Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bill Clinton To DNC Chair: 'Keep Bernie Folks Out'" video.

  1. The Dems would LIKE to WIN elections, yes. But the ROLE ASSIGNED to them by the DONORS is to KEEP PROGRESSIVES AWAY FROM POWER. Then the money for the party, for individual campaigns, and for ex-politicians will continue to flow. And that is the most important thing for them. If they lose elections in the process - the donors will provide for them - at least for the big shots in the party. The Big donors always win - they either get fierce Republicans or weak Democrats. I think the Dems assume that they can pull off a narrow win with their weak neoliberal positions and with "Trump bad and Russia, Russia". No doubt many hate Sanders for exposing that it is possible to finance campaigns otherwise. And a modest party organization could be run with membership fees and humble donations. The key words being "modest" and "functional" - no cushy jobs for hoardes of "consultants". And most recently they seem to have accepted that the "progressive mood" is not going away so they a) undermine real progressives and b) run a few fake "progressives" (shady people, CIA and Clinton connections, one guy had even a "Justice Democrats" recommendation. So we are in stage 2) co-opting the movement. And even if they lose more seats in 2018 - not ALL of them are going to lose their positions. The donors that FINANCE BOTH parties will take care of ex-politicians when they lose their seats (those who were obedient to them and to the party leadership). Definitely the big shots in the party will be taken care of - the Big Donors know they must be meticulous with that obligation or the still active stooges will get nervous. So the Omegas just have to be servile, hope the best, NEVER STEP OUT OF LINE, make themselves a good name too with the party establishment, and the donors. It is a brilliant self-perpetuating, very stable scheme. So stable that not even the shock of Nov. 2016 could really pierce their bubble. They still defend the gravy train with teeth and nail. They could be content with he salary of a representative, work for the voters, - and bonus: not much fundraising or no dialling after dollars, regular US politicians spend up to 30 - 40 % of their time with that. But that is not enough for them. True if a polician has to end the career - voted out, burn-out, for health or family reasons etc. - when they served the voters they likely will have a hard time to find good jobs in the corporate world - they will be on a black list. In Europe they solve that with giving them cushy posts in the public sector. Which is better than the U.S. way to provide for ex politicians - it comes with the problem that usually the party leadership are the gate keepers for those posts - so the corporate world hijacks the party leadership. So even with publicly financed campaigns Big Biz has way too much influence).
    3
  2. The Dems would LIKE to WIN elections, yes. But the ROLE ASSIGNED to them by the DONORS is to KEEP PROGRESSIVES AWAY FROM POWER. Then the money for the party, for individual campaigns, and for ex-politicians will continue to flow. And that is the most important thing for them. If they lose elections in the process - the donors will provide for them - at least for the big shots in the party. The Big donors always win - they either get fierce Republicans or weak Democrats. I think the Dems assume that they can pull off a narrow win with their weak neoliberal positions and with "Trump bad and Russia, Russia". No doubt many hate Sanders for exposing that it is possible to finance campaigns otherwise. And a modest party organization could be run with membership fees and humble donations. The key words being "modest" and "functional" - no cushy jobs for hoardes of "consultants". Most recently they seem to have accepted that the "progressive mood" is not going away so they a) undermine real progressives and b) run a few fake "progressives" (shady people, CIA and Clinton connections, one guy had even a "Justice Democrats" recommendation. So we are in stage 2) co-opting the movement. Even if they lose more seats in 2018 - not ALL of them are going to lose their positions. The donors that FINANCE BOTH parties will take care of ex-politicians when they lose their seats (those who were obedient to them and to the party leadership). Definitely the big shots in the party will be taken care of - the Big Donors know they must be meticulous with that obligation or the still active stooges will get nervous. So the Omegas just have to be servile, hope the best, NEVER STEP OUT OF LINE, make themselves a good name too with the party establishment, and the donors. It is a brilliant self-perpetuating, very stable scheme. So stable that not even the shock of Nov. 2016 could really pierce their bubble. They still defend the gravy train with teeth and nail. They could be content with he salary of a representative, work for the voters, - and bonus: not much fundraising or no dialling after dollars, regular US politicians spend up to 30 - 40 % of their time with that. But that is not enough for them. True if a polician has to end the career - voted out, burn-out, for health or family reasons etc. - when they served the voters they likely will have a hard time to find good jobs in the corporate world - they will be on a black list. In Europe they solve that with giving them cushy posts in the public sector. Which is better than the U.S. way to provide for ex politicians . It comes with the problem that usually the party leadership are the gate keepers for those posts - so the corporate world hijacks the party leadership. Even with publicly financed campaigns Big Biz has way too much influence.
    1
  3. It is maddening to think he could be president !
    1