Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Sarah Silverman tells Bernie Sanders supporters they're "being ridiculous." She's right. I'm finally throwing in the towel and saying, "I'm With Her"..... Jill Stein, 2016!


Above: In this video clip, we see Al Franken and Sarah Silverman awkwardly trying to fill in empty time while a band gets ready to play at the Democratic National Convention last night. Silverman eventually grows tired of Bernie Sanders supporters and tells them they're "being ridiculous" for causing a commotion and not supporting Hillary. YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjGEHIkZ7ss

Sarah Silverman first supported Hillary Clinton, then supported Bernie Sanders, and now is back to supporting Hillary Clinton. She apparently feels that voters not willing to follow her example are "ridiculous." But it's easy for people like Silverman, i.e., multi-millionaires, to support Clinton because they have no real need for radical change. Would they prefer a few radical changes? Perhaps, but the status quo, or perhaps some incremental changes here and there, will do for now. However, for people who are mired in poverty, suffocating under oppressive debt, stuck in low-paying & dead end jobs, contemplating suicide, etc., incremental change means nothing - it will not improve their lives in any significant way. Indeed, incrementalism is a strategy to shut the people up, and acclimate them to economic injustice, while the wealthy rake in more wealth.

Worse still, we can't even be certain that Hillary will fight hard (or fight at all) for incremental changes. She is a fundamentally deceptive and secretive person (just as the DNC is a fundamentally deceptive and secretive organization) and she is also beholden to the financial industry - and the financial industry does not look kindly upon middle and lower-income Americans, seeing them more as potential targets for fraud & victimization than as human beings.

Ultimately, Silverman and others are asking us to overlook the rigged primaries, which have undermined our democracy, and to just go ahead and support Hillary and the DNC anyway. Oh, and if you have any doubts, consider these four examples of how the primaries were rigged:

Collusion and Money Laundering: The Clinton Campaign and the DNC colluded to launder campaign cash through at least 32 state state party committees, and then put most of money into the "Hillary Victory Fund," thereby skirting donation limit rules, and giving Hillary an unfair and unethical advantage.

Super-Delegates to Undermine Voters: Super-delegates pledge their support for Hillary (e.g., in conversations with reporters), before voters even went to the polls at the various primaries, thereby making it seem that Hillary could not be defeated. This, no doubt, suppressed the vote. The chair of the DNC explained the purpose of the super-delegates: "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." She is telling you, blatantly and openly, that the super-delegates exist to make sure that candidates like Clinton beat candidates like Sanders.

The DNC Took Sides: As the recent WikiLeaks clearly show, the DNC, despite their mandate to remain neutral, actively worked to undermine the Sanders campaign. Is this any surprise though, since the chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was a former campaign worker for Clinton. You would think that such a conflict of interest might have led to her to step down from the DNC when the Sanders-O'Malley-Clinton race began. But, you see, the DNC thinks we're suckers. They think, "Those fools don't even know what a conflict of interest is, let alone care about it."

Suppressing Debate: Debbie Wasserman Schultz limited debates, and scheduled debates at odd times, in an effort to keep voters from hearing Bernie Sanders' message.

Despite this damning evidence, many Hillary supporters are vehemently denying that the primaries were rigged in any way whatsoever and are, instead, calling Sanders' supporters "whiny little children" and "sore losers." And many who do acknowledge the fraudulent nature of the primaries say, "What's the big deal" (see, e.g., "With DNC Leaks, Former ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Is Now True—and No Big Deal," Common Dreams, July 25, 2016).

Question: How can the subversion of our democracy be no big deal? How can it be something to dance about (as I saw last night at the DNC)? And how can people call us "whiny little children" for calling out such unethical activity? Die-hard Hillary supporters, like Silverman, are essentially telling us, "Yeah, you were tricked, deceived, and lied to, but you are being absolutely ridiculous for not supporting the people who tricked, deceived, and lied to you." Excuse me???

Even Bernie Sanders, bless his heart, is so afraid of a Trump presidency, that he has been reduced to supporting the people who contemplated using his religion against him. Oh Bernie, say it ain't so!

In any event, no Ms. Silverman, it is you who are being ridiculous. And I refuse to be ridiculous with you. I am voting for Jill Stein, a woman who probably has more integrity and good intentions in her pinky finger than the Clintons have had in their entire neoliberal (i.e., Republican Light) lives.  

No comments:

Post a Comment