The GOP debate last night had a few entertaining moments. But as expected, the moderators had the usual "gotcha" and contentious questions, rather than the more serious and substantive ones (just as the first Democratic debate).
The media had been attacked by some of the candidates, and rightly so. But in the end, as far as what the GOP had to offer, they mostly all had the same old talking points:
1) lower taxes (especially for the rich)
2) less government regulation (for corporations)
3) cut Social Security (work longer)
4) cut Medicare (privatize)
5) deport everybody (build wall)
6) etc, etc, etc.
But at the same time, they all took the phony "populist" approach by talking about the middle-class, declining wages, crony capitalism and favoring the rich. It's really scary, because many voters probably believed all that bull $hit — and the media helps to keep the people ignorant.
And it's obvious the media doesn't want someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders elected: Fox News wants a "moderate" Republican candidate (like Marco Rubio) and the "mainstream" media would prefer a "moderate" Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton, period.)
That's because, other than the social issues, the two-party political machine in this country is more alike than they are different when it come to economic issues. Hillary has both the banks and the labor unions on her side; and the GOP has the banks and the corporations on their side.
Taken all together, this is how it is: the media keeps the people "dumbed down" and continues to get them to vote against their own best interests.
And so then again, in the next election, just like the last 40 years, "the people" end up with the same old politicians in Washington screwing them over — just like before — just like they always do.
In the end, a political revolution never happens; nothing ever changes; and the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
Politifact: At the GOP debate Chris Christie said Bernie Sanders’s plan is "to raise your taxes to 90 percent". Politifact gave Christie a PANTS ON FIRE! (In case you don't know, Chris Christie is a well-known liar.)
Earlier, at the GOP "mini-debate" (where those with 1% of the polls or less debated), Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said of Bernie Sanders: "The No. 2 guy went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon, and I don't think he ever came back."
At the first Democratic debate CNN's Anderson Cooper also red-baited Senator Bernie Sanders when he said: "You honeymooned in the Soviet Union..." — suggesting that Sanders is a commie, without actually saying the word. It turns out, Bernie had just gotten married prior to visiting Russia on official diplomatic business.
As an aside: If you know a contact within Bernie Sanders’ campaign, can you pass this along?
Bloomberg reported that Clinton had already unofficially locked up commitments from 500 of the approximately 713 super-delegates who will cast ballots at next summer’s Democratic convention. (Now we can include Senator Sherrod Brown.)
Salon reported: "Bernie Sanders does not have the base of support within the Democratic party — a party that Hillary Clinton has been building up since her husband was a popular governor in Arkansas thirty years ago. Were Bernie running as a Republican, that wouldn't matter. Sanders and his campaign have been counting on generating enthusiasm, particularly among the 18-29 year-old demographic from which he draws the majority of his support, to carry him through. There is nothing wrong with that if it is part of a larger strategy. The problem is that this seems to be Sanders’s strategy for everything."
Gallop reported that in U.S., a record number of voters are Independents (43%, with 30% Democrat and 26% Republican). Maybe Bernie should tell the Democratic Party to fu*k off — and run as an Independent and split the vote. I'm guessing (based on online polls and everything else I've read in the news and on social media) that Bernie would get 39% of the votes, Hillary 35% and the Republican nominee 26% --- and then we'd have a President Sanders. That way, Hillary can finally retire from politics to have more time to spend with her granddaughter ;)
Facebook “Likes” (2.3 million for Bernie and 1.6 million for Hillary) Bernie might win the popular vote, but would lose the nomination with super-delegates if he runs as a Democrat.
This is funny...
Other Bernie News:
The Observer: Senator John McCain praises Bernie Sanders and blasts Hillary
Clinton as a veterans advocate.
http://observer.com/2015/10/john-mccain-bernie-sanders-not-hillary-clinton-has-record-of-advocacy-for-vets/
NBC News: Bernie Sanders Calls for an End to Federal Prohibition on Marijuana
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-end-federal-prohibition-marijuana-n453406
Bloomberg: Bernie Sanders' Plan to Beat Hillary Clinton . . . Step one: Take the
gloves off.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-28/bernie-sanders-brain-trust-says-he-can-beat-hillary-clinton
Huffington Post: Yes, Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Defeating Hillary
Clinton and Winning the Democratic Nomination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/polling-trajectory-shows-bernie-sanders-defeating-hillary-clinton_b_8406282.html
Hillary Clinton is using her support for the Export-Import Bank (and Bernie’s opposition to it) to show she is more "mainstream" and "pro-business" than Bernie.
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/258389-clinton-draws-contrast-with-sanders-over-ex-im
The House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (a Republican) opposes it, and refers to Ex-Im's efforts as "corporate welfare," and says the bank primarily helps large corporations, such as Boeing and General Electric.
But most other Republicans and business leaders (and Hillary) support the bank, including the business lobbying groups: The Business Roundtable and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/29/452618948/export-import-bank-debate-retreat-from-sanity-or-end-of-corporate-welfare
Just wondering...if Republicans want smaller government (and wants "government" to stay out of their business), then why do they want the government (American taxpayers) to help them export their goods "to be more competitive in the global market"?
And why does Hillary think that more "crony capitalism" is something to brag about --- and is AGAIN taking sides with Republicans, like she once did with the TPP trade deal and the Keystone pipeline --- before flip-flopping to get votes?
Since Obama ran on "Hope and Change" in 2008, we've lost all hope and saw no change. He was only re-elected in 2012 because the alternative would have been Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The only thing that changed is, now we Paul Ryan as the Speaker of the House — giving us even less hope. And the only hope we have for 2016 is if Bernie Sanders is elected. But only thing we'll get is another Obama (aka Hillary). So expect no change, because no amount of hope will change that. The political and economic system is rigged from the top down. We've seen this same scenario play out every four years. Nothing will change.
ReplyDeleteTHE NATION:
DeletePaul Ryan has been able to continue the charade, despite having been repeatedly exposed as a math-challenged Ayn Rand acolyte ... Some of the smitten already had an inkling that what they were selling was snake oil ... Ryan agreed to give the Freedom Caucus more power on the influential House Republican Steering Committee. He also promised to drop immigration reform from the Republican agenda and to follow the “Hastert rule,” by which no legislation can come to the floor unless it is supported in advance by a majority of Republicans ... This “Ryan to the rescue” fairy tale is merely the latest manifestation of a corrupt bargain made by many members of the mainstream media ... The pontification business in America is apparently a perpetual-motion machine that can run indefinitely on ideological hot air.
http://www.thenation.com/article/meet-paul-ryan-media-darling-hes-sensible-serious-and-totally-made-up/
Robert Reich (Nov 2015) "The Rigging of the American Market"
ReplyDelete"The extra money we’re paying for pharmaceuticals, Internet communications, home mortgages, student loans, airline tickets, food, and health insurance – and you get a hefty portion of the average family’s budget. Democrats and Republicans spend endless time battling over how much to tax the rich and then redistribute the money downward. But if we didn’t have so much upward redistribution inside the market, we wouldn’t need as much downward redistribution through taxes and transfer payments. Yet as long as the big corporations, Wall Street banks, their top executives and wealthy shareholders have the political power to do so, they’ll keep redistributing much of the nation’s income upward to themselves. Which is why the rest of us must gain political power to stop the collusion, bust up the monopolies, and put an end to the rigging of the American market."
http://robertreich.org/post/132363519655