-presidential-election campaign events were held in only six states. The website reports:

Two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just six states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan).

94 percent of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states (the 11 states identified earlier in the year as “battleground” states by Politico and The Hill and Arizona). This fact validates the statement by former presidential candidate and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin on September 2, 2015, that “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are.”

In addition to the 12 states that received 10 or more campaign events, 14 additional states received scattered attention (one, two or three events). …

The map above … [shows] all the post-[party-]convention campaign events by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential nominees (Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine). The count of Republican campaign events started on Friday July 22, 2016 (the day after the end of the party’s convention), and the count of Democratic campaign events started on Friday, July 29 (the day after the end of the party’s convention). The count ended on Monday, November 7, 2016 (the day before Election Day). …

*The two most common reasons the protesters arrested in Portland might not be registered to vote, it seems to me — even though, again, their personal registration and voting status should not be available to the “news” media like this — would be that they don’t live in the state and/or that they are anarchists (anarchists tend to get arrested at protests because they tend to go further than your average protester does…), and easy research via Google shows that anarchists generally don’t believe in voting, which is their right.

Of course, we can’t even mention anarchists in a corporately owned and controlled “news” story; we have to pretend that they don’t even exist because anarchists aren’t like the rest of us, who are sheeple who are quite easily herded into two pro-corporate, anti-populist, practically indistinguishable concentration camps labeled “Democrat” and “Repugnican.”

**And, of course, in this past election I got to vote on other things, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana here in California (which passed), gun control in the state (which passed), the reinstitution of bilingual education in the state’s public schools (which passed), and the abolition of the death penalty in the state (which, unfortunately, did not pass).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Opposition to Trump better for progress than more Democratic complacency

President Barack Obama has done little to alter the status quo — stupendously violating his ubiquitous 2008 campaign promises of “hope” and “change” — and for the most part he personally never paid a political price for it (indeed, he was re-elected). The Democratic Party, however, just paid a steep price for it on Tuesday.

I could cite many examples of Obama’s broken campaign promises, but just one stunning example is sufficient. In November 2007, Obama stated this:

“And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself; I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”

Video of this proclamation of his at a campaign rally in South Carolina is here.

Obama made that explicit promise, yet when the state of Wisconsin exploded in early 2011, drawing tens of thousands of protesters to the state’s capital after Repugnican Tea Party Gov. Scott Walker and crew first proposed and then passed legislation to destroy the right of the state’s public-sector workers to collectively bargain, Obama didn’t show up in Wisconsin even once.

As Wikipedia tells it:

Wisconsin was the first state in the United States to provide collective bargaining rights to public employees in 1959.

Over the past decades, public-sector labor unions have grown from 10.8% of public workers being represented by a union in 1960 to 36.2% in 2010. Over the same time period, the percentage of private-sector employees in a union shrank from 31.9% to 6.9%. This increase in public-employee unionism coincided with the granting of collective bargaining rights to public employees. Total union membership for all employees, both public and private, has decreased substantially over the years, with total union membership in 2010 at 11.4%. …

In January 2011, the [Wisconsin] state legislature passed a series of bills providing additional tax cuts and deductions for businesses at “a two-year cost of $67 million.” In early February, the Walker administration projected a budget shortfall in 2013 (Wisconsin functions on two-year budgets) of $3.6 billion and a $137 million shortfall for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

The Walker-backed bill proposed to alleviate the budget shortfall included taking away the ability of public-sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually. [The effect of this, of course, was to wholly politically neutralize if not to destroy the public-sector unions altogether.]

The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers. [That’s very Repugnican Tea Party! We must have law and order! Our storm troopers are to be taken care of, but everyone else can starve!] Walker stated that without the cuts, thousands of state workers would have to be laid off. …

Read that again. Although the Walker administration’s stated problem was the state’s budget deficit, the Repugnican Tea Party administration nevertheless gave businesses tax cuts, a Repugnican Tea Party pillar. The Walker administration then shamelessly used the budget deficit as an excuse to execute another pillar of the Repugnican Tea Party: to destroy what little is left of labor unions.

The 2011 Wisconsin protests went on for months and didn’t end there; there were recall elections first for state legislators and then for Walker himself (Walker survived the June 2012 gubernatorial recall election, the first time that a sitting governor ever survived a recall election, and most of the state legislators survived their recall elections).

Over weeks and months, throngs of Wisconsinites filled the state capitol, such as shown in this Reuters news photo from March 2011:

Image: Massive crowds gather at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison

Given for how long the protests went on and how many Wisconsinites participated in them, it was quite safe for Obama to make good on his campaign promise to put on his “comfortable pair of shoes” and join Wisconsinites whose right to collectively bargain was under grave threat, yet, again, he showed up in Wisconsin to stand up for “American workers [who were] being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain” not one fucking time.

His excuse, I’m confident, would be that as president he didn’t want to interfere in a state’s politics or some bullshit like that. But why, then, did he explicitly promise to do so — “as president of the United States of America” — in November 2007?

He was a law professor, right? If it’s inappropriate for a president to involve himself in a state’s politics, surely he knew that in November 2007, no? Why the promise but not the follow-through?

And why has Obama given a pass among self-identified Democrats and liberals for all of his broken campaign promises and failures?

That was partially rhetorical, but I’ll answer it anyway: Democrats don’t want to criticize the head of their party (look at the free fucking pass that the congenitally unlikable Billary Clinton has been given by the Dembots), and no one wants to be called “racist” for criticizing our first black president, even though refusing to criticize someone because of his or her race is no less racist than is criticizing someone because of his or her race. (In both cases, race takes precedent over principle. Um, yeah.)

Wisconsin, methinks, is a great example, because, as Wikipedia notes, in Tuesday’s presidential election, “Wisconsin went Republican for the first time since 1984.”

Gee, maybe Barack Obama’s blatantly broken campaign promise to “walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America” helped to cost the do-nothing, Repugnican-Lite Democratic Party the state of Wisconsin (and Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and…).

Frankly, before Tuesday’s election settled the matter, I wasn’t sure which would be worse: four or eight more years of the same old slow-death bullshit under President Clinton 2.0, in which the “Democratic” president continues to do little to nothing yet we commoners are to keep our fucking mouths shut because She’s our first female president! (and we’re “misogynist” if we criticize her) and because she uses the label “Democrat” — or probably no more than four years under President Pussygrabber, who is more like a fucking Batman villain than anything presidential.

Under a President Billary, the Democratic Party never would have reformed itself; that is safe to conclude. Had she won, we commoners would have been expected to interpret that as a sign that there’s nothing wrong the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party establishment; after all, the proof is in the pudding.

Had Donald J. Trump not blown up the Democratic Party on Tuesday, we commoners most likely would have remained in our collective deadly slumber, like frogs thinking that we’re in a Jacuzzi, under yet another “Democratic” president who claims to love us sooo much but who actually does virtually nothing for us.

I wager that President Pussygrabber — quite unwittingly, of course — is going to unleash more creativity, more energy and more opposition to all that’s deplorable than President Clinton 2.0 ever could have or would have, and that, ironically, while Billary Clinton never was going to usher in a progressive age, Donald J. Trump always was our better bet to make that happen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t blame me — I voted for Bernie!

While I’d thought that Bernie Sanders would be blamed for Billary Clinton’s loss to Der Fuhrer Donald Trump for having had the audacity to challenge her for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, instead Bernie apparently is indeed the face of the Democratic Party that is emerging from the still-smoldering ashes. His new book, Our Revolution, comes out next week and already is on’s list of top-100 best-selling titles as I type this sentence.

If I were to make a bumper sticker, that’s what it would say: Don’t blame me — I voted for Bernie!*

No, I’m not retroactively changing my stance in the wake of Billary Clinton’s stunning loss to a fascist demagogue who, for the first time in my lifetime, became U.S. president without previously having held some other elected office to help prepare him for the job.

On July 24, I posted a piece titled “To Win Election and Save Party, Super-Delegates Should Pick Bernie Sanders*.” The asterisked continuation of that was “*But They Won’t, So They’re Going to Lose the November Election, and the Party as It Exists Today Is Doomed.”

The Democratic Party establishment did indeed lose the presidential election, and the party as it exists today indeed is doomed. It’s in tiny little pieces, and it’s wholly discredited. First, slimebag Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (and other sleazy higher-ups within the DNC) had to resign in disgrace due to leaked e-mails showing that they had it in the bag for Billary and were against Bernie, and now even interim DNC head Donna Brazile, yet another mindlessly obedient and self-serving Billarybot, is embattled for having sleazily leaked debate questions to Billary in advance.

Ding, dong! The Democratic Party as we have known it is dead!

And on May 28, I noted:

… But if we just don’t mention how weak Billary is, then everything will be OK! Magically, her weakness only exists if someone who is left of center dares to utter something about it! Loose lips sink ships!

And when Billary loses to Donald Trump in November, we won’t blame her, but we’ll blame Bernie Sanders. That’s The Way of the Democratic Party Hack/Billarybot. …


… If we progressives don’t take the Democratic Party back with Bernie Sanders, we’ll take it back with someone else — with Elizabeth Warren and/or with whomever else emerges in a leadership position or positions.

We are patient. …


… Finally, it strikes me that we — all of us, Democrat and Repugnican (and everything else) — don’t deserve a President Sanders but fully deserve a President Trump. …

I still believe that, by the way: That Bernie Sanders is too good for the United States of America. He’s too smart, too honest, too moral. And Americans amply have demonstrated their depravity by allowing Repugnican Lite Billary Clinton and her “Democratic” henchweasels to steal the Democratic Party presidential nomination and by allowing President Pussygrabber to sit in the Oval Office come January.

That said, I did follow the presidential-election polling closely — I especially followed, which for weeks and weeks had put Der Fuhrer Trump’s White House win at a significant improbability — and so yes, I had come to expect Billary most likely to win, and so for a little while I was in a bit of a state of shock and awe (awe of the bad kind).

But it didn’t last long. Life goes on, shit must still get done, and the political pendulum always swings back your way, in time.

In retrospect Billary’s loss was quite foreseeable — I wrote about it here months ago — and it’s good that the Democratic Party establishment has been smashed to pieces. Because from those pieces, those ashes, needs to rise a new, actually progressive party.

And Bernie Sanders still is leading the way; fuck, next week he has a book out about his experiences on the presidential campaign trail and about the future of progressivism.

If Sanders runs against President Pussygrabber in 2020 (if President Pussygrabber is still in office, that is), I’m there.

After all, while Real Clear Politics stopped tracking Sanders vs. Trump polls in June, Sanders always polled better against Donald J. Trump than Billary did. When RCP stopped tracking Sanders vs. Trump polls, Sanders was 10.4 percent ahead of Trump — and that was the average of polling of all Americans nationwide, not just Democrats and Democratic leaners. (At the time that RCP stopped tracking Sanders vs. Trump polls in June, Billary was averaging only around 5 percentage points ahead of Trump — and going into Tuesday’s election, her lead was even lower than that.)

Happily, I apparently was wrong about my prediction that Bernie Sanders would be blamed for Billary’s loss by the Billarybots. Tellingly, it’s been largely radio silence from Billary and the Billarybots, and the early signs are that third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein might be blamed by the Democratic Party hacks for Billary’s loss, much how Ralph Nader was blamed by the Dem Party hacks for Al Gore’s lackluster presidential campaign in 2000.

I’d thought that Bernie would be blamed for Billary’s loss, but the No. 1 thing that thus far I’ve seen blamed, way too conveniently, for Billary’s loss is white racism/white supremacism.

While that was a significant factor in Billary’s loss, no doubt, that wasn’t at all all that there was to it, and the Democratic Party never will recover if its adherents refuse to look beyond that.

Billary was an incredibly weak candidate. Fuck, Bernie Sanders, a relative unknown and not even a Democrat (that’s a good thing!) but an independent, a democratic socialist, won 46 percent of the pledged (democratically earned) delegates in the Democratic Party presidential primary fight — that’s how unpopular Billary has been within her own fucking party.

Billary has a mountain of baggage and no one fucking likes her. The electorate did not want a blast from the past, a return to the Clinton era of the 1990s. The electorate did not want another Clinton or another Bush in the White House (which is why the Billarybots within and without the Democratic National Committee had to do their best to sink Bernie and to boost Billary; the product that they were pushing down our throats is fatally flawed, and so they had to cheat mightily).

And over the past few decades, first under Bill Clinton and then continued under Barack Obama, the Democratic Party stopped being a truly populist party. It stopped caring about the working class and the remnants of the middle class, to whom it only paid lip service at election time. It abandoned labor unions (except for asking labor union members for campaign cash and and to be campaign workers) and it welcomed the limousine liberal — the rich person who wants to avoid angry mobs coming after him or her and his or her money with torches and pitchforks by having gone on record with the right stances on certain sociopolitical issues. 

Yes, over the past many years the Democratic Party became much more about identity politics than about socioeconomic politics, and that’s a huge reason why we’re about to have President Pussygrabber in the White House.

Another huge reason for that potentially devastating development is the Democrats’ refusal to face up to the party’s weaknesses. The Democratic lemming-bots have refused to acknowledge not only Billary’s massive shortcomings, but they have refused to acknowledge that President Obama over these past eight years hasn’t delivered his ubiquitously promised “hope” and “change” but for the most part has given us only more of the same, that he hasn’t been anything remotely resembling a strong, progressive leader, but has been only a caretaker in chief (at best).

That’s another huge reason that Billary lost: Americans looked at the past eight years and recognized, correctly, that another four (or eight) years under Billary Clinton would be just like a third (or third and fourth) Obama term: a continuation of the anesthetizing, centrist slog that the past eight years have been.

Obama in 2008 didn’t campaign on just trying to keep one’s head above water — because that’s not exactly inspirational — but that’s exactly what it has been like for most Americans under his presidency.

Yes, racism, misogyny, patriarchy, homophobia, xenophobia, jingoism, etc. — the entire Big Basket of Deplorableness — must continue to be addressed and must be continued to be opposed by the Democratic Party and those of us who are left of center, but that can’t continue to be the party’s whole fucking show, or the show is fucking over.

Indeed, methinks that the toxic identity politics that has gripped the Democratic Party in large part is what helped to sink Bernie, who was widely view by the toxic identity politicians as just another old white man (and thus unacceptable as the party’s presidential candidate), even though he’s infinitely more progressive and much more liked than Billary Clinton ever has been or ever will be — indeed, even though he very probably would have beat Trump on Tuesday.

It was supposed to be enough that Billary is a woman, you see.

Obviously, it wasn’t enough, and if the Democratic Party doesn’t learn its lessons — the central lesson of which is to ease off of the toxic identity politics and get back to the bread-and-butter issues that it has abandoned — it could be a long, long time before it’s back in power again, if it ever comes to power again.

P.S. Further in terms of toxic identity politics, white, non-Latino Americans still make up more than 60 percent of all Americans, and 49.2 percent of Americans are male, per the U.S. Census Bureau.

This is important to remember if one thinks that white-bashing and/or man-bashing is going to win one a national election.

*I am quite proud of the fact that I never have cast a vote for the corrupt, center-right, Democratic-in-name-only/Repugnican-Lite Billary Clinton, not once, and that I never have given her even one fucking penny.

Not only did I vote for Bernie Sanders in the California Democratic Party presidential primary in June, but I gave his campaign more than $1,000 over time. I still consider it to have been a good investment in the future — not just mine, but everyone’s and future generations’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

If Der Fuhrer Trump wins, at least I’ll have legalized pot to get me through

Image result for Trump marijuana

In November 2008, the nation elected its first non-white president while in my state of California, the anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8 (which I always think of as Proposition Hate) passed. It was cruelly bittersweet. Six years later, the reverse seems to have occurred; the nation appears to be on the verge of putting a dangerous fascist demagogue into the White House, but California voters appear to be on track toward finally having legalized recreational marijuana.

As I type this sentence (at 9:45 p.m. Pacific Time), Politico and The New York Times both show Billary Clinton with 215 projected electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 244. Either needs 270 electoral votes to win the White House.


I never thought that it would be this close. (Only Trump did. Or claimed so, anyway.)

At any rate, if Trump wins, I’d chalk it up (not necessarily in this order) to misogyny (too many voters not ready for a female president); to the fact that Barack Obama relentlessly promised “hope” and “change” but, in fact, most Americans’ lives haven’t improved much at all over the past eight years (or at least that’s their perception, and in politics perception matters more than does reality); to Clinton fatigue and an anti-political-dynasty sentiment (which apparently sank Jeb Bush, at least in part); and to the fact that the Democratic Party establishment did everything in its power to sink the more popular Bernie Sanders and crown Billary instead, even though the polls consistently have shown for a long, long time now that more than half of Americans don’t like her — and despite the fact that Bernie polled significantly better against Trump than Billary did even while the “Democratic” fucktards officially coronated her at the convention in July.

Also, in fairness to Billary, it is difficult and unusual for the Coke Party or the Pepsi Party to win a third term in the White House. The only time that that happened during my lifetime was when George H.W. Bush won in 1988, following Ronald Reagan’s wins in 1980 and 1984 (of course, Bush I went on to defeat for re-election in 1992).

Anyway, should Trump actually win, at least I’ll have legalized marijuana. Yup: California appears to be on track to legalizing recreational pot, effective at midnight.

Seriously, though, if Der Fuhrer Trump must be president, I’m glad to be here in California, where one would be more insulated against Trumpism (neo-fascism) than in most other states, and if Trump wins, if he even makes it through one full term (isn’t removed from office, doesn’t resign like Richard M. Nixon did, isn’t assassinated, etc.), I certainly don’t see him getting re-elected; I’d expect the Democrats to win back the White House in 2020.

And, of course, a Trump win very most likely would mean that we’d finally be free of Billary Clinton and the Clinton Dynasty.

I don’t know; that might just be worth it…

Seriously, though, it’s quite possible, if not even probable, that a Trump presidency just might drive a final stake through the cold, stupid hearts of the Democrats in name only who shoved Billary Clinton down our throats, and the democratic socialism that Bernie Sanders has tried to stoke just might rise from the ashes.

The game continues, whether Trump wins or not. He is just one “man”; we are legion.

Update (10:45 p.m. Pacific Time): Politico and the Times now report 264 electoral votes for Trump and still only 215 for Billary.

Um, yeah, it appears to be just about all over except for the crying — and except for the chorus of I told you so from us former Berners, who, I surmise, will lead the way post-President Trump, now that the Clintonian brand of the Democratic Party (that is, Repugnican Lite) has been fairly destroyed in one presidential election.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

35 percent chance of Trumpocalypse


Billary Clinton has about a two-thirds chance of winning the presidency on Tuesday, per Although she bests El Trumpo in the nationwide polls by no more than around 5 percentage points, Billary leads him in the number of electoral votes that she’s likely to garner, and thus her chance of winning the White House is considerably higher than is his.

If I were told that tests showed that I had a 35 percent chance of having terminal cancer, I’d be concerned, sure, but I’d also look at the other 65 percent and feel pretty good about that.

Similarly, per right now, two days before the presidential election, Der Fuhrer Donald Trump has around a 35 percent chance of winning the election.

Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls right now has Billary Clinton at only 2.2 percentage points ahead of Trump, 44.9 percent to 42.7 percent (with Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson at just under 5 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, for whom I’ve already voted by mail, at just under 2 percent).

The Huffington Post’s average of nationwide polls right now has Billary at 4.6 percentage points ahead of Trump, 46.2 percent to 41.6 percent (and with Johnson at 5.3 percent and Stein not even represented).

Most of this tightening in the polls is due, I surmise, to members of the Repugnican Tea Party coming to The Donald to prevent a President Billary, much as so many of Billary’s voters aren’t voting for her nearly as much as they’re voting against Trump.

Indeed, this has been a major hate-fuck election, with the apparent majority of American voters voting their hatred and their fears more than anything else.

I never got sucked into that fear. Last night I watched Bill Maher’s latest show in which he yet again over-seriously shilled for Billary, as did his guests, all of them repeating the tired bullshit line that refusing to vote for Billary is to vote for Trump.

Again, that wholly depends upon which state you vote in. If you live in a solidly blue state, as I do (California), you certainly don’t have to vote for Billary. She’s going to win your state no matter fucking what. And if you live in a solidly red state, Trump’s going to win your state anyway, so if you don’t want to vote for Billary, then don’t.

If you live in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona or Georgia — the 14 states that says are most likely to swing the election, in that order — then by all means take an anti-depressant and an anti-emetic and hold your nose and vote for Billary to prevent The Great Orange Fascist from winning your state and thus perhaps the White House.

I don’t hold it against anyone who lives in one of the purplish states voting for Billary, but when I’m told — usually by quite comfortable limousine liberals like Bill Maher and Michael Moore* — that I have no choice but to vote for Billary, that makes me want to vote for her even less. (Well, again, I already vote for Jill Stein, and I would do it again, but the point is that to tell me that I must do something, that I have no choice in the matter, is a sure-fire way to make me want to do that thing even less than I already didn’t want to do it.)

Don’t at all get me wrong; of course I don’t want a President Trump.

That said, I don’t think that a President Donald J. Trump could survive a full year in office without going the way of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy.

But even if some patriot didn’t use a Second-Amendment remedy to take care of the Fascist in Chief, I’m at least somewhat with Susan Sarandon on this: Things might have to get really bad under another right-wing demagogue** in order for the majority of Americans to realize that they fucked up big-time by yet again passing over Bernie Sanders or his ilk.***

P.S. If it makes you feel better, The New York Times, where’s Nate Silver got his start, right now says that Trump’s chances of winning on Tuesday are only 16 percent to Billary’s 84 percent.

The Times also right now gives the Democrats a 53 percent chance of taking back the U.S. Senate.

P.P.S. Although he’s garnering only about 5 percent in the polls right now, I’d love to know how much of Trump’s support Gary Johnson has siphoned and how much of Billary’s he has siphoned. As the Libertarian Party is definitely right of center, I have to surmise that Johnson has taken more of Trump’s support than Billary’s.

Given that Billary isn’t even at 50 percent in the polls, I expect her to win, but on a plurality (that is, with 40-something percent), and it strikes me that perhaps we can thank Johnson for having prevented a Trump victory…

*Last night I also watched Moore’s very recent “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” which is a disappointingly largely unfunny and quite pathetic last-minute paean to Billary. It’s quite unconvincing, because Moore tells us that he’s never voted for her, that he supported Barack Obama in 2008 and Bernie Sanders this year (as did I), yet he unsuccessfully tries to sell us on her anyway, going against everything that he’s ever stood for.

I’ll always hold a special place in my heart for Moore, but he’s lost his touch. His shtick largely remains stuck in the 1990s, much like Billary’s.

**We survived the unelected “President” George W. Bush, if barely, but Gee Dubya was Abraham Fucking Lincoln compared to Donald J. Trump.

***Of course Susan Sarandon, who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party presidential primary battle, has been savaged by the Billarybots, such as’s resident Billarybot Michelle Goldberg, who called Sarandon “a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line,” conveniently wholly ignoring the fact that most of Billary’s Hollywood-celebrity supporters are rich white people with nothing on the line.

But at least Goldberg, as blindly obedient as her support for Billary always has been, fleshes out the thinking on this. She notes:

What Sarandon is voicing is the old Leninist idea of “heightening the contradictions,” which holds that social conditions need to get worse in order to inspire the revolution that will make them better. In this way of thinking, the real enemy of progress is incremental reform that would render the status quo tolerable.

Indeed, the political tactic of the Clintonista, Democratic-in-name-only presidents — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the aspiring president Billary — hasn’t been pushing progressivism, but has been a slow, grinding, soul-crushing, centrist-to-center-right incrementalism in which the socioeconomic status quo barely fucking budges.

Under this DINO incrementalism, lip service is paid frequently to certain interest groups (women, non-whites, non-heterosexuals, et. al.), but, remarkably, year after year after year after year after year, nothing ever really changes, not significantly. Our day-to-lives continue to get worse, not better. We continue to lose ground and we never make up for the ground that we have lost.

Goldberg perhaps unwittingly brings up this unpleasant fact, at least indirectly, but then Goldberg launches into this:

[This anti-incrementalism] was the position of the German Communists in the early 1930s, who refused to ally with the Social Democrats, proclaiming: “After Hitler, our turn!”

A similar — if less deadly — assumption underlay Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign, for which Sarandon served as co-chair of the national steering committee. George W. Bush, Nader argued then, could serve as a “provocateur,” awakening the power of the left. “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur,” said Nader. “It would mobilize us.”

Billary Clinton certainly is an anesthetizer, as Obama has been, and Bill Clinton before him, and it is true that the philosophy that shit really has to hit rock-bottom before it can get better — which human nature and history time and time again have proved to be trueis indeed risky. It’s possible that after shit really has hit rock-bottom it never will rise again.

But the only difference between the rock-bottom that chronically-insufficient-to-our-problems incrementalism inevitably takes us to and the rock-bottom that the it-has-to-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better philosophy might take us to is the length of time that it takes to get there. And while chronically-insufficient-to-our-problems incrementalism leads to destruction that is pretty fucking assured (albeit more slowly), the it-has-to-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better approach might, just might, actually lead us to The Promised Land.

But Goldberg’s comparison of Susan Sarandon’s and Ralph Nader’s proclamations that things perhaps have to get worse before they can get better to what happened in Nazi Germany is hyperbolic and unfair.

But, of course, the intent there, I think, is the same: Let’s blame the German Communists for Nazism instead of the German citizens who supported Nazism, and let’s blame Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and other supporters of the Green Party and of actual progressivism instead of the American citizens who support Der Fuhrer Trump.

The actual left always is a convenient punching bag for the pathetic failures of the masses, including the Billary-supporting liberals (whom I define as faux-progressive sellouts, whether they can afford to be carted around in a a limousine or not).

(Sarandon, by the way, unsurprisingly has said that she’s voting for Jill Stein. Sarandon apparently isn’t worried about being in the minority, and, if she’s like me — and apparently she is — the more that she’s told that she must vote for the pro-corporate, anti-populist, pandering sellout, the less likely she is going to do so.

My presidential voting history since 2000, by the way, is this: Ralph Nader, Green Party, 2000 [I never have regretted that vote; of course Democrat Al Gore won my state of California anyway]; John Kerry, Democratic Party, 2004 [I don’t really regret that vote, but Kerry should have run a stronger campaign, including having had defended himself against the lying “swiftboaters” and not having had all of that unspent campaign cash at the end of the fairly close election]; Barack Obama, Democratic Party, 2008 [as I’ve noted many times before, Obama really punk’d us progressives, and I do regret that vote; I really fell for his “hope” and “change” bullshit]; and Jill Stein, Green Party, 2012 and 2016 [no fucking regrets whatsofuckingever, as not only did I vote my conscience both times, but Democratic presidential candidates take California and all of its 55 electoral votes anyway].)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized