portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

election fraud

The Bernie Sanders Scam!

The Clintons destroyed the American middle class who are really the working class
Not even Bernie Sanders can save the democratic party. Democrats are as corrupt as republicans, they just hide their prostitution better than the republicans who are very proud of their prostitution.

And besides the US generals will Electronic Jim Crow Sanders out of the democratic primary with paperless electronic voting machines so the Clintons can win the nomination. The US Generals and the military industrial complex have a pre-prepared narrative as to why America won't vote for the Clintons allowing Bush and company to steal the election. With the presidential candidates being the Bushes and the Clintons voting age participation will drop below 50% making it much easier for the US generals and their stooges the Bush crime family to steal the election.

And if the Clintons, which I doubt will do as they are apart of the Bush crime family, challenge the election results, the Bush campaign suborned US supreme court who stopped the state wide vote recount in Florida in 2000 and thanks to Bush stacking the court with more sociopaths will simply do it again.

If Bernie Sanders had any balls whatsoever he would seek the Green Party nomination so we can finally give the democratic party the funeral it deserves. It is not 2000, it's the 2016 presidential election and a lot has changed in the public's mind and body. The majority of Americans are registering to vote as independents, Greens, Libertarians and other so-called small parties. The fact that Sanders is seeking the democratic nomination just shows he is out of touch with reality and only playing a role to give the Clintons someone to pay lip service to in the democratic primary debates.

The Clintons destroyed the American middle class who are really the working class with NAFTA, Welfare to Work, Deregulation of the Banks and the Derivatives Markets giving the Bush crime family everything it needed to totally crush working families everywhere in America and force wages into the basement. Running as a democrat, Sanders has absolutely no credibility.

He is an independent 01.May.2015 23:49


Sanders runs for office as an independent but caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for purposes of committee assignments. He was the only independent member of the House during most of his service and is the longest-serving independent in U.S. Congressional history. Since January 2015 Sanders has been the Ranking Democratic Member on the Senate Budget Committee.[6]


If you can't see the pattern,,, 02.May.2015 04:39

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Then you are blinded by your desperation to have someone to vote for so your vote is not meaningless. If Bernie runs as a democrap he is not independent and your vote for him is meaningless. You can brag about his past all you want. Kucinich ran to keep the "Big Tent" together in the democrap coalition but in the end the democraps end up with the worst possible candidates. If you are suckered into the big tent by Sanders then you deserve Clinton or Bush as your next president and the banana republic they represent.

Elections in the US (and parties) 02.May.2015 05:43

Mike Novack

That is a misunderstanding of our election process and "ballot lines". We don't really have a "strong party" system and a candidate for election to office can run on MORE THAN ONE line (more than one party can have him or her as their candidate for election). Historically there have been other persons who ran for office on the lines of parties beyond "their own".

Sanders RUNS for office in Vermont as an "independent". However he has never disguised the fact that he IS a "democratic socialist". In this case he is saying that he will contest for the ballot slot of the Democrats. Those of you who argue that he should be running on the Green party line of the ballot, what is stopping you? The Green party can choose him to be their candidate ALSO (if that's what they want to do).

In fact, that might not be a bad idea. Let us for a moment assume that Bernie strongly contests for the nomination of the Democratic party but loses out (sorry, but the left wing of the Democratic party not strong at the moment*). Nevertheless, this would have been a highly public contest, would not have been easy to duck the debate as would be the case if (just) a Green. While inappropriate/disloyal for him to then seek a different party line, OK if he happened to already be on one. Those Dems who liked what he said could vote for him in the general election. I'd be willing to bet that THIS WAY the Greens might get one heck of a lot more votes than if Sanders JUST asked for the Green party line as you think he should.

While a candidate CAN decline the ballot line of another party, as long as not having actively sought it, generally not required as a sign of loyalty. Remember, he HAS long run as independent.

* With the Republicans having moved so far to the right, hard to make a strong tactical case against the Democrats occupying the vacated middle. Where can their left wing go?

Mike 02.May.2015 08:17

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

You are not thinking about the demographic shift that has happened in America. the American public did not go to the polls to support the democrats in the last midterm election because they are not stupid. Voting democrat does nothing for working people in America and they now know it. So why beat a dead donkey to death. We are in a very similar time of that time before the abolitionists formed an unholy alliance with the northern factory owners who were looking south in horror at slave owners beginning to use slaves in manufacturing. Political parties were thrown under the steam engine and a new party formed to abolish slavery. The abolitionists wanted to end slavery the same way the British did where slave owners were paid to not fight it by breaking off further British colonies from the British empire as the slave owner revolt did in America to save their slave labor economy. Sadly though the northern factory owners in America wanted to destroy their competition in the south and put their candidates in congress and the white house for the very purpose forcing a civil war to destroy the southern economy which with the end of Reconstruction more than a 150 years of hatred and Jim Crow.

Today the political parties are as irrelevant as they were then. The issues of a cheap labor economy are creating all kinds of imbalances once again and the opportunity to deal with these radically unnatural entrenched monopolies such as the fossil fuel economy, military rule and big bank corruption is very similar to the 1850s. We must simply hope that we don't get stuck in another civil war which I believe is very possible if the Nazis in the Pentagon decide to impose marshal law to deal with economic unrest. I can't predict which way it's going to go but it ain't going to be pretty.

Bernie -- Just Another Fake Cog In The Fascist Machine 02.May.2015 12:43


I've seen about ten times when this guy double-crossed us.

How they run Bernie Sander's fascist State of Vermont:

Robert Woodward, 'Woody', our dearly beloved friend, entered the All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in West Brattleboro, Vermont around 10 AM on Sunday morning, December 2, 2001, and pleaded to the assembled congregation to give him political asylum, explaining that government authorities sought to torture and kill him. Very quickly the children were taken outside, and church president Charles Butterfield went to the office to place a 911 call. According to Charles he requested plainclothes officers be dispatched and related that Woody was "deathly afraid" of authorities. At some point most of the congregation left the room. While that was occurring Woody took out a pocket knife and pointed it at his face threatening to hurt himself if people did not stay to bear witness for him. Eighteen people decided to heed Woody's plea and stay. When a parishioner told Woody he was scaring people, he apologized and put away the knife. Another parishioner gained Woody's trust and sat down next to him, then attempted to make phone calls for him on a cell phone.

Just as the calls were being attempted, and only about 14 minutes after Woody entered the church, three Brattleboro police officers, dressed in body armor and carrying pepper spray and semiautomatic 40 caliber pistols, entered the room and advanced on Woody. When Woody saw the police he jumped up and again took out the knife and pointed it at his face. Some witnesses heard shouts of "drop the knife" but others could not understand what the police were saying.

Within less than a minute of the police entering, two of the three policemen shot seven rounds into Woody. A fusillade of shots followed the first two shots, so rapid that to some witnesses it sounded like a single shot. One detailed account describes the police firing the fusillade of rounds into Woody as he was lying on the floor, curled up in a fetal position, and holding the knife to his face. The police had made no attempt to use negotiation or nonlethal restraint such as their pepper spray to subdue Woody.

While Woody lay on the floor bleeding heavily and with a shattered elbow, the police proceeded to handcuff his wrists behind his back, forcing him to his stomach. The police refused repeated requests from a physician present that the handcuffs be removed so she could access his wounds to stop the bleeding.

43 minutes elapsed between the time of the shooting and the time Woody arrived in the emergency room of the local hospital 3 miles away. It took over three and one half hours to move Woody to the Dartmouth-Hitchcock hospital which had the facilities needed to treat his heart trauma. He died shortly after arriving there around 2 PM.

Every one of the witnesses who has been willing to talk publicly has maintained that Woody never threatened anyone but himself.

Woody had never had a run-in with the law. He was known for his rationality and equanimity.

I spent an hour on Google trying to find some sort of an outcry from dear old Sen. Bernie. Nothing public turned up. And the wonderful Governor Howard Dean meticulously covered it all up to boot!

CounterPunch -- Oct 02, 2011 -- Senator Bait-and-Switch - The Myth of Bernie Sanders

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has recently been elevated to near godlike status by the political Left in the United States. Some of his fans have even suggested that he should challenge Barack Obama in the Democratic Presidential Primary. The more often he is accused of being a socialist by his political enemies on the Right, the more convinced the Left becomes that he surely walks on water.

Although Sanders may have once been a socialist back in the 80s when he was Mayor of Burlington, today, a socialist he is not. Rather he behaves more like a technofascist disguised as a liberal, who backs all of President Obama's nasty little wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Since he always "supports the troops," Sanders never opposes any defense spending bill. He stands behind all military contractors who bring much-needed jobs to Vermont.

Senator Sanders rarely misses a photo opportunity with Vermont National Guard troops when they are being deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. He's always at the Burlington International Airport when they return. If Sanders truly supported the Vermont troops, he would vote to end all of the wars posthaste.

Want machine vote collection and tallying? If it saves 10X of any time and expenditure, it also makes it 10X easier to perpetrate systematic rigging. Which of these burdens can we truly afford to endure? Really! There will always be enough paper ballots to drop into boxes, even if we have to write up our own. But not enough machines to service 1,000 voters when ten malfunction and only three are available.

Think voter-verified paper audit trails will help? Do you get to vote again if you complain that the display and the voter-verified paper are both wrong? How many times will they let you do that? Twenty?

The simplest form of score voting involves absolutely no fractions, division, multiplication, or other logic complications. Each voter can give from 1 to 10 votes to each of a certain number of candidates, up to say 20, since letting them give votes to 100 candidates would just take too long. They can't give a zero (0) vote since then they could write in someone's name and give zero votes, which is not nice. At the end of the day, all the votes are simply added up -- that's it. So you could, for example, give 10 votes to candidates you really want, and 9 votes to a "lesser evil", but well financed, one. If the lesser evil one wins, you will only have sacrificed 10% of your voting power. It's absolutely simple. This has been known at least since the time of French Revolution!

It is very responsive to the input of the voters, and allows local tallying, with no need for centralized tallying. It involves absolutely no fractions, division, multiplication, or other algorithmic complications. And is as lawful, at least federally, as any other system. It actually nullifies the two-party "system"!

("FairVote" advocates "IRV" and is funded by the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Institute, etc.)
C:\\\\Documents and Settings\\\\rkj-b\\\\Desktop\\\\IRV\\\_Money!\\\_2\\\\
C:\\\\Documents and Settings\\\\rkj-b\\\\Desktop\\\\IRV\\\_Money!\\\_2\\\\
C:\\\\Documents and Settings\\\\rkj-b\\\\Desktop\\\\IRV\\\_Money!\\\_2\\\\
C:\\\\Documents and Settings\\\\rkj-b\\\\Desktop\\\\IRV\\\_Money!\\\_2\\\\

Imagine Having The Courage To Be The Kind Of Person You Want To Be. 02.May.2015 19:38



To be...


lloyd hart - a history in irrelevance 02.May.2015 20:10


Make sure to search the indymedia archives for other posting by Lloyd hart, so you can reach some perspective on how all of his paranoid insane rantings have been completely baseless and false since his appearance on this site.

seriously. look up his posts. He is a complete lunatic. Use Google archive search and see for yourself.

Front Page This. 03.May.2015 01:28


Nobody will take seriously the slander against Lloyd Hart.

Just Do It!

I get a real kick,,, 03.May.2015 07:00

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Out of when fascists use the "attack the messenger when you can't seem to formulate a rational argument against the message" tactic. I have studied the voting patterns in America going back to the slave owner revolt against Britain and you will find a constant strategy used by the oligarchs to divide the voters on race, class and private property in order to hold on to the reigns power. If Americans truly want peace and prosperity at this point then there will have to be a serious denial of our labor to all business controlled by the American oligarchs and their transnational cheap labor partners around the world. People must stop supporting their own impoverishment. By denying our labor to the economy we will unite all people towards peace and prosperity. Bernie Sanders should stop hanging out with the trash in the democratic party and call all Americans to deny the scum that have impoverished America and the world all of our labor.

Sanders should forget about elections altogether and use his high profile voice to call a general strike and militant labor actions to blockade the economy until we get what we want instead of raising hopes and then having them dashed on the rocks of an election process controlled by the oligarchs and that the American people have no power to change with just a vote.

RE: "formulating rational arguments" 03.May.2015 08:04

I find it funny

when the usual ideological suspects around here (mbatko among them)

continue to shovel the 19th-century Marx-based "strategies" for "analysis of capital" when somewhat obviously, Marx' world view / systemic analyses simply no longer apply to the 'plight' of working class, capital-less citizens in 21st century USA, let alone the rest of the planet.

It will \? indeed be interesting and truly revolutionary, when the "revolutionaries" begin to acknowledge, comprehend and/or confront (in substantive terms) the corporate-statist nature of their 'oppressors' and surroundings.

( RE: the USA 'two party' system and even the "radical left" continual evoking of the by-now-long-deceased 20th-century labor / "progressive" movement a la KBOO... good luck )

Funny? 03.May.2015 08:43

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

The reason we still use labor based language to describe the conditions of our low wage economy is because the bosses have deliberately driven down the value of our labor by shipping our jobs off to slave labor states and are profiteering from a radical increase of the cost of housing and energy. In other words our class, race and private property issues are the same today as they have been all through the twentieth century and for thousands of years before.

Bernie Excites Progressive Passion; Hillary, Our Vomit Reflex 03.May.2015 13:12

Patrick Walker

Bernie Excites Progressive Passion; Hillary, Our Vomit Reflex

Many progressives feel extremely passionate about the newly announced 2016 presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. Hopefully, enough Sanders supporters will make it so other opponents do not have a chance.

Published: May 3, 2015 | Authors: Patrick Walker | NationofChange | Op-Ed

The 2016 Democratic presidential race is not a normal one, and should not be treated as such. Any election pitting Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton is a watershed one, and as a progressive whose heart leaped up on learning of Bernie's forthcoming announcement, I wanted to share my passionate perceptions of what's at stake. Not because my personal feelings and perceptions are especially important, but because I sense sharing a common grasp of events—a common optic—with an important bloc of progressive voters, one more keenly attuned to current realities than most others. And one the Democratic Party ignores at its extreme peril.

So, my words here are written with the conscious aim of finding that bloc of voters, in a sense creating it by getting its latent members, who tacitly share so much common ground, to acknowledge themselves as part of a voting bloc—indeed, of a latent political movement. For that latent movement's biggest enemies—to its left and to its right—are those who shrug off the 2016 race and Bernie's watershed candidacy as "business as usual." Like the "inevitable" mass genocide of climate change, the 2016 presidential race need be "business as usual" only if we passively accept it as such. To stave off that miasmic self-fulfilling prophecy, progressives who share the sentiments about Sanders and Clinton invoked in this article's title need only self-identify as a voting bloc and organize on that basis.

These are not normal times, and everything I write here is premised on the stark abnormality of our era. Indeed, "stark raving abnormality" would have been better wording, for there's a genuine madness about a political era in which the seriously abnormal—in the sense of dysfunctional or diseased—is blandly accepted as the norm. And in which users of Orwellian language—on Facebook pages where their own aims should be anathema—can blithely castigate defenders of the pages' own express aims as "trolls."

Such, for example, is my recent experience on an Occupy page—not in any obvious way a false-flag one—where I was branded a troll for my biting criticisms of Obama over TPP. As if Occupy's formation had not been strongly catalyzed by disgust at Obama's bank bailouts sans reform, and as if the Trans-Pacific Partnership were not the exact sort of malign, corporate-bonanza coup against "the 99\\\%" Occupy was organized to fight. And as if, worst of all, Obama's executive-branch DHS and FBI had not played a central role in the fusion centers used to crush Occupy, almost surely with his knowledge and consent, and quite plausibly at his direction. Notoriously unfocused and all-embracing as Occupy is, no fighting political movement can tolerate such infiltrating trolls (or off-the-charts cases of Stockholm syndrome!) and expect to survive. Yet the establishment Democrat troll in question scarcely batted an eyelash in branding me the same.

I digress, but do so for sake of a crucial aim. See, knowing the progressive voter bloc I court to be active in social media, I suspect I relate an all-too-common experience. Indeed, such Orwellian distortion is no isolated personal Facebook incident at all, but the absurdist nature of today's establishment or "centrist" Democrats—the sort represented by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee—writ large. For, as Orwell noted, where planned policy is rationally indefensible, representing merely the aims of the powerful (and in our case their power is due to money), the language used to defend it must become correspondingly distorted and absurd. Hence, the mere candidacy of Hillary Clinton must be one long exercise in absurdity, since it's hard to imagine more irrational policy than electing a president committed to taking $2.5 billion in campaign donations when, by popular and scholarly consensus, Big Money's influence on policy is deemed to be the root of our political evils.

And inevitably, critics of such absurd Democratic policy (and its twisted, indefensible linguistic rationale), must be subject to censorship and caustic verbal abuse, since the full-dress fascist solutions of imprisonment, exile, or execution would destroy the legitimacy of a purported progressive party and are, in any case, not yet generally available. Hence, citing Facebook again, progressives' frequent experience of being banned as "too liberal for liberal pages" (liberal, as opposed to progressive, being the term more frequently associated with Democrats who've given up fighting economic inequality). Or, to cite a Hillary-specific case—in terms precisely mirroring Adolph Reed's case (just linked to) of liberals sacrificing economic to identity politics—there's the draconian censorship of HRC Super Volunteers, Hillary's self-appointed language Stasi, who seeks to ban the most common, anodyne (and generally true) criticisms of Clinton as "sexist." (Deeply offended by Super Volunteers' attempted gag order, I couldn't resist a very un-PC belly laugh at a conservative's malicious send-up of Hillary as "Ovary;" don't language-Stasi identity liberals know they invite such malice\\\?) Or lastly—in a case that out-Orwells Orwell—there's Barack Obama's nasty pooh-poohing of progressives critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as Sarah Palin airheads fretting over "death panels," when he well knows that beyond such progressive political stalwarts as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Sherrod Brown, opponents include such intellectual heavy hitters as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, William Black, Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, and Naomi Klein.

The shamelessness of "centrist" Democrats defending indefensible plutocratic policy—speaking bullshit to defend bullshit—now knows no limits. And a servile, corporatist mainstream media is only too glad to echo them, leaving the crassest distortions unchallenged.

Into this mephitic, nauseating morass of Orwellian language defending vile Democratic policy—one's reminded of Big Daddy's speech from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof about the "powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity"—walks independent, blunt-spoken outsider Bernie Sanders. Who, miracle of miracles, will actually run as a Democrat. Unfunded by Big Money, and, therefore, free of the stifling, obnoxious constraints on speech and behavior such money brings. Not running as a hapless third-party candidate, excluded from nationally televised debates, but as a high-visibility candidate in a major "duopoly" party capable of winning national elections. For progressives who feel, like veteran Democratic operative Bill Curry that the Democratic Party has lost its soul, Bernie's candidacy seems the creation of a fresh party life, where an actual, uncorrupted soul is created afresh with that life. Not paradise itself—the obstacles to Bernie winning are humungous—but a culminating event in a surging wave of populism that has included Occupy Wall Street, Fight for 15, the Black Lives Matter protests, and the rise of Democrats' "Warren wing." As many progressives are already saying, "At last, a candidate who represents us!"

Many progressives are, in short, feeling deeply passionate about a Sanders candidacy, sensing a hope we've long been denied—and Democrats had better take notice. See, such a breath of fresh air is Bernie, such a stark contrast to the "odor of mendacity" reeking from the party's Obamas and Clintons, that even a Bernie loss to Hillary is unlikely to be "business as usual." My own sense is that for progressives, voting for Hillary in the general election after supporting Bernie in the primaries won't feel like "holding your nose and voting for Hillary," but rather like "choking back your vomit and voting for Hillary"—or even "gouging out your eye and voting for Hillary," given the sheer amount of dubious policy history and oligarch-donor baggage we'll be forced to overlook. Especially with Bernie as contrast.

Consequently, Democrats should expect that a Sanders loss to Clinton will not entail "business as usual" lesser-evil voting. Already, many progressives are pledged never to vote for Clinton under any circumstances. For me, living in a red state (Georgia) that Clinton can't conceivably win, I'll have zero qualms of conscience about keeping that pledge; given the sheer, evil craziness of today's Republicans—which "centrist," corporatist, warmongering Democrats sleazily use as cover—I waffle over whether progressives in swing states should be held to that pledge. But I'd recommend that progressives in red states vote for Jill Stein in the likely event Hillary's nominated; progressives have everything to gain—in this era of burgeoning populism—by registering our disgust with Hillary Clinton.

So, in conclusion, I hope progressives who feel as I do—passionately excited by Bernie's candidacy, and ready to vomit at the thought of Clinton as president—will unite and self-identify as a voting bloc. I strongly suspect participants in Pitchforks Against Plutocracy, a burgeoning electoral movement I co-founded, will respond to this appeal; nonparticipants who share that feeling might wish to join. But in any case, joining a group with similar aims is a very smart idea; many decent ones exist. For only by recognizing ourselves as a voting bloc and strategizing together will pro-Bernie, anti-Hillary progressives obtain something genuinely new from his unprecedented candidacy and stave off the deadly, planet-destroying miasma of "business as usual."

 link to www.nationofchange.org

RE: " labor based language " 03.May.2015 16:02

I find it funny


my post was not critiquing a "labor based" perspective per se; rather the mis-interpretation, mis-appropriation (by e.g. KBOO drones) and mis-attribution of it (e.g. to Marx as though he and he alone/with Engels or whoever-else-in-the-19th-century discovered the "labor based" worldview).

A new paradigm is required for 'activists', 'progressives', and 'revolutionaries' (inclusive of several posting in this comment thread, and on related current PDX IMC newswire topics).

take Marx and blow him out your asshole where he belongs.

Incorporate _some_ comprehension of the slavery of the global post-1913 monetary system, and how its institution(s) and effects have contributed to decimating any "labor based" livelihood across the globe.

RE: profiteering, race and private property. Of course they've existed [quoting Lloyd] " thousands of years before ". Marx (and others from the 19th-20th century) were also not the first or only ones to define, parametrize or 'discover' these aspects.

So break out of the Marxist-based paradigm(s).
( Indeed, the plural 's' refers to Marx-spinoffs including most forms of 19th-20th century leftist "anarchy", "labor based" etc. ad infinitum )

Otherwise you're doomed to repeat history, and/or sit on your ass for the remainder of your air-breathing days listening to the KBOO 'leadership'.

Kill Marx (and all 19th-20th century based 'ideology') first. Then do the rest.