[Peace-discuss] Proving Bruce Dixon right, years after he wrote that Sen. Sanders was a "sheepdog" for the Democratic Party

[J.B. Nicholson]

Brussel, Morton K wrote:
> The question is: What do people do in the present situation, people like me. Vote
> Green?

That's one option. In the 2016 general election the biggest bloc of registered voters 
chose a different path -- they didn't vote for POTUS. I suspect that's because the 
candidate choice they saw was between two neocons & neolibs, and most registered 
voters didn't bother checking out third parties or independent candidates and weren't 
going to put effort into voting for a complete unknown. In Illinois, I think it's a 
safe bet that the state's electoral votes will go to the Democrat regardless of who 
that is.

So I conclude that if you vote for POTUS in the general election at all, voting 
Democrat is a wasted vote and voting for either major party candidate is supporting a 
neocon & neolib. Picking which one is slightly better (lesser evilism) is part of 
what got us to where we are and (as Jimmy Dore & co. discuss in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qaf7nhPbYA) that means you're going to end up with 
worse candidates in future elections.

If you can't say no to voting Democrat you'll give Democrats no reason to care about 
your interests. Take it from Lawrence O'Donnell in "An Unreasonable Man" from 2016 
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRNnIMDkUY which includes the movie edit 
featuring William Greider as well). O'Donnell used to say reasonable things but now 
does MSNBC puff piece interviews with Biden where O'Donnell never challenges Biden's 
false claims.

So I recommend not looking on elections as all that big of a deal; political 
organizing and action the rest of the year matter more.

As for voting the Green Party nominee in the general election: I'll need some more 
time to review the Green Party primary candidates. Last I knew, Howie Hawkins was 
running in the Green Party primary. I wouldn't vote for Howie Hawkins because he's a 
Russiagator (per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZZTlzThTo) but that still leaves 
plenty of other choices (per 
https://ballotpedia.org/Green_Party_presidential_nomination,_2020). Among the 
problems with Russiagate is that Russiagate support is a clear sign of someone who 
either isn't thinking critically about Russiagate claims and their backing, or that 
person is virtue signaling to the establishment that they're trustworthy. Either way, 
that's bad news for American & Russian public (insofar as Russiagate narrative is 
used to justify anti-Russian sanctions, Russiagate is also a cause for war because 
sanctions are war).

Sadly, Sanders' support for Russiagate 
(https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2020-March/052018.html where I 
supply a transcript and point to a video) is another of his bad campaign choices that 
lead me to believe his campaign is not to be taken seriously.

> You appear to be certain about what a Sanders could (not) do if elected. I do not
> have that certainty, and I retain some “hope” that he could move things more
> forward, more justice and empathy, more consideration of the environment and
> global climate effects, than to have a Trump triumph, the likely outcome if Biden
> were to become the Dem nominee.

Sanders told "Meet the Press" in 2016 that he's down with the US drone war (he's said 
nothing since to contradict that view), and in 2019 he repeated CIA talking points on 
the Venezuelan coup attempts on Twitter 
(https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1099380342018912257). The US military is a big 
polluter. Sanders' foreign policy doesn't challenge the continuity of policy. Hence 
Sanders' foreign policy is not laudable on grounds of murder, cost, and being 
anti-ecological. In this election he doesn't do half the educating about the critical 
connection between foreign policy and domestic policy that Tulsi Gabbard does in 
virtually every interview (see Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, and Joe Rogan's interviews).

As for hoping that Sanders "could move things more forward, more justice and 
empathy": Those are fine goals but I see Sanders repeatedly call Biden "his good 
friend", and recently Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper that "Joe [Biden] can beat Trump 
and if Joe is the candidate I'll do everything I can to make sure that he does" (see 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVaNY4THm90 for footage of this CNN interview and 
Jimmy Dore's take on that). I don't think that these are choices consistent with 
running a campaign to win. This talk sows doubt in my mind that Sanders would stand 
up for my interests should he become the next POTUS. Bruce Dixon's BAR article fits 
available evidence as to why Sanders would say stuff like that.

Who really controls the Democratic Party nominee: If what Bruce Spiva, speaking in 
his official capacity as DNC lawyer, told a court (I quoted him in 
https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2020-February/051938.html) then 
the consequences of his statement tell me a lot about who really chooses the DNC 
standards bearer: DNC elites make that choice and not the primary participants. Put 
more bluntly, those who 'vote' in the DNC corporation primaries aren't really 
choosing a representative for that corporation like they think they are, they're 
(perhaps unwittingly) participating in political theater set up to give the 
impression that the DNC cares what the Democratic Party supporters think about their 
candidates. I have no evidence to question Spiva's take on this.

I doubt that the DNC would let Sanders represent that party and I believe Sanders 
will continue to do more to keep his numbers below Biden's, and therefore you won't 
get the chance to vote for Sanders in the general election.