Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Trying to Triage

I haven't often had reason to use the word 'triage' in everyday speech or writing, but this morning I realised that it's time to triage my several worries and anxieties.

What do I worry about first?

Is it a further spread of my cancer? Or catching - and due to compromised immune system - probably dying from, coronavirus? Or dealing with painful side effects from my medications? Or anger and disappointment at the way the US presidential election 2020 is shaping up.....etc.etc.etc.

I've been kind of self-isolating against common and garden 'flu since before Christmas 2019, so I'm used to that - it has to be the best way for me to avoid picking up this nasty new bug. I'm doing the long-playing hand-wash routine now, too. Worrying will not help, being mindful of risks might. Avoidance is, at least, possible in this case.

I'm doing everything I can to avoid a further spread of my cancer (breast/bone) by regularly taking the medications prescribed. I have, by my own choice, postponed until late this month a PET scan required to monitor my internal situation in detail. I've felt the need for some breathing space, to enjoy, without anxiety, a little more "free" time, as well as allowing more time for painful joint and muscle side effects to, perhaps, decrease to enable me to do the test more successfully. I do worry, of course, but I tell myself that, at 81, I'd be facing the big shuffle off anyway, after an eventful but very good lifetime, for which I am truly thankful.

The results of the November 2020 presidential election will be unlikely to affect me personally much, if at all, but it still depresses me that the one golden chance the people of the USA had to get a president who really and truly cares for ordinary people and their needs, is likely to have been trashed this year by Democrat bosses - corporatists, and conservative in all but title.

Bernie Sanders is a hero for continuing to fight for us - it'll be a generation or more before there's another chance such as that which has been on offer this time around. The Democrats don't want Bernie, never have, never will - he represents policies which would adversely affect their wealth and privileges. They have used every trick in the book (and more) to depress results in his favour. I've been watching more political stuff on TV lately than I have for many years - it's just so obvious what's going on. Media manipulation is, indeed, "a thing"!

As for the most likely Democrat presidential candidate - I don't dislike Joe Biden, but his age is showing, far more than is the case for Bernie Sanders. Bernie has been tearing around the country campaigning like a man half his age. Biden has done little, and when he does manage to make a bit of a speech it's weak and unimpressive. I will not use the word 'dementia', as many have in regard to Biden's speech, but I do believe that it's too late for him to make a good president. His time came some 10 to 15 years ago, when he did have charisma and a certain presidential look and sound about him. See my first blog post on Joe Biden, in 2007, here - a very different take from the one I have today. Bear in mind that, in 2007 I was still fairly wet behind the ears with regard to politics in the USA!
https://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2007/11/joe-biden.html
Biden is obviously, now, in the pocket of the oligarchs and Dem establishment. Considering his age, and the serious universal health issues which have lately arisen, I suspect that all will not proceed exactly as planned in November. This isn't as much of a worry to me as the rest of it, but it's something of which I'd dearly love to see the outcome...if other issues allow.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

2020 & All That

I've written next to nothing about the presidential election due in November 2020 - too many other things on my mind, I guess. Early this year, before medical issues for a second time snatched my attention, I did take a look at the natal charts of some likely Democratic contenders, even before they had announced their candidacies. I came to the conclusion that, of those I investigated, most likely to do well according to their natal charts and upcoming planetary transits, were Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. My posts on the topic from earlier this year can be accessed via the label cloud in the sidebar (scroll way down); just click on "presidential candidates 2020". Many moons have passed since those posts. Elizabeth Warren is, indeed, as I + her natal chart suspected, doing well in the polls - second only to Joe Biden in most of them.

I came to the conclusion, early on, that my own preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders, will not be allowed anywhere near the Democratic nomination by the DNC - nor will my other favourite candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Sad, but true. It has been said that the DNC would rather see another Trump presidency than ever countenance a US President Bernie Sanders. This - THIS - is what is so wrong about politics in the USA, and in the UK these days come to that. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader there is equally vilified by many!


I'd not feel too badly about a president Warren with Booker as her VP, given the rest of the choices available. I shall now make Warren/Booker my prediction! I'd be surprised if Joe Biden can sustain his current lead - I rather hope not - he's just another Republican-lite in my estimation.

Of course, if I haven't shuffled off already by November 2020, I'll be 81 going on 82, and probably fixing to shuffle off before very much longer, so my feelings on this issue are somewhat irrelevant. I'd love to know how it all turns out though, and whether astrology worked well in this particular case.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Saturday and Sundry Thoughts: Bernie Sanders' Astrology & 2020

The entry of Senator Bernie Sanders into the 2020 presidential race is, by now, old news. He announced his intention to run early in the week. To match the pattern I've followed for other hopefuls, hats already in the ring, I'll peruse Bernie's natal chart for any clear signs of change of status, due in late 2020. For now, I'm limiting these 2020 posts to that process.

Anyone who read this blog in 2015-2016 might remember that I was a firm Bernie Sanders supporter then. That has not changed. Bernie, for me, is "the real deal", has been since 2008 when he first came to my notice - a politician with focus always on what can, and should, be done to benefit "We the People".

There'll be more to write on the whys and wherefores of the campaign proper with its cast-list of hopefuls during coming months, for now all I'll add to my investigation of Bernie's chart is to quote closing paragraphs of an article by Benjamin Studebaker:
Why Bernie Sanders Matters More Than People Think


Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth. He recognises that the Democratic Party must fundamentally change to tackle this problem. He has been an independent and kept himself separate from the party machine because he recognises how corrupt and lethargic it has become over the years. He’s running not just to change the country, but to change the Democratic Party into the kind of party that can deliver for poor and working Americans.

All the rest is noise. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historic decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully.


ASTROLOGY

It is unfortunate that there is no reliable time of birth available for Senator Sanders. Astro.com has some rectifications noted, but do not rate them as reliable. One has Scorpio rising, with a birth time 27 minutes after mid-day; the other rectification, based on Bernie's history, has Gemini rising. The chart below is set for noon, so Moon position, as shown, will not be accurate, though Moon would be in Aries, whatever the true time of his birth. Rising sign has to remain a mystery, absent further information.


A reminder of the transits of outer planets in the time span under investigation:

Between now and early November 2020
Uranus will traverse the last few degrees of Aries and up to 8 degrees of Taurus
Neptune: between 14 and 20 degrees of Pisces
Pluto: between 20 and 24 degrees of Capricorn
Saturn: between 11 and 27 Capricorn
Jupiter: between 11 Sagittarius and 22 Capricorn

Born on September 8, 1941, Brooklyn, New York City.


Right now transiting Jupiter is opposing the Senator's natal Jupiter, it'll be criss-crossing the same general area and back again in exact conjunction this summer. Here's an astrologer's interpretation of this aspect:
https://astrologyking.com/jupiter-opposite-jupiter-transit/. It certainly reflects the record-breaking huge (Jupiter) first-day fundraising haul Bernie achieved!


Transiting Neptune will exactly oppose Bernie's natal Sun several times in coming months and during part of 2020. I'd interpret that as a warning to the Senator to be careful in whom he places trust - something of which I feel sure he is well aware, and will have chosen his new group of assistants with that in mind. Still, though, there will be be members of the Democratic establishment and corporate media ranged against him, as well as President Trump and the Republicans.

Transiting Mars will be conjunct Bernie's natal Moon (exact dates depending on exact degree of Moon) and natal Mars, while also opposing natal Venus in weeks surrounding the election in 2020. This isn't a sign of success, but an indication of significant energy or dynamism being present at that time; it could also be related to non-election issues.

I have to say that I don't see, in the information available, any stand-out indication that Bernie Sanders' status in the public eye will change, or that his run will end in success, whether in the primaries or, if nominated, in the General election.

The lack of time of birth is particularly frustrating in this case!

Much as it pains me to write it, if I had to bet on any of the people investigated so far, relying only on my astrology, bets would still have to go to Elizabeth Warren or to Cory Booker (if his time of birth can be established as being accurate). But we do need Bernie's voice to remain in the mix - loud and clear!

Other posts in this 2020 series:

http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2019/01/saturday-sundry-thoughts-would-be.html
http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2019/02/saturday-sundry-observations-another.html
http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2019/02/two-more-would-be-presidents-of-usa.html

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Where is THE LEFT in the USA?

I've been saying for years, to anyone who'll listen, that "there's no proper political Left in the USA". In 2015/6 at election time, Bernie Sanders' campaign proved that there is plenty of support for more left-leaning policies, more pro-working class policies, more support for the ordinary people of this vast country. We all know what happened...don't we? Media in general denied him the space given to ...well just about everyone else involved in that General Election.

Ted Rall has a very good piece up at Counterpunch this weekend, it highlights one major reason why the Left in the USA remains largely hidden, year after year:
The Left Will Never Thrive Without a Well-Funded Left Media Organization

A few snips:

On Sunday, October 23rd “About 1,500 women and allied men marched on the Pentagon on Sunday to demand an end to perpetual war and the funding of education, health care and other social needs instead,” reported Joe Lauria of the progressive website Consortium News.

Mainstream/corporate journalistic outlets memory-holed the event with a total media blackout.

One commenter on Facebook bemoaned national priorities: what does it say that so few attended the Women’s March on the Pentagon? More than 200,000 people crowded the Washington Mall for comedian Jon Stewart’s inane 2010 “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” a piss-take parody of protest, literally and by the definition of its organizers an apolitical march for nothing!

Cindy Sheehan, an activist who made national news by protesting her son’s death in the Iraq War at George W. Bush’s Texas ranch, responded on Facebook that people should show up rather than sit at home criticizing those who did on their computers.

......................Our real problem is that there isn’t a real, bona-fide Left journalism outlet in the United States.

One that’s smart, i.e., well-managed. Not in the derpy leaderless consensus style that destroyed the Occupy movement, but top-down by brilliant Machiavellian can’t-be-bought leftist schemers who know how to motivate and build an organization.

One that’s well-funded. Not by some control-freak billionaire who can petulantly renege on his big promises after he loses interest or gets corrupted, but by generous ongoing crowdsourcing that guarantees editorial independence to an uncompromisingly left-wing team of editors with big budgets to hire kickass investigative reporters, back out-of-the-box journalists, humorists and editorialists. Give me $50 million a year (wonder if the person who won the $1.6 billion MegaMillions lottery is progressive?) and I could build and run an operation that could change the world. It’s not impossible: Bernie Sanders raised $100 million from small donors in one year..........

In the 1960s the corporate mainstream media allowed antiwar, pro-civil rights and other anti-establishment journalists and pundits to disseminate their views on TV (Cronkite criticizing the Vietnam War), on the opinion pages of major newspapers and in bestselling books. And they covered protests.

No more. The Left has been ruthlessly purged.

Not one single opinion writer or staff columnist or cartoonist employed by an American newspaper is a real, bonafide leftist—not a single one even supported Bernie Sanders (whose politics are basically McGovern in 1972 and was supported by half of Democrats) during the 2016 primaries.
Not one single TV or major radio talk show host is a real, bonafide leftist. None supported Bernie.
The same goes for “liberal” outlets like The Atlantic, Salon, Slate, etc.
It’s censorship. It’s systemic. It’s killing the Left.


(Highlighting is mine.)

Do go read the full piece at Counterpunch. But...what can we ordinary people do about this problem? We can spread the word wherever we can, in conversations on social media, blogs, real-life chit chats and debates. Shine a light on the problem - that's what we can do at present, as well as supporting people such as Ted Rall who are able to shine a brighter light, with a much longer beam than our own.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

BELLA DONNA

You can ride high atop your pony
I know you won't fall
'Cause the whole thing's phoney....
(From "Bella Donna" by Stevie Nicks.)
Oh my! So what is Donna Brazile up to now?
"Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie....."

What is she up to?

I guess she's up to a few things at once:

1) Peddling her book, fishing for invitations to the several Late Shows and suchlike. Hmm - discovering how they'll square their constant on-going Hillary Clinton ass-licking with Ms Brazile's words could even persuade me to watch!
In July 2017, Hachette Books announced that it had acquired the rights to Brazile's forthcoming book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House, set to be published on November 7, 2017. Hachette said the book would be "equal parts campaign thriller, memoir, and roadmap for the future." (Wikipedia)

Ms Brazile could also be:
2) covering her own ass, in case of future revelations touching on other, erm...iffy goings on, where she could be seen as having been involved.
Or:
3)trying to position herself for a prominent post in some new and "cleaned up" version of the Democratic Party, should that come up on the near, or far horizon.

Most likely: a combination of 1), 2) & 3).

As someone at Twitter, or elsewhere on the net commented:
"Not since the words "Et tu, Brute?" were uttered has the backstabbing been this spectacular."
However, nothing Ms Brazile has now "exposed" was really news to anyone not blinded by the special, and no doubt paid for, HRC bullshit peddled constantly at so-called liberal blogs, websites, shows and pundits. The Podesta/Wikileaks e-mails gave us this same news many months ago....oh yes...but of course, how could I forget? "Russia!"

As commenter, "prisonersdilema" wrote (at - I think - Common Dreams ?)
Lots of ink has been spilled defending the DNC, and Hillary Clinton. Turns out that was mis guided at best. Much of that ink contributed to the divisive politics, that was designed to confuse people and mislead them. This is part of the way the elite rule, and it is the root of identify politics, to divide and conquer. The DNC, is gone say goodbye, this is the last nail in the coffin. I can only hope that there's a jail cell with Hillary's name on it.
I'm not entirely in accord with that commenter's last sentiment, I'd rather that she simply exited gracefully stage left from the political scene - never to return!

Thursday, October 19, 2017

With bells on...

I'm at a loss how to comment, with any good sense, about US politics (or even about British politics, especially Brexit) these days. "Sometimes the only thing you can do is stare blankly."* For now, I'll rely on anyone remaining more clear-headed than I'm feeling:
(*A line from "The Long Earth" by Terry Pratchett & Stephen Baxter - my current read.)

Jim Haygood, a regular in the comments section at naked capitalism, on 17 October wrote, in the afternoon "Water Cooler" segment:

Truthdig has posted an awesome interview of Chris Hedges by WSWS.

Excerpt:
Cris Hedges: Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power.

The Democratic Party doesn’t actually function as a political party. It’s about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They’re not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
Bring it, Lord!

INDEEDY! (With bells on!)

I'll add a little more from the Chris Hedges interview, this on identity politics:
Chris Hedges: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going around to collect his fees for selling us out.

My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics:
Cornel West and I, along with others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there was a group of younger activists, one who said, “We’re not letting the white guy go first.” Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.....The new form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression....

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Waiting...

Over the years on this blog I've often enjoyed scribbling a few lines on US politics, but at present, on that front, I'm simply confused. To my eye and ear US political commentary has lately swerved unnervingly in several directions at once - or in quick succession. I don't know who I am, politically, any longer.

Arriving here in 2004, just before Bush's win of his second term, I rapidly realised I wasn't an American conservative, aka Republican. After watching how Democrats performed, I realised I wasn't a Democrat either. By 2008 when I became a US Citizen and was eligible to vote, I registered Independent, the only other option in Oklahoma.

I detected no valid left-side, equivalent to the UK's old Labour Party in politics here. Democrats were, at best, the equivalent of UK's old and ineffective Liberal party; I'd never have considered supporting them in my wildest nightmares. I did, however, vote for Obama in 2008, with high hopes that his soaring rhetoric would not crash and burn. It did. In 2012 I left the presidential choice box blank on the ballot paper.

That was then.

When Senator Bernie Sanders declared his candidacy in the 2016 presidential election, I knew, and clearly, who I was politically - at last! That happy condition was short-lived, due to the DNC's corrupt doings to ensure - so they thought - a Hillary Clinton win. I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton in November 2016, neither could I, in all conscience, vote for Donald Trump, so I voted for the only other option on the ballot - a Libertarian.

But that's all done now, the die was cast, we're stuck with the outcome: President Trump. Democrats/Liberals have split into at least two factions: those who retain Clinton-fever and still smart at her loss, blaming anything and anyone they can for it - even Russia! Another faction is a mix of former Sanders supporters, and other Democrats turned off by earlier Clintonite meddlings, even some who voted for Trump in desperation. The second faction tends to be the target of the first faction's ire. Most major newspapers (far as I can tell) and political websites on the liberal side support the first faction - strongly. A recent, and sickening, example appeared in the magazine Vanity Fair: Why the Alt-left is a Problem. I was happy to see that Yves Smith of naked capitalism.com had written an excellent rebuttal yesterday.

Of late, and apart from output at naked capitalism.com, I've often found palatable articles on what are considered to be more conservative-leaning websites and blogs. That is a tad worrying, and why I'm feeling confused. Once again I don't know, politically, who I am, where I fit - if anywhere.

I don't see President Trump as the monster many do, but he's certainly not of presidential calibre; the people he has picked for his team do not promote confidence. In time, I suspect he'll settle - or be settled through manipulation - into a template of near-classic Republican proportions, his frequent Tweets an added bonus.


At the weekend I read several other pieces decrying what their "liberal" authors termed the "alt-left". I'm not sure if I'm of the alt-left variety. I suspect not. I think I'm far left - waiting in far left field - out there where buses don't run. Mostly in solitude, gazing into the horizon, watching, waiting for something to change.

As John Mayer sang:

It's hard to beat the system
When we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the world to change...

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Another Broken Reed : Sen. Cory Booker

In a vote this week against a budget resolution amendment jointly proposed by Senators Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar to allow both pharmacies and people with prescriptions to order their pharmaceuticals from Canada and other countries, where they sell for significantly cheaper prices than in the United States, the following Democratic Senators voted against it: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Some of those Senators said they voted for other measures to drive down drug costs and they cited safety concerns as the reason for their opposition to the Klobuchar-Sanders measure. A very iffy excuse in my opinion, and it's one said to have been used regularly in the past by those whose political coffers are topped up by pharmaceutical industry $$$$$$$. It's a wee bit heartening that 12 Republican senators did vote "yes"; the measure would have easily passed had Democrats remained loyal, and walked the walk.

What most disappointed me was seeing Cory Booker's name among the "no" votes. Way back in 2008 when his name first came to my notice, (see my blogpost Drive-by Astrology - Cory Booker) I had high hopes about him. I thought Booker to be a definite "one to watch", one with true leadership skills. A pair of later posts about Senator Booker are here,
from that one:
I hope that life in the Senate will not change Booker, that he will not be infected by what appears to be a spreading disease of uselessness among congressional Democrats, or be co-opted by monied interests. I can hope, but do not feel optimistic. We shall see.

We saw!
A third post on him is here.

Booker's support for Hillary Clinton rather than for Bernie Sanders was disappointment number one. From what I'd gleaned, Booker's original style would have been the perfect partner to Sanders'. What a pair they could have been! I fear that the old Cory Booker of 2008 vintage has been well and truly "got at". He chose the establishment route, with accompanying corporate donations, including, it seems from the pharma people. Another broken reed. I'd have expected better - much, much better!

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Sad words...



For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"


~~John Greenleaf Whittier.




This Bernie Sanders ad made people the happiest of any campaign spot in 2016




Thursday, December 08, 2016

Bernie's Long Game ?

Many commenters around the internet are still holding a grudge about Senator Bernie Sanders' support for Hillary Clinton, after his defeat in the primaries. Whenever his name is mentioned in a news piece, on certain websites, a chorus of, in my opinion, highly inappropriate and thoughtless derision ensues.
It was good to read this exchange on naked capitalism.com this week.

Fiery Hunt - December 5, 2016 at 3:11 pm:
Re: Bernie
I don’t care that he endorsed or campaigned for the Almost-Queen. He’s still the only politician talking about what’s really going on in America. And he’s not shy about calling it what it is. A big festering corruption cesspool. And he’ll always have my respect for that.

Reply - uncle tungsten - December 5, 2016 at 11:46 pm
All the more power to his mind and voice, I say. I perceive he plays a long game and immediate issues do not stampede him to hasty judgements/actions. There is much water and tears to flow along the stream in the next two years and I am sure Bernie Sanders and supporters will be there to move the stepping stones deftly into position where and if they can.
He has an aura of the aikido master about him and we would be wise to learn the moves and hear the strategy.

The exchange was prompted by a link at the website to a piece about Senator Sanders' recent speeches including one in San Rafael.

Snip:
For people who are distressed by Trump’s election, Sanders had some disturbing news: things could get worse if campaign finance laws are weakened further.

“The reality is that this country both politically and economically is moving toward an oligarchic form of society where a small number of very wealthy and powerful people control our economy and our political life,” Sanders said.

“So what we have to do,” Sanders said, “is create a strong grassroots movement where we bring people together to fight not only for social justice, not only for environmental justice, but for economic justice as well. But here is where it becomes difficult.

"It is very easy for many Americans to say, I hate racism, I hate homophobia, I hate sexism", Sanders said, but it is a little bit harder for people in the middle or upper middle class to say, maybe we do have to deal with the greed of Wall Street.

“One of the things I’m trying to do,” Sanders said, “is to figure out a way to radically transform the Democratic Party from a party led by a liberal elite to a party led by working people and young people and people who really want to transform society.”

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Conventionally....

The establishment Democrats' wish is that once again, all must fall in line. Bernie promised from the start that he would support the eventual nominee, and is doing so, much to the chagrin of some, though not all, of his supporters. After the roll call late yesterday afternoon, most of which I watched online, he conceded the nomination to Secretary Clinton. This is the end of the road for me regarding interest in the campaign. Establishment Democrats are not my cup o' tea, never have been, never will be. I can't wait to regain registration as Independent after 1 September.


Extract from a comment at naked capitalism yesterday, from "JM"
(July 26, 2016 at 11:09 am)

..... As much as I would have loved to see him [Bernie Sanders] stand up there and blast Clinton and Clintoinian politics, that would have been the wrong thing to do. I saw his speech [Monday night] as attempting to tie Clinton to his agenda. The “Hillary knows” phrasing is as much a threat as it is a demonstrative statement of fact. The fact of the matter is that he lost the rigged primary. In the eyes of Clinton’s supporters, he has shown now to be magnanimous in defeat while still working to get some “paper” accomplishments (the platform, etc.).

One can interpret it as him selling out or him compromising his “principles” but I see it as him taking small but strategic steps to win over the other half of the Democratic party. Look, a lot of democratic party members are uneasy with Sanders. And I get it. The language he uses is very forward for the credentialed class and they are not used to it. As much as the credentialed class is lambasted here (and rightfully so), I have many friends in that group and they are not horrible people. They work hard, within a system they will readily admit is unfair and rigged, but they are on the conservative end of the democratic party. For these people, it is not enough to point out the system is rigged. That much is obvious. Had Bernie had more time, I think he could have convinced more of the credentialed class but he ran out of time.

By continuing to organize Bernie has a shot at winning these people over to his side. By verbally demonizing Clinton in a primetime address, his chances of bringing them over to his side would have decreased substantially. So my guess is Bernie is holding out for Clinton to lose (though he would never admit it) and then go aggressive to further capture the national party apparatus. Will it work? Who knows. Though it is incontrovertible that Nader did not cost Gore the election, Bernie must at all costs avoid having that label hung around his neck. Given the low information voters that follow Clinton, that is a tremendous risk he should not be willing to take.

Of course, the establishment media will likely try to pin a loss on him anyway but with that primetime address I don’t think people will buy it. Before Bernie’s speech, Jane Sanders was on NBC countering the nonsense that Bernie must deliver his followers. The NBC people sounded ridiculous to Jane’s straightforward explanation that they cannot force their supporters to do anything. If Trump wins the election and Bernie is seen as not doing anything major to subvert Clinton’s run, my sense is people will come around and the progressive wing of the party will be emboldened. As it is now that outcome is looking more and more likely and I think that is the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

"hreik" responded with: Good comment. Nuanced and imho correct. However, I think the fix is already in with the voting machines. [Presumably in the November election]

I agree with "JM". Bernie has needed to make the best of a bad lot. He'll be a continuing asset in the Senate, until retirement. He should go down in history as the man who, in 2016, tried very hard to turn things around but, in the end, was steam-rolled by the establishment.

Monday, July 18, 2016

"That's how it goes......"

Senator Bernie Sanders has done what had to be done, in current circumstances, to try to ensure that he and others representing his views will be at the table when important policy decisions are being made. If, by some circumstance that turns out not to be the case, the fact that Sanders ran in this primary, did well, kept his word - hard as that must have been for him, says far more about Senator Sanders than it does about the legion of his sell-out former supporters. They have been cruelly denigrating him, after his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, during past days. So...they now say they are determined to vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein. She can't win, the Party isn't on every state's ballot. Even if, through some amazing circumstance, she had the possibility of a win - would she be allowed to? Really? The same thing, or something far worse, would in all likelihood, happen to Ms Stein as has happened to Bernie : "not allowed".

If only more voters had supported Bernie Sanders, made the primary into an uncontrollable landslide, that could have changed things - made the "not allowed" into "try and stop it now!" The voters didn't do that though...too many remained too blind, or misguided by others, to recognise a good thing when it was right under their noses!

The fault is not in Bernie, the fault is in the USA's culture of fearing anything resembling socialism, and in being duped by neo-liberalism under the label "Democratic". Bernie Sanders' policies hardly resemble socialism anyway, as any expert would confirm. There's paranoia in the USA, paranoia so deep, handed down from McCarthyism and still, in 2016, too many remain unable to see past it.

There has been no proper left-wing politics in the USA for too long. The powers that be prefer it to remain that way, and will make it their business to see that it does. It'll take several more elections, some catastrophic out-turns and drastic events before the truth finally dawns.

The best, fairest and sanest piece, about Senator Sanders, I read at the weekend is by William Rivers Pitt at Smirking Chimp:
The Long Victory of Bernie Sanders


Not forgetting that it's Music Monday:
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows.......


(From Everybody Knows by Leonard Cohen)

Sung by Don Henley





Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Bernie Endorsed Hillary


It had to happen, it was always going to happen, in spite of what many of Bernie's supporters were suggesting.

Bernie Sanders declared, from very early in his campaign that, should he be the loser he would support the Democratic nominee. He has held out from doing so for as long as he could, while attempting to have some of his campaign issues included in the party platform (wobbly though that platform may prove to be, in time), and to edge Hillary Clinton leftward in her stances.

I watched the whole joint Hillary/Bernie campaign speeches from New Hampshire this morning, felt for him, and for his legion of supporters.

I hope some benefit accrues to Bernie for his efforts on behalf of the Democrats, I hope he will attain some prominent position in the next administration - he certainly deserves it. I shall always remain a fan, as I had been for years, long before the 2016 campaign began. I shall continue to trust his judgment and integrity, whatever happens from now on.

Hillary Clinton's speech was fair to Bernie, and for that much I'm happy.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Will she, won't she, will he won't he....?



Bernie Sanders is to address his supporters by video streaming this evening. I guess Bernie is going to explain his plan for coming months, having met Hillary Clinton this week to discuss how they might find areas of agreement...will they, won't they, will they, won't they? I received an invitation to the streaming for RSVP, but when I tried to respond I was asked for my cellphone number. I don't have one. My husband has our single, very basic cellphone, which I've almost never had the need to use, and in any case dishing out its number to who knows where didn't appeal to me. I must rely on others to report what Bernie has to say tonight, as to whether he and Hillary will dance together, or continue stepping on one another's toes.

Ted Rall had a good piece up at Smirking Chimp yesterday :
What Hillary Must Do to Win Over Bernie Voters

SNIP

What do Bernie Sanders supporters want? As Trump says, everything is negotiable. So let’s negotiate!

“Add back the public option to the Affordable Care Act,” Howard Dean suggests to Hillary in the New York Times. “Let Americans vote with their feet about whether they want to be in a single payer or the current system.”

The problem with that is, big insurance companies bribed her with $13 million in campaign contributions to get her to say that single payer “will never, ever come to pass.”

Dean wants Clinton to back Sanders’ “massive overhaul of the criminal justice system, starting with emptying for-profit prisons and juvenile detention centers.”

Nice idea, except that here too, she’s owned: she collected as many big donations from lobbyists for the for-profit prison industry as Marco Rubio.

He also wants her to embrace Bernie’s push for reforming Wall Street – but how likely is it that someone who made over $100 million giving speeches to scumbags in the financial services industry will turn against her backers?

“She should release the transcripts of her speeches and explain any of the objectionable things she said in them,” says Stephanie Rioux. If Clinton were going to show us her speeches, it would already have happened.

It may not feel like it now, but Hillary Clinton is in a pickle.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Are we there yet? Almost !

Primary season is almost over, at last! Today voters in New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and California will declare their preferences. At the weekend primary voters in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico had their say, Hillary Clinton was winner in each case making Bernie's already tough task that much more difficult. In Washington D.C. Democrats will vote on 14 June - that is the finishing post! There'll then be a break of several weeks before parties' conventions in July, when nominees will be officially chosen. There'll not be much of a break in media coverage in the meantime though, nor of parties' wranglings, attempting to bring their people into line.


I'll be watching for any shenanigans from MSNBC this evening - such as declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee hours before California votes are counted - before voters there have even finished voting - see videos below.






It's going to be a nail-biting evening for me, hoping that Bernie Sanders continues to add to his delegate haul and list of "states won". California, with its large number of delegates, is going to be a major focus of attention. I'd be especially happy also if my favourite state to visit, New Mexico, would give Bernie a win. I don't hold out much hope for a Bernie win in New Jersey but the rest may be, as they say, "in play".

P.S. ~ For John Laurits' latest rousing piece of writing do read his
"Bern the vote & #Stay in Line".


Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Bernie's Cool Choices

Seizing Chance, Sanders Makes Bold Progressive Picks to Shape DNC Platform. Though compromised allotment falls short of Sanders' suggestion, Vermont Senator doesn't waste opportunity to make progressive choices.
Seizing on the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) reluctant concession allowing him to appoint five members to the committee that writes the party platform, Bernie Sanders on Monday announced a suite of picks that included activists across the progressive sphere.

Sanders' appointees to the 15-member Platform Drafting Committee include: racial justice activist and scholar Dr. Cornel West, 350.org co-founder and noted environmentalist Bill McKibben, Native American activist Deborah Parker, Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and James Zogby, a pro-Palestinian scholar as well as founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI).

Senator Sanders has picked wisely and well! I'm especially pleased about Dr West's inclusion. I've been a fan of his since I first saw him as a guest on Bill Maher's TV show, back in 2008. Below is the post I wrote then - it's relevant also, with regard to yesterday's post, because Dr West has natal Sun+ in Gemini.


Drive-by Astrology # 1 - Dr. Cornel West

More often than not "drive-by" is used in connection with shootings. I'm going to put the term to use in a more peaceful context: "drive-by astrology". Whenever I come across an individual whose natal chart proves, on first sight, to be an exact fit for the person I perceive, I'll post the chart with very brief reasons why it fits its owner so clearly. I hope this will provide a chance to see astrology working "before your very eyes" !

First up in the drive-by series: Dr. Cornel West, author, lecturer, public speaker, social activist, democratic socialist and major figure in African American academia, including the illustrious Princeton and Harvard. I've seen Dr. West on several occasions as a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time". Each time I've been impressed by his eloquence, charm and ability to hold my interest, whatever the subject under discussion. He obviously has a brilliant mind, yet his approach is straightforward and lacking in all the scholarly affectation so often encountered among the egg-head community.
A descriptive paragraph from here:

"...... an eloquent lecturer, whose lithe and energetic body was
totally involved in the torrent of words and ideas that tumbled from his mouth. He asked his listeners not only to hear what he said, but to enter into his thought processes and share his enthusiasms or generate their own thoughts and enthusiasms. His speaking style was symbolic of his convictions, which rejected the divorce of body from mind, of emotion from intellect, characteristic of much philosophy since Descartes. In a time when many philosophers would be horrified to be called preachers, West (although not an ordained minister) was not embarrassed to preach an occasional sermon. For him a passion for social justice was as intellectually respectable and demanding as the most rigorous intellectual analysis of propositions, and the two were never far apart in his philosophy."


ASTROLOGICALLY DRIVING BY:

Born on 2 June 1953 in Tulsa, Oklahoma (I didn't have him down as an Okie!)Birthtime unknown.



Sun and 3 planets in Gemini (the sign of mental process, communication, a quick mind). Good start! Two of the Gemini planets are conjoined, Mercury and Mars at 22 degrees. Mercury is at home in its own sign, Gemini, therefore unadulterated by other influence, though strengthened and energised by Mars.

Saturn and Neptune are conjoined in Libra (diplomacy and justice), Moon is in Aquarius between 9 and 22 degrees (social awareness). So, Air, the mental element, rules - Gemini, Libra and Aquarius predominate. Gemini and Libra planets in close trine, and the Moon is very likely in trine to both, though how close we can't be sure. What a circuit, enabling all kinds of mental acrobatics!

One more point - in January 2002 Dr. West underwent surgery for prostate cancer. Saturn (restriction, limitation) visited Gemini from May 2001 to Dec 2002, hitting his 4 Gemini planets one by one along its journey, reflecting what must have been a very worrying and restricting time for Dr. West.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Something up their sleeves?

There was an interesting speculative piece at Counterpunch yesterday:
Plan B Is Not Bernie by Jim Kavanagh.
It begins:
I admit: It’s all speculation.

On April 4th, I wrote on Facebook: “My prediction: the next President of the United States will be someone who is not yet in the race. (e.g., Possible alternative Dem ticket: Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.) How crazy am I?”

This wasn’t just a wild guess. It was based on a few considered convictions.

And ends:
It’s almost certain that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next President of the United States. But if, perchance, she gets derailed by a deus ex machina like the FBI, you can bet that the Democratic Party will have a Plan B, and it won’t be Bernie Sanders. It will be an attempt to stop Bernie Sanders. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that a Joe Biden-Elizabeth Warren ticket gets mentioned in the national press the day after Hillary’s Chief of Staff walks out of an FBI interrogation. Or is someone floating a balloon?

Would Bernie ever bite? Maybe not, but if the day comes, it’s some dish like this that the Democratic Party will try to serve.

A bit of speculation does provide flavour to an election season that is becoming all too predictable in the available too-and-fro argument and insults online and in media generally. Mr Kavanagh's whole piece is well worth a read.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Primarily ...West Virginia

  Dem.Primaries held - cream. Primary today -West Virginia- aqua
West Virginia voters do the primary deed today, in Nebraska Republicans only are still to vote.


West Virginia - that name always brings to mind yet another song of John Denver (yesterday's post featured three of 'em). What the heck... here's another for good measure:


West Virginia's is an open primary which will award 37 delegates. Another win would give Bernie further reason to continue his campaign, following his victory in Indiana last Tuesday; he is polling slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton in West Virginia at the time of typing.

The state relies heavily on coal mining, an industry which is nearing its last days if strong action to slow down climate change is to be taken.
The state is noted for its mountains and rolling hills, its historically significant logging and coal mining industries, and its political and labor history. It is one of the most densely karstic areas in the world, making it a choice area for recreational caving and scientific research (Wiki - link above)
The coal industry issue could go against Bernie or Hillary almost equally - though it does appear that the demographics of the state favour Bernie, if earlier patterns are repeated. West Virginia has only a tiny percentage of African American voters, a pattern which, in past primaries has helped Bernie.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Two to the Dozen!

Yesterday, 30 April, was the 12th anniversary of the day Anyjazz and I were wed. As is our habit we intend to celebrate with a wee trip. Date of departure has been changed more than once, due to adverse weather forecasts. Anyway - come what may, the blog will be on hold for a few days.

Another of husband's photographs, taken in a junk store recently, made it to Flickr's "Explore" section during the week:

Past Time

Caption: "Past Time - If I could keep time in a bucket"

Which prompts me to recall the Jim Croce song - and how appropriate for our wedding anniversary!

"Time In A Bottle"

If I could save time in a bottle
The first thing that I'd like to do
Is to save every day till eternity passes away
Just to spend them with you

If I could make days last forever
If words could make wishes come true
I'd save every day like a treasure and then
Again, I would spend them with you..................








This song from the 1980s kept popping into my head the other day. It's by Labi Siffre, and was about Apartheid in South Africa (Wikipedia). The lyrics could also be seen as relevant to any struggle, and I hope Labi Siffre would not object to my seeing it as relevant to the campaign of Bernie Sanders, now reaching a high point of struggle against Sec. Clinton and the DNC in the primaries still to be held. There'll be one on Tuesday in Indiana.

GO BERNIE! The higher they build their barriers the stronger you'll become....




Saturday, April 30, 2016

Inevitability or a Numbers Game ?

John Laurits (who is also an astrologer, according to links on his website) has invited his readers to "feel totally free to reproduce this article, re-post, re-use, re-cycle, or whatever, in whole or in part — credit would be lovely but, ultimately, I don’t really care! Do as ye will! Peace!" I'm doing just that - and thank you John! Comments are many at the website - linked in the article's title, below. Some commenters attempt to argue with John's findings. He politely and graciously responds to most of them.

Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?

Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail… ÷

It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?

The answer to this question is as simple as it is misleading — No. No, my friends, we cannot. And yet–! And yet, neither can Hillary Clinton — and I am going to show you what the media is willfully hiding from you. I am going to show you why, using the one thing that even the media can’t hide: Math.
Why Clinton Will Not Secure the Nomination, According to Math

According to the Green Papers, Clinton stands (today, April 28th) with 1,664 pledged delegates, while Sanders has gathered 1,371. The amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,383 and, if you’ll pardon me for my use of arithmetic, I will now demonstrate why that number is hopelessly out of reach for the Clinton campaign.†

Hillary needs 719 more delegates to reach 2,383 because:

2,383 – 1,664 = 719

Now, the pledged delegates that are available to grab in the remaining states all-together amount to 1,016 and in order to attain that blessed number, Clinton will have to win an average of 70.7% of the remaining states. This is because:

719 ÷ 1,016 = 0.707677 or approximately 71%

You might be thinking that 71% is not such an unattainable number for Hillary and her powerful Wallstreet backers — you might be thinking that but you’d be betting against longer odds than would be wise. You see, of the 1,016 delegates remaining, 475 of those delegates are to be won in California, alone — California, which has a semi-open primary. California, where Clinton is polling at a mere 49%. California, where Clinton’s support has been declining as the Sanders Campaign gains visibility and momentum. California — the ace that Sanders, as much as the media, have concealed up his sleeve.

It is no secret that Sanders, a previously invisible independent senator from the tiny state of Vermont, consistently climbs in the polls as he begins to campaign in the weeks before each state has had its primary. You don’t have to take my word for it — check the poll-histories for yourself or read this.

Because Bernie Sanders performs at his absolute best in open primaries and because he consistently rises in the polls, while Clinton consistently falls, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will perform better than 49 points, let alone win the contest. Let’s do some more math:

Of the 475 delegates available in California on June 7th, lets say Hillary takes 49% of those (even though she will almost certainly take less). That would give her 232.75 delegates, which we’ll round up to an even 234.

475 x 0.49 = 232.75

Next, let’s add that to her current total of 1,664, bringing her up to 1,897. Now, she needs an additional 486 delegates to reach the magic number of 2,383, right? Let’s find out how many delegates Clinton would have to win in the remaining states (besides California, of course).

Of the 541 delegates left, once the 475 CA delegates have been subtracted from the 1,016 delegate total, Clinton is going to have to win almost 90% of the remaining non-California delegates! This is because, when you divide the number of delegates that Clinton needs after California by the number of delegates remaining after California, you get 0.898 or 89%, rounded down:

486 ÷ 541 = 0.898 or 89.8%

Now, how likely does that sound? It’s not likely in Oregon, a fairly progressive state that shares its general attitudes with Washington, a state that Sanders won with about 70% of the vote. It’s not likely in West Virginia, either, where Sanders is currently leading in the polls. Nor is it likely in Indiana where Sanders and Clinton are almost neck-and-neck, which votes on May 3rd. That nomination is feeling a lot further away now, isn’t it?

Okay, okay — maybe you’re thinking, “John, I think you’re being unfair, Clinton could certainly win California.” To which I would reply: I admire your optimism, my friend — and since you’re so optimistic, let’s run those numbers again — but this time, let’s assume that Clinton, for whatever reason, defies the consistent trends that have prevailed over the entire primary season. Let’s say, she jumps up 11% now, winning the California primary with 60% of the vote. So:

475 x 0.6 = 285

Now, add the 285 delegates to Clinton’s current total:

285 + 1,664 = 1,949

But:

2,383 – 1,949 = 434

So, Clinton will still need to scrape up 434 delegates somewhere other than California, some how. Which means — Hold on, first we have to figure out how much of the remaining delegates she’ll have to win:

434 ÷ 541 = .802218 or 80%

Wow! Even if Clinton actually wins California with 60% to Sanders with 40%, she will still have to secure about 80% of the remaining vote! Again, this certainly doesn’t seem likely in Oregon, West Virginia, or Indiana, which means the actual percentage would climb each time she failed to take 80% of a state! Now, are you starting to see why I am saying that Clinton will not be securing the nomination before the convention?
Part Two: Why Sanders Will Win, According to Math

If you’ve found yourself thinking, “Well, Sanders won’t secure the nomination, either!” You are almost 100% right! Well, 99.6% right, anyway. Because, if we take Sanders’ current delegate total of 1,371, subtract that from the magic 2,383, then divide that by the remaining available delegates, we get 0.996, see:

2,383 – 1,371 = 1,012

1,012 ÷ 1,016 = 0.996 or 99.6%

Therefore, Sanders would have to secure a whopping 99.6% victory in all remaining states to secure the nomination! I think this may be one of the few things that both Berners and Clintonistas could agree on: that that is impossible. But to those of you that are thinking, “John! This is terrible” or “Haha! Take that, Sanders!” I would reply: You are both wrong. Mostly. Let me explain:

First off, let’s acknowledge that the math seems to prohibit both candidates from securing the nomination before the convention — so what does this mean? This means that, since Sanders will not give up before the convention, there will almost certainly be a “contested convention.”

“Um… But John…” you may be saying, “Won’t Hillary still be miles ahead of Sanders in votes at the convention?”

To which I would reply: I’m glad you asked, my paid Hillary-supporter friend! Allow me to demonstrate how that will also not be the case, no matter what the media would have you believe. Follow me!

Since neither of them will be securing the 2,383 needed for the nomination, let’s take a look at another number that has been hiding in plain sight for far too long. I’d like you to meet the number, 4,051. That’s the number of total pledged delegates that are available from all 50 states, plus DC, US territories, and the Democrats abroad. As it should be obvious, a majority of these delegates would be 2,026 because:

4,051 ÷ 2 = 2,025.5

At the convention, this number is going to matter more than the unattainable 2,383 delegates that no one will have. That being the case, let’s take a look at what Bernie Sanders would have to do to get there. If Sanders won 60% of the remaining contests (and remember how 475 of 1,016 are in California, where Sanders will do well), then the numbers at the convention would look like this:

1,016 x .60 = 609.6

Round that to 610 and add it to Sanders current total of 1,371, then divide that by the total delegate count, 4,051:

610 + 1,371 = 1,981

1,981 ÷ 4,051 = .489 or 48.9%

So, in the scenario where Sanders takes about 60% of the remaining vote, we’re essentially looking at a 49 to 51% vote total at the convention — not so bad, eh? And that’s easily within Sanders’ reach, if we do well in California (which we almost certainly will). Let’s look at what happens if he takes 70% (just like he did last time we went to the West/Left Coast):

1,016 x .70 = 711.2, round it down to 711, then:

711 + 1,371 = 2,082

2,082 ÷ 4,051 = 0.513 or 51.3%

If Sanders took 70%, the convention would look like 51.3 to 48.7%, in favor of Sanders! But 70%, while possible, is a bit of a stretch — the new magic number, for Sanders anyway, is actually 64.4% of the remaining states, which would mean winning 655 of the 1,016 remaining delegates, pushing his total up to 2,026, the bare majority of delegates, leaving Clinton one delegate behind at 2,025.

Now, does Sanders winning 64.4% sound too far-fetched? Not particularly, especially when we consider his advantages on the Left Coast, in California’s 475 delegate semi-open primary. An uphill climb, though? Certainly. Remember, though: it is all but certain that Clinton will not secure the nomination, while Sanders supporters are going to be pouring into Philadelphia for the convention by the tens of thousands. Even if Bernie fell short by a few points, we’re still essentially looking at a tie. And that’s when all hell is going to break loose.

Things are going to become very interesting if we have a near-tie at the convention to be decided by the super-delegates.

Things are going to become very interesting when they look back at the many states that are still crying out for a re-vote, states fraught with “voting irregularities,” polling station closures, and voter roll purges — all states which Clinton won and all states which so far have not received justice.

Things are going to become very interesting when the DNC and the super-delegates realize that Sanders, unlike the Wallstreet-backed Clinton-Machine, will bring in not only millions of independent voters that were unable to vote in the primaries, but even defecting Republican votes, sealing the GOP’s utter defeat in November.

Things are going to become very interesting when, while they are thinking about all of these things, they are doing so to the earth-shaking, thunderous chants of “Sanders! Sanders!” from his tens of thousands of supporters outside, who have time-and-again proven their ability to rally by the tens of thousands — do you think that we won’t do the same at the convention?

And finally, things are going to become very, very interesting when the super-delegates and the DNC are forced to choose, publicly, whether to hand the nomination to Clinton and watch the millions of independents walk away, along with millions of former-democrat Sanders-supporters, basically handing the general election to the neo-fascists Trump or Cruz — or, to hand it to Sanders, a leader who will have the support, not only of the entire Democratic Party, but of millions of Independents, Green Party voters, and — yes, indeed — even Republicans defecting from the extremist GOP. That will be the most interesting part, I think. I’ll see you all in Philadelphia.

In Solidarity,
John Laurits

P.S. Please feel totally free to reproduce this article, re-post, re-use, re-cycle, or whatever, in whole or in part — credit would be lovely but, ultimately, I don’t really care! Do as ye will! Peace!

#SeeYouInPhilly

†I have not counted the so-called “super-delegates” because they do not vote until the convention, which you might not know because of the media’s disgustingly corrupt attempt to warp the public’s perception of the election.

*All numbers pulled from the Green Papers, today 4/28/2016, at: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

Part 2 of John Laurits' article is HERE.