You are hereBlogs / dlindorff's blog / I’m just sayin’... Who Cares About Democratic Primary Results in South Carolina -- a State Democrats Will Lose in November?
I’m just sayin’... Who Cares About Democratic Primary Results in South Carolina -- a State Democrats Will Lose in November?
By Dave Lindorff
I'll be the first to admit I'm no pollster or even political scientist, but when I read that Bernie Sanders is going to be crushed by Hillary Clinton in Saturday's primary in South Carolina, the state that fired the opening shots in the Civil War and that only last year took down a Confederate battle flag in front of the capitol building, I have to shake my head at the absurdity of it.
Yo! Pollsters! The reason Sanders is predicted to lose badly is because African Americans in that benighted state are telling your people that they favor Hillary Clinton by a margin variously calculated at 30-50%. Then you all put those numbers together with the fact that historically, 55% of the Democratic vote in South Carolina (where blacks represent 28 percent of the state population), are African American, and you say Bernie doesn't have a chance. Then you go on to say that is going to hurt Sanders in next week's Super Tuesday contests, which are all over the place, and on into the rest of the primaries.
But wait a minute. Why should Saturday's primary results matter? South Carolina is, along with Mississippi and Alabama, one of the most solidly Republican states in the country. It's not going to vote Democratic in November whoever wins the Democratic presidential primary.
Now if the black share of the vote in tomorrow's primary were representative of the sentiments of black voters all across the country -- urban, rural, southern, northern, eastern and western -- I could see why maybe there'd be some reason to pay attention, but that is not the case. Hardley.
What we have in South Carolina is a population of black people who have been exiled or marginalized from the state's political system since Reconstruction, or really since their ancestors were brought over in chains from Africa -- a population that despite constituting more than a quarter of the state's citizens has been living in what is effectively still an oppressive, crushing apartheid socio-political-econoomic system. That's a far cry from in the north or the far west, where concentrated African-American populations -- descendants of the great migration from the agrarian south -- have achieved plurality or even majority status in many cities, and have been able to take on, ameliorate or even overcome some of the oppressive conditions under which they and their forebears have lived. They've elected black mayors and black councilmembers, integrated police departments, and opened up hiring in municipal jobs, for example. They've even elected blacks to Congress, and in significant numbers. In places like that, who wins the presidency becomes less important an issue...
For the rest of this article by DAVE LINDORFF in ThisCantBeHappening!, the collectively-run, uncompromised, five-time Project Censored Award-winning online alternative news site, please go to: www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/3053
- dlindorff's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
what remains of it anyway; and this is in addition to other insane crimes he incredibly supports. He "supported the bombing of Gaza, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria", as cited from the video linked just below. He apparently didn't vote to support the war on Iraq, the most recent war anyway, but evidently did support all of these others and also supports Israel. His electoral campaign team seems to make it clear that he supports Israel, so Israel against Palestine, as well as Washington unconstitutionally and, in all other respects, illegally as well as immorally and insanely funding Israel with the use of "hijacked" US taxpayer dollars.
"Luke Rudkowski confronts Ed Schultz, campaigner for Bernie Sanders at a recent democratic debate" :
"Bernie Sanders Campaign Confronted On Supporting Syrian Rebels" (5:19),
Published by WeAreChange on Nov. 18, 2015,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMpY_lU4Ypo
"Bernie Sanders Campaign Does Not Like Questions About Isreal" (1:53),
Published by WeAreChange on Jan. 26, 2016,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0qS-xcDrhI
The first of those two videos is for an interview with a campaigner for Sanders, whereas the second video is an interview with the electoral campaign manager.
From what I've gathered, which isn't a tremendous amount, it seems that there're no really or truly vettable candidates for the upcoming US presidential election. Déjà vu, repeatedly! Americans truly sincere about responsibly working for real Peace & Justice again have no running candidates who're adequately vettable for selecting/electing to the US presidency.
I'm not surprised, for it's a rather dysfunctional society in ... too many ways or respects, but it's nonetheless disheartening. I would've never thought that Sanders was someone as can be learned about with this short video, when people apply open minds and critical objectivity.
His supporters and anyone else considering the possibility of supporting him might also do well by asking him what he thinks about the 9/11 attacks and Washington's bogus "conspiracy theory", aka "official story", about these events, imho. I might be wrong about it but guess that he sides with the bogus official account, hook, line and sinker, only his supporters helping to keep him from drowing in that bs, so keeping him afloat in this bs from Washington, which doesn't seem to know how to produce anything other than bs, which is saying this politely.
Contrary to the stated views of the Sanders campaigner interviewed by Luke Rudkowski in this video, Washington is "deep over its head" in responsibility or guilt for the wars referred to in the video, all based on LIES; plus Israel's perpetual, evidently endless genocide of the Palestinians who have really nothing for defence and who also really aren't a threat to anyone.
The Sanders campaigner is also "dead wrong" about Gaddafi having been at all responsible for the Lockerbie airliner bombing. Libya was initially charged, by Washington and London, for this bombing, but it was subsequently proven that Libya had nothing to do with this bombing, one event about which it seems that no party has been concretely proven to be guilty for, leaving only speculations. A group or an organization of lawyers in Scotland, forgetting the name though, published one or more articles about this incident plenty of years ago and in one of these pieces a fact or else theory was advanced. It was that the commercial passenger airliner was illegally being used by either, or else, both the US, i.e., Washington, and/or the UK, i.e., London, to transport military arms, including explosives; and, the airliner flew through air space through which many radio waves were transmitted. Those radio waves, the article said, would've triggered the explosives. It's something I've never otherwise read or heard about, for others have said that it was the PFLP and not Libya that was responsible or guilty. In any case, it was finally proven that Libya was wholly innocent.
Sanders' campaigner doesn't even know this exposed part of history, and Sanders, as well as his campaigner, support the extreme crime committed against Gaddafi and Libya; plus US and NATO insanely warring on Kosovo/Yugoslavia. And though Sanders' campaigner says or agrees that Sanders didn't support the war on Iraq, which is a good choice, the explanation or reason certainly is nonetheless lacking; not being as thorough as should be.
The Sanders campaigner seems to be someone of awfully little study about the "real world" we live in; iow, tragically ignorant. But, hope isn't going to necessarily prevent anyone from "drowning".
I'm surprised, a little anyway, about Sanders in the above respects, but, then, well, never really followed the political careers of anyone, knowing very or else awfully little about any, though they don't need to do a lot that's wrong for me to become opposed to them being so-called elected to so-called "serve" in the so-called People's service, aka politics. However, I did read a little about Sanders being for single-payer healthcare in Vt and certainly believe that this is good. Unfortunately, though, supporting wars, as referred to above, definitely is an even greater issue.
Also, Sanders' campaigner is so ignorant, so uneducated, and Sanders surely has a choice about who to accept for campaigners, that this, I believe, reflects Sanders' own lack of intellect.
With all of this said, however, it definitely isn't to at all infer that anyone should support Hillary Clinton, for the Clinton pair are, excuse my language for a second, hellbent criminals, treachorous, etc. And I definitely believe that it isn't unwitting on their part; they surely knowing what they've done and continue to do. It shouldn't be done only to them, but both nonetheless should be tried, sentenced and imprisoned, for, minimally, decades.
Here's another recent Luke Rudkowski piece, this time about the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
"How The Establishment Elite Are Rigging The Presidential Election" (8:23),
Published by WeAreChange on Feb. 10, 2016,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L3tMAYfKBM
The Clintons? Disgusting! The Bushes also are, but it isn't husband-and-wife teams, like the awfully sick, demented, ... team that this pair is. It's gutt-wrenchingly sickening; [all] of this crap is.
Is there anyone sane in the house?
Who's the next to-be war criminal, etc, US voters are going to elect, for it doesn't seem that there're any truly vettable candidates? The People need valid, truly qualified candidates, and there evidently are none. Donald Trump has been accusing the GW Bush administration for, minimally, allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, for Washington was forewarned about this, and it was with plenty of forewarnings. But when asked if he'd see to the establishment of a real 9/11 investigation, Trump chose silence and to walk away. The so-called 9/11 investigation of a decade or more ago was bogus, a clearly real cover-up, and of course Washington would be responsible for this. No real 9/11 investigation has even taken place, and Trump's refusal to answer affirmatively, saying that he'd demand a real investigation, is just another indication that the USA and this world won't be provided with what legally and morally needs to be done.
"Donald Trumps Conspiracy Theory Truth's" (7:13),
Published by WeAreChange on Feb. 16, 2016,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRg7yHRpbH0
Here's an earlier WAR piece about Trump, this time his vs Jeb Bush's presidential campaign.
"The Real Truth Behind Donald Trump's 9/11 Comments" (5:54),
Published by WeAreChange on Oct. 19, 2015,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fC_7EeUnk
As Rudkowski adds, latter video, if not stated in both, isn't to express support for Trump for US President. Instead, it's only to say that Trump is right in what he does say regarding 9/11, though not okay in full, for Trump doesn't go anywhere near the true need for a real 9/11 investigation, one with real subpoena power and the ability to sentence people to prison, f.e.
I doubt that it, the real 9/11 investigation that's clearly never happened and remains needed, will happen, for this'd require full power of law, subpoena power and the ability to judge, sentence, convict, power that I guess the govt must approve and back, a govt that presently can be only dreamed about ever existing, of course in the future. We can't undo or change the past but can try to make amends today and in the future; and, as much as 9/11 Truth experts make it strongly clear that a real investigation is justified as well as absolutely needed, I don't imagine that Washington will ever be lead by equally honest, moral and constitutional people.