This post was published at Jason Goodman
This post was published at Jason Goodman
Not only is Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator and former contender for the Democratic nomination, the most popular politician in America, but according to one recent poll, he’s seen as the most likely candidate to win the Democratic nomination to take on Trump in 2020.
Since Hillary Clinton’s defeat, no clear leader has emerged to guide the Democratic party, which means the primary for the 2020 race will probably be hotly contested.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Fri, 12/29/2017 –.
While the Fake News loves to talk about my so-called low approval rating, @foxandfriends just showed that my rating on Dec. 28, 2017, was approximately the same as President Obama on Dec. 28, 2009, which was 47%…and this despite massive negative Trump coverage & Russia hoax!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017
As the Right continues to blast clear signs of FBI bias among various/most members of Mueller’s team (see here, here and here for just a few examples), the Left continues to simply ignore all signs of impropriety and instead threaten a “constitutional crisis” should Mueller be relieved of his duty.
Of course, while Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer love to appear on CNN and MSNBC to talk about Trump firing Mueller (it’s a great way to fire up their base after all), such a plan, at least if you believe the constant reassurances from the White House, continues to be nothing more than a figment of the Left’s imagination. In fact, sitting down with the New York Timesyesterday evening, Trump once again said he “thinks [Mueller] is going to be fair” but reiterated that the “Russia hoax” continues to “make the country look very bad.”
President Trump said Thursday that he believes Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, will treat him fairly, contradicting some members of his party who have waged a weekslong campaign to try to discredit Mr. Mueller and the continuing inquiry.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on 12/29/2017 –.
“Another example of giving the game away in few words came two nights ago when the liberal-elitist ‘Inside Elections’ political analyst Stuart Rothenburg spoke on the PBS NewsHour. ‘The Democrats as a party’ Rothenburg told NewsHour host and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Judy Woodruff, ‘are divided between the Bernie Sanders wing and Hillary Clinton wing, the pragmatists and ideologues.’
For Rothenburg, the Clinton wing members are the ‘pragmatists,’ the realistic adults who want to ‘get things done’ (one of the great neoliberal president Obama’s favorite phrases and claims). The Sanders folks are ‘ideologues,’ a pejorative term meaning people who are mainly about ideology and who are carried away by their own flighty and doctrinal world view.
This was a slap (an ideological one I might add) at the more progressive and social-democratic faction of the Democratic Party – a blow masquerading as ‘objective’ and detached political analysis.”
Paul Street, Giving the Game Away
If you watch this relatively short video much of what has been puzzling you about the failure of our political system will be made clearer.
Franklin Roosevelt could work tirelessly for the common person because he was already comfortable in his own skin with regard to his own social status, and more importantly, as a result of his long term paralysis he knew how little that it really meant. As suffering sometimes does, it introduces compassion and empathy even among the upper crust.
This post was published at Jesses Crossroads Cafe on 12 NOVEMBER 2017.
As we have mentioned before in writings here at Viral Liberty, to understand liberals and progressives all one has to do is realize that their entire foundation is built on projection. And by this we mean that when they call someone a racist, sexist, or bigot, all they are doing is trying to project their own guilt and actions onto someone else.
Ie… the recent revelations of Hollywood celebrities being busted for sexual harassment and pedophilia after accusing others of this for years.
Yet with this being said, projection is not just limited to individuals. In fact ever since Donald Trump won the Presidential election last November, liberals, the media, and government officials have been trying to project their own failed election rigging schemes on Vladimir Putin and Russia in order to mask the fact that they were the ones who committed the fraud of election tampering.
CNN asked Senator Elizabeth Warren if Mrs Clinton’s contest against Democratic rival Bernie Sanders was rigged, and she said: ‘Yes.’
The ongoing WikiLeaks dump of a top Hillary Clinton lieutenant’s emails is shining a light on the cozy and often improper relationship key members of the press had with the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign.
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on NOVEMBER 11, 2017.
Donna Brazile’s shocking revelations about how the Clinton campaign rigged the 2016 primary to favor Hillary and disadvantage the insurgent press of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have exposed a divide in the Democratic Party that is manifesting itself in the stark difference in tone between establishment figures, who’ve crticized Brazile and sought to rebut her claims, and members of the party’s progressive wing, who’ve offered messages of support.
Nowhere is this contrast more evident than in the responses from Tom Perez, who took over from Brazile as permanent DNC Chairman late last year, and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who had challenged Perez’s bid for the chairmanship of the party.
As USA Today pointed out, at issue are the joint funding agreements signed by the presidential campaigns for Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, which allowed whoever won the nomination to take control of the party. Perez explained in a statement that the joint fundraising agreements were the same for both Clinton and Sanders.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 5, 2017.
As it turns out, Donna Brazile’s accusations about the Clinton campaign – contained in several excerpts from her upcoming book that somehow found their way into the hands of reporters at Politico and the Washington Post – are also Vladimir Putin’s fault.
In a letter signed by more than 100 Clinton campaign staffers that was published late Saturday, two days after Brazile exposed in her first bombshell how the Clinton campaign tilted the Democratic primary in its candidate’s favor by essentially seizing control of the Democratic Party purse, and using her influence to set strategy and spending priorities that favored the Clinton campaign over Hillary’s insurgent (and far more popular) rival, Bernie Sanders.
Then, in a summary of some of the book’s most incendiary claims, the Washington Post revealed that, in the wake of Wikileaks’ dump of emails stolen from DNC servers – emails that exposed, among other things, that Brazile herself had shared town hall topics and debate questions with the Clinton campaign – Brazile feared for her life after DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in what the police described as a robbery, but many have suspect could’ve been a plot to punish Rich for leaking the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Brazile also revealed that she considered using emergency powers to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine with Joe Biden and Corey Booker, after Clinton’s bout with pneumonia gave Brazile serious reservations about the candidate’s health.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 5, 2017.
Authored by Donna Brazille, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, originally published in Politico.
“When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.”
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
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.
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party – she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 2, 2017.
Yesterday, the New York Times ran an error-filled article on the indictment of Trump adviser George Papadopoulos that seemed intent on cementing the notion that Russia hacked thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and then offered those hacked emails to the Trump campaign to smear dirt on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. The problem was that the actual Federal indictment unsealed on Monday against Papadopoulos made no such claim regarding emails hacked at the Democratic National Committee. Where the thousands of emails referenced by the Russians actually came from was not spelled out in the indictment. They could have just as easily been emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s unsecure server in the basement of her home during her time as Secretary of State.
Instead of correcting its own erroneous reporting, today’s New York Times is blasting Rubert Murdoch’s media empire and other conservative media outlets for creating a false narrative that casts a taint on the Russia probe. The digital front page of the New York Times carries an editorial headlined, ‘That Crazy Talk About Robert Mueller,’ writing that among Republicans there is a ‘fog of propaganda and delirious conspiracy theories’ despite what they call Mueller’s ‘precise, methodical work.’ The agenda, they believe, is to continually cast Hillary Clinton as ‘Public Enemy No. 1.’
But Hillary Clinton actually is Public Enemy No. 1 to millions of Americans on both sides of the political aisle. Supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders have filed a Federal class action lawsuit (now on appeal) with strong evidentiary support to show that the Clinton campaign and the DNC conspired to undermine Sanders’ campaign – in direct violation of the DNC Charter which mandates fairness to all primary challengers.
This post was published at Wall Street On Parade on November 1, 2017.
Last evening, the Washington Post dropped a bombshell on the already discredited leadership of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The Post reported that Marc Elias, a law partner at the politically connected law firm Perkins Coie, retained the company, Fusion GPS, that compiled the infamous Russian Dossier on Donald Trump. The Post said he did so on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. (The current leadership of the DNC has stated that it had no knowledge of these actions.)
After the Washington Post story broke, New York Times reporters Ken Vogel and Maggie Haberman Tweeted that they had been lied to by those involved. Haberman Tweeted: ‘Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.’ Vogel Tweeted: ‘When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.”
Elias is also the lawyer defending the class action lawsuit filed last year by Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The amended complaint indicates that more than 1,000 individuals have signed retainer agreements to serve as class representatives.
Emails leaked by Wikileaks in July of 2016 show Wasserman Schultz referring to Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, as ‘an ass,’ ‘particularly scummy’ and a ‘damn liar’ as her staff conspired in emails to characterize Sanders as an atheist and his campaign a ‘mess.’ (Sanders has stated that he is not an atheist.) As these anti-Sanders emails were flying about, the DNC set up a joint fundraising account with Hillary Clinton, effectively functioning as if Clinton had no primary challenger, despite the fact that Sanders’ rallies had thousands of supporters while Clinton’s were embarrassingly small in contrast.
This post was published at Wall Street On Parade on October 25, 2017.
Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed not to notice a video playing in the main entrance. The world’s third biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.
It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is now led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different and is rare in British establishment politics.
Addressing the Labour conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein described the rise of Corbyn as ‘part of a global phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign in the US primaries, powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future.’
In fact, at the end of the US primary elections last year, Sanders led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal warmonger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.
This post was published at 21st Century Wire on OCTOBER 7, 2017.
Recently, Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled a single-payer healthcare plan called ‘Medicare for All.’ Sanders titled his approach for nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy as ‘Medicare for All’ in order to offer a template for his vision of the U. S. healthcare system. Unfortunately, using Medicare as the template for the nation’s healthcare system is a little like using the production model for the Lada, the ‘people’s car’ of the former Soviet Union, as the blue-print for the U. S. auto industry.
The ‘Medicare for All’ proposal would transition millions of Americans to a Medicare-style system over the course of four short years, all the while promising to expand benefits, eliminate deductibles, and cut costs. If that sounds too good to be true, it is. The assumption that Medicare can be a long-term, sustainable model capable of absorbing quadruple the number of current enrollees is flawed from the start.
Medicare covers approximately 57 million Americans and is projected to cost nearly $700 billion this year. Revenue for the Medicare trust fund is generated via beneficiary premiums, which Sanders wants to eliminate, and general tax revenue, which he wants to increase. According to the 2016 Medicare Trustees Report, the Medicare trust fund faces a ‘substantial financial shortfall.’ In fact, the report forecasts that within 12 years the trust fund will be depleted unless further legislation is enacted. Sanders’s proposal would place a significant burden on an already financially shaky system.
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on October 30, 2017.
According to Bernie Sanders, Saudi Arabia has ‘funded terrorism’ around the world and is ‘not an ally of the United States.’
The United States has long considered Saudi Arabia to be a loyal friend, supporter, and partner in the so-called war on terror.
Sanders issued a scathing denunciation of the Gulf kingdom, which has recently embarked on a new round of domestic repression.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 22, 2017.
Hillary Clinton’s delusions continue. It’s been almost a year since the election, and now Hillary’s blaming married women who voted for Donald Trump for her loss to the president back in November.
Still unwilling to take any responsibility for her loss to Donald Trump, Hillary continues to play the blame game. So far, she’s blamed everyone from her most trusted advisor, Huma Abedin, to the infamous socialist and fellow democrat Bernie Sanders, for the disastrous campaign and ridiculous ideas she championed last year. But she doesn’t stop there anymore. Now it’s the fault of married women who voted for Donald Trump.
According to the Daily Wire, the quintessential modern feminist Clinton says women were too scared to stand up to their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers, who told them to vote Republican, and since, clearly, women have no agency or ability to think for themselves, they listened. Of course, that’s according to Hillary. But she blamed socialist women as well. Clinton made the outrageous claims in an interview with NPR, where she also blamed the so-called ‘Bernie Bros’ for bullying Democratic women into avoiding the more moderate Clinton in favor of the socialist, Bernie Sanders.
‘You yourself in the book acknowledge that a good number of young women didn’t vote for you, which is presumably not a sexist choice. They just weren’t inspired by your message,’ NPR’s Rachel Martin said during an interview with Clinton, out to promote her litany of excuses…er…recently released book, What Happened. ‘I think it’s a lot more complicated than that,’ Clinton answered. ‘I did win the women’s vote. I didn’t win the vote of white women, but I got more white women votes than Barack Obama did,’ she said.
‘Women will have no empathy for you because they will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women – they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers, and husbands, and boyfriends and male employers, not to vote for ‘the girl,” she said. -Daily Wire
This post was published at shtfplan on September 18th, 2017.
So someone has ghost-written another Hillary Clinton memoir. My biggest question when I picked it up was: Did Hillary stiff the writer out of the final payment as she did Barbara Feinman, the real author of It Takes a Village?
You don’t have to read any further than the cover of the book to answer the question posed by its title: What Happened: Hillary Clinton. Glutton for punishment, I took a masochistic dive into its dark pages anyway.
It soon became apparent that Hillary shouldn’t have treated Feinman so churlishly. What Happened would have greatly benefited from her stylistic enhancements. The prose in this book is as brittle as the mind behind it. Notice the lack of a question mark in the title. This is a telling punctuational elision. It signals that this text will not be an investigation into the dynamics behind the most perplexing election in American history. Don’t skim these pages in search of a self-lacerating confession or an apologia. What Happened reads more like a drive-by shooting rampage. The book is a score-settling scattershot rant, enfilading anyone who stood in Clinton’s way, from Bernie Sanders to James Comey. Amid Hillary’s hitlist of villains, even toothless Joe Biden gets gut-shot.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 16, 2017.