The Trump/Sanders Phenomena

Exclusive: The prospect of another competition between the Clinton and Bush dynasties has sent activists from across the political spectrum searching for someone new and leading to the unlikely emergence of unorthodox candidates, billionaire Donald Trump and socialist Bernie Sanders, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

As outlandish as Donald Trump is as a presidential candidate, it’s pretty obvious why he’s topping the polls of Republican voters: he’s tipping over the carts of “politics as usual” that Americans understandably hate. In a much more responsible way, Bernie Sanders is doing the same with Democratic voters though he’s still trailing Hillary Clinton in most polls.

One of the strongest arguments for Trump and Sanders is that they have refused to prostitute themselves in the scramble for million-dollar donations, a core corruption of the U.S. political process. Trump, a real estate mogul and reality-TV star, boasts about how he rejects big-money donors because he can finance his own campaign.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sanders relies heavily on small donations and turned down an offer to create a “super PAC” that could have raised millions of dollars from wealthy supporters. Sanders’s campaign says its average donation is $31.30 as Sanders has tapped broad support among progressives in raising $15.2 million as of July, an impressive sum but still “far behind Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising juggernaut,” the New York Times reported.

Neither Trump nor Sanders has competed in what many political analysts consider the key initial test for any “serious” candidate the “silent primary” of lining up super-rich Americans who pour millions of dollars into campaign war chests so candidates can hire high-priced consultants and finance negative TV ads to tear down opponents. That process has made candidates from both parties dependent on special interests.

Ironically, for a nation that denounces Iran, Cuba and other countries for having special panels of religious elders or party leaders who approve rosters of acceptable candidates, the United States now has a political system that requires most candidates to parade themselves before billionaires who then select the finalists much like the judges do at one of Trump’s beauty pageants.

Trump is not wrong when he bluntly describes how this process works, noting that the wealthy donors are sure to show up after the election with their hands out for favors if their hand-picked candidate wins. The presidency and pretty much every elected office in the United States are up for sale.

Americans across the political spectrum are rightly disgusted by this corrupt system and thus Trump stands out as someone whose personal wealth and almost comedic self-confidence make him harder to buy than, say, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or almost any of the other Republican candidates. For different reasons, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders does too.

Clinton’s Style

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is part of a political dynasty that has made an art form out of vacuuming up money from Wall Street, Hollywood and everywhere in between as well as faraway lands. Bill and Hillary Clinton have sucked up million-dollar bundles of campaign cash, six-figure speaking fees from mega-corporations, and massive donations from foreign potentates to the Clinton Foundation.

With the Clintons, it seems like everything is for sale, leaving much of the public dubious about where their true allegiances lie. They appear to move through the political landscape triangulating as they go, calculating what is most advantageous to say at each moment and then immediately recalculating for the next moment.

As a U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton either showed extraordinarily bad judgment or simply substituted this family process of endless triangulation for what passes as judgment. For instance, she voted for the Iraq War in 2002 not apparently out of any firm conviction that it was the right thing to do for U.S. national security but rather what looked best then for her political career.

At nearly every juncture, Hillary Clinton has opted for what seemed like the safe play at the time. Indeed, it is hard to think of any case in which she showed anything approaching genuine political courage or statesmanlike wisdom. Here is just a short list of her misjudgments after the Iraq War:

–In summer 2006, as a New York senator, Clinton supported Israel’s air war against southern Lebanon which killed more than 1,000 Lebanese. At a pro-Israel rally in New York on July 17, 2006, Clinton shared a stage with Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman, a renowned Muslim basher who proudly defended Israel’s massive violence against targets in Lebanon.

“Let us finish the job,” Gillerman told the crowd. “We will excise the cancer in Lebanon” and “cut off the fingers” of Hezbollah. Responding to international concerns that Israel was using “disproportionate” force in bombing Lebanon and killing hundreds of civilians, Gillerman said, “You’re damn right we are.” [NYT, July 18, 2006] Clinton did not protest Gillerman’s remarks.

–In late 2006, Clinton fell for the false conventional wisdom that President George W. Bush’s nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense was an indication that Bush was preparing to wind down the Iraq War when it actually signaled the opposite, the so-called “surge.” Later, to avoid further offending the Democratic base as she ran for president, she opposed the “surge,” though she later acknowledged that she did so for political reasons, according to Gates’s memoir Duty.

In the early months of the Obama administration, with Gates still Defense Secretary and Clinton the new Secretary of State, Gates reported what he regarded as a stunning admission by Clinton, writing: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary [in 2008]. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’”

–In 2009, Clinton joined with Gates and General David Petraeus to pressure President Barack Obama into a similar “surge” in Afghanistan which like the earlier “surge” in Iraq did little more than get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Iraqis and Afghans while extending the bloody chaos in both countries.

–Also, in 2009, Clinton supported a right-wing coup in Honduras, overthrowing left-of-center President Manuel Zelaya.

–In 2011, Clinton helped spearhead the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Libya, which led to the torture/murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as Clinton chuckled, “we came, we saw, he died.” Like the “regime change” in Iraq, the Libyan “regime change” left the once-prosperous nation in bloody anarchy with major gains by Islamic extremists, including the Islamic State.

–Also, in 2011, Clinton pressed for a similar “regime change” in Syria adopting the popular though false notion that a “moderate opposition” would neatly fill the void after the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. The reality was that Al Qaeda and its spin-off, the Islamic State, stood to be the real beneficiaries of the U.S.-supported destabilization of Syria. These Islamic terrorist groups now have major footholds in all three Arab countries where Clinton supported “regime change” Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Neocon Fellow-Traveler

Throughout her time as Senator and Secretary of State, Clinton supported the aggressive foreign policy prescriptions of the neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist allies. In each of these cases, the neocons and liberal hawks were dominating Official Washington’s debate and it would have taken some political courage to stand in their way. Hillary Clinton never did.

The enduring mystery with Hillary Clinton is whether she is a true neocon or whether she simply judges that embracing neocon positions is the “safest” course for her career that by parroting the neocon “group think” she can win praise from the national-security elite and that big donors who favor a hard-line strategy for the Middle East will reward her with campaign contributions.

Whatever the case, Clinton has carefully curried favor with key neocons, including consulting with Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the New American Century, and promoting his wife, Victoria Nuland, making her the State Department spokesperson and putting her on track to become Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. In that post, Nuland orchestrated “regime change” in Ukraine, which like other neocon targets has descended into bloody chaos, but this adventure also has precipitated a dangerous showdown with nuclear-armed Russia.

Kagan has become a big Clinton booster. According to a New York Times article on June 16, 2014, Kagan said his neocon views which he has redubbed “liberal interventionist” will have a strong standing in a possible Hillary Clinton administration. The Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

Kagan was quoted as saying: “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.   If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” [For more, see’s “Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?”]

Clinton has won praise from another leading neocon, Max Boot, who wrote in a review of Gates’s book that “it is clear that in [Obama] administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”

In other words, Democrats will have to decide if they wish to nominate a “closet neocon” to be the next president, someone who will triangulate her way into appointing the likes of Kagan and/or Nuland as key advisers or possibly to senior State Department posts. So far the Democratic campaign has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, giving Clinton and even Sanders a pass on their foreign policy positions.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the more traditional candidates all have embraced hawkish positions on international issues with the limited exception of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has shown less enthusiasm for foreign interventions while still trying to avoid the “isolationist” label that was stuck on his father, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

But the rest of the traditional field has criticized President Obama for alleged weakness and some have attacked Trump for supposedly lacking foreign policy expertise. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who has been one of the most consistent neocons, lectured Trump about his supposed ignorance of the Middle East, a region that Graham and his fellow travelers have thoroughly messed up.

Given all that, is it so surprising that many conservative Republicans as disgusted with Official Washington as many progressives are would prefer a renegade like Trump to the bland cast of grubbing politicians who are regarded by the mainstream press as the “serious candidates”? The bigger question is whether progressive Democrats are ready to make a similar break from the pack and make Sanders that sort of alternative, too.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

38 comments for “The Trump/Sanders Phenomena

  1. Mortimer
    August 29, 2015 at 15:15

    Trump The Nationalist! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!
    Palin 2.0
    — Just who we need in order to
    “Take Our Country Back !!!!!! !!!!!”
    a- n-d/ t-h-e/ c-r-o-w-d/ g-o-e-s/ w-i-l-d !!!!!!!!
    USA ! USA ! USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Donald Trump mocks Asians at presidential campaign rally

    No surprise here.

    The New York Daily News and other media are reporting that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump mocked Asians with broken English while speaking about China, Japan relations at a campaign rally in Dubuque, Iowa.

    Saeth the News:

    “Negotiating with Japan, negotiating with China,” Trump said during a Tuesday speech in Dubuque before folding his hands over his middle.

    “When these people walk in the room, they don’t say, ‘Oh, hello! How’s the weather? It’s so beautiful outside. Isn’t it lovely? How are the Yankees doing? Oh they’re doing wonderful. Great,” Trump continued.

    He put on an exaggerated scowl.

    “They say, ‘We want deal!’” he bellowed.

    The crowd rewarded him with laughter.

    Trump did his stand-up routine the same day he took to Twitter to trash rival Jeb Bush for making a reference to Asians while discussing “anchor babies.”

    The term, used to describe the U.S.-born citizen children of undocumented immigrants, is widely considered a slur.

    Trump has refused to stop using the term and supports a legal challenge to “birthright citizenship.”

    After Bush said he was referring specifically to “birth tourism” services patronized by wealthy Asians who want to deliver children in the U.S., Trump let loose.”

    Here’s the video of Trump’s Iowa speech.

    Trump has clearly hit a chord with millions of working-class Americans with his tough talk about economic competition with Asian nations. He also characterizes himself a self-made bootstrap Republican. Guess his supporters are giving him a pass on the fact that Trump launched his business career as the scion of one of New York’s wealthiest property development and management families back in the 1970s.

  2. August 27, 2015 at 08:03

    There is a peace candidate running in the Democratic primaries, Lincoln Chafee. Why promote non-neocon lite Sanders as the alternative?

    • Mortimer
      August 29, 2015 at 15:28

      JUST FACE IT — THE REPUBLICANS (authoritarian government) WILL RULE OUR NATION FOR THE NEXT 15-16 YEARS…..

      take my word for it… >>>>>>>>>>>>

  3. Brad Benson
    August 27, 2015 at 05:54

    Thanks for another great article. It’s always nice to see Hillary’s War Crimes spelled out so succinctly. However, I would suggest one small edit. I believe that Mr. Parry actually meant the opposite of what was said in the following paragraph.

    “Americans across the political spectrum are rightly disgusted by this corrupt system and thus Trump stands out as someone whose personal wealth and almost comedic self-confidence make him harder to buy than, say, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or almost any of the other Republican candidates. For different reasons, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders does too.”

    I believe the author meant to say “easier to buy…” and not “harder” to buy. Otherwise, the paragraph does not agree with the main premise of the article—that people are turning to candidates like Trump and Sanders because they are sick of the same tired old crap. This is also evident when one considers that the author could not have intended to say that it is “harder” to vote for Bernie Sanders than it would be for the War-Criminal-in-Waiting.

  4. Paul Karsh
    August 27, 2015 at 03:01

    When I was a kid I read the Superman comics. From time to time they would have a story set in a place called “Bizarro World.” Bizarro World was a place where everything was an imperfect opposite of our world. Thus, for example, people in Bizarro World would say “good bye” for “hello”. Knowing this, the relationship between Trump and Bernie Sanders is clear. Donald Trump is the Bizarro World version of Bernie Sanders!

  5. jhentai
    August 26, 2015 at 18:13

    how does hillary being married to bill amount to a dynasty?

  6. F. G. Sanford
    August 26, 2015 at 18:03

    It’s worth it to go to YouTube, type in “Bernie Sanders A Town hall meeting in Cabot VT” The description reads, “An angry & defensive Bernie Sanders defending Israel’s shameful bombings of #Gaza – and then tries to distract and deflect (and he says he isn’t a politician) by “this isn’t the only problem in the middle east – have you heard of ISIS?”
Shameful showing.”

    Bernie has never offered up EVEN ONE strategy to rein in Wall Street or the “Gangster Bankers”. As far as economics and finance is concerned, he hasn’t got a clue. Of course, neither do Hillary, Trump, Biden or the long list of bozos riding in the Republican clown car. Just imagine what Trump’s illegal alien program would realistically have to look like in order to work: we’re talking the train to Auschwitz on steroids, holding cells, detention centers, armed agents rounding up suspects – the manpower requirements would lead to hiring the same calibre of people now making it such a joy to “fly the friendly skies”. Then, there’s Hillary. She and her husband were responsible for the biggest “New Deal” rollback since 1936, and they continued the Reagan program of installing corporate socialism while cutting social programs without ever missing a beat.

    What these candidates ALL need to be asked is, “How ya gonna pay for it?” There’s only three ways: raise taxes, cut the defense budget or cut social programs. None of those are “on the table” except for more social program cuts.

    The ONLY realistic plan to put America back to work is a massive credit stimulus program implemented in conjunction with nationalization of the Fed. NONE of these con-artists is talking about that. Those who are really interested in electing someone dedicated to America should be asking, “What about those 28 pages, and what about prosecuting the torturers, and what about enforcing the Kennedy Records Act, and what about enforcing the War Powers Act, and why are we letting our “allies” bomb the Kurds, and why didn’t Hillary put Boko Haram and MEK on the terrorism list?” Go ahead, ask those questions. When your favorite candidate stonewalls you, ask yourself why. Answer? They ALL work for the same “deep state” interests – even Bernie.

    • Zachary Smith
      August 26, 2015 at 19:16

      Just imagine what Trump’s illegal alien program would realistically have to look like in order to work: we’re talking the train to Auschwitz on steroids, holding cells, detention centers, armed agents rounding up suspects – the manpower requirements would lead to hiring the same calibre of people now making it such a joy to “fly the friendly skies”.

      Since the Republican politicians love the police state, that’s probably a fair assessment.

      It could be a lot simpler. Simply require legitimate documentation of workers to get a job. Somebody with experience in the business could likely make a simple form with only a few requirements. An attached birth certificate and possibly fingerprints would be my first thoughts. A valid social security number which the applicant is the only user would be a must.

      It’s my view that people legally in a nation ought to have the jobs. In the highly unlikely event the natives can’t do them all, THEN you look at legal temporaries.

      The business of forcing natives to train foreigners to do their job before they’re fired is something mighty distasteful to me.

      • F. G. Sanford
        August 26, 2015 at 20:18

        The solution you outline would work. They used to talk about it on the Joe Pyne Show and the Tom Snyder Show back in the 1960’s. Every couple of years, the “National ID Card” issue has been dragged out regarding illegals as long as I can remember. The Republicans always shoot it down claiming, “It’s a step toward socialism” or, “Its European fascism like the Stasi in East Germany”, or “It’s an infringement on personal liberty and privacy”. What really matters is that they prefer cheap labor. Our regressive tax laws and immigration policies have been geared to converting the USA into a low-wage, union-free gulag economy complete with prison slave labor for the last fifty years. Trump will run on this issue because it gets votes, but it will be immediately abandoned if he wins. Now that we actually are a fascist police state with no privacy and dwindling liberty, I’m not sure what argument they’ll come up with this time around, but I’m sure they’ll think of something.

  7. Andrew Nichols
    August 26, 2015 at 17:36

    With the Clintons, it seems like everything is for sale, leaving much of the public dubious about where their true allegiances lie. They appear to move through the political landscape triangulating as they go, calculating what is most advantageous to say at each moment and then immediately recalculating for the next moment.

    Sums the Clintons and the UKs War criminal Tony Bliar up spectacularly. Vaguely progressive badge disguising naked opportunism inside.

  8. Dick Chicanery
    August 26, 2015 at 16:33

    All the trouble in Iraq, Syria, Libya, it is ALL the fault of the illegitimate bush administration. All the refugees crossing the Mediterranean, or dying in the attempt, or walking across Yugoslavia, it is ALL the fault of the bush cabal and that daft twat tony blair.

    • Bang on
      August 26, 2015 at 16:41

      It was very illegal what they did. If anyone else, say Putin, Saddam Hussein, anyone else, it would have been rightly called AN INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME. Just think about all the consequences of it now. It makes one realize that the u.s. is the country that must be invaded and “regime changed”.

    • Abe
      August 26, 2015 at 20:28
  9. Joe Tedesky
    August 26, 2015 at 16:16

    If there ever was a good example of how insanely long, and outrageously expensive our U.S. Presidential elections are, this is it. We should expect all of this from our vast infotainment industry, which brings all of this garbage into our American homes everyday. In so far as the candidates go, well that is another matter. Who in their right mind would even want to put themselves through this task of running for president? I mean who with any decent creditability would subject themselves to such nonsense? We don’t get really smart people, because that’s why their smart, they want better for themselves. Unless, it was all about fame, and nothing else. Think of the day you would be able to sit in that oval office. Then between the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the State Department Neocon’s who would burst into your presidential office with the bad news of how you will follow their plan. Forget all the promises you made on the campaign trail, none of that is going to happen. All of this is nothing more than a comedy show. At least it gives comedy writers some work. And to think that Letterman and Stewart just retired or left their successful TV shows…Wow! What a time to quite.

    • Brian Bixby
      September 7, 2015 at 21:08

      Remember the 2000 (s)election? The first where spending exceeded $100 million? By the 2012 election cycle it was $1 billion. Now just Hillary has over twice that between her campaign and the superpacs. That’s enough to pretty much buy the networks outright, is it any wonder why campaign coverage is the way it is?

  10. Jay
    August 26, 2015 at 16:14

    Mr Parry:

    What is this implication that Sanders and Clinton have the same foreign policy positions?

    This is a very foolish position to take, and frankly looks to be an anti-Sanders plant.

    I can think of all sorts of questions to ask Sanders about foreign policy in 2015, one would not be do you think your Iraq wars votes (note the plural) a mistake?

  11. Brisa
    August 26, 2015 at 16:06

    I am resigned to the likelihood that the “deep state” has already decided who will next occupy the Oval Office. E-voting and tabulation make widespread manipulation invisible without independent audit processes, rigorously implemented. Then, of course, there is always the Supreme Court appeal option circa 2000.

    “If voting could change anything, it would have been made illegal long ago.” More mendacity and theater won’t give the people a voice in the future.

  12. W. R. Knight
    August 26, 2015 at 14:32

    It is distressing to think that U.S. politics are dominated by people who wish to profit from war at everyone else’s expense. It is even more distressing to know that those who will pay for those wars will vote for the politicians who wage the wars, thus enriching those who profit from them.

    • Curious
      August 26, 2015 at 21:44

      Yes, distressing is a good choice of words, as I probably would have chosen ‘scary’
      To think HRC is ‘in bed’ with the Kagans should scare the bodily fluids out of anyone. Who’s next? John Bolton?
      Mr Parrys’ article was important to help understand Ms Clinton and her ties to wars and armchair bloodshed around the world that we so politely call ‘regime change’ but leave countries in dust and ruin. There is no moral victory, nor any victory at all in such ventures.
      He can’t go through all the candidates in one article but it is important to understand who is backing the destruction around the world. And I do believe she is dangerous in that respect.

  13. David
    August 26, 2015 at 12:28

    An interesting column. 7 paragraphs comparing the funding of the Sanders and Trump campaigns. 19 paragraphs of damning Ms. Clinton. Next to no analysis about what any of the candidates propose. Nothing on what a Congress might go along with the newly elected President Trump/Sanders/Clinton in terms of policy.

    Will Trump propose a wholesale revision of the constitution so he can kick out all the persons he finds inappropriate to be citizens? What are the chances the Congress and the 3/4 of the states will agree with this? How long will it take if it ever passes Congress to enact?

    Will Sanders propose a 90% top tax rate on the high earners? Will Congress ever agree to it?

    I have no idea what Ms. Clinton will propose, and you did not help at all.

    Which “strongly held values” will each candidate abandon to get something done with Congress?

    Pray tell what about the other 18 major party, major candidates?

    So, no I did not find this column particularly helpful.

    It was basically a screed against Ms. Clinton and a backhanded acknowledgement that the funding of nearly all meaningful campaigns is horribly slanted.

    • dahoit
      August 26, 2015 at 13:15

      That woman is one evil turd.How any self respecting human could support her,outside of the crazy Ziomonsters,is beyond comprehension.

    • Brad Benson
      August 27, 2015 at 07:08

      The author did not discuss these things because that it not what the article was about. If you are looking for analysis of the candidates’ positions, that was also present if you read between the lines.

      Essentially, none of the candidates will do anything except what their big money handlers tell them to do. Hence, their positions in regard to all relevant matters involving war, peace and whether you and your family eat will be determined in accordance with the needs of these money people. Therefore, their published position papers, should you care to read them, are irrelevant. In fact, the entire article is about the fact that the appeal of guys like Trump and Sanders is precisely because they cannot be influenced by other people’s money and Mr. Parry is not necessarily endorsing either of these.

  14. August 26, 2015 at 11:59

    Parry does leave out Biden – but Uncle Joe hasn’t even announced yet. Only announced that he will announce. Aside from Sanders, we can probably ignore the other Democratic candidates. My opinion is that Hillary may be going down Hill with so much momentum (read: money), that it will be hard for the DNC to jump off and into another vehicle. Another failing investment; Wall Street will be licking more than stock market wounds. Even if Clinton turns over her campaign money to Biden, there would be frictional loss as the new vehicle gets up to speed. We may regard Trump and Sanders independent of this corruption for different reasons. But Sanders has a chance, because he has true grass-root support, whereas Trump has only weeds, plus astro-turf that he pays for himself.

  15. August 26, 2015 at 11:58

    It’s good to get such a thorough run-down of Clinton’s negatives in historical terms, and yes, I am ALL for Bernie Sanders. About the deplorable popularity of Trump, it’s not all that surprising when you consider the polls are pretty much of Republican voters. The meanest of the mean finally have a national voice as obnoxious as their own. What IS surprising is that Trump can say these obnoxious things –half-truths or never-was-truths– without anybody in the news saying, “FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. Don’t let this man tell such open lies.”

    We have to come to for our truths. Thanks to all the Parries.
    Bob Locke

    • Michael
      August 26, 2015 at 15:07

      About Hilary donations, I think going back to her campaign in 2008 would be enlightening.

      I recall her receiving and accepting money from a lawyer representing a listed terrorist organization: the LTTE. The Sri Lankan Tiger Liberation who invented the explosive belt and developped a massive use of suicide bombers; mostly very young and very poor (low caste) tamil girls.
      There was an outcry and she had to give the money back.

      But when the generous terrorist donors where cornered and defeated she had been supporting them all the way, up to the end. With David Milibrant (Blair foreign secretary) and Bernard Kouchner, the apologist of R2P and ex-gauleiter of Kosovo after Nato ethnic cleansing.

      Beautiful world, small but showing real solidarity and staminia for achieving the devil work.

  16. onno
    August 26, 2015 at 11:42

    Great analysis, Mr. Parry, it shows that the winning presidential candidate must be a crook by selling out the people and country to highest bidder, that are the !% super rich, lobbyists, especially those related to the defence industry and of course to the powerful media TV, radio, magazines and newspapers which only listens to where the money is. So you have again a full circle to bet on the future Republican or Democrat candidate, it sure will NOT be Donald Trump or Bernie Saunders.

    Until 2008 NOBODY ever heard of Barack Obama but he got MSM journalists on his side while Mitt Romney blunt language was interpreted and twisted by the Press. So there is NO doubt in my mind that the Media will play dirty again and will manipulate America into a dirty campaign full with mud slinging. The American again will be lied to and receive all kind of promises from each established candidate which are forgotten the moment the candidate enters the White House.

    In other words candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders don’t have a chance unless the American people finally will finally wake up to reality and realize that they will be taken for a ride again and again. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton ONLY excel in incompetence. Trump has business track record and Sanders a social record that represent the people and NOT Wall Street.

    • liz allen
      August 26, 2015 at 12:09

      Why would Parry put Bernie Sanders who voted against Iraq, and the surge, is opposed to foreign intervention in the same category as Clinton. Bernie is the ONLY candidate running to deal with Wall Street, the bankster gangsters, and has delivered common sense solutions to all questions facing us today.

      We live in a capitalist country, BUT all our programs are socialist. From public education, police/fire, highways, bridges ports the military itself to medicare, medcaid, social security, unemployment and every elected official in government are all Socialist. Bernie Sanders is no radical left winger…he is an honest man with the solutions and policies desperately needed. I could expect the trashing of him here on some right wing website…but come on Parrry NAME one candidate who marched with Dr. King, who has a career of supporting the middle class working class, unions, etc….NONE of them. Bernie is the man supported by the people for the people..the ONLY candidate worthy of that office. Clinton and Biden are both corporate dems who have made a mess of foreign relations…as much as Bush and Cheney ever did.

      Trump is a bloviating fool who trashes everyone attacks everyone because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth…he cares nothing about we the people thinks we are all losers because we aren’t in the billionaire/millionaire class. Trumpolini is a figment of the right wing corporate media in this country. Even Rachel Maddow, O’donald and Chris Hays so called liberals rarely only mention Sanders. The DNC chair Wasserman Shultz is in the bag for Clinton. She is a right wing Zionist who refuses to hold debates because the DNC knows that Bernie would eat them alive with their own records…giving him the platform to expose them and get more and more AWAKENED citizens on his side. Do another story Mr. Parry and talk about corporate socialism…bailouts of the bankster/gangsters, wall street banks IS corporate socialism/facism. I find it remarkable that you would do any comparison between a billionaire corporate prostitute like Trump, in opposition to an honest man Bernie Sanders with solutions. Shame on you.

      • Katherine Magdangal
        August 26, 2015 at 12:23

        thank you..shared on FB :)

      • Zachary Smith
        August 26, 2015 at 13:03

        It’s true that Trump and Hillary are both horrible, though Trump is no worse and possibly even better than the rest of the Republicans. They’re all a bunch of losers and creeps.

        Sanders is, on the same scale, merely awful in my view. Though he did “vote” against the Iraq war, to my knowledge he has voted for all the war spending. In fact, military spending is something Sanders likes very much. Anybody who praises the F-35 is somebody who basically can’t be trusted. The man has to know better, but he’s too cynical a politician who wants to keep his job to speak and vote for the right thing.

        Sanders has a very piddling program for Climate Change – just a long bunch of words in a row. He’s a corporate hack on the subject of opening the borders for illegals.

        He’s totally in bed with Israel. I searched for evidence he was really against the destruction in Syria and Libya, and came up empty. The Israeli murder spree in Gaza had his complete support.

        Sanders may be the best of a very bad lot, but he’s definitely no prize.

        • Brad Benson
          August 27, 2015 at 06:40

          Yes…as much as I would like to give Bernie my unbridled support, one cannot get around his lame statements in regard to Israel and most especially the Israeli Atrocities committed in Gaza. He’s better than nothing, but the MSM won’t let him really challenge Hillary in any case.

          Instead, they are already seeking an “acceptable” candidate in the event that Hillary’s lesser crimes bring her down. This is why we don’t hear about Sanders much, even on MSNBC, and the “liberal” talking heads are all excited about the possibility of Joe Biden getting into the race. After all, everyone likes Joe and he’s certainly a much more pleasant War Criminal than Hillary.

      • dahoit
        August 26, 2015 at 13:18

        Is BS honest about the Palestinian Israeli conflict?The diff between a left wing Zionist and a right wing Zionist is paper thin.

      • August 26, 2015 at 21:56

        “Bernie is the ONLY candidate running to deal with Wall Street, the bankster gangsters, and has delivered common sense solutions to all questions facing us today.”

        What is Bernie’s solution to US citizens using deficit spending to kill 1,200,000 Iraqi citizens?

    • dahoit
      August 26, 2015 at 13:12

      Mitt Romney Committed political suicide all by his lonesome,the MSM probably backed him more than the liar Obomba.
      49% of Americans were lazy and govt, handout addicts.sheesh.Like HE ever worked a day in his life.

  17. Abe
    August 26, 2015 at 11:37

    Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking, an alternate “strategy for securing the realm”.

    • Mortimer
      August 29, 2015 at 16:12

      without a doubt… .

  18. Abe
    August 26, 2015 at 11:32

    nunce se
    continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
    panem et circenses.

    — Juvenal, Satire 10.79–81

Comments are closed.