Bernie's Primary Setbacks Show 'Muricans Aren't Ready For Socialism

Bernie campaigning in Michigan yesterday.

Trump made it clear from the opening bell of this 2020 primary campaign that he relished Sen. Bernie Sanders as his Dem opponent and would use his socialism against him.  I believe the fear of this among huge swaths of Democratic voters is what mainly led to Bernie Sanders' drubbing in at least 4 states yesterday, including Michigan,  which he desperately needed.  That drubbing has now given Joe Biden effectively an insurmountable lead no matter what transpires in the Dem debate Sunday.

Why would so many millions of voters fear that Trump would succeed in trashing Bernie to a far thee well? Mainly because Trump is a clown, an entertainer who thrives on roping in victims to daily episodes of his "Trump show".  In such shows - thanks to a clueless media (that pays him way too much respect) - he is usually able to paint targets in whatever way he desires and essentially converts them into political pinatas.  This is what he'd do to Bernie, because most Americans are totally, seriously ignorant about democratic socialism. 

Add that to the fact he'd have an eager capitalist propaganda machine (such as FOX News, but also mainstream pundits) doing his work for him and we know Bernie wouldn't  stand a chance.  And it wouldn't even necessarily be to paint Bernie as a commie socialist. Recall, for example, a majority of Americans are so desperately ignorant they still think Hitler's national socialism is a true form of socialism like the democratic socialism of Bernie. Hence back in 2010 Tea baggers portrayed Elaine Kagan as a raving Hitlerite National Socialist when she was being considered by Obama for a Supreme Court position, e.g.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

And who can forget how even mainstream pundits and cartoonists have come after socialism, i.e.

So this is the sort of crap Sen. Sanders would face in any presidential campaign vs. Trump.  (And why, if he had any chance of winning, he'd have to use TV ads similar to what Bill Maher imaginatively developed for his Real Time audience,  e.g.

https://lastnighton.com/2020/02/03/bill-maher-new-rule-democrats/

The fake ad, "There will be mud" was televised along with Maher's  advice that the Ds needed to play as dirty as the Reeps.  The fake ad itself included a terrific deep fake of the fat slug Trump in an imitation of what we envisage the notorious pee tape to be like.  Yeah, Sanders would need to use lots of ads like this if he had any chance to beat the Dotard.  He'd need to prove that having Trump again was vastly worse than having a democratic socialist.

But as I've pointed out in previous posts, what Bernie calls democratic socialism (for him) is actually closer to "Rhine Capitalism".  This is a market economy  but with high taxes and large redistribution component.  Indeed this is what most of those branded "Reds" by the Right, including Bernie  and AOC, aspire to, as opposed to outright democratic socialism.  (Which I embrace). To this end they have suggested using the tax commons to support such things as single payer health care, which the present system can't allow based as it is on Pareto capitalism, see e.g.

Brane Space: Is the U.S. Economic System Pareto-Compromised?

  

In truth,  a primary litmus test for whether U.S.  citizens are anywhere near actual democratic socialism would be their degree of happiness. We already know from The World Happiness Report ('Americans are becoming more miserable and data backs it up', Denver Post, p. 8A, March 24, 2019) the U.S. places at No. 17, down 6 places (probably coinciding with Trump's ascension).  Meanwhile, the Scandinavian nations that top the happiness list all practice democratic socialism - a point about which  even the great Oprah had to be educated.  See e.g.

Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5izFoyZkTI

 What is instructive to see in this video is the transformation of Winfrey's visage to one near panic and disbelief, before the women straighten her out on socialism, and the more relaxed, rational countenance after.  Oprah appeared to have a mental readjustment in the wake of her brief  interview, but sadly such  an awakening would not apply to most Americans.  They've been conditioned by the Right's PR tanks to be virulently anti-tax and also suffer from the rampant commie paranoia and hysteria that's existed since the 1950s and McCarthy's "UnAmerican" activities crusade.  I've dealt with this in previous posts, e.g.

Skewering 'Muricans' Myths About "Commies"

Also, taking away their existing health insurance and replacing it with something they have no idea of (Medicare for All) would not have worked. 

The lack of interest of the Young also contributed to Bernie's demise as he himself put it last night:

"Let me tell you the bad news, to be honest with you, young people vote at much lower rates than older people. That is the facts. I hope all of the old people vote, that’s great, but I want young people to vote at the same rates.”

And further, as we learned from a post election NY Times article::

"Through Tuesday’s voting, his theory of the election has not proven true. The surge of new voters in the Democratic primaries has featured mostly older people, moderate suburbanites and African-Americans disinclined to support his campaign."

So what happened to all the young voters, the Millennials and Gen Z's who were supposed to turn out?  Well, they clearly believed the effort wasn't worth their time or energy, or perhaps there were too many hurdles - such as obtaining the  right IDs to be able to vote.  But what most of us (older voters) don't want to hear now is any more whining (whigning?) from the young uns about their student debt, oldsters getting all the benefits, and so on.  If you don't vote, don't participate, you don't get to complain - or say "OK, Boomer."

But maybe most of the young  were also not as enamored of socialism as Bernie led us to believe.  Or,  in  the most  benign take, maybe they believe Bernie is simply too old to be its standard bearer.

See  Also:

2020 Elections | Bernie Sanders | Joe Biden

Biden and Bernie, the Democrats' Binary Choice for Our Future

And:

Bill Blum

2020 Elections | Joe Biden

The Democratic Party Surrenders to Nostalgia

And:

2020 Elections | Bernie Sanders

'In a Dark Time, the Eye Begins to See': The 2020 Bernie Campaign Represents a Fight That Must Continue

• Biden tells gun nut that he’s 'full of shit.' America (objectively) agrees 

And:

2020 Elections | Joe Biden

Blowing in the Whirlwind: As Ye Sow, Joe Shall Ye Reap

Excerpt:

"So yes, I think it’s very possible for Biden to beat Trump. Because for so many people, it doesn’t matter what Biden says or doesn’t say, how incoherent he is, how many outright lies he tells, how atrocious his record is or how diligently he is serving the domineering elites who have blighted our society to such a degree. It doesn't matter that he has made it clear that he is not going to do anything about climate change, student debt, the healthcare crisis, rampant militarism, police brutality, economic injustice, low pay, ICE, and on and on. What matters that he is a fresh screen where our most unworthy fears and unrealistic hopes can be projected, for a time; where we can forget, for a time, the massive disasters that are looming ahead and pretend that things can somehow go back to “normal.”

Did Bernie Sanders Lay A Political Trap For Hillary?

Podcaster Jimmy Dore points out Hillary's subdued "hate" expression during Bernie's endorsement. Did he set a political trap? Quite probably, given he sensed she wouldn't keep to her promises.


Even as Barack Obama delivered his signature,  silver-tongued oratory and homage to Hillary last night -  a robust defense of "American values" and Hillary's qualifications to protect them-  darker ruminations have surfaced. These actually originated with Sen. Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Clinton in NH some time ago, but have only now come to the fore in the wake of Hillary's actual nomination.

And in that wake, questions of whether she will actually follow through on her promises - such as remaining steadfastly against TPP. Well, that came under suspicion the night before when VA Neolib Governor Terry McAuliffe


 blurted out that Hillary would "flip on"  the TPP as soon as she got into the WH. This raised the hackles of Bernie supporters but of course was quashed almost as soon as it got out - unlike the DNC emails: McAuliffe and advisers sputtering that  TPP "would only go forward if the changes that she wants are implemented and that everyone is in agreement." HRC would examine the deal and only approve those sections in line with citizens' interests.  As The Washington Post observed:

"There's a reason Hillary Clinton's campaign so forcefully and unequivocally pushed back at Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's (D) assertion Tuesday that she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House.

What McAuliffe said doesn't just directly contradict Clinton's stated position about the trade deal Obama is trying to pass before he leaves office. It undercuts several narratives Clinton is using the convention to reframe, while reinforcing some of the most damaging narratives to her campaign"

Indeed. Hence, the distrust in Hillary's adherence to any previous positions, and hence also the picking up of visual clues in her body language and face during the Sanders' endorsement.

In fact,  a number of Left media were "Zaprudering" the NH event with special attention to Hillary's body language and facial expressions while Bernie was delivering his (seemingly) ringing endorsement.  Several times the image was paused (e.g. by liberal podcast host Jimmy Dore)  to reveal her with a none- too pleased look on her face. See e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhwzkPKA_xk

Dore then played a short video of Ralph Nader  who referenced Bernie's intent to expose Clinton's political betrayal on Jorge Ramos' show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocCnTfQxVM


"He didn't slobber over her He basically went through all the promises she made on immigration reform, on minimum wage, on criminal justice reform, on the environment and climate  change.  I thought it was a really brilliant statement. .I have it here and urge everyone to read it because I think he's set her up for political betrayal".

What does that mean? It means, as Dore then explained,  that Sanders was setting her up since all those things HE said she was for, she's not really for, so she will betray his words. When she does that he can then enlarge his organization. Sandernistas will see they had put their trust in yet another Neolib who betrayed them. She only said what she did, when she did,   to get their votes.

This makes a lot of rational sense at a deep politics level: deliberately trotting out all the promises and commitments made  to put her on the spot and remind her of them, as well as his millions of followers. It is that technique of setting her up, that will ultimately expose her either as keeping to her word, or once again weaseling out. What is most telling is her body language and especially facial expressions. Pause the video as I did (at the same time Dore does) and look carefully. You don't need a B.Sc. in Psychology to be able to read her facial and body language literally screaming "Objection!" even as she  continues the rhythmic head bob telegraphing false assent.

As my psychologist friend Rick put it, the head bobbing is a physical compensation mechanism to neutralize HRC's  visceral objections via a controlled physiological response. In other words, to affirm a fake agreement with Sanders words despite the fact her face literally screams she actually hates them. But the head bobbing and nodding is a means to resist a totally negative physical reaction  (like issuing a middle finger salute as she did with the Kaine pick)..

The bottom line is that even before the Kaine VP pick (definitely not designed to inspire left turnout no matter what the scare tactics) and then the McAuliffe TPP gaffe, Sanders knew in advance that Hillary wouldn't stick to her promises. Hence, he listed a whole set of actions she'd said she do during the campaign. But Bernie basically set her up to do a purposeful fail:  commit totally unforced political hari kari - and very likely end up a one termer.

This also cuts at Bill Maher's snide remark last night (convention edition of HBO's  Real Time) that the Left is "purist".  Absolutely not! The Left, contrary to being purist, merely insists that if it makes sacrifices for a candidate he or she adhere to commitments made, at least those within their power. At the very least that means not verbally backtracking on them, and also pre-emptively embracing extreme right or center right positions never defended during the campaign. It means that the Left demands integrity in a candidate not "purist adherence" to ideological positions.  That Maher didn't know the difference is perhaps no surprise as in one Real Time from November, 2013 he didn't seem to know the difference between legitimate conspiracy analysis and god belief. He babbled:

 "We need conspiracies for the same reason we need God because we cannot accept that things are just random." 

Which is pure codswallop, because one doesn't "need" conspiracies.  They are rather detected and emerge out of the multifaceted scrutiny of  a universe of available evidence -  even that which may be released in files decades later. This is specifically so in the JFK assassination case. (In fact, as Dr. Pat Bannister noted, strong religious/ god believers are actually more likely to reject political conspiracies because they go against their most fervent beliefs in human nature and limits.)

But a person who wouldn't know the difference, or honor the distinction, would also mistake voters' demands for integrity in politicians as being "purist". In each case, an extreme comparison is invoked so it was also not surprising to see Maher and guests last night  making a false equivalence between "left and right crazies".

Sad, but this is why - along with the infusion of obscene amounts of money - our political and electoral system never improves and we are always saddled with "lesser of two evils" choices. Even our pundits and best comedians can't seem to enhance their insights to a deep politics' level to expose the ongoing con. 

"You have two choices, sir or madam: strychnine or cyanide! Which is it! Make your pick! You can't not pick!"

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/68299/the-kochs-want-hillary-clinton-to-become-president

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donors.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Excerpt:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raisers or at her political events, during a period when Mr. Sanders repeatedly attacked Mrs. Clinton’s connections to Wall Street and her six-figure speaking fees from financial institutions.

“I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Mrs. Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

In Philadelphia, donors were handed preferred suites at the Ritz-Carlton and “Friends and Family” packages created for longtime Clinton hands — some of them also longtime benefactors. Some were granted time backstage or in the Clinton family box with former President Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Blackstone, the private equity giant, scheduled a reception at the Barnes Foundation on Thursday with its president, Hamilton E. James, one of the leading Wall Street contenders for an economic policy post in a future Clinton administration.

 

Why Colorado's Single Payer Health Plan Would Work Better Than Vermont's

All through most of the 2015-16 Dem presidential campaign Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was asked why his single plan proposal would work when the state of Vermont's attempt at it failed. That has now come up for scrutiny again as Colorado seeks to pass an amendment in November with a single payer type system.

Colorado Care, however, contains built in protections that Vermont's law didn't and also leaves out the toxic political concessions that resulted in the downfall of the latter.    The bottom line is that universal health care systems work and cost less in all other industrialized countries. All previous analysis of universal health care showed it was more affordable.

So what happened in Vermont?  The MSM in the wake has repeatedly claimed that the Governor’s Vermont proposal did not find much savings. But, was the Governor correct in saying universal health care was too expensive or did something go wrong? 

Here's what went wrong  in Vermont as determined by those actively supporting 'Colorado Care', including My wife, Janice.

1) Vermont approved a single payer health care system without specifying the policies that would make it work. Not surprisingly, policy issues matter. Dr. William Hsiao, who designed and guided the implementation of the successful Taiwan universal health care system in the 1990s, offers relevant commentary on a similar situation in Taiwan. He reports that before he went to Taiwan, problems arose when four technical experts tried and failed to come up with a successful universal health care proposal. He said, “It was like a wagon drawn by four horses, with each going in a different direction and nobody driving.1”

2)Vermont’s proposal, in which political forces and political concessions shaped a plan that did not have a driver keeping track of realistic economics, is similar to the first, unsuccessful attempt at a plan in Taiwan. Interestingly, Dr. Hsiao, who has experience designing and at times implementing health care systems around the globe, also conducted the preliminary analysis of the Vermont proposal before the political concessions, and he found that it was economically feasible. 

3)The VT governor’s economic proposal featured  a plan with too many political concessions and too little focus on what would work. Vermont adopted universal health care based primarily on a “health care is a human right” campaign without an emphasis on economics. The proposal’s governing body, the Green Mountain Care (GMC) Board, which was not responsible for financing, designed a system without a focus on the economic and policy decisions needed to make it economically feasible. Its design included political concessions to insurers, hospitals, and providers.

4) On top of that, the VT Governor offered financing concessions to low-income constituents, high-income constituents, and the self-employed, and as a result, the cost for the remaining payers—middle-income workers and employers—became too high.  

5) In addition, Vermont faced a number of situational challenges. Vermont has a high per capita health care cost, limited median family income, a small population, and a workforce and medical services that intermingled with neighboring states. All of these factors decreased Vermont’s ability to reduce costs.

6) The Vermont plan did not attempt to retain obvious savings. It claimed there would not be any savings, which ignores potential savings from obvious factors, such as the reduction in administrative tasks when there is one primary payer, the elimination of the marketing and advertising costs in the multi-payer system, and the elimination of the need for insurer profits, among other things. When administrative costs go down, someone has more money, and it appears that Vermont allowed providers to use the administrative savings to increase income

Colorado, fortunately, does not have these challenges. 

Now, how is the Colorado Amendment 69 proposal different? The Colorado proposal for ColoradoCare aka Colorado Health Care Cooperative is a system designed to establish universal, high-quality, and accessible health care; decrease the overall costs of health care through efficiencies; and collect premiums in an efficient and fair manner.

 It differs from Vermont’s approach and plan in multiple ways:

• Colorado’s plan does not make an alliance with the insurance industry. The GMC Board Chair was closely associated with the insurance industry and had been a strong advocate of the RomneyCare program in Massachusetts2, which expanded coverage but also greatly increased costs. The Board agreed to subcontract with a large insurance company and promoted this as a public-private partnership. This partnership did not report the administrative savings that are expected to come from removing the multiple, for-profit, middle managers. 

• Colorado would obtain the benefit of savings, not pass the benefits onto hospitals for higher profits. Vermont made a political decision to eliminate the Hospital Provider Tax, presumably because in a universal health care system such a tax only increases the cost to GMC. However, the economic analysis showed that GMC would not reap any benefit of lower cost, and the hospitals would retain the savings.

 • Colorado would pursue decreases in the cost of pharmaceutical and durable medical equipment. Multiple analyses, as well as model programs such as the VA Hospital system, have found that a unified system can use its market power to lower the costs of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. However, Vermont decided not to pursue lowering pharmaceutical costs.

 • The Colorado proposal decreases administrative complexity instead of increasing it. The GMC Board decided to implement a complex transition to payment reform through Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)3,4 in order to pursue a theoretical cost savings later on. While ACOs are supported by health care economists and offer promise, they are still in the process of development and have not yet been shown to maintain quality care and offer savings when applied over a whole state. This expensive transition consumed natural cost savings from administrative simplification. The Colorado proposal minimizes the Cooperative’s administrative expense in order to achieve a savings. Colorado’s proposal phases in ACOs and other payment reforms only to the extent that they decrease cost and improve value.

 • . The Colorado proposal incentivizes the system to benefit from savings. As a provider’s administrative costs decrease, the payments would correspondingly decrease. Colorado’s obligation would be to maintain overall provider compensation at a level that is competitive enough with other states so that Colorado would have a sufficient health care work force.

 • The Colorado proposal is less disruptive to employers.  While in the long run both the employer’s and employee’s premium payments come from the funds available for the wage/benefit package, in the short run, the Vermont proposal requires that employers who did not previously pay for health care pay a 10.5% payroll premium. Such a large increase is burdensome. The Colorado proposal: o Shares the 10% payroll premium between employer and employee so that the employer pays 6.67% and the employee pays 3.33%.  o Allows employers that have previously paid for most of health care to pay employee’s share if the employer agrees to do so by union contract or any other contract. o Covers the medical portion of workers’ compensation, which decreases workers’ compensation costs by 60%. This reduces the administrative and financial burden on employers.

• The Colorado proposal has premiums that are fairer—one combined employer/employee rate for everyone without the large difference between the effective rates for low-income and high-income residents. The Colorado proposal is modeled after the successful Social Security and Medicare insurance premium collections. Everyone pays the same percentage rate for combined employee and employer contributions (10% split between employer and employee). In addition, to be fair to working people, the same percentage rate is applied to non-payroll income. Vermont would have collected its premiums using two methods, a payroll premium tax of 11.5% paid by the employer, and a progressive income premium tax that rose to 9.5% of adjusted income. The combined employer/employee premium contribution varied greatly as the Table below shows.  



----
Many thanks to Janice for assembling this information from the Colorado Care site!

A Disgusting Perversion of Democracy: The DNC's "Super Delegate" System

While many of us were ecstatic over Sen. Bernie Sanders primary victory in New Hampshire, it appears we were a tad premature. Unbeknownst to us, a 'shadow' electoral system was at work, upending and denying New Hampshire Democratic voters' will and awarding more of the state's 32 delegates to Hillary despite her being squashed 60% to 38% in cast ballots. Effectively, this disreputable system lurks beneath the outward scene of votes to undermine our democracy as these "super delegates"  - like corporate lobbyists - get to trump voters.

What gives? Well, it is the Democratic Party's skewed and rigged nominating system, overseen by the same DNC bunch that tried to whore for Hillary by initially limiting debates or screening them only at odd times, like Saturdays. Thus as one report from The Daily Caller observes:

"Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will.

Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates."

HUH? He gets a paltry 13 of the granite state's delegate total while she grabs 15 despite having her butt handed to her? WTF is going on here? Well, it's the DNC's "quirky" system (I call it rigged).

Evidently, get this, like many other states New Hampshire's 32 on-screen, publicized delegates (which we beheld while watching MSNBC) are a mirage, an illusion. In fact, it turns out only 24 of those 32 delegates are really up for grabs via voters, the other 8 are 'super delegates' - all prior pledged to Hillary. As I said, a rigged system because it effectively trumps the voters' will. So while on paper she gets 7 of the 32 it is in reality 7 of 24 and with 8 added that converts to 7 + 8 = 15. Hence, she "beats" Bernie's total despite him thrashing her into the middle of next year.

WHO are these unelected eight?

”These are party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates,"

And let me translate that: Given these super delegates were also hatched by the Dem Establishment - the DNC - you can be sure all those "officials" are all going for Hillary. As I said, a travesty of the democratic process.

The sad news right now out of this undemocratic system?  Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders. This despite two effective losses to Sanders, in Iowa and now New Hampshire

It will be a long, hard slog for Bernie indeed, but Dem voters need to be aware of how, essentially, their primary votes hardly play a role any more given this skewed, disgraceful DNC system! . Is it time to kick up a ruckus and activate protests? You better believe it!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/shamus-cooke/65938/can-the-establishment-fix-its-bernie-sanders-problem

Exposing the Lies & Myths About Single Payer Health Care

One immense challenge for Bernie Sanders is to get beyond the Noisy 'Wurlitzer' of the corrupt, corporate  mainstream media (MSM) to educate citizens on the benefits of the single payer health care system.  This is a formidable hurdle given the MSM is already guilty of distorting his democratic socialist message - when they do deign to attend to his campaign - as well as selectively omitting key parts of it. All this is to brainwash Americans against it.

Single payer is an important element for Sen. Bernie Sanders'  platform  under the aegis of "Medicare for all". The problem is that too many American know next to nothing of its benefits and how it would strengthen our health care system while lowering costs.  It would basically take the existing successful Medicare system, strengthen it and extend it to all Americans. Thus, we would see:

- From birth everyone, every American citizen, will be insured and have access to any doctor or hospital in the country no matter the size of their bank account. (Unlike today when a private insurance corporations dictates which doctor you can see.)

- Unlike today when a high deductible or lack of coverage prevents it, people will be able to see a doctor when they first become ill. This will save on much larger costs down the road when conditions worsen.

- Prescription drug prices will be cut by as much as 40 percent simply by repealing a federal law that prevents Medicare from competitive bidding for lowest drug prices.

But make no mistake that 'Medicare for all'  would be the for profit industry's biggest nightmare because they'd no longer be able to reap profits by invoking medical loss ratios - preventing sick people from getting care instead of delivering it. Hence, they and their  political lackeys and extremists will be prepared to fight like junkyard dogs to prevent it, including the perverse use of propaganda.

Included in that propaganda are assorted myths and lies. Some of the primary ones I deal with below:


Myth: Obamacare already provides universal coverage so we don't need single payer

Fact: Under Obamacare people are required to purchase coverage from a for profit insurance company. Meanwhile, 54m Americans still lack access to health care.


Myth: Single payer is government run health care.

Fact: No, that would be the Veterans Administration system. Under single payer you get a health ID card and can see any doctor or go to any hospital in the U.S.  Doctors are NOT employees of the government and hospitals remain in private hands.


Myth: Single payer will lead to rationing like in Canada:

Fact: No, because right now in the U.S. it is PRIVATE health insurance which rations care by using medical loss ratio calculations to determine how much care must be disallowed to earn x % profit


Myth: Costs will skyrocket under single payer.

Fact: By eliminating the for profit system we can save $350 b a year or more in administrative costs.


Myth: Drugs will be more costly and difficult to get under single payer.

Fact:  Drugs will be cheaper because single payer will be able to bargain for lowest prices - like the VA does.

 All of these points show that too many Americans have been fed a bill of goods about single payer, and we call such tactics propaganda.

It is time to start rationally responding every time the term "single payer" surfaces in discussions and debates and opponents yelp  'Socialism!' or go bankers. We all need to begin to think rationally about how we can make our system much better by adopting it, and also rigorously arguing against the assorted spurious attacks by media know - nothings, their lackeys and the pro-capitalist exploiters.

Tying Bernie Sanders to Dylann Roof, Vester Flanagan & The Islamic Train Terrorist - How Stupid Is Stupid?

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd never have believed some desperate media halfwit could ever have written a piece tying three of the biggest, murderous crazies of the past three months with Bernie Sanders. But that's exactly what David Mastio - USAToday's deputy editorial page editor did in one forlorn, abysmally stupid article: 'What Ties TV Killings To Church Train Killings' (USA Today, Aug, 28, p. 7A)''

We learn, first off, that Dylan Roof and Vester Flanagan, as well as the Muslim train shooter, Ayoub El-Khazzani, were all losers mired in their own sense of victimhood and grievance. No argument there and one didn't have to be a Therp or even taken Psych 101 to appreciate that. One only had to read of their sad and sordid personal histories.

But had Mastio stuck to that thread, he'd have done himself and all readers a favor, instead of going off on a hare-brained tangent to drag in Bernie Sanders. WTF?! Is this guy that bad off that he can't develop a story without bogus BS?

We learn from Mastio that:

"If you read the biographies of all three, there is a thread of failure to thrive in a complicated world, of being run over by the 21st century. The trio thought of themselves as victims. And they reached back to a comforting tribalism in an imaginary world more to their liking."

Then he jumps off the deep end:

"You can see the imaginary past in the quaint, happy faced socialism offered by Bernie Sanders. Just as race and nationalism have combined to create bloody disaster, most recently in the Balkans and Central Africa, the empty promises of socialism have turned into economic chaos time after time as in Greece and Venezuela"

But, of course, note that what this fuckwit doesn't reference is the form of socialism (democratic) that Sanders is all about, and as currently practiced - successfully I might add - in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.   But hey, what do facts and history - not to mention subtle differences - matter to a media rat who probably can't distinguish his brain from his ass?

To top it off, this idiot then has the audacity to assert "we've already been where Sanders and Putin would lead us. In each case, we know how the story ends. "

But in fact, not. We've NEVER been where Bernie Sanders would lead us! Ok, let me correct that: I have been there when I lived in Milwaukee during the years of Socialist Mayor Frank Zeidler. And believe me those years and the benefits to the Milwaukee citizenry were a damned sight better than the dog eat dog world seen in most of the country today.

Before he writes about Sanders again, maybe Mastio needs to extract his cranium from where the Sun doesn't shine.  Better, get himself an online crash course on the different forms of socialism, and also how democratic socialism differs from Leninist -Marxist socialism.  Doing that would make us wonder far less on how this dolt ever got to be deputy editor of USA Today's editorial page, especially when he writes dreck like "Sanders happy-faced socialism".

Do Not Call Bernie "Bernice" - He Didn't Authorize Any Apology to the Black Lives Matter Bums

It appears some brash right wingers, obsessed with the posturing of false machismo, have taken to calling Bernie Sanders  "Bernice" on their blogs, and also averring he's become "a bitch for Black Lives Matter". Do not believe this bullshit for one damned second. Bernie did not offer any apologies to these Black Lives renegades - who find it easier to pick on liberal candidates than risk their heinies going after right winger Repubs.

Nor did Bernie authorize any apology as he made clear on "Meet the Press' yesterday. What happened is that a clueless black staffer, suffering from a variant of Stockholm Syndrome and repressed black guilt (on behalf of all white "libos") went rogue and wrote an email himself.

Can the right wingers process the concept of "going rogue"? Huh? Do they not recall Trump's lawyer going rogue a few weeks ago when the issue of Trump's alleged rape of his first wife, Ivana,  came up? Recall the daft lawyer, in an NBC interview, told the media on his own that the Donald couldn't be guilty because "there is no such thing as marital rape",  instantly contradicting decades of settled state and federal law. A case that the Donald had to butt in and make clear the words were NOT his. (The lawyer was fortunate he wasn't fired like the Donald normally does on 'The Apprentice')

Hence, candidates cannot be held to account for what their loose nut staffers do. Sanders has too much on his plate to be keeping an eye on every little detail and expects his hired staffers to be professional enough adhere to normal standards without micro-management.

The goofball who dispatched the "apology" was Marcus Ferrell,  who e-mailed the 'Black Lives Matter' bullying black racists,  asking them to have a meeting with the Senator. The putz wrote:

 

 

"I apologize it took our campaign so long to officially reach out. We are hoping to establish a REAL space for REAL dialog between the folks on this email and our campaign."
 

The email also said that the campaign wants to "have a more formal interaction with the movement. We wanted to let you know that we hear you, we want to do a better job speaking out on the issues, and as a sitting U.S. Senator, possibly introducing legislation and making a constitutional change."
 

But when asked whether he felt an apology to Black Lives Matter was necessary the Vermont senator told Meet the Press: “No, I don’t. I think we’re going to be working with all groups. This was sent out without my knowledge."

Marcus Ferrell, in the ideal world, would be fired on the spot for writing so many words that he effectively portrayed as coming from Bernie. That isn't kosher, not at all. Problem is, if Bernie sent that idiot packing the Black Lives bums would be squawking "racial prejudice!" - and saying Sanders really was intolerant.

But what they miss is that everyone ought to be intolerant of assholes - no matter what their color.

As for Sanders hiring Symone Sanders, a young Black woman, as his national press secretary.  (Symone Sanders is a member of the National Urban League's Young Professionals Network in Arlington, VA.)  this was a masterpiece of strategy to deal with the Black Lives Matter clowns using a genuine black activist - not a Tea Party fakeroo like Marissa Johnson.

  She, in fact, came up with the idea for Sanders supporters to chant "we stand together" if there were any disruptions to any future Sanders' event.

This is a great idea and if it doesn't work, Bernie can always hire guards to keep the riff raff away.  In the meantime, Righties willing to call girly names based on false perceptions need to get a grip on reality - and maybe do more background checking.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63447/asshole-lives-matter
And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/13/larry_wilmore_mocks_black_lives_matter_activists_at_sanders_rally_black_manners_matter_as_well/

My Problem With 'Black Lives Matter': They're Cowards And A-Holes

Black Lives Matter activists get in Bernie Sanders' face recently in Seattle. Do they have the balls to do that to Trump, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker?

"These newly ignited firebrands do know that their bullshit is more likely to be tolerated among liberals than among, say, those who gather at a rally for Donald Trump, let alone at a Tea Party gathering, and surely let alone an Oathkeepers ammo swap.

So they hit Bernie, and they call people racists who are really not their main problem. They pitch a fit if someone doesn’t repeat their slogan verbatim, and they hold themselves aloof from any possible criticism because, after all, they’re holding all the race cards by virtue of their skin color."

Jaime O'Neill, 'Asshole Lives Matter', on smirkingchimp.com

After seeing several times more the assault by 'Black Lives Matter' activists on Bernie Sanders in Seattle - and YES,  I call it what it is -  I am convinced Sanders now needs to have a retinue of guards at the ready like some other candidates. It is simply not good enough to found most of your protests on the lowest hanging, most vulnerable 'fruit'.  And it is the epitome of ill manners to disrupt a meeting or speech and inconvenience thousands of others for your own pet cause, no matter how important you believe it to be.

As I pointed out in an earlier post,  these nuisance protesters from 'Black Lives Matter' really need to adjust their own reality goggles and keep their powder dry for the 17 Repukes. As opposed to attacking their own ideological, economic allies  with "friendly fire". Note: I do not deny their right to protest and vigorously,  only to do so in a cowardly, selective fashion by going after the lowest hanging fruit - a 73 year old Socialist who is only in this race at progressives' behest and because Elizabeth Warren refused to run.

Thus, it would have far more redounded to their credibility (and gravitas)  to get in the face of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker first.  THAT would have shown: a) they are serious in their claims they are out to flag and disrupt every candidate, and b) they have the courage of their convictions akin to their 1960s civil rights protester forbears, i.e. at sit-ins in Selma and Montgomery.

Would they risk more by going after the REAL racists and hardline GOOPrs  first? Of course! But that is the point of serious protest as opposed to easy posturing, yelling and grand standing - as originally  demonstrated by Martin Luther King, Jr.  When you bloviate self-righteously that your group is out to honestly protest and "disrupt all", it means nowhere near as much as actually putting skin in the game - before you disrupt elderly candidates who are really on your side.

Note also they couldn't get one inch past Hillary's Secret Service detachment, which shows me they are only interested in  disrupting soft, friendly, easily accessible targets. In Hillary's case, they weren't able to disrupt her confab and had to settle for a special, private meeting. So already they've shown they will "take what they can get" so equal treatment of all candidates becomes a matter of expediency and convenience- which is cowardly. If they are going to disrupt a Sanders' event they ought to do Hillary the same honor -else grant Sanders a special meeting as they allowed for Hillary. But to accept the private meeting with HRC because they couldn't or wouldn't get past her Secret Service contingent is cowardice of the highest form.

 As liberal talk radio  host Bill Press put it on Chris Hayes 'All In' three nights ago: "They are making the perfect the enemy of the good."    Adding:

"You target the people who disagree with you, not your friends."  Bingo!

Alicia Garza, co-creator of Black Lives Matter sounded all full of herself and sanctimonious on the same 'All In' episode, assuring Chris Hayes she was an equal opportunity disrupter. To which I say ''Bull shit!' She also promised that  "all candidates will be disrupted", but I will believe it when I see it.

That means Garza immediately ceasing with the easy Dem disruptions and dispatching her troops after Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker,  and Mike Huckabee! 

But I seriously doubt she or her organization will do that because I don't believe they have the courage of those 60s protestors to really put skin on the line in their disruptions.  Grandstanding by interrupting an elderly Socialist Jew - in the midst of Libs who're too damned polite and politically correct to do anything but stand down-  is lots easier than going after the Donald, or a Bush. In those situations the mob, racist supporters would put those black "activist" lives in real jeopardy.

Maybe also these 'Black Lives Matter' folks ought to keep tighter reins on who joins their ranks. Evidently they had no problems letting in  a former Tea Bagger And Xtian evangelical puppet - Marissa Johnson - who had the fucking nerve to call the gathered  pro-Sanders whites "racists and white supremacists". As Jaime O'Neill noted in his recent smirkingchimp.com blog article,  "not so long ago she identified with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin."  Can a pro-Palin, knuckle dragger idiot change colors or stripes overnight? I doubt it.

See the first link below for more on this. Other libs may shy away from calling these assholes out, but I won't and clearly Jaime O'Neill doesn't either!


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63447/asshole-lives-matter

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/13/larry_wilmore_mocks_black_lives_matter_activists_at_sanders_rally_black_manners_matter_as_well/

Excerpt:

“You know things aren’t going well when black women get up in your event and start reciting old Destiny’s Child,”

On Social Security's 80th - The Solutions To Save It Are Clear

Bernie Sanders: His proposal to expand Social Security is common sense and can be achieved by increasing the wages covered by the payroll tax, and halting raids on the retirement fund.

As Social Security's 80th anniversary approaches, "solutions" are a dime a dozen to save the program - but in fact- most on offer (especially by Republicans)  would either kill it, or make seniors' lives unbearable.  Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders - now besting Hillary in NH primary polls (44 % to 37%) - has made expanding Social Security one leg of his progressive platform.

By the simple, straightforward expedient of applying the payroll tax to all wages (instead of only the first $118,500) then 66 percent of the current shortfall would be wiped out overnight. The rest could easily be wiped out by ceasing to raid Social Security monies and instead doing what Al Gore always suggested back in 2000 - put it into an effective "lockbox". The idiot media made fun of it at the time, but by implementing the sequestration of S.S. monies from all other - no shortfall would emerge - assuming all wages are also subject to the payroll tax.

Meanwhile, we have conservative curmudgeons like Sen. Orrin Hatch barking (in response to Sanders' expansion proposal):

"Where will they get the money? They don't even care how they are adding to the debt and how long it will take to dig out of it!"

Excuse me, Sen. Hatch, but that debt was YOUR party's doing!  You and your ilk implemented that ill-advised Medicare drug expansion (mainly at the behest of PhRMA) in 2003, and also implemented the Bush tax cuts while waging two wars that exploded the debt by $4 trillion. So don't hand me any BS about the debt and how Social Security was responsible! Hell, you bastards even raided it to help pay for the Iraq occupation to disguise the amount actually used for military operations, materials.

The other "solutions" now mainly being put forward by the conservos and Neoliberal Dems include:

- Increasing the retirement age (the age to receive full S.S. benefits) to 68 or even 70. But this really amounts to a benefits cut. And a severe one. It is claimed this would wipe out 29 percent of the shortfall but would more likely wipe out 29 percent of the most indigent seniors.

- Implement a "chained CPI" which decreases the cost of living adjustment received each year. This assumes that seniors would degrade their buying habits each year the COLA cuts are operative. So while they might afford chicken one year, for the next it will be sardines, and then the next kibbles, and the next....dumpster garbage.

Then there is the problem of Social Security Disability heading toward insolvency. As I noted earlier, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/with-social-security-disabiiliy-nearly.html

  both parties are to blame for this, having cut in half the payroll taxes collected for almost two years. Ending up with a loss nearly equal to the current disability fund deficit. WTF did they expect would happen when they embraced such folly?

Now the solutions are few, either redirect revenue from the much larger S.S. retirement fund to S.S. disability or ...let the disability fund empty in which case an immediate 19 percent benefits cut goes into effect.

The Repukes don't like the Dem solution of redirecting funds because "that would be like robbing seniors to pay the disabled."

But that "lockbox" pretension doesn't hold them back from continually robbing seniors to pay for more military toys like the F35, or increased defense plants. The fact is that there is no magic line or box separating the retirement fund from the disability fund, any more than a magical barrier separates the retirement fund from general revenues.  So any transfers are simply a matter of account shifting.

If the Repubs were really so worried about disabled folks "robbing seniors" they'd have implemented a lockbox from the time Gore first mentioned it 15 years ago. In fact, since 1992 legislation entitled "the budget enforcement act' has existed to do just that. But it's never ever been enforced, despite the urgent need to do so.

The following data shows how much has been raided each year up through 2011, the data from the same Trust Fund sources and GAO:

Year:  ................Amount raided

2011.................$67.0 billion

2010.................$87.0 billion

2009...............$137.0 billion

2008...............$180.2 billion

2007...............$186.0 billion

2006...............$185.5 billion

2005..............$173.5 billion

2004..............$151.1 billion

2003.............$155.6 billion

2002.............$159.0 billion

2001.............$163.0 billion

2000.............$151.8 billion
----------------------------

TOTAL:  $2.63 TRILLION

 Any person with a single neuron for a brain would realize that it doesn't matter if you fill a one gallon bucket with a cup every day (equal to 6 oz.) if there are massive holes in the bottom that let out 12 oz. in the same time! 

Thus, the worker-to -beneficiary ratio is also a red herring meant to deflect attention from the REAL problem which is the yearly raids on monies received from payroll taxes and intended to go to future beneficiaries! So long as these raids continue unabated, NO solution or "re-tooling" of the program will work, not raising payroll taxes, not making cuts, NOTHING!  The raiding has to stop first.
Add in expanding the wages covered by the payroll tax, targeted cuts to the bloated defense budget and Social Security can be expanded.

Will the Reepos pull their heads out of their asses on this issue? No way! No more than Jeb  is capable of pulling his head out of his Bush ass on who is responsible for the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Obama for pulling out, as he claims? FUCK NO! His stupid ass brother for barging in in the first place and ousting a totally secular regime that had kept the Muslim factions (Shia and Sunni) at bay!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/63439/80-years-later-republicans-are-still-fighting-social-security


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

Kathleen Parker Tries To Turn Bernie Sanders Into the "Boogeyman"

In her most recent column, center-Right bloviator Kathleen Parker wrote:

"Sanders is a socialist running on a platform that should send shivers up the spines of most Americans"

She then went on to reference "the anti-establishment candidate's big crowds" and avers Sanders' platform to redistribute wealth "makes Obama look like a robber baron". But look, no sensible person ever believed Obama to be anything but a Neoliberal. His positions and policies  certainly don't pass the smell test for being a real socialist - democratic or other.

Thus she blows it trying to turn Bernie into the boogeyman, especially because most Americans, while they may react like arachnophobes at the word "socialist",  actually line up favorably with most of Bernie's proposals. Don't believe me? Let's consider the following:

Health Care For All:

 

Sanders is critical of Obama's Affordable Care Act, arguing that it doesn’t go far enough and calling for a “Medicare-for-all” single-payer healthcare plan, similar to programs in most developed democratic nations.As he puts it:

“We are the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people as a right and yet we end up spending much more than they do. So I do believe that we have to move toward a Medicare for all, single-payer system,”

The idea is extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in support according to a January 2015 poll by the Progressive Change Institute. The poll also found that a majority of Americans overall supported a Medicare-for-all insurance option.

Taxing The Rich:

 

Sanders called the “massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent” in America “obscene” and has called for a return to a much higher marginal tax rate. “If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top tenth of 1 percent, you’ve got to transfer that back” Sanders told CNBC.
 

Sixty-four percent of Americans say they are bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations aren’t paying what’s fair in federal taxes, and 61 percent say the same about some wealthy people, according to a recent Pew poll. Meanwhile, 67 percent of Americans recently told Gallup they were dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S.

Tuition-Free College :
 

Sanders has proposed the College for All Act, a plan to provide free education at public colleges funded by a small tax on Wall Street transactions. Sixty-three percent of respondents supported a similar proposal from President Obama earlier this year, including 47 percent of Republicans.

Sanders' position is also backed up by a recent Gallup poll that found, the burden of college tuition is crushing for many American households. Seventy-three percent of parents of children younger than 18 said they are either “very worried” or “moderately worried” about how to fund college for their children. That is more than the 70 percent of lower-income Americans who worry about having enough money to pay for medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident

Campaign Finance Reform:

Sanders is running forcefully against money in politics and his campaign has shunned super PAC support funded by undisclosed billionaires.

According to polls, Americans are most in sync with Sen. Sanders on this issue. A New York Times poll released this month found that “Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, agree that money has too much influence on elections, the wealthy have more influence on elections, and candidates who win office promote policies that help their donors.”
 

Eighty-four percent of respondents said money has too great an influence on political campaigns.

Sixty-six percent agreed that the wealthy have the most influence. And seventy-seven percent want to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

Clearly Kathleen Parker either ignores key opinion polls on what Americans favor, or she is determined to scare the bejeezus out of people using the "socialist" scare word the way parents of old used to invoke the "boogeyman"

Claire McCaskill: "Bernie Sanders Is Too Extreme" - She's Another Neolib Traitor Dem

Claire McCaskil's brain dead,  dopey face after being called out by Mark Halperin when she asserted Bernie Sanders is "too extreme for Americans."  Maybe for pro-corporate Democrats like Claire McCaskill who prefer to see a stronger Corporatocracy!

I had Sen. Claire McCaskill pegged correctly as a Neoliberal, corporate Democrat when I wrote in an April 30, 2011 post:

"Another traitor Dem is none other than Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (much like one of her predecessors, Sen. Carnahan in 2001 - who voted for the original deficit creating Bush tax cuts) who now wants to join up with Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee in a pie-eyed, cock-eyed, half-baked scheme to "save $7.6 trillion over 10 years." How? By capping federal spending at 20.6 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. That’s down from 24.3 percent now. And that's despite an expected increase in population of more than 15%. What the hell is she drinking?"

Of course, such capping would have meant mainly the poor - on programs like Medicaid and food stamps-  would suffer,  along with seniors on Medicare and Social Security. Meanwhile - as history has shown, MCCaskill has had no problem protecting the original Bush tax cuts, and protecting defense spending.

I write this because this morning it would have been no surprise for many when on 'Morning Joe', she slimed Bernie Sanders and the giant, energized crowds he was getting - insisting his platform was "too extreme" and he wasn't being subjected by the media to the same standard as Hillary. Including being tagged as a "socialist".

Maybe Claire has lost the ability to read, or perhaps she's got one blind eye, but I've seen at least ten articles or columns in the past month on Sanders' socialism - mainly written by right wing media imps like George Will. But this "unequal" treatment narrative fits in with McCaskill's shtick of protecting and exalting a pro-corporate, Wall Street -backed candidate.

She did concede that Bernie Sanders "has a message that is touching people's frustrations" and that she "totally gets that" - but "so does Hillary Clinton".   Of course, but in all the examples Claire gave it was only after her being pushed to the left once Bernie entered the race and began climbing in the polls (in one NH poll coming within pts. of Hillary). So she's being too clever by half and disingenuous.

The fact Claire wouldn't admit on air is that Hillary is being backed by Wall Street money and tons of it shows her dishonesty. But then as a pro-corporate Dem there'd be no reason for her to broach this on national TV.

Mark Halperin then challenged McCaskill to name three ways that Bernie Sanders' political message and platform was too extreme. After babbling for a bit, and then trying to dodge it ("why don't you name them?") she finally barfed up the following:

- "He would like to see  Medicare for all in this country and let everyone have a government insurance policy. "

Oh yeah, terrible! Horrible! Fuckin' awful! Imagine, each citizen being covered by a program already embraced by seniors which has the lowest administration fees compared to private insurance. And.  having it as opposed to a program (Obamacare) which allows the insurance companies to all take their cuts, jack up premiums whenever they want and forces people to pay into it even if they can't afford it.

And she's also dead wrong when she claimed "I don't think Americans want government to have every insurance policy" - because they DO - in poll after poll - when the alternative is only private medical insurance or some hybrid like Obamacare.  But again, what do you expect from a corporate Dem?

She went on:

- "He would like to see expansion of entitlement (Social Security)"

Again, god forbid seniors get expanded Social Security though I already showed there are ample justifications for it, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

She added in connection with this, "he is not worried about debt at all" which is false. Because on multiple occasions Bernie has made it clear the social benefits he wants expanded can be paid for by decreasing the out of control military spending which already exceeds the total of the next 22 nations combined. 

- "Somebody who I think is frankly against trade"

Again, wrong! Bernie is not against trade, but rather against unbalanced trade agreements (with almost all  benefits to Wall Street & corporations) and  concealed trade pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership  (TPP) which also enable corporate- multinational hegemony over national democratic decisions. I touched on many of the negative aspects here:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Readers who want to see more can check these links:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/62790/killing-a-nation-with-euphemisms-tpp-eats-medicare-edition


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership

Make no mistake McCaskill has merely disclosed her true colors, as anti-Middle class, and pro-Wall Street. What do we know about the TPP? We know, according to Public Citizen,  that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We also  know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. (An excellent reason for Claire to be against  Bernie's "Medicare for All".)

We also  know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

All this is even more germane now that traitor, poseur Dems like McCaskill have voted for the fast track on TPP which now only the most valiant and ferocious opposition can upend. (Here are the D-senators who voted for Fast Track: http://1.usa.gov/1GtAdTH )

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin  - except that the Ds use lube before they fuck you over.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62810/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph


And:


http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/bernie_sanders_cornel_west_the_radical_alliance_that_could_change_everything/