Bernie Sanders is A Demagogue and Rosario Dawson is a Moron

Since abandoning The Site Formerly Known as Circling the Bases, I must confess to missing some of the political argumentation for which that blog was better known than its baseball commentary. In my anti-essentialist way, I miss peeing from a great height on some of the idiotic comments offered by its stable of decerebrated knuckledraggers – not the decerebrated knuckledraggers themselves, mind you, but of their coprolitic discourses, since the discourses were modular, canned, and preceded them. Ergo, soggy with nostalgia, I offer the following observations on the current Democratic primary season (since the Reslugnican primary season only concerns me the same way the spread of Zika virus does).

Now then, I have much enjoyed watching Bernie Sanders, the self-conceived renegade independent US Senator from maple syrup country, trying to paint Hillary Clinton as a right wing corporatist while, at the same time, the Reslugnican right and the bunions at Faux News try to paint her as a dangerous radical standing somewhere to the left of Trotsky. It’s all very amusing. I am never surprised to observe right wingers dumb enough to swallow that misrepresentation. There’s an old saying with which I heartily agree: not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. Gross oversimplification of complex issues, rampant scapegoating, infantile religiosity and willful, anti-scientific ignorance are, after all, the hallmarks of reactionary politics.

However I must admit that, standing slightly to the left of Trotsky myself, it disturbs me to see as many young left wingers buying into Comrade Bernie’s distortions and failing to comprehend that he’s indulging in the same kind of gutter level scapegoating one would ordinarily expect from a red state politico. He gets away with it, though, because the targets he scapegoats are easy not to like in the first place: big banks, investment bankers and a highly complex, dynamic, ackcherley indefinable ethos he calls “Wall Street.” These may be invidious icons to the left but, in reality, Bernie isn’t treating them any differently, or with any more integrity, than cracker ignoramouses [sic] treat an LGBT who needs to take a leak. He’s got this entire sprawl of interrelated business modes that crosses virtually all social strata, cultural barriers and international boundaries stigmatized with that quintessentially paranoid label, “the one percent.” Never mind that, apparently unbeknownst to Bernie, the world of corporate finance and production employs, and cannot exist without, literally millions of factotums drawn from the lower ninety-nine, I would submit that if there are elements of this gigantic and chameleonic financial dynamo that need to be brought under control, the best way not to be able to do it is to homogenize your subject to the point that its working parts become indistinguishable from each other.

Now, Bernie is offended that his far more pragmatic rival for the Democratic nomination receives big speaker’s fees from “Wall Street” and its satellite modules. I suppose it hasn’t occurred to him that a former First Lady, United States Senator from the financially Brobdingnagian state of New York (in which capacity she would have been incredibly irresponsible not to have forged a working relationship with our largest economic movers and shakers), former Secretary of State, not to mention longtime partner-attorney for one of the largest corporate  law firms in the Midwest, and habitue of the highest citadels of world power might have earned her pay scale,  unlike, say, what might be offered to an unaffiliated U S Senator from a small mountain state whose primary exports are maple syrup and black flies.  And Bernie has yet to explain how breaking up large banks into small banks incapable of providing the magnitude of credit major manufacturing expansion requires will motivate the economy.

But that’s just part of Bernie’s sideshow. His shameless pandering to the “victims” of any number of international trade agreements demonstrate his cluelessness when it comes to the rise of industrialization in the former “third world.” He seems oblivious to the fact that rescinding those agreements would (a) destroy US credibility, (b) initiate trade wars that would extinguish markets worldwide for US made goods and thereby (c) result in the not too long term in massive unemployment that would vitiate any of Sanders’ fantasy gains in job creation from closing our borders to, say, Mexican-made automobiles. That, and I have to ask the demagogue from Vermont what kind of self-described “socialist” could be so totally oblivious to the needs of the underpaid and exploited workers of other nations whose jobs – a colossal improvement on what their parents made, despite how relatively meager their pays scales might be – his policies would eradicate in an augenblick. The answer is, a true leftist couldn’t and wouldn’t ignore this part of the problem. That’s what you get when you peddle feel-good panaceas for complicated issues.

Moreover, Bernie, this is, in case you haven’t noticed, a centrist-to-center conservative majority country. The heartland was never going to send you a congress you could have worked with if they thought your ravings about “revolution” – a word you have stupidly deployed that’s guaranteed to panic a middle America that wants stability, not another economic zombie apocalypse – would have the slightest chance of getting you elected by big eastern and west coast urban populations. They would simply respond by sending you two more congressional houses full of drooling, burping, lurching right wing knuckledraggers (not unlike the current two houses) who would spend the next four years binding and gagging you to make the reception they gave Obama look like a greased sluice.

This is all moot, though. Bernie isn’t going anyplace except back to Burlington to swat deer flies all summer. I’m just concerned that the American left, which has bought into Sanders’ demagogic pandering, is going to be gulled down a primrose path that leads to its continued marginalization and leaves it bereft of practical mixed-market socialist solutions to some of the big problems that ail us. You don’t have to break up the banks to do it. You need to control them, yes, but to control them you need ackcherley to comprehend how they operate and how badly a multinational economy needs them to cooperate and create. You need to partner with them, even if without their enthusiasm. It’s do-able. But Bernie doesn’t understand doodly squat about any of that. Handing him the economy would be like handing a nine year old the keys to his daddy’s stripmining steamshovel.

Now, as to that loudmouthed imbecile and hypocrite Rosario Dawson: attacking Hillary with Monica Lewinsky? Really? What we have here is a dimwitted misogynist masquerading as a feminist, kinda like one of those tropical mantises decked out like foliage. Go home and shut up.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders is A Demagogue and Rosario Dawson is a Moron

  1. What we have here is a dimwitted misogynist masquerading as a feminist, kinda like one of those tropical mantises decked out like foliage

    Liked by 1 person

    • Just an objective observer who watched a so-called “feminist” bring up a completely irrelevant abuse of marital trust that wasn’t even her target’s doing in the first place. Yep, I judge. It was a lowlife move. If Sanders had left any of the integrity he demonstrated earlier in the campaign, he would have disavowed her disgusting, hypocritical remark and told her he would prefer some other spokespeople.

      Like

      • Only in your mind are you an “objective observer” with this piece. But my comment served it’s purpose. You’ve said some awful shit on this blog about women. You’re the last one here to call out another person for their “misogyny”.

        Liked by 1 person

        • What, for example?

          Apparently you think it’s OK for Dawson to utter a degrading comment about Hillary Clinton having nothing to do with policy, issues in the campaign, economics or anything else material, meant only to be humiliating and personally hurtful, and then strike some sanctimonious pose viz me? Glad you think you’ve served some righteous purpose. All you’ve done is skirted the issue at hand to make an empty personal attack on another blogger. No wonder you sprang to Dawson’s defense, however obliquely. You’re both alike, speaking of pot and kettle.

          Like

        • How am I defending Dawson when that’s the first time I’ve written her name? I don’t give a shit what she said. However, the last person someone defending Clinton should remark is how a “supporter” should watch what they say considering the stuff out of both her and her husband’s mouths. Maybe that’s in your next piece. I won’t hold my breath.

          Liked by 1 person

        • You defended Dawson by implying, via your leaden cliche about pots and kettles, that her comment about Monica Lewinsky was not misogynistic and/or that my assessment of her comment was somehow invalid, based not on the comment itself but on some conveniently unspecified misogynistic comments of my own.

          And how, meanwhile, am I defending Clinton? You’ve got your logic tied up in knots tonight. This post was a critique of Sanders and a specific irrelevant gutter level comment made by one of his more noxious supporters. You’re the one who turned it personal instead of responding to the issue at hand, and now you’re all over the place trying to justify your irrelevance to the substance of the discussion. Since I haven’t mentioned them at all in connection with Dawson’s jape, you ackcherley haven’t got a clue what I think about any of the Clinton’s comments, and you in turn haven’t provided any specifics (again) regarding whichever comments you mean. So, it’s probably much better for your metabolism if you don’t hold your breath.

          Like

        • How are you defending Clinton? Shamelessly and with lots of bombastic rhetoric. AKA your signature style. People like you, who defend someone who kisses the Reagan’s fucking asses for their leadership on AIDS research and sucks that war criminal Kissinger’s ass is calling out who’s a real leftist? You’re deranged. People like you are making it hard as hell to do what’s right for the country in November, but I will anyway.

          Like

        • There’s bombastic rhetoric (for example, “People like you, who defend someone who kisses the Reagan’s fucking asses for their leadership on AIDS research and sucks that war criminal Kissinger’s ass” – I’d be embarrassed by such lame hypocrisy), and there’s totally unfocused nonsense. Criticizing Sanders’ distortions and crackpot economics isn’t the same as defending Clinton, which your little seizure just now still didn’t explain in any meaningful way. I made some points. You, like your predecessor in this discussion, didn’t respond to them but instead got personal too, while calling me “deranged” (also kinda bombastic) without bothering to be in any way specific about how or why. All I can do is guess that you mean a “real” leftist should ignore the working conditions of all laborers who might be affected by his policies, and just focus on making empty promises to the ones he thinks make up his constituency? If you can’t stay on point, why even bother to involve yourself here?

          Like

        • I’m no misogynist. #ImWithHer? I was with Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Jill Stein in 2012, but not because they’re women, but because they were Green Party presidential nominees.

          I vote for ideas first, individuals second, and tribalism is way in the back.

          Like

    • Damned shame. And he just picked hisself a running mate, too. Carly Fiorina becomes the kind of cocktail party joke that won’t exactly do her political delusions much good: who was the shortest lived vice presidential running mate in American history?

      Meanwhile, Sanders won Indiana by six points or so, which means that when the superdelegates are allocated it’ll be a wash and he’ll be just as far behind Hillary as he was this morning. This, of course, didn’t keep him from trumpeting his “victory.” It may well be that his lack of facility with economics in general stems from a more fundamental lack of facility with arithmetic per se.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cruz is a zealot. Trump is a Con Artist. You can deal with a con artist, you can’t deal with a Zealot. For me he was the real dangerous nut job running for President. Trump to me is meh. Sanders is also meh. Neither one as President would be able to deliver even a 10th of what they have promised since I’m fairly certain they’d have to deal with hostile congress and senate.

        The only shame though is that if Cruz had tried to take away the nomination in open convention that automatically meant Trump running as a third option guaranteeing the final implosion of the GOP and the Republican Party. That would been awesome to behold. Now they should just change their letterhead and call it the Trump Party.

        Liked by 4 people

        • The convention is still going to be interessin’ though. Kasich has already tweeted that he’s not giving up and there’s still a chance of a third party conservative run. Sanders, to his credit, has disavowed an independent run. Even so, as Sheriff Bell noted in No Country for Old Men, if this ain’t a mess, it’ll do till a mess gets here.

          Meanwhile, the Republican Party as currently constituted is unsustainable in any case. As the downfall of The Boner demonstrated, when you heap that many cannibals together in one place, they’re bound to start eating their own children. Moderate Republicans are being branded leftists by the party’s burgeoning far right element, and even within that, Cruz was widely detested for his attitude and his treatment of his own colleagues. It’s probably more accurate to say that he was bounced out than that he bowed out. A rational candidate would have quit quite a few weeks ago.

          Like

        • Kasich is now out, too.

          Now the GOP gets to spend the next 4 years looking in a mirror and considering how the party has been so high jacked by one constituency that it has nominated someone for our highest office who appears completely unelectable.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I wouldn’t say unelectable. Remember, Trump was given absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination last year by the various pundits and media outlets. Trump can modify and change his stance to whatever suits him and convince people it’s a good idea. Whether it convinces enough people is an open question. But for a guy who came nearly out of nowhere to capture the Republican Presidential Nomination when his odds were supposed to be zero is it wise to write him off again in a casual hand wave?

          At least one particular guy is predicting a Trump landslide, non other than Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. He doesn’t support Trump (according to him) but he claims he’s fascinated by his skills at handling people and persuasion and that he hasn’t seen anyone better at it for a long, long time.

          Like

        • The difference is pundits were saying Trump
          couldn’t get nominated in the face of polls consistently showing him with the highest plurality of support among registered Republicans for the past 12 months. Simultaneously, he has consistently trailed Hillary Clinton by double digits in hypothetical one v. one polls.

          Without a significant shift in those polls, Pres. Hillary Clinton will be sworn in early next year after winning a not-very-close election.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Probably my favorite “Trump has no chance” pundit was our unlamented war criminal former CIC’s slack-jawed, beady-eyed smarter younger brother, ole’ Mr. Three Percent hisself, who said “Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee. Period.” Famous last words.

        Like

  2. Some thoughts are better kept to oneself. I know this–I am guilty of this myself.

    I support Hillary. The Sanders camp is not the enemy. Do not make the same mistake the other party is making.

    You are calling Dawson a mysogynist? A man who referred to women as “sluts” on this very blog? Really? Really. I have an uglier word for you. Hypocrite.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Fair enough, although if you will recall I was joking to make a wider point. Sometimes it’s not particularly self-enlightening to react reflexively to words out of context; George Carlin was right when he said “it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to piss off a feminist.” That and you’re the third person to come on here objecting to my comments about Dawson without bothering to address what she said about Hillary and Lewinsky in the first place, which was deliberately and maliciously intended to humiliate and degrade Hillary’s femininity and was, regardless of what you might think my attitude betokens, fundamentally misogynistic in a way that my snark didn’t even approach. So yes, I’m calling her a misogynist. Deal with it.

      I’m not trying to make Sanders out as an “enemy.” He’s injected a much needed frisson into the campaign but the discussions have been pretty much one sided, mainly because his “proposals,” such as they are, are empty, poorly considered and economically unworkable. This should be a matter of concern to every American leftist who has justifiably felt marginalized or ignored for the past sixteen years. The left isn’t going to reassert itself meaningfully by swooning over vapid slogans and unworkable proposals. It could learn a lot from the way Reslugnican think-tankers like Bill Kristol rebuilt the ideological format of American conservatism over a generation with a well planned network of think tanks, publications, articles and caucus events. While that was going on, the left was monotonously dismissing it all with politically correct snark instead of thoughtful responses, and here we all are now. There is a strong case to be made for a mixed-market socialist economy but he’s not making it in a meaningful way. Once the primaries are over and his novelty wears off, he will not have left any substantive ideological formats for whatever comes afterwards.

      Bernie started out campaigning with dignity and focus – I was very impressed with his refusal to be sucked into that stupid “email” issue during the first couple of debates, for example. Now, unfortunately, his campaign has mostly degenerated into personal attacks on Hillary and has been woefully short on substance. He reminds me a lot of Redford’s Bill McKay in The Candidate, gradually selling himself out to his own political advisers, succumbing to his own hype, and reducing his message to a repetition of platitudes. Sanders hasn’t had a new idea nor made a new proposal in months, which is probably just as well given what misfires his current assortment of snake oil turns out to be upon closer inspection. Where in our nineteen trillion dollar national debt is there room for “free” healthcare and “free” education? His ideas sound nice if you don’t think about them too much but once you do, their preposterousness jumps out at you. He’s become, instead, a kind of Sabbatai Zvi of the American left, a pied piper with a very short playlist. It’s too bad.

      He may (though I doubt it in the long run) think he can “push Hillary to the left,” but she is fully capable of paying him lip service to recover his supporters’ votes after he heads back to the milking barn in July and then just going on her own course afterwards.

      On the other hand, if Hillary wants to collect his supporters once the nomination is secure, she’s going to have to pay some closer attention to the issues of concern to the under-40 constituency even Sanders hasn’t addressed in any depth (not that he seems to have addressed anything else in any depth): the student loan debt crisis, in particular, threatens to choke off the spending power of two generations of young professionals. It’s destroying credit ratings as well as eating up disposable income. Health care, after that pig’s breakfast of Obamacare proved only partially adequate to the problem of health insurance and has done nothing to address the “Shkrelli effect” on healthcare costs, needs her attention. Bernie has grabbed that but she could easily grab it back by making more sense about it than he does. And she also would need to become proactive about her collaboration with the business community in a way that would also shove Bernie’s “Wall Street” shibboleth back down his throat.

      Right now she’s enduring his criticism silently, likely on the advice of her professional advisers. Maybe she thinks playing rope-a-dope will help her attract his supporters later on, but it’s making her look something between weak and complicit with nothing in particular. Also, let’s not forget that the Democrats’ professional advisers managed to “advise” Al Gore and John Kerry into electoral oblivion. Obama won with his own, separate, cadre of operatives. Now Hillary has gone back to the party pros for advice and insofar as it has dilated the primary campaign, it is costing her at the polls.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Dangarang Gator, that’s a big horse you are on. It is all moot so I won’t debate you. I will say that Bernie is doing the same as Obama did. The same as any other major candidate does. He speaks in grandiose terms and offers us the world. What he offers, to me, is better than any other candidate by a long shot. So let him pander. Let him politic. You accuse his supporters of being naïve but we are not, we just want a leader that will do at least 1/10th of the good things we wish for this country.

    With regard to Rosario Dawson…she’s hot and talented. Caring about her political views is not high priority for me so whateva.

    Like

    • Good advice vis-a-vis the political views of any celebrity, actor or other popular figure I can think of.

      I started to give a couple of examples, but decided what’s the point? As long as they can do their acting/musician/whatever thing I will be fine with them.

      Like

    • Obviously, I don’t think Bernie can deliver even 1/10th of what he promises. It’s all smoke and mirrors, his math just plain doesn’t work, and even in some fantasy universe where he manages to get elected, he’ll never have a congress to work with that will fail to see through it. We’d see hobbits in his cabinet first.

      Aside from which, as I noted above, he will leave the American left with no workable ideas or ideological foundation building since his campaign rhetoric is so lacking in substance; his campaign will prove to have been akin to cotton candy. That disturbs me more than anything about the phenomenon of his candidacy. Bernie is certainly no Irving Howe or Michael Harrington, both of whose work on the subject of American socialism remain valid but have become outdated. It means that, when it’s all over with, leftists will still be like the proverbial crabs in a bucket here, pretty much where they’ve been since the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.

      It’s not a question of Rosario Dawson’s political views. I grant you that they’re irrelevant. It’s a question of the ugly comments she makes in service to what she’d like to think is her “idealism.” As far as how much talent she had, I wasn’t going to go there but as long as you brought it up, subtlety is not her strong suit as an actress – and I’ll just leave it at that.

      Like

        • And, due to that fact, this will probably not be the edgiest political conversation we deal in this summer.

          I remind you all where I live. I am surrounded by excellent neighbors who also happen to have a Tea Party persuasion. I will spend much of the next six months walking on eggshells or changing the subject.

          Like

        • I’m ecstatic Gator wrote something that I find disagreeable. About time I say. I wish he wrote it earlier when it mattered 😉 Kasich just quit so it really is Trump now 100%.

          Like

        • Indeed. But we still have another month or so of Bernie through the June 7th primary in California. Even if Bernie wins Nebraska and West Virginia in the meantime, Hillary will still harvest a decent share of delegates from both places as well as the large majority of available superdelegates. He might creep up on her a bit but she will probably get close enough to the necessary majority so that California will finish the job. Then, If he clings to his delusion that the superdelegates will shift their loyalty to him from Clinton, he may go on making noise right up until the convention. Bernie’s best case scenario, assuming he has the sense not to burn any more bridges, is a Convention speech at an hour when someone might ackcherley be listening to him. Hillary will grant him that. If he keeps attacking her personally, he’ll get a 1 AM slot on the last night of the show, which he can’t turn down because it would make him appear spiteful and petulant (not that he doesn’t come orf like that lately anyhow). There are still plenty of empty squares on the chessboard where moves can be made.

          Those superdelegates got where they are by being good organizational types. They’re not going to jeopardize their privileges by throwing their weight behind someone else when the party apparatus supports Hillary. Bernie, remember, isn’t ackcherley even a Democrat so he has very little support from within the Party – and, consequently, little if any loyalty to it in return.

          Like I said, interessin’ situation.

          Like

    • I am never going to tell a colored girl to shut up no matter how stupid the statement. We have been shut up for far too long. We can talk about why what she said was wrong, and it was. Have an open discussion in a polite manner. The sole purpose of this was obviously to troll. Bravo, old man. Well done.

      But to rudely dismiss it? And when it’s an old white man telling her to shut up… oh… lol. Yeah. I don’t care who he is, even Old Gator claiming to defend another woman. Hillary can defend herself. That is why she has my support. He needs to step off.

      Like

      • I don’t care what color or age a loudmouthed, narcissistic lowlife like Dawson might be. What concerned me were her comments, not her gender or race, none of which were explicit nor implicit in my original remark in any way. Nor do I recall advising you to talk to your peers in any particular manner. I think it’s ironic that you advise discussing Dawson in some airily polite way while uncontrollably vomiting gratuitous insults at me. Ah well, glad you’re not pissed orf.

        Now, just for the record, if Tim Robbins, another Sanders supporter, or Susan Sarandon (who unloaded on Hillary in an interview the other night, but unlike Dawson stuck to issues) had said it, I would have reacted exactly the same way. You opened this discussion on your behalf by noting that you often say things you wish you hadn’t said. Maybe it’s time to take your own advice to yourself before your discourse turns entirely racist.

        As far as your ageist japes, well, no point in engaging with that; I’m comfortable with the life that got me here, and you’ll get here soon enough yourself. And as far as being white, it’s not like I had a lot to say about it. I mean, we can’t all be Rachel Dolezal.

        Finis operis.

        Like

        • I merely stated facts. You are old and white. What insult have I vomited at you? My goodness. You sure can dish it, but taking it. Not so much.

          I asked for reasonable discourse, not shouting “shut up.” You were the one who started this with… whatever you call this exercise, this post. Explaining why what she said was incorrect in a polite manner is too much to ask? Really? You cannot handle a woman telling you something, can you?

          Like

        • As I wrote above, this conversation with you has nowhere constructive to go. You want to drag it out further, go ahead. I’m not going to respond to you again.

          Like

        • “I don’t care what color or age a loudmouthed, narcissistic lowlife like Dawson might be.”

          And not so much for your sake, because you have made it clear you don’t want to listen, but yes, those things matter. Her age, her sex, her color. This is more for the sake of anyone else who comes across this.

          Here was my point one more time. She has the right to spew whatever asinine opinion she wants. Historically, my kind has been suppressed: young, colored women. No voice. I will defend her right to spew whatever crap she wants no matter how stupid. What I have the right is to tell her, as do you and anyone else is to tell her: what you are saying makes no sense, and here is why. I do not have the right to tell her: SHUT UP. (I don’t have the right to tell Curt Schilling to shut up either. That idiot can talk too.) And neither does anyone else, particularly not someone who wears the uniform of our historical suppressors: Old White Man. It has nothing to do with ageism. It’s the way it has always been.

          I love the elderly. I have always wanted to spend time around them. I will hold nothing against them as a group because one is being particularly stubborn or closed minded.

          Like

  4. Boy,if it’s gonna be like that around here – with a bunch of people who by and large aren’t far apart on their politics, I can just hardly wait until the actual electoral discourse begins in this country.

    Loud, mean and vulgar will be way too kind..

    Like

    • Unfortunately, you’re probably right. To paraphrase the Bard, politics makes fools of us all. But it’s been like that for as long as the country has existed. I think the all-out 1858 brawl in Congress over the slaveholding status of Kansas was one of the better ones. A vice president shooting a secretary of the treasury is another good one. Anyway, as long as it’s kept verbal it’s no big deal – assuming the arguments are over ackcherel issues instead of a lot of ad hominem nonsense flying around as it has been on this thread. It’ll apparently be quite the challenge for some folks here to keep it civil between ourselves, which is too bad.

      Like

  5. Any Sandernistas on the thread, the answer is “vote Green.” Bernie was “too good a Democrat” to mention things like the coup in Honduras that Hillary helped support, nay, probably helped create, back in 2009 — a coup that has seen Honduran women activists (I’mWithHer?) killed.

    Anyway, here’s my take on Monday night’s Green Party presidential debate.

    http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2016/05/green-party-presidential-trio-debates.html

    Like

Join in on the conversation!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s