28 June 2016

Warren and Sanders are Complete Frauds


Hillary Clinton would be very foolish to pick Elizabeth Warren as a running mate.

That aside, what's striking here is that Elizabeth Warren has exposed herself as a sell-out.

The statements she makes about Clinton just beggar belief.

 “We’re here with someone who gets up every single day and fights for us,” the Massachusetts senator said as Clinton looked on approvingly. “Someone who has spent her whole life fighting for children. Spent her life fighting for women. Spent her life fighting for families. Fighting for health care. Fighting for human rights. Fighting for a level playing field. Fighting for those who need her most. We're here to fight side by side with Hillary Clinton.”

Warren is obviously a complete fraud. Like Sanders she doesn't really stand for any of the things she carries on about. It's all an act. In the end, they're like the mainstream media... they kow-tow to retain access, to keep a place in the game. This isn't diplomatic or democratic compromise. This is pure sleaze.

Obviously they are counting on the fact that the bulk of their audience is completely ignorant. Their followers should be insulted.

When will people learn? Politicians are people of one principle... attain and retain power. That's what they're about.

If they actually stand for something, they don't get anywhere. If they through a fluke come close, they are destroyed or killed or at the very least marginalised until they can be forced out.

Do not ratify this system with your time or energy. It is corrupt and evil and the Christians involved in it are the same.

Speak the truth and bear witness. Live your life by faith and with integrity. We are pilgrims and strangers here. Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. Put no confidence in princes nor for man on help depend.

Fiery dust is their destiny and their doom.

I don't know how these people can even look at themselves in the mirror.


  1. My old man has never trusted Sanders since first seeing him on television. I've asked him about it repeatedly and all he can say is that the man seems insincere but he can't quite put his finger on it. I'm assuming he's made a similar impression on you.

  2. He's either insincere or woefully naïve. He's never really indicated that he's going to take on the system. He makes a lot of noise but when pressed his proposed changes won't change much of anything. The Left-side of the conspiracy world paints him as serving a role in the Democratic party.... to capture the disenchanted Left-wing elements and re-energise them about being Democrats and ultimately supporting Clinton. These same critics (like WSWS) argue that his campaign was (like Trump) phony and insincere. He's serving a role.

    But then (like Trump) it took off and went places no one ever dreamed possible.

    There may be some elements of truth to that but I don't think his campaign was a scam. I just think that he's not really intending to take on the system. Hey, I'll grant maybe he (and Warren) could argue that you're never going to make the big changes in one swoop. It has to be done incrementally. But he should know that at this point that won't work. The system is pretty irreformable. He talks of revolution but then supports American militarism and private ownership of production and banking. That 'is' the system. All of that goes together.

    I think he's a little full of himself right now and doesn't want to bow out... but at the same time he can't decide whether he wants to risk burning his bridges with the party and the Clinton administration.

    It may be too late. I think he may have already burned those bridges. They're getting pretty irate with him. I wonder if he thinks he can hold them all hostage and negotiate some kind of powerful cabinet position in the administration? I don't know.