Awaiting the Inevitable?

by William Skink

Bernie Sanders, Your Time’s Up:

Time’s up for Bernie Sanders as his chances of winning the Democratic nomination slip further and further away. It’s true. He’s done for.

Baloney! you say, Hillary could still be indicted for her salacious email scandal (possible, yet unlikely) and there are a bunch of primary states left that could rally behind the Sanders camp.

Sure, there are certainly delegates out there that are up for grabs, but it’s becoming quite clear they are Hillary’s to lose. Super Tuesday could well be the deciding factor with polls showing that she is killing Bernie in virtually every single state.

Of course, that’s not even mentioning the (undemocratic) Super Delegate allocation which, despite close contests thus far, puts Hillary up by over 430 delegates. Bernie has fought a good fight, but he’s toast. The Clintons are just too ruthless and the primary process too rigged in favor of the establishment. The worst thing about the whole ordeal is that Bernie’s vowed to back Hillary when she ends up becoming the nominee.

Hillary Clinton is Backed by Major Republican Donors:

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to any one of the 2016 campaigns of (listed here in declining order below Clinton) Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, or Jim Gilmore. Those major Romney donors also gave a little to two Democrats (other than to Hillary — who, as mentioned, received a lot of donations from these Republican donors): Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, and Lawrence Lessig. (Romney’s donors gave nothing to Bernie Sanders, and nothing to Elizabeth Warren. They don’t want either of those people to become President.)

Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors.

Get ready to hold your nose, Democrats.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Awaiting the Inevitable?

  1. Big Swede says:

    The Game of Thrones.

  2. JC says:

    Bring it on. The sooner either a Trump or Clinton take office, the sooner the whole mess can collapse and the next era can begin. The anthropocene will be but a flash… And what good is a “liberal” democrat-controlled SCOTUS when WWIII is raging, and tactical nukes are the preferred weapon of choice in the hands of a madman or madwoman?

    • Greg Strandberg says:

      I don’t like this kind of talk…the kind that says Bernie can’t make it. I’d rather bury my head in the sand and continue to hope that he’ll win. The point about him saying he’ll not challenge the nomination is spot on.

      In regards to the comment on “the sooner the whole mess can collapse and the next era can begin,” I think you’re also spot on.

      Many want this to happen. For them, the collapse has already occurred. I think for many it’s been going on a lot longer than 2008.

      Hillary’s message doesn’t appeal to them. Trump’s does, and even if he won’t follow through on what he says and doesn’t help them, at least many people are feeling like he could do something.

      With the other tired, corporate schills there’s none of that. It’ll be business as usual. To me, Hillary is the worst of the candidates out there, two-faced and sucking up to anyone that’ll give her a dime. We can expect more outsourcing, coddling banks, and everything else that is causing us as a nation to go down the memory hole.

      • Eric says:

        Here are what the ‘fixed’ numbers say – we’ve had one razor-thin Hillary win (Iowa), one Sanders landslide (New Hampshire), and one reasonably solid Hillary win (Nevada). Take a guess at what the delegate split is . . . (Play “Jeopardy” theme here.)

        “Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70; 2,383 are needed to win the nomination.”

        I picked this up at “Morning Jolt” – and if Bernie supporters think he’s being shafted, it’s because he is.

        • Greg Strandberg says:

          The current Super Delegate process really got underway in 1984, after “the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.”

          Not real Democratic. It does remind me of the process that existed before the 17th Amendment when we had our legislatures choose our representatives to Washington.

      • JC says:

        I’m not saying that Sanders couldn’t make it. I just believe that the fix is in to prevent him from making it at all costs. Here, read what Jon Ralston had to say:

        “The story of the Nevada caucuses is that a lame-duck senator [Harry Reid] and a self-neutered union conspired to revive the Clinton campaign in a remarkable bit of back room maneuvering…”

        For every Harry Reid in Nevada, there is another dem apparatchik ready to swing the contest however possible. Clinton seems to be a lock at this point, not because of any fair democratic electoral process –or the unworthiness of Sanders — but because the playing field has effectively been altered to favor the oligarchs’ choice over the populist’s or the people’s.

  3. Eric says:

    I can’t prove it, but I believe The Great Leader made the decision NOT to have Hillary indicted the day of, or about the time, when Joe Biden was told he wasn’t running.

    It amazes me that the Dems were stuck with Hillary, in a country of 350 Million + population.

    I think though that Bernie makes a race of it, and does better than what the polls say, but as you said, correctly, the fix is in for whatever reason. I truly do not think she’s electable.

    • steve kelly says:

      After 2000, what part of rigged don’t people get? GWB lost the popular vote, lost Florida, and yet he served two terms. Anything is possible except a normal, free, open election.

  4. Has anyone looked into the possibility that Bernie is not what he claims to be?

    • Greg Strandberg says:

      I consider the comments on his lack of foreign policy to be telling. Is he just another puppet of the foreign corporate regime? When it comes to that foreign policy, it sure seems to be. He’s going to do just about the exact same as we are now, which is going in and toppling governments, especially if they switch off the petrol dollar.

      So it’s business as usual there.

    • Might add that the power of the office of president was stripped away decades ago, so that even if Bernie were sincere (he’s not), he could not begin to carry out a mandate. A large organized grassroots movement might achieve some positive change, but rallying around a political candidate is hardly anything like that.

      SK put up a link last week that indicated that the author thought that Bernie was fronting for the Koch brothers, as Rockefellers are devastating the domestic oil industry by having Saudi Arabia flood the market with crude, driving the price down so that most domestic wells are losing money. It’s an old tactic, aimed primarily at Venezuela, Iran and Russia, but domestic competition gets taken down too, so it is win-win.

      That would explain why Bernie has any traction at all, as a a true progressive would not get notice in the polls, would not catch a wave, as media controls our impulses. But I don’t know the Koch connection to be true – I only know that in politics, candidates are always fronting for someone.

    • dpogreba says:

      You caught him. The “official” version of reality says that Sanders is only one year younger than John Lennon. I think you and I know what’s really going on here.

      • I have come to understand you quite well, Don. You’re a fake. The real you shines in the comments, not very smart, not well-read … I’ve read your “thoughts” on things like Libya and Syria. I don’t even think you can place those countries on the map, you’re that dumb. You don’t have enough depth to comment in an intelligent manner on anything, and so resort to snark and condescension. That’s how I figured out you’re not the writer at ID. Even though the pieces are just Democrat vs Republican shop,talk, they are well-written, beyond your capability.

        Some time, Don, express an opinion that puts you at odds with people around you, one that is not groupthink. Make a wave, show some gravitas. Do you have it in you? Do ya, punk?

        • It’s quite a badge of honor to be called dumb by someone who believes that the mass shootings in Paris and California were staged black ops events. If you were ever to offer a compliment about something I had written or said, it would be profoundly disturbing.

          Keep at cracking these cold cases, Mulder. I’m sure the surviving Beatles are desperate for you to solve the mystery of John Lennon’s fake death and that the grieving families of tragedies are comforted to know someone with your intellect is investigating the truth. If only the rest of us had your powers of discernment.


        • I get that quite a bit from the likes of you. It’s an interesting spectacle to observe, as you have no evidence on which to base your views, only faith in authority figures. That’s no way to live. Of course it’s easy, hence the appeal for,you, not to have to think or examine evidence, but only believe.

          The Lennon evidence, for instance, is complex, the reasons behind the fake death having to do with the origins of the Beatles themselves and business affairs and ownership of music and his public persona being fake, like yours. I don’t think you’d be able to process it all with that blazing 92 IQ of yours. You’d have to read and process lots of data and focus. The faking of public events goes back in history – way back – to things like the Gunpowder Plot, the Maine, Reischtag, Tonkin, 9/11, various public deaths and events needed to keep public tension high and to start wars – all above your pay grade, teacher. Gotta keep the kids dumbed down, you know.

          I was raised in a religious family, so I understand the makeup of the religious mind, and how faith takes the place of reason. You don’t actually know anythng. You just allow your beliefs to fall into your lap unexamined, like most everyone. Nothing special about you.

  5. Steve W says:

    Here’s one of those naive Democrats who are in for a big surprise, apparently.

    • Steve! You’re not the man I thought you were.

    • Steve W says:

      And yet another clueless rube. Wait ’til she finds out!!!!

      • I get it, Steve. It reminds me of me in 2008 when I placed my hopes in Obama. I understand the feelings underlying your words. But I’ve learned a lot in seven years, one of which is that there is no connection between the words of politicians and the deeds. None.

        • slinky438 says:

          “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

          Nice to know you’re at least as smart as GW Bush.

        • Your comment reminded me that Democrats seek only two things: moral and intellectual superiority. The means to that end is victory in election contests. You were given George W. Bush, a cardboard cutout president (just like Obama), to satisfy your needs and keep your head in the game.

          Politics is a very sophisticated psychological scam, and it takes savvy to wind your way through it and figure out what is real. Start today!

  6. Steve W says:

    Look Mark, Winona has more Cred in her little finger than you have in all the digital whatever that you have written in your whole life. Although I have enjoyed your travel logues.

    You and I certainly agree on some things while we disagree on other things. Such is life.
    Sorry if your fantasy was dashed on the rocks of Winona’s better politics.

    It’s me and Winona against you and Chris Mathews. I can live with that.

    • No matter your judgement of people and candidates, on which we do not see eye to eye, it is of no consequence if the voting system is rigged. There is no reason to believe that any voted is counted except in those few places where they still use paper ballots. There is no audit system in place to assure us that elections are honest, which makes voting an act of faith.

      • Steve W says:

        Cynicism is often expressed as an excuse to not take action. You are in the plurality, that’s for sure.

        There is far more happening than simply people showing up at their caucus or polling place. The fact you and the press are missing most of it, have missed most of it and apparently will continue to miss most of it is an interesting phenomena in and of itself.

        I guess people will continue to underestimate Sanders and that’s probably one of his most potent tools. That and the fact Sanders is a man of his word. It’s politically a very potent weapon. I certainly appreciate that he thinks about what he’s going to say and he says what he believes. I also appreciate that he knows what he believes and why he believes what he believes.

        Sanders helped create and represents a renaissance in organizing, something LaDuke knows something about.

        • I want to know why a CPA who understands auditing and accountability and who expresses the opinion that our voting system is not reliable or accountable is a “cynic.” Am I just to drop everything and be a believer even knowing what I know? The 1948 election was stolen, as was 1960, but since 2000 we have no idea how anyone voted for real. There is no way of knowing. We have no paper record of the vote, only computer readouts that cannot be traced back to actual people. That makes vote counts unauditable and unverifiable.

          An interesting book on the subject (Votescam) was written in 1992 by James and Kenneth Collier about Florida vote fraud in the 1970s. At that time they encountered the CIA at work as they realized that the vote in Dade County was completely fictitious, flashed on TV screens even before the machines had been tallied. They had an attorney and ran into a dead end when the attorney met with a state official, a woman named Janet Reno, who scared the shit out of him. He refused to work for them again.

          They have always been able to steal an election here and there using mobsters and political machines like Tammany Hall, but since 2000 the stealing is systematic and can be done at will. I am not a cynic. I study this stuff. Our elections cannot be verified and can be swung any way at will.

          Anyway, you’re so bought in to Bernie that I fell I am talking to a true believer – a politician no less!

  7. I sure hope one of the moderators will step in to scold Mark for his personal attacks. My IQ is at least 93.

Leave a Reply