Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Symone Sanders: Pundits Views Are A Commodity In Pseudo-Democracy



The truth is a commodity for campaign spokespeople and media pundits, as demonstrated by Symone Sanders and her recent decision to join the Biden campaign.

This isn't unique to Symone, nor is this the first sign that she's sold her political views. This is standard operating procedures for the majority of pundits who agree to support what ever "team" they join and go along with the talking points. Sam Clovis was one of the other most obvious people that sold their views and didn't even try to do a good job pretending otherwise, although the mainstream media barely mentioned this, so most people might not have noticed. He was hired by Rick Perry's campaign in 2015 talking about how Rick was in it for the long run one day then no more than a few days later quitting and on the next day announcing that he's working for Donald Trump, as the Perry campaign began collapsing because he couldn't pay his staffers.

The biggest problem isn't Symone Sanders or Sam Clovis, but the system that provides a financial incentive to cater to the interests of the wealthiest political operatives, usually serving Wall Street interests, although they routinely have to to pretend to serve the interests of the majority of the public. What we need to end this is better education about how the system works teaching the public to recognize conflicts of interests and how they study how to manipulate the public and enabling them to control the debate themselves.

I explained how part of this problem can be solved by setting up an interview process where all applicants for political office can have a chance to be heard in Modern "Poll Taxes": Voter ID & Campaign Contributions Instead of raising thousands if not millions of dollars to campaign for office, the public should control the interview process, requiring all candidates to fill out an application and show up for interviews, and national media should be required to provide fairly equal coverage for all candidates, not giving preferential treatment to those collecting the most money or hiring professional spin artists.

By now most people have forgotten about how obvious Sam Clovis's selling out to Donald Trump; but Twitter is having a field day with Symone Sanders, and how obvious it is that she's selling out too (I included a sample of some of the Tweets exposing her below). It's not hard to check the record to find out how different Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are, although it can be time consuming since they both have long records, but Biden is almost always taking the side of Wall Street, while Bernie Sanders takes the side of working class people and minorities.

Many of the people on Twitter have seen right through this incredibly obvious sell out; however, the vast majority of the public isn't nearly as inclined to check the record so closely, and might rely on mainstream media for a lot of their information, or if they are on Twitter and Facebook but follow mostly establishment pundits many of them might buy into their excuses justifying her working for Biden. So this can show how corrupt the system is to a modest percentage of the people, for now, but these tactics could enable them to rig the nomination again.

However, since Biden's record is so extreme, my best guess is that it'll backfire on them and he'll collapse in the polls long before the primaries.

I went into many of the problems with Joe Biden in Joe Biden Really Was Taken Off The Trash Heap and I've updated it with numerous new articles since I first posted it, most of his record is hardly being mentioned on the mainstream media, including articles that show he supported segregation, overturning Roe v. Wade, supported outsourcing of jobs, gave preferential treatment to his own family while arguing for get tough on crime policies that only targeted the poor and much more.

But selling out isn't something Symone just started doing when she was hired by Biden; she also began campaigning for Hillary Clinton while she was pretending to support Bernie Sanders for the 2016 primary, as if it was already over, and Bernie had lost fairly. When Bernie won several of the primaries and showed that he had a chance of winning, and there were major signs that some the primaries he lost were being rigged as I pointed out in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? there were several of his supporters including Ben Jealous, Van Jones and Symone Sanders spending a lot of time on CNN or other cable news networks coming to Hillary's defense when Donald trump was attacking her, often spedning far more time at this than they were defending Sanders; and both Van Jones and Symone Sanders were given jobs as pundits that continued to this day, or in symone's case until she went to work for Joe Biden.

However, in addition to providing additional evidence to how bad the mainstream media is, which is hardly even covering many of the contradictions or Biden's incredibly long record contradicting his propaganda, it may also raise some questions about both the Bernie Sanders campaign and hiring or campaign staff, including unionized staff, now that Bernie Sanders has become the first candidate to have a unionized staff.

I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and still do, but there have been some problems which I can't forget, including the fact that he remained silent about the cheating during the primaries then campaigned for Hillary Clinton and Tom Perez after he was elected chairman of the DNC, trying to restore the credibility of the Democratic Party, when it clearly had no credibility. He agreed to support the Democratic Party and nominee when he first began his campaign and George Stephanopoulos asked him if he would support the nominee or run as an independent and again this year when he became the first to sign the Indivisible Loyalty Pledge Which Is A Duopoly Protection Pledge without even discussing Ranked Choice Voting that can enable more parties to compete so that the two dominant parties will have a much harder time rigging nominations for candidates supporting the Wall Street agenda.

The real solutions, if we're going to have major reform clearly have to come from the grassroots not a political candidate, even Bernie Sanders! I'm tempted to join in the call of many supporters of the Green Party or Democratic Socialists of America to oppose all establishment candidates, even Bernie Sanders, sometimes, but there's little or no chance that they're going to elect a president from their parties or many if any to Congress or Governors offices.

I also support unions as a means to protect workers; however, when union leaders like Richard Trumka support the Democratic party, or remain silent when there's a candidate that's far better for workers than the ones pushed by the Democratic party like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, there's major doubts about whether these leaders really are doing their best to defend workers right. The same might go for unionized campaign workers.

Many progressives were thrilled when Bernie Sanders campaign workers unionized, and to some degree I'm happy to see this to; however, there's no guarantee that the campaign workers have the same interests as the grassroots or many of the volunteers supporting Bernie Sanders on weekends and nights when they can without getting paid. Symone Sanders is a clear example of this problem; she's not the exception to paid pundits or campaign workers selling out, this is the rule, although most of us have come to expect better of Bernie Sanders campaign workers, some of which have been far better.

The vast majority of campaign workers that jump from one campaign to another and often work for media companies or serve as staff for winning politicians aren't looking out for the best interests of the public, they're looking out for the best interests of their campaign donors who're paying their salaries! If these campaign workers unionize do you think they're going to be better advocates for good public policies anymore than the politicians they work for?

There's also a possibility that there might be conflicts of interests between paid campaign workers and unpaid volunteers. Unpaid volunteers presumably join campaigns because they support the candidate, or in the case of a charity, the cause, while paid campaign workers are doing this for a living and they might be as interested, if not more interested in job security, that often pays much better than working class people get paid.

There have been some concerns about full time volunteers, because only the wealthy can afford to do this, and they might have other undisclosed motives. The most obvious example of this is Paul Manafort who volunteered to work for the Trump campaign and famously wrote “How do we use to get whole,” to Konstantin Kilimnik as part of an alleged conspiracy to use his position as a campaign manager to pay off his debts, clearly indicating he had a major conflict of interests, which has led to his trial and imprisonment, although some of the details about this have been distorted for one reason or another.

These professional campaign workers, or unpaid volunteers with connections to wealthy clients should not be confused with the vast majority of volunteer campaign workers doing low level campaign work for sincere reasons. And these professional campaign workers also come from upper classes, that often go to the same colleges joining fraternities dominated by wealthy families, that working class people can't get access to. A handful of these college educated people, like Thomas Frank, Bernie Sanders, David Sirota do stand up for the working class, but they usually don't come from quite as wealthy families, and sometimes even they support the duopoly, supposedly to get some modest reform, which they consider better than nothing. In many cases this is true; especially if there aren't large numbers of working class people speaking out and acting to defend their own rights, which is the only way we'll get major reform that we need.

Another major potential conflict of interests that has also been exposed by extreme actions of the Trump campaign are non-disclosure agreements. There have been several lawsuits filed exposing that he not only required his paid campaign workers to sign non-disclosure agreements or non-disparagement agreements but also attempted to require unpaid volunteers to sign them as well. When the media exposed this they reported it in a manner that stated or implied that this was unique to the Trump campaign, although they didn't make a major effort to find out for certain if it was, that I know of.

Could this be common practice for most political campaigns?

It almost certainly is! I don't have any hard evidence of non-disclosure agreements for other campaigns; however, the entire scandal about stolen E-mails from the DNC and John Podesta clearly indicates that they're shrouding a large portion of their campaign activities in secrecy; and instead of admitting that they were caught rigging the elections so that Hillary Clinton would have an unfair advantage over Bernie Sanders, they dug in their heels and declared that they have a right to shroud their activities in secrecy and that by exposing their activities the alleged hackers, assuming it wasn't actually inside leakers, were victimizing them, not that they were victimizing the American people!



If they expected their activities to be shrouded in secrecy do you think there's a chance they might have protected their secrecy by using non-disclosure agreements as well?

It's almost guaranteed.

If unionizing campaigns becomes routine and establishment candidates do it as well will campaign union members like Neera Tanden or Brian Fallon demand that this secrecy continues as part of their union negotiations? Not publicly, of course, but will they have their think tanks come up with a way to make is seem justifiable and then come up with a way to screen campaign workers to find out if they would object? Probably not all of them, since there are to many, however there's a good chance that top campaign workers will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

We don't have the right to know how our elections are being run under the current circumstances; and whether or not they require campaign workers to sign non-disclosure agreements the campaign workers at the highest levels all come from a relatively small class of people that have connections to the political establishment. As much as I like Bernie Sanders he's already demonstrated that he's not going to do much if anything to change this, unless he's under pressure from the grassroots. Yet I still support him because on most issues, including Single payer health care, free college tuition, taxing the rich, opposing outsourcing of jobs, and many other issues he's been consistently on the right side of the issues for decades, and even though Obama Hillary and many other establishment Democrats have demonstrated, with their actions that they routinely say one thing during the campaign, and do another once elected, I doubt if Bernie Sanders will cave like they do, although he'll face an enormous amount of opposition from the rest of the political establishment.

However, contrary to what the mainstream media claims I doubt very much if Joe Biden will win the nomination, and it's even less likely that he'll win the general election if he does win the nomination, presumably with epidemic levels of help rigging media coverage from the mainstream media. The reason I came to this conclusion is mainly that I just looked at his record, despite the fact that the mainstream media isn't reporting on the vast majority of it, and noticed that even though they ignore most of it, they're routinely forced to cover some of it as people draw attention to it, and it's being spread on alternative media, which a growing number of people are relying on.

Most of the other corporate candidates are going to have a hard time winning as well because a close look at there record is just as bad, or at least the closest ones in the polls that I can tell including Kamala Harris, Beto O'rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker etc. with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren, who at least does a better job pretending to be progressive than the other corporate candidates, although I doubt if she'll be able to attract much of the progressive votes from Bernie Sanders.

At this point I'm cautiously optimistic that Bernie Sanders just might get the nomination; and if he does that he'll easily be able to beat Trump, although it'll be a nasty campaign from both the Democrats before he wins the nomination or epidemic levels of cheating even worse than with Hillary Clinton to rig it for one of the corporate candidates, who will inevitably lose to Trump, as a result of that cheating.

Whether this happens or not there's overwhelming amount of evidence to indicate that the entire political establishment is behaving in an insane manner when there are far more important things to address than the silly Russia conspiracy theory, when it's clear that the mainstream media did far more to rig the election by only covering the candidates they support, refusing to cover honest candidates, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, presumably because he gained so much popularity by being sincere for decades, or so it seems.

There's also evidence to indicate that the political establishment knows far more about rigging elections and manipulating voters than they seem to be letting onto, especially with all their incredibly bad blunders. I explained some of this in an article about Frank Luntz, and other political advisers, one of the most effective ways they have of rigging elections so that candidates they don't want to win can't win, is simply refusing to cover them at all.

This adds to many other major unsolved mysteries, including some that don't seem to be related, although I suspect they might be, as I explained in a long series of articles including Is The Pseudo-Revolution Already In Progress? where I speculated about the possibility that it might somehow be related to incredibly rapid development of technology over the last seventy years, megaliths that were moved thousands of years ago, despite experiments that show that it should have been impossible, and claims by Philip Corso that he shared alien technology retrieved from the alleged Roswell crash in 1947 and other alleged extraterrestrial crashes.

If Corso's claim is true then it can explain how technology was developed so rapidly over the past seventy years. if it's false then there has to be another explanation why he was able to make it up and get so much institutional support from the publishing companies, along with why many other high ranking, and credible officials, were claiming that there's much more to UFOs than the government is admitting to. Either there's a massive cover up, or there's a massive effort to make it seem like we've been visited by UFOs when we haven't.

This theory probably seems far-fetched to most people, especially if they're not familiar with many of the details, or even if they are; however, there is something incredibly foolish going on and the political establishment is acting in an obviously dysfunctional manner despite the fact that not only should they know better, but they almost certainly do. However, it does explain how the ancient megaliths were moved and perhaps, if many of the details are worked out, it can explain many other major unsolved mysteries, although it clearly needs work, since there's simply not enough information to figure out many of these things or confirm the theory.

If there's something to this theory then they might actually be rigging the nomination for Bernie Sanders, as far-fetched as that sounds, so that he can implement partial solutions to the problems that they want to solve while using us for their own purposes for other reasons. This could explain why Bernie Sanders caved and campaigned for the Democrats after they rigged the primaries against him. It could also explain why they let him have enough media coverage to get so far ahead in the polls of everyone except Joe Biden, or so it seems. He's not necessarily actually behind in the polls, since it's been exposed that they under polled people under forty, and some polls that are being spread on the internet from mainstream media show him ahead, but mainstream media is only giving these polls a token amount of coverage buried where few people notice them.

Whether or not this theory is true, or somewhat close, there's little doubt that a small fraction of the public has near total control of the political debate as it's being presented in the mass media and they can use that control to rig elections, as they've been doing for decades. there's also little or no doubt that Bernie Sanders is far better than Joe Biden, Donald Trump or any of the other corporate Democrats. The only candidates that might be better than him are Mike Gravel or some of the candidates that get absolutely no media coverage from mainstream media like Sanderson Beck.

But even if Bernie Sanders does win, with or without this theory about Corso sharing alien technology, and this being part of a controlled disclosure effort is true, he's far better on most issues than other mainstream politicians; but, there are some major problems with him on a few, including the fact that he campaigned for the corrupt Democrats, and that he's remaining silent about epidemic levels of cheating. there's also little or no chance that he's going to try to break up the media so they can't continue rigging elections by rigging coverage so only candidates they support can win.

As much as I like Bernie Sanders on most issues, it's clear that even he isn't going to fix many important problems unless he's under an enormous amount of grassroots pressure. the most effective solutions are going to have to come from the grassroots no matter who is elected, but with most of these other Wall Street candidates they're not even going to take steps in the right direction on any issues, including climate change which may be irreversible, single payer, affordable education, or ending one war after another based on lies and many other issues.

Perhaps the best thing that Bernie Sanders is doing is drawing much more attention to many of his issues than other politicians and rallying people behind him, and these issues. I can't completely rule out the possibility that he'll cave on some issues as he has in the past when campaigning for Democratic politicians working against his issues; but, real reform has to come from the grassroots, and if they keep pushing beyond what he calls for then there's a chance that we'll get major reform!

Even though the best reforms have to come from the grassroots, we still need help from our representatives, at least until we can increase reliance on ballot issues and direct democracy on those issues, and reform the interview process; until we can elects real grassroots candidates like Sanderson Beck or many others that most people have never heard of because the corporate media never mentions them, Bernie Sanders is by far the best candidate with a reasonable chance of winning.

This may not sound like the loyal support that is expected for many politicians but we're not cult followers, and as the saying goes "not me, us," meaning that we want a leader that's willing to listen to the people. When Bernie does that it's what makes him so much better than other establishment candidates.



Symone Sanders recently tweeted, I learned something from @brianefallon everyday we worked together at Priorities. So when he told me he was going to start an organization to ignite grassroots activist interest in the courts, I wondered if he knew something I didn't. Per usual, he did. 05/17/2019 Apparently shorty after leaving the Sanders campaign, not only did she get a job as a CNN pundit, but she also worked with the democratic establishment she was previously working against supporting the corporate agenda, while pretending to be part of the "resistance."

Like many other politicians or advisers she comes up with statements like the following tweet defending Sanders, only to have to explain it away a few months later after joining the Biden campaign, although as far as I can tell, instead of explaining it, she ignored it and the mainstream media is helping her by ignoring it as well, so only those that pay attention to social media at the right time will recognize how hypocritical she's being.

Major Democratic super PAC hires Clinton, Sanders vets, Brian Fallon and Symone Sanders, for relaunch 01/18/2017



Anita Hill because she is a Black woman did not have the luxury of vulnerability before the all white male Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991. 09/17/2018



The following are some related articles including my past one about Joe Biden which has been updated with more articles about him and there will probably be many more added to it periodically; tweets exposing some of her hypocrisy are included as well:

Joe Biden Really Was Taken Off The Trash Heap

Is Oligarchy Creating Second Wave Of Fake Progressives? If So Why?

Symone Sanders Slams Shaun King After He Attacks Her For Supporting Joe Biden 05/19/2019

Symone Sanders, Bernie’s Former Press Secretary, Goes to Work on Biden’s Campaign 04/25/2019

CNN Humiliates Symone Sanders By Using OUR Talking Points 05/19/2019

Sam Clovis switching from Perry to Trump one day later on Rachel Maddow.

Symone Sanders Said Dems Don't Need White People To Lead. She Went To Work For Joe Biden 04/25/2019

Symone Sanders defends past donation to Buttigieg after joining Biden campaign 04/25/2019

Facts are facts @SymoneDSanders. U have a job 2 do-& that’s spin. My job is 2 point out facts—which is that the crime bill ushered in unprecedented mass incarceration. The fact that u & @JoeBiden can’t ackowledge it/propose reforms is telling 05/19/2019

Yesterday something truly painful happened. A dozen activists wrote me saying they were sick to their stomachs seeing it. The Biden campaign asked @SymoneDSanders to say that the crime bill only impacted states. At 1:37 the anchor called their bluff. 05/19/2019

Symone Sanders earns her money in this clip trying to convince us water isn’t wet, birds don’t fly and paying states billions to lock up more black people didn’t contribute to mass incarceration. Honesty is your friend @SymoneDSanders 05/18/2019

Damn, @SymoneDSanders, you ignore that Bernie voted for Crime Bill because the Violence Against Women Act was included. How can you look in the mirror? You chose to be on the payroll of a man who's done severe harm to most Americans? You are a paid liar just like Sarah Sanders. 05/19/2019

.@SymoneDSanders wants voters to "give us a minute, you will see.” See what, @JoeBiden unaologetically defend his racist crime bill that has devastated Black families for 25 yrs? Nah, it wasn’t "over correction,” it was white supremacy. 05/19/2019

I mean, you did bust a mean jig defending Biden @SymoneDSanders At what point do your convictions, morals, and integrity supersede your desire to have an illustrious but empty career? 05/19/2019

Please keep going on TV trying to defend Joe Biden and his racist crime bill. It's helping Bernie tremendously. People see through your nonsense. 05/19/2019 I don’t think Symone was this useful to the sanders campaign even when she worked for it // She literally wasn't. She was a mole.

The 1994 CB disproportionately incarcerated Black men, destroyed Black families & left Black children fatherless. @JoeBiden’s denial of it is disgusting. @SymoneDSanders sycophantic caping, simplifying it as “some people went too far” is foot shuffling to excuse white supremacy. 05/18/2019

A Lawsuit by a Campaign Worker Is the Latest Challenge to Trump’s Nondisclosure Agreements 02/25/2019 The most legally significant aspect of Johnson’s suit may ultimately be something the complaint does not explicitly address: the pervasive use of nondisclosure agreements by Trump during his campaign and in his Administration. Johnson’s suit is at least the sixth legal case in which Trump campaign or Administration employees have defied their nondisclosure agreements. Three of those actions, including Johnson’s, were filed this month. Johnson, who was the campaign’s administrative field-operations director in Florida, signed a nondisclosure agreement that bars her from revealing any information “in any way detrimental to the Company, Mr. Trump, any Family Member, any Trump Company or any Family Member company.” Johnson’s attorney, Hassan Zavareei, said, “We expect that Trump will try to use the unconscionable N.D.A. and forced arbitration agreement to silence Ms. Johnson. We will fight this strong-arm tactic.”

A Former Trump Staffer Filed A Class Action To Invalidate All Of The Campaign’s Nondisclosure Agreements 02/20/2019 Jessica Denson, who worked for the Trump campaign in 2016, is arguing the language of the nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that all staffers had to sign is unlawful.

Non-disclosure agreements aren't limited to political campaigns or business transactions they're used for just about everything, including collecting money for charities, apparently. These are literally agreements to conspire against the best interests of the majority of the public, in many cases. There may be some minor exceptions but many charities have turned into public relations arms of corporations as pointed out by Christine C. MacDonald in "Green, Inc: An Environmental Insider Reveals how a Good Cause Has Gone Bad," and there's good reason to believe that this practice isn't limited to environmental providing propaganda cover for energy companies as MacDonald reports, but it's done on virtually every major charitable organization including Planned Parenthood, the AARP and many other organizations.

This secrecy is used to deprive people of the information they need to know how much of the money they donate actually goes to the charity and of information about potential conflicts of interests from many major corporations donating to charities and using them as propaganda public relations. The following is a sample Non-disclosure agreement that seems to include charitable organizations:

Sample Volunteer Privacy and Nondisclosure Agreement

As a volunteer, you may be provided with information regarding donors and prospects to assist you in your volunteer role. Information may include names, addresses and phone numbers of individuals, their giving interests, gift society memberships, potential capacity, a suggested ask amount, or other information relevant to your role as a fundraiser on behalf of __Charity__.

Because of the sensitive and confidential nature of these types of information, each campaign volunteer must agree to abide by a strict policy of privacy and non-disclosure:

As a volunteer, I understand that I am provided with this information in strict confidence to enable me to perform my functions as a volunteer. I will not share this information outside of the development office of __Charity__ including development staff and volunteers acting in a development role on behalf of the __Charity__.

I have read and understand this Privacy and Nondisclosure Agreement:

Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Print Name :_______________________________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________________________________ Original article


This agreement may ban volunteers from disclosing information about the people donating but it's not guaranteed to ban charity collectors from selling their lists. there good reason to believe that lists are routinely sold by many businesses and we have now way of knowing how often it happens, possibly because those involved in it are bound by non-disclosure agreements!

Wealth Engine





No comments:

Post a Comment