Latinos Don’t Have a Party

CHICAGO—It’s May 2015, which means the start of the 2016 presidential campaign season is only a blink away. Already hopefuls are throwing their hats into the ring.

So far only one person has mounted a challenge to Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee—though why Bernie Sanders, a self-styled democratic socialist and the independent junior senator from Vermont, would allow his pro-working class, anti-imperialist message to be subdued by a party that is only nominally those things is beyond me.

I’m sure Hillary and Bernie will be joined by others, probably former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and maybe New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to name only two. Unfortunately for progressives hoping for a candidate to get even mildly excited about, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has been riding the populist coattails of the Occupy movement, appears steadfast in her refusal to run for president next year.

Via DonkeyHotey (FLICKR)

On the Republican side we have a cast of clowns that has become characteristic of the party’s presidential bids. Among the declared candidates are two Latinos (Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida) and they might even have to make room for New Mexico governor Susana Martinez and Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, two other big Latino names on the red team considering a crack at the White House.

Read More via Latino Rebels

Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016. It really breaks down to these two options: 

1. Either get on board with Hillary Clinton, even if she’s not everything you’ve dreamed of. 

- or -

2. Whine and cry because Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run, become apathetic, then let Republicans win the White House in 2016; likely replace four Supreme Court Justices over the following 8 years; start a war with Iran; ruin the planet; destroy our economy again; and undo all the good that’s been done these last 6 years.

Those are your choices.  Period.  No one else has a chance of winning.  Every vote you idealistically hand over to the Green Party or your favorite independent is a vote the Republicans were praying wouldn’t go to Hillary Clinton.  The two party system sucks.  The Electoral College is ridiculous and needs to be done away with.  However.  If either of the major parties even has the possibility of fracturing, it will happen to the GOP first.  The Batshit Crazy Terrible Republicans will split from the Just Regular Terrible Republicans and neither will have enough support to win an election.  Then the Left can split into Actual Save The Country Democrats and Wall Street Democrats like Hillary Clinton.   Until that happens, it’s just not safe to vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning because the alternative is a Republican.

So if you are one of those “but I want to vote with my heart!” people, save your bleating.  Not here for it.  I’m more concerned with you helping Jeb Bush or Scott Walker into office because you voted Green than hearing your list of grievances against Hillary that prevented you from pulling her lever.  If the Republicans put someone in the White house in 2016, it won’t be because the majority of the country wanted them there.  It won’t be because they ran the better campaign.  It will be because too many people with an idealistic view of Democracy voted for their favorite candidate instead of casting a vote against  the GOP.  When I vote next year, I won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton.  I’ll be voting to keep the least terrible option far away from the White House.

2

Bernie Sanders is an old leftist crank — we mean that in the best possible way — from Brooklyn. You can tell that he is from Brooklyn if you listen to any word that he says. We will be hearing a lot more about the MILLIONAYUHS AND BILLIONAYUHS over the next year or so, and we’ll be hearing it from someone who didn’t just arrive at his opinions yesterday after commissioning a few focus groups.

Dissatisfied with Clinton’s centrism? Well, Warren won’t run and O'Malley’s a poser. Embrace the blunt Brooklynite

Nothing shows you have something important to contribute than standing on a car, grabbing your crotch, with both middle fingers in the air.
Only the stupid burn the neighborhood in which they live. It’s their own neighborhood, if they want to torch it let them, and when the dust settles in a few days they can live in it. Nothing’s achieved destroying your own community. That’s just creating a cycle - you loot and destroy businesses, and then you complain about poverty and rundown neighborhoods and government not funding enough for your neighborhood revival.

6

Noam Chomsky - “10 strategies of manipulation” by the media

Historically the media have proven highly efficient to mold public opinion. Thanks to the media paraphernalia and propaganda, have been created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crisis, spurred on some other ideological currents, and even given the phenomenon of media as producers of reality within the collective psyche. But how to detect the most common strategies for understanding these psychosocial tools which, surely, we participate? Encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, promote distraction, or construct artificial problems and then magically, solve them, are just some of these tactics.

1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant‟s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.

3. Self-blame Strengthen

To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!

4. The gradual strategy

acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.

5. The strategy of deferring

Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.

6. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity

Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See „ Silent Weapons for Quiet War).”

7. Go to the public as a little child

Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children‟s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

8. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves

Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.

9. Use the emotional side more than the reflection

Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …

10. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity

Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…

Donation chart shows the biggest difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton 

For all of Bernie and Hillary’s differences, there is none so bright and bold as the manner in which they have raised money for their respective political campaigns. Based on analysis of donations received since 1980, the nonpartisan organization Crowdpac found that “Sanders receives over 60% of his campaign contributions from small dollar donors [giving between $1-199] compared with Clinton who receives less than 10% from that segment.” And who specifically is donating reveals even more about the race.