Another Million Video Views

U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders

Another Sanders team video, another million viewers. They’re now 4 for 4 in the videos in which I’m included. All at over a million views, and the total pushing six million. This one was inspired by my piece on the Mars family. I’m loving this:


  1. the dnc was broke because the donors didn’t care until bernie sanders got in the race. the rich donors hated bernie not trump who they just distrusted. there money was to stop bernie who they couldn’t buy!

    • A lot of what Ms. Brazile writes about in this article isn’t news. Politico had an article in May of 2016 about the Hillary Victory Fund and the fund transfers going on between the states, the DNC, and Hillary’s campaign. Ms. Brazile mentions that article. She also writes about the DNC’s dire financial straits and their need for assistance and so on.

      ** SPOILER ALERT **

      Here’s the bombshell:

      “When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.”

      “The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

      (to be continued)

      • Ms. Brazile goes on to explain:

        “When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party…When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain… This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.”

      • That’s the problem with the Democratic Establishment. They believe that they and they alone are entitled to pick the nominees, regardless of what the people on the ground may think. This mentality also extends to the House and Senate races with the DCCC and DSCC. Exhibit A is Schumer picking Kyrsten Sinema (horrible choice, always votes with the Republicans and Wall Street when it really counts) for the Senate. Exhibit B being Ann Kirkpatrick for the House.

        Bernie certainly had a better shot at winning the Presidency than Hillary. She may have made a good president but he might have been a better one. But the “infallible” Democratic Establishment just had to have her nominated.

        Another big part of the problem is Democratic Establishment consultants who always go big with over the air campaigns (of which they get a percentage, a practice that needs to end) even though it seems those campaigns have a history of diminishing returns. As some Republican once said: “Our candidates lose and we take them out back & shoot them. You guys keep hiring the same failed consultants over and over”.

        Bottom line is the Democratic Establishment had better get behind progressive candidates or the Party will continue to lose.

        • Well said.

          The superdelegates are proof that the Democrats do not trust the people to choose. They need to go.

          • Ultimately, if we are (or aspire to be) in a democracy, rather than a plutocracy, oligarchy, and/or consultancy/bureaucracy, then the lay public has to have the final say over governmental decisions.

            There’s a good bit of evidence that Trump’s election was motivated in part because people were tired of the same GOP and Democrat politicians who have been overpromising and underdelivering for decades, and finally decided to extend two middle fingers in the air by picking the only candidate running in either major party without substantial ties to Washington and the political apparatus that they feel (not completely incorrectly) has left them out to dry for the past 25 years.

            Ultimately, I am and will remain a registered independent until such time that a political party earns through substance, not rhetoric, that it intends to listen to and value my and the public’s input and opinions, rather than that of consultants, insiders, donors, and special interests.

          • This is for Edward (Damn this comments platform!). I was an independent for a while but switched to the Democratic Party so I could vote in the primaries.

          • Here’s what the Democrats should stand for, FDR’s Second Bill of Rights:

            The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

            The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

            The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

            The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

            The right of every family to a decent home;

            The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

            The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

            The right to a good education.

          • I don’t know, Edward.

            I can certainly understand the disillusionment of the voters, I felt it myself. But I didn’t think the logical next step was to vote for a con-man, racist, misogynist, grifter, narcissist, liar, etc… to express my dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidate and the tainted process through which she got the nomination. The lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils.

          • Ultimately, I voted third-party. I don’t regret that vote; while I couldn’t vote for Trump, I couldn’t vote for Hillary either.

            I firmly believe that I, as a citizen, have no influence on public policy. I know this because I go down and speak at Call to the Audience at both the Tucson City Council and the Pima County Board of Supervisors at least once a month, where my statements are noted, entered into the record, and promptly disregarded by our local officials.

            Joel Feinman, who ran as a Democrat for the Pima County Attorney position last year and lost in the primaries to Ms. LaWall, believes that there is a nefarious deal between Tucson City Council and the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, Jim Click, and their respective financiers – No opposition by the GOP business community on the Prop 101 sales tax, in exchange for the Council standing against Strong Start (Prop 204). I’ll link the article: https://pimaliberator(dot)com/2017/10/15/prop-204/ (replace the (dot) because my posting links seems to trigger moderator review).

            I know that while the Democratic Party loves to disparage the Republicans for their support of big business interests at the expense of the people, the Council and Supervisors routinely spend our tax dollars on pet projects while negotiating special tax deals with the land developers and business interests. The Council even sent a full-size Saguaro cactus to Amazon owner Jeff Bezos to try to bribe him to locate Amazon HQ2 in Tucson, along with speal deals I’m not privy to, but which are almost certainly not worth the benefit of HQ2 and however many jobs might be relocated here.

            I agree with FSNT about what the Democratic Party should stand for. But I cannot be so blind to the reality that the Democratic Party doesn’t show that in its actions.

            (Part 2 below, this is getting long.)

          • Part 2:

            I hear from many Democratic partisans the criticism of Republicans that they (the GOP) is a party which puts party over country, while the Democratic Party represents the last bastion of decent civil servants standing for the public good. Especially on Reddit, and sometimes in other places, I hear some of the most vitriolic, mean-spirited comments and personal attacks against me and others who dare to vote against the Democrats. Often these arguments turn into a strawman attack against accelerationism. Usually, Duverger’s law is invoked. Never is it pointed out that the first-past-the-post system is an artifact of legislation and constitutional clauses at the state level, and that despite all the hullabaloo and finger-pointing at Jill Stein and Ralph Nader for daring to deny the Democrats what are Rightfully Their Votes (TM), no state government, including those with Democratic trifectas, ever took action in the last 17 years to move away from FPTP. We are told that we must always vote for the lesser of two evils, with only a handwave given to the fact that they themselves admitted that we are still voting for evil.

            Ultimately, I voted Gary Watson for Tucson City Council in Ward 3. I felt that between Paul Durham’s attack mailers against Felicia Chew, and his personal partisan-invoking attacks on Gary Watson made him unfit to work across the aisle and work to heal the great divides in this city, county, and country. Apart from disconnects within his policy positions (how can you talk about sustainability in one breath while pitching the idea of growing the budget through annexation in the other?), I felt that he was invoking the notion of Democrats good, Everyone Else evil and playing to this partisanship. I said as much during Call to the Audience at the Tucson City Council meeting of October 17th (2 weeks ago).

            So I don’t know what I, as one person, am left to do? Give up and just let the special interests win? Continue to embark on an almost-certainly fruitless endeavor? I think that the biggest takeaway from the past year is just how powerless one citizen, no matter the time and energy they have, is compared to the big-money interests that pull both major parties’ strings.

          • No arguments against what you’ve said. Edward. One citizen is essentially powerless in the political arena, even at the lowest level. One citizen is a wolf howling in the night while everyone is asleep except maybe another wolf. This is why people band together, form groups, protest, etc…because it is their only chance to be heard.

            I was thinking about Donna Brazile’s article and her apology to Bernie Sanders. As I said earlier, most of what Brazile wrote was already out there. Even the written agreement with Clinton isn’t the bombshell because candidates do have these agreements. It was the timing of the agreement, Hillary taking over the party long before she was nominated. This is what shut down all the competition except for Bernie Sanders who created his own organization via social media. And the cash poor DNC agreed to this deal. Since we’re hearing about this for the first time, we have to assume they knew it was unethical. They knew. And we also have to assume that all of this was done to insure a victory for Hillary who they also knew could lose a competitive race (as in 2008). Hence, the term “rigged” is applied, and it appears to be quite accurate. And then, of course, what the Democrats did pales next to what we have learned about Trump’s campaign.

            Fair elections are at the very core of democracy. And if we intend to be a democracy, or some semblance of a democracy, we better make 2016 our lowest point. This absolutely has to get better.

            As for the lesser of two evils, I agree it’s a bad concept. But understand that it is about perception. There were many people who thought they were voting for a great candidate, either Hillary or Trump. However, for those who choose between two undesirable candidates from the major parties, voting for the least undesirable is really a vote to fight on for what you believe. It’s always better to have that chance. And you certainly see from the last nine months of Trump what happens when the greater evil wins.

    • I saw this a little while ago and I still in shock.

      Okay, no I’m not.

      HRC and DNC twitter accounts are silent on this so far.

      Bernie would have won, and damn HRC and the DNC for giving us a pussy-grabbing con man and his corrupt crime family.

      Bernie would have won.

      • I certainly think Bernie could have won.

        Do you have any theories as to why Donna Brazile chose this time to write this?

      • I didn’t notice this until now but this article is actually an excerpt from Ms. Brazile’s book that will be released in a few days, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House”.

        • There you go, she’s selling books.

          I hope she’s also taking a look around and seeing the damage HRC and the DNC have done to the country.

          Meaning we have two crime families and Russian stooges in the White House.

    • Before the fake conservative trolls around here get themselves worked up about a corrupt DNC (we knew over a year ago), have a look at today’s news about Jeff Sessions.

      He’s got problems. The same problems Pence has. The same problems Trump and his klan of criminals has.

      Russia just won’t go away.

      • I’d like to get your take on this:

        To what extent do you believe Russian involvement in the U.S. election, whatever Mueller and his investigation may yield, is actually a big deal?

        I ask because over the past 80 years, U.S. backed insurgents, CIA operatives, and geopolitical pressure exerted through the U.S., it’s allies, and through western-backed international institutions have been responsible for a number of coups, destabilized governments, imposition of strongmen sympathetic to U.S. and Western-backed multinationals, and other such interference in the internal processes of foreign nations. So, to my admittedly partially naive view, this just seems like the sort of stuff that every nation does, except colored red by previous generations’ ingrained fear of the Russian / Soviet Bear to reprise the role of Emmanuel Goldstein for a new generation now that Saddam and bin Laden are both dead.

        • Ed, though your question was addressed to FSNT may I reply? Yes it is a big deal, particularly when the involvement is coming from a hostile foreign power.

          You’re absolutely right about our own history of meddling in other countries elections, it is a deep stain on our national reputation and we should be trying to make it right. How? I don’t know. I do know that when Obama was acknowledging this history the snowflakes on the right started screaming that he was on an apology tour. Living up to our professed ideals would be a good start.

          Lets hope your generation learns from ours and our forebears mistakes and endeavors to not repeat them.

        • What Wileybud said.

          The extent of Russia meddling in the election was vast and has increased, and they’re trying to cause unrest and succeeding.

          I don’t have a lot of time right now, I’ll try to find some good links soon.

          And you’ll be shocked to learn that they tried to hack Arizona’s election and while it appears they failed, I checked around the other day and it doesn’t appear our AZ reps are doing anything much about it.

          And no rational human being thinks Michelle Reagan is competent.

          As far as chickens coming home to roost, we have a lot to atone for.

  2. Bob, you should have been playing for the Dodgers last night. Your video knocks yet another one out of the park!


    BY ROBERT REICH ON 11/2/17 AT 10:04 AM

    The goal of Trump and the Republican leaders is to pull off a giant redistribution of over $1 trillion from the middle class, working class, and poor to the rich, who are already richer than ever.

    They’re selling this to the public with a false claim that the middle class will benefit from their tax cut plan. It’s a gigantic Trojan horse.

    For most Americans, the proposed tax cuts are tiny and temporary. That’s right – temporary. They will shrink in just a few years. And some middle class Americans will actually get a tax increase.

    Meanwhile, the top 1 percent will get a gigantic tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the current plan will save the bottom 80 percent between $50 and $450 in taxes per year, but that it saves each person in the top 1 percent an average of $129,000 a year. For people at the very top, like Trump himself, the tax cuts are humongous. And the corporations they own will also get a massive tax cut.

    Republicans say economic “growth” will pay for the tax cuts, so there’s no need to cut social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

    (to be continued)

    • (continued from linked Newsweek article)

      But Republicans have just passed a budget that would cut nearly $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for these tax cuts. Pell Grants, housing assistance, and even cancer research are also on the chopping block.

      Now, they say we shouldn’t take their budget resolution seriously. It was just a device to get the tax bill through the Senate with 51 votes.

      But once these tax cuts are passed, the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Policy Center predicts that it will cut federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

      When that happens, the only way out of the crisis will be something dramatic – exactly the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and maybe even Social Security – that Republicans have wanted for years.

      By this time, any talk of raising taxes on the rich will be dismissed.

      Using the promise of middle-class tax cuts as a Trojan horse for a tax windfall for the rich and deep spending cuts is a tactic dating back to the Reagan administration.

      But the version they’re aiming for now is “YUGE.”

      We must see the strategy for what it is. And it must be stopped.

  4. You are a very influential man, Bob. And I say that from my own experience. You make very compelling arguments for your perspective that are very hard to argue against.

      • Well, that was kind of my point…if Bob says it is true, and he presents good arguments attesting to it’s truth, then I wouldn’t want to argue against it.

        • Poor phrasing on my part. If what Bob says in the video is true (and it is) then why would obscenely wealthy plutocrats and their lickspittle puppets in congress want to argue against it? Answer: Greed & selfishness over patriotism.

  5. corporate clintonista democrats disagree with you bob as they remove sanders supporters from leadership of the democratic party.

  6. It’s somewhat well-documented that there is a relationship between high levels of wealth inequality and slower growth rates. The exact mechanism isn’t perfectly well-understood, and there are certainly competing hypotheses that economists have debated. One could argue that there’s no causal relation, and the two are both caused by weak/ineffectual governmental institutions and/or governmental corruption siphoning potential growth away from the people. One could argue that this is a Keynesian effect – in the absence of market demand driven by a broad consumer base with the willingness and ability to spend disposable income, business and investors have no incentive to invest their trillions of near-cash assets in productive physical capital, inventory, and other real investments. One could argue a different causal interpretation – the presence of extraordinarily wealthy individuals has a corrupting influence on political discourse, leading to a combination of regulatory capture and rent-seeking behavior that is to the detriment of the broader population.

    It’s not a hypothetical problem, either, and contrary to the prevailing view of some on this site, merely replacing Republicans with Democrats is unlikely to be sufficient, because powerful industry lobbying groups spend PAC money somewhat equitably between the two major political parties and among their various candidates in order to ensure that whoever is elected ultimately feels compelled to advance those interests. As a practical matter, the preferences of the bottom 90% of people by income have no statistical impact on observed legislative outcomes (i.e. what actually matters) at the federal level and I doubt they have much more at the state level. What does seem to have an impact are the views of the top 2-3% of the population by income, industry lobbying groups, and special-interest constituencies.

    But perhaps, given these realities and the fact that the people continue to elect Democrats and Republicans in overwhelming numbers every election cycle, perhaps we have exactly the system of government that we as the American people truly want, as per our revealed preferences.

    • Well said.

      Income inequality and slow growth rates are tied to the velocity of money.

      But saying that out loud gets the trickle down crowd into a tizzy.

      • But of course, much of the ‘supply side, trickle down’ hogwash espoused by Reagan and his buddies was merely Keynesian pump priming – increasing government deficits by lowering taxes and increasing government spending on the military.

        Unless we want to espouse the notion that investment decisions are governed by the Animal Spirits as opposed to the prevailing neoclassical notions of investment being a rational, calculated decision to increase future profits, the quantity of private investment is going to depend in part on consumer demand.

        In Econ 101, it’s traditional to draw production possibilities frontiers showing a clear tradeoff between consumption goods and production (capital) goods which expand the frontier in future periods. Ultimately, though, like much of what is taught in introductory economics, it’s not quite accurate. There’s inherently nothing that suggests that the economy will ever actually operate at its productive capacity; indeed, the presence of unemployment and idle capacity suggests just the opposite – productivity and industry are suppressed for the goal of business and profitability.

        Not really related to the above, but on the topic of small business vs. larger companies, I wish more advocates of Medicare-for-All would start talking about lifting the financial and resource burdens placed upon small business to administer and manage insurance plans, and on would-be entrepreneurs to constantly shop for overpriced ‘insurance’ on the individual markets, rather than moralizing about ‘healthcare as a right’. I think a carefully managed single-payer (or even just Medicare-Part-A for all with a role for private insurance as a supplement) can reduce some of the administrative burden and expense on small business, which bears a disproportionately higher cost on plan administration than do larger entities able to leverage economies of scale.

Comments are closed.