Recently there has been a lot of media coverage about how "rude" Bernie Sanders supporters are when they ask Super-Delegates to respect the will of the people.
There has been a lot of outrage about a speaker at Bernie Sander's rally who said, "Medicare for all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us.”
When a poor pedophile gets caught raping and killing one child there is typically an enormous amount of outrage about that; and few if anyone, including me, would doubt that it is justified.
When large institution run by people out of touch with the lower or middle class start wars based on lies killing thousands of people; profit off of pollution killing thousands more people; profit by denying medicare for all coverage to thousands of people resulting in their deaths and many other activities that cost the rest of us enormous amounts so they can increase profits there is little or no outrage from the people that control the mass media.
Why would there be?
They're getting their cut of the loot being stolen from the public and they have access to security and health care even if the rest of us don't.
Health care companies that profit off of the current system spend and enormous amount of money on advertising so the media gets an enormous profit from them. They also donate an enormous amount of money to political campaigns including to Hillary Clinton and many of the members of congress that Paul Song said he was referring to. After taking this money they preserve a system that doesn't work nearly as well as the systems in countries with Single Payer Health care.
The media doesn't report most if any of this so that the public will have accurate information to make their decisions.
They don't call it bribery even though it clearly accomplishes the same goal.
This pattern is repeated in one industry after another, where the leaders of powerful institutions are paid enormous amounts of money for controlling the industry but large amounts of expenses go towards work like advertising, lobbying, union busting, public relations that do far more to shift wealth to the rich than serve a public good for the majority.
The same goes for the so called "Super-Delegates" who often take campaign contributions from the same corporations involved in epidemic amounts of fraud or in many cases they are lobbyists or fund raisers instead of public officials elected by the people. The vast majority of the people have little or no say who these people are and they can overturn their votes the way the system is set up.
People who go through the details of this get little or no access to traditional media and often make their case on alternative media outlets that can't reach the majority of the public; but they generally do a much better job siting sources and making their case than the media pundits that do have reach the majority of the public. Instead of educating the public these pundits repeat the same propaganda over and over again.
One of the things they repeat over and over again is outrage about a critic using the phrase "Democratic whores" without putting it in it's full context. When they began this frenzy there were a few reports citing part of his speech but what was repeated over and over again was the same phrase, "Democratic whores," without reminding the public that he was complaining about the system being rigged. Mainstream media did little or nothing to confirm or deny whether this claim is reasonably close to the truth, which it is.
People that are accustomed to checking alternative media outlets are much more likely to know the details about how the system is rigged and how much money that could be going toward health care or other services in other industries actually goes to corporate bureaucracy primarily designed to shift wealth to the rich. They might also be more familiar with how the Super-Delegate system works, assuming they can sort through the details which are often intentionally complicated so that only those involved in the establishment understand or benefit from them.
However on one relatively recent occasion Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted, “Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” (Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” 02/13/2016) This essentially means that if the alternative media manages to inform the public about many important issues and they use this information to win the majority of the popular vote the "Super-Delegates" can overrule the will of the people and choose a candidate that will cater to camping contributors while giving the majority more propaganda instead of keeping promises, which has been standard operating procedure.
Many people are justifiably outraged by that!
The vast majority of complaints that I have seen aren't exceptionally rude but few people from mainstream media pay any attention to them, and only those checking social media ever hear about them. Some of them are inevitably angry; but even in most of these cases they are less "rude" than many of the pundits that aren't criticized for their manners if they cater to corporate interests.
Outrageous policies that do enormous amounts of damage to the majority of the public especially the poorest people with the least resources. Often these are the people that do the menial labor that makes the high standard of living possible for corporate CEOs and politicians like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton.
A modest amount of research will turn up evidence that, like most politicians, Hillary Clinton's, record isn't remotely like her campaign propaganda; and if elected she will almost certainly follow past patterns. The state department lobbied against an increase of the minimum wage from 31 cents to 61 cents in Haiti, under her leadership. She didn't speak about supporting twelve dollars an hour until the fight for fifteen was well under way and it was as what she considered a more practical alternative to appease the public.
Now we're supposed to believe she led the fight for higher wages?
Her E-Mails disclosed her support for the coup in Honduras which led to many refugees; then instead of admitting to the problem and at least letting the poor children and their parents that fled from her abuse she said they have to go back.
Whether it's children being polluted by the fracking she promotes, the children turned into slave labor in sweat shops either in Haiti or other parts of the world producing goods for Walmart or the refugees from her foreign policies disasters or many other disaster produced by clueless bureaucrats these decisions do thousands of times more damage than when one pedophile rapes and kills a child.
Ironically Hillary once laughed about defending a pedophile.
Even when it comes to pedophiles there is an enormous amount of research to indicate what causes that and that most of them were abuse themselves as children. This means that if the mainstream media or political establishment educated the public about this and created policies that would do more to protect children from being abused they would be much less likely to grow up to be abusive parents themselves.
However, the establishment continues to promote policies that focus on punishing after the fact instead of preventing root causes so they pass up an opportunity to prevent domestic violence as well.
There really does seem to be evidence that the claim that politicians are "corporate Democratic whores" or something close. The biggest problem might not be that they aren't "Democratic" at all, since they don't respond to the will of the people. Perhaps they should just be called "corporate whores" serving corrupt interests and arranging for "Media whores" to provide the propaganda that makes their atrocities seem polite.
At least with traditional prostitutes people aren't lead to expect honesty or integrity. It is hard to see why people would believe many politicians including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton have any integrity at all; and yet we're supposed to be offended when someone honestly questions this lack of integrity.
The activities by politicians clearly lead to negligent homicide, at best if not intentional mass murder in some cases; and corrupting the political system so the public doesn't have accurate information to make their decisions and rigging the delegates system while pretending this is democracy should be considered treasonous.
Sources for some of the claims on this post and additional details can be found in some of my past related posts including the following:
Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?
Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?
Hillary Clinton Is Using Children As Props While Her Record Betrays Them
Nominating Bernie Sanders would virtually put Minimum Wage on the Ballot and Drive Voter Turnout Up
Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda
Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton
No comments:
Post a Comment