Gabbard Would Outperform Sanders In Debate With Trump

Tulsi Gabbard would have a considerable edge in debate against Trump which Sanders would not have. The ONLY exception would be voters rabidly pro-Sanders or ANYONE-but-Trump. For all other voters, in debate with Trump, Sanders would struggle with certain topics which most Americans find highly important.

Russiagate and Sanders. The first example of this came this week. Hillary Clinton went on a talk show and tied Sanders to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, most of us have little interest in what Clinton has to say on any subject, so this should be a non-issue. However, it was picked up by the Russiagate media and talked about widely.

Now the biggest problem with this subject is the fact that Sanders has not opposed Russiagate. He has propagated it. He has stated publicly that Russia helped his campaign in 2016 without his knowledge. He has previously accused his own supporters in 2016 of being influenced by Russian propaganda if they did so much as question Hillary Clinton.

What this means is that Sanders has bound his own hands regarding Russiagate. So far the media on this subject has gone easy on Sanders. You may think not but trust me, it will absolutely get worse. Sanders has not faced any accusations regarding Russiagate in DNC debates. Trump will absolutely bring up the subject, even if only in an attempt to deflect accusations against him by the media. This will place Sanders on the defensive because the questions will come not only from Trump but also neoliberal AND conservative media. Trump has denied any political ties to Russia and can point to how hawkish he has been against Russia. Sanders has no effective defense, since he has promoted the Russiagate narrative and claims that Russia helped him in 2016.

Russiagate and Gabbard. Gabbard would not have this problem. She makes her foreign policy stance very clear. She will work toward diplomacy and easing tensions with other countries, including Russia. The risk of maintaining those tensions is too great to allow them to increase further. Aside from wild-eyed schizophrenic talking heads who see Russians in their closets and refrigerators, there has been no accusation of Gabbard having any ties to Russia and those claims cannot be in any way quantified rationally. I’m sure Rachel Maddow will try, though.

Election integrity. Another issue on which Gabbard has the upper hand is her defense of election integrity. It has been absolutely proven that the DNC committed election fraud in 2016, with Hillary Clinton at the helm. Trump will absolutely bring that subject up. Sanders will have no defense on the subject at all. Not only did he campaign for Clinton in 2016 but he has been completely silent regarding election fraud in the primary up to this very day.

Gabbard, on the other hand, stepped down from the DNC vice chair position to protest election fraud, did NOT campaign for Clinton, has been publicly critical regarding the DNC and openly opposed Clinton only weeks ago. She also has announced that she will not be running for her Congressional seat again, so the DNC holds absolutely no power over her political future, as far as we know at this time.

Foreign policy. On foreign policy, Trump would likely not even challenge Gabbard. While he has failed at his campaign promises of ending wars and easing tensions with allegedly hostile leaders, he can point to efforts he has made. Gabbard also shows she will meet with those leaders and states the absolute goal of ending wars. Trump can absolutely challenge Sanders on foreign policy because Sanders has only offered platitudes on foreign policy. He has not offered any specific policies, goals or methods for his foreign policies.

Healthcare. Trump’s healthcare policies have been an absolute tragedy, leaving millions without medical insurance coverage of any kind while insurance and medical costs have continued to rise drastically. The one thing he can point to is that he eliminated mandatory private coverage and the penalty for not being insured. He will use the last part as a weapon against both Sanders and Gabbard, who both support universal healthcare.

With Gabbard, she openly states she supports universal healthcare with no private insurance involved for basic care. She does support the availability of supplemental care through private insurance, which is consistent with most countries that have universal healthcare. Much of her proposed healthcare plan would be paid for by reducing military spending. That reduction would be constant, not affected by stock market performance.

With Sanders, his plan also has the same components. However, he has been less prone to discuss the supplemental insurance aspect, which can be construed as an attempt to hide that fact. His plan is largely financed through a tax on stock market trades. Problem is, the amount available would decline if and when the stock market declines. Which the stock market is poised to do precipitously. He states he would decrease defense spending but without a plan in place for reducing conflicts, that would be difficult to justify and accomplish.

Debate style. One has to look at debate styles and behavior. On his own, Trump goes on tangents, we all know this. However, if you recall the RNC debates in 2016, he tends to remain rather composed and on the offensive at all times.

Sanders can be put on the defensive easily. He does try and keep a strong focus on the issues but can become visibly shaken. Trump has the tendency to change subjects and use more personal attacks, which tends to put Sanders on the defensive and he is rather consistent about it. When faced with subjects for which he actually has to defend himself, he stutters a lot.

Gabbard is a lot harder to shake. She can go on the offensive very easily. She goes into debate well prepared regarding her opponent. That is, in addition to being well versed on the issues. On top of that, she thinks on her feet and can transition without blinking an eye. She can face an aggressive opponent down with a smile on her face, never show fear and not stutter a single time.

Between Sanders and Gabbard in debate against Trump or any aggressive opponent, I would definitely say Gabbard would fare much better. Sanders fosters the image of the grandfather figure focused on domestic policy. Gabbard projects the image of a warrior, ready to fight the Establishment while working to ease international tensions. In a world currently at war, with raging international tensions, highly aggressive characters and forces in our political parties and a blatantly dishonest, adversarial corporate media, at this time the warrior/diplomat is what this country sorely needs and the one who will fare far better in debate in this environment.

Prove Me Wrong. Convince Me.

This article is directed specifically toward Bernie supporters.

I have made a number of statements that I am not convinced Bernie is nearly as anti-war as he claims to be. Apparently I am not the only one. This article from CounterPunch from April of this year shows they are not convinced, either. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/

Still, I remain open minded to new information. Just before starting this article, I did a short web search and found nothing which convinces me that my view is incorrect. However, we all know that censorship is a real thing, so maybe there are things I have not seen. I certainly have not seen any convincing statements shared on social media, where it would surely be used to contradict my statements.

No matter what I or other anti-war activists have to say, Bernie supporters absolutely insist with their very last breath that Bernie is anti-war, anti-regime change.

So, this is your chance. Prove me wrong. Fully convince me that my view is incorrect and Bernie is fully committed to ending the wars we are in, not starting any new wars, not going to endorse regime change operations, that he is against the sanctions which are killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in other countries.

It has to be proof. I will not be swayed by vague rhetoric. I need direct quotes. I need video evidence. I need current policy positions on general foreign policy. Show me something proving that Bernie has literally stated he will enact policies which do any of what is stated above. Convince me. Convince yourself. Remove all doubt.

Here’s what I will not accept- I will not accept excuses. I will not accept your opinions or insults. When you must resort to that, you have nothing else to offer of substance. I will not listen to how any politician can lie. We all know this but if there is no promise, no specific policy stance, there is no reason to believe there will be any effort. There is nothing to use to hold an official’s feet to the fire if they can respond, “I never said that.”

“No more wars.” That was one line uttered in 2016. Something to realize this does NOT mean is that there will be FEWER wars. The number can remain the same but locations can change. Labels mean everything. Politicians can claim “the war on terror” is literally one war spanning numerous countries with global implications.

As anti-war activists, we need to be waging our own war against war itself. You are in or you are out, there is no in between.

Now, Bernie supporters. It’s your turn. Gimme what you’ve got. Show me.

Tulsi Can Unite The Country

With all the rhetoric of the last few years about unity, the same rhetoric has been concurrently divisive, incessant “us against them” mentality which does absolutely nothing to unite anyone outside specific echo chambers. US against Russia, China, Mexico, Turkey, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, Europe… Worse still, that rhetoric has divided American against American along party lines with no policies or issues being debated.

If you try and bring issues into the discussion, you will be ostracized by party or name loyalists. Yes, that absolutely includes Bernie supporters. It was once Bernie who claimed he was an Independent who could work with both major parties. He no longer even attempts to voice that claim and his followers, most of whom are new to the game, have not noticed the change. They just follow along, claiming he has a consistency which does not exist when viewed objectively.

Now we have a candidate who holds the potential to genuinely unite voters and possibly parties, at least on specific issues and policies. That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.

Nobody paying attention can claim that the DNC is the party in favor of peace any more. They have raged in favor of every single war for decades. In 2016, it was the RNC convention which spoke of ending conflicts. It was Hillary’s DNC convention which was intensely militaristic, with uniform after uniform taking the stage and continuous talk of “a strong defense”. It has been the DNC pushing Russiagate, who increased the “defense” budget beyond what Trump had requested, who have objected to efforts of peace talks with Russia and North Korea. Who insisted that US military presence in Syria should continue.. illegally.

There is no question that there are fundamental differences between Democratic and Republican voters. However, that divide is not as deep as many convince themselves to believe. Republicans tend to prefer a more authoritarian president, while Democrats prefer a nice-speaking pretty face. Yet voters on both sides will completely close their eyes, ears and minds against the atrocities committed by their preferred cult leader, fully prepared to fight to the death it appears, to defend the same atrocities.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if millions of Americans lost their life savings and evicted from their homes under Trump, rather than Obama? If the big banks had grown bigger under him? The outcry would cause earthquakes and we would have more calls for impeachment which would go nowhere because it benefited corporations. How about if Trump refused to prosecute the banking elite and those guilty of torture? What would happen if Trump said in a folksy tone, “We tortured some folks”? How about if he expanded our bombing to add another 5 countries to the list of our victims?

Yet Republican voters and the majority of Independent voters oppose warfare. They want our troops out of other countries, want to end regime change wars, want our wars to be called wars. The majority of voters support universal healthcare and breaking up big banks. Most Americans support legalization of marijuana, at least for medical use. Most Americans support price reduction and controls on medications.

Every one of these things are policies expressly supported by Tulsi Gabbard.

In addition, many millions of Americans oppose the election fraud committed by the DNC in 2016. Tulsi is the one, single, only mainstream candidate who stood up against that fraud. She did not campaign for Hillary in 2016 and recently stood up against Hillary as nobody has done publicly in the Democratic Party.

On the left, Tulsi supports universal adult education and forgiving student loan debt.

On the right, being a veteran, supporting veteran support and being a strong leader definitely gains support by those who are disappointed in Trump’s performance.

If we truly want to solve our problems in this country, which affect all other countries in some ways, we absolutely need a president that garners popular support from voters of ALL parties.

Tulsi is young, strong, healthy, lucid, literate, ethical and professional. She has shown she will stand by her values in the face of an oppressive system, even when it is her own party in which she holds a high position and meets with vindictive actions in response. She will meet with leaders we do NOT agree with, not just slaves to the US Empire. She is able to openly state she has been convinced she held a view in error. She is disliked by the “liberal” media. Each and every one of these points SHOULD be held in her favor by any true American.

Or would you prefer to just keep going the way we have been going? Do you prefer solutions or mindless, endless, destructive hatred? Personally, I want solutions.

No, Bernie Does NOT Want To Protect Whistleblowers

A few days ago, Bernie Sanders announced his support for protection of whistleblowers. What his supporters have missed in this TALKING POINT is the very obvious omission of any suggestion of protection, objection to the prosecution of or statement that he would pardon Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

It has been months since Tulsi Gabbard issued the statement that, if elected, she would pardon Assange and Manning.

This is notable because in his much-touted 40+ years in office, Sanders has never once made a statement in favor of whistleblowers. Until now. He is only making his statement now that the DNC is screaming to protect whistleblowers coming forward with questionable, closed-door, hidden, “classified” information against Trump.

That’s interesting because I would consider a whistleblower to be someone who releases information to the public. Maybe that’s too tight of a definition but in this case, corruption on both sides is being considered, including Biden and his son. Biden’s son is not a government official. So, why do we not get to hear this evidence? It involves billions of dollars of US taxpayer dollars which went to a literal Nazi regime in Ukraine by Biden/Obama. Versus the question of whether $400 million was withheld by Trump to the new non-Nazi administration now in place. To date, there has been no public evidence connecting the Trump funds with the investigation. The evidence is coincidental at best.

While Kiriakou was in prison, Sanders never supported whistleblowers. When Snowden was exiled to Russia, Sanders said nothing. When Manning was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, considered torture by the UN Human Rights Council, Sanders said nothing. As of right this minute, Manning is being imprisoned on double jeopardy, against US law while Assange has been well documented showing obvious signs of torture. Sanders remains silent on the subject.

This is your “Progressive”?!!!

Sanders continues promoting Russiagate on all levels, from his rhetoric to his policies. I’ve explained what dangers are inherent in Russiagate if allowed to continue.

On one side of the whistleblower issue we have whistleblowers who revealed torture by our government. Who revealed murder by our military of civilians, journalists and children. Who revealed the perjury of the CIA director in front of CONgress while documenting illegal, warrantless mass surveillance of the US and global population. Who revealed election rigging by the DNC. Who revealed US government funding and arming of terrorist groups in the Middle East. Sanders has not spoken a single word, even as of today, endorsing protection of those whistleblowers.

On the other side we have a whistleblower who heard second hand accounts of a phone call to a foreign leader regarding a vague reference regarding a corruption investigation involving a US candidate highly likely to lose while displaying very obvious signs of advancing neurological deterioration. THAT so-called “whistleblower” sparks a statement from Sanders of protecting whistleblowers.

Yet it is worse than that. Let me make this abundantly clear, for those of you in the cheap seats. The Ukraine investigation DOES NOT involve Biden directly. It involves his CIVILIAN SON. This is an equivalent to the fact that the DNC is NOT a government agency, it is a PRIVATE organization!!!

So, Sanders will protect those who are suspected of corruption, including those who impacted the 2016 election, as long as those suspects are members of the DNC. Yet he will still claim to be against corruption. He will promote an agenda which pushes us ever closer to war, which supports murderous sanctions in other countries for the benefit of oil and weapons companies.

At this point I absolutely reject the claims of Sanders and his supporters to be “Progressive”. Each and every one of them are nothing but opportunists with an eye on their own profit margin. They are just as warmongering, corrupt, Zionist, nationalistic, selfish, apathetic and bloodthirsty as anyone they disparage on the far right. They just don’t admit to it openly.

Peace Is Not A Secondary Consideration

Many people who support certain candidates want to support universal healthcare and place peace as a secondary consideration or make peace completely optional.

The same people or many of them want to increase wages with the same view toward peace.

Peace is not a secondary consideration. Peace is not optional. This entire thought process brands the holder of these views as nothing better than an unethical capitalist. Right in line with weapons manufacturers and vulture capitalists.

When one is willing to place peace on a back burner while crying for universal healthcare and higher wages, allegedly socialist policies which benefit them, they are literally stating they do not care about the deaths and injuries our country inflicts upon brown-skinned people in other countries. Just as long as you are making a profit or reducing your costs, any atrocity done in your name is acceptable. Because that is all you are thinking of. Your bottom line.

It’s amusing (sic) when so-called “leftists” (sic) place themselves morally above WAR Street executives or candidates who pass tax cuts for the rich. Yet at the same time are willing to blind themselves to the warmongering policies or political double-speak of their preferred party or candidate. Double speak which includes phrases like, “(We will) Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and protect all people.”

Never question what this means. Never ask who defines what is a “pro-democracy force”. Never ask why the use of the word “force” is necessary in such a statement. Never ask why the candidate who makes this statement has remained silent on election fraud in 2016 for three years, yet disparaged the Venezuelan election, which was monitored by observers from FORTY countries and deemed legitimate. Is the US the one to determine which countries are “pro-democracy”, while we still have gerrymandering, the Council on Presidential Debates and superdelegates? Never question how we will behave toward governments which are deemed NOT “pro-democracy”.

Just pay no attention to what is not said.

Domestic economic policy is continuously compromised by the expense of our foreign policy. The way we “support democracy” involves dropping over 120 bombs a day at an average cost of $80,000 each. The detainment, torture, dismemberment and slaughter of unknown millions of innocent civilians, including men, women and children. The starvation of millions more via sanctions we have no right to impose. Military and “intelligence” operations around the globe, overthrowing democratically elected governments that refuse to bow down to the US Empire. Over 1400 permanent military bases globally, an unknown number of black ops sites and temporary bases or encampments, mass surveillance of our own population, legalized propaganda and censorship domestically. All paid for with your tax dollars, past, present and for generations to come.

In other words, our “support of democracy” costs us well over $1 trillion a year.

Never mind that this expense is used as the primary excuse for saying “we cannot afford universal healthcare”, for reducing food stamps and housing benefits. Never mind any of that.

Focus instead on what this says about you, as a person. How much you are willing to place your own profit, your own benefit above the lives of those in other countries. Focus on the fact that you are you can be reading this right this second and are struggling to make excuses to defend it. Focus on the fact that you will be angry at me for saying these words, rather than awakening, realizing the truth or even considering the truth behind these words. You will be angry but not the least bit ashamed.

You’re no different from the worst capitalist you so disparage. You’re worse because you know what the truth is. You’re worse because you will not have a guaranteed bonus for your words and actions. Your stock package will not increase in value. You will not get a promotion. You will not have your image posted in some business magazine, praised as a “success” and a “leader”.

You’re worse because you tell yourself there is a choice between what you want and peace. Peace is the only choice we should even consider at all.

Know what else WAR Street capitalists do the same as you? Portray themselves as being concerned with others. Listen only to voices in their own circles and reject all others. Tell themselves they are “better than” and that they “deserve” their profits, even if someone else suffers.

So you can stop hating on those capitalists until you look in the mirror and can HONESTLY say you are different.

Yes, Tulsi IS More Progressive Than Bernie

Yes, I did a video on this subject but it had very few views. So I guess I will put it in writing and bring in even more points to consider.

Many Bernie Sanders supporters absolutely insist that he is the most Progressive candidate. No, he is not. By a long shot. He is simply the only candidate they have paid any attention to. It is willful ignorance and cult mentality. The very thing they wish to criticize in others. They believe he can do no wrong or that any wrong he does has been forced on him.

I have said many times that if Bernie has been threatened or forced in some way, that means he was controlled, is currently controlled and will remain controlled. Even if elected.

None of this means I think Tulsi is perfect. My personal preference is Hunter of the Green Party. However, as far as the two major parties, Tulsi is absolutely the most Progressive candidate. You need only do two things to understand this:

1- Read their policies objectively.

2- Understand the difference between policies and talking points. The more vague any statement is, the more it is a talking point, not a policy. Both candidates have areas in which their policy pages could be far more specific, so they come across as talking points.

With this in mind, let’s take a comparative look at the policies between Bernie and Tulsi. Anywhere quotes are offered, the quotes stated are copied and pasted directly from their websites, so you can look these things up and confirm them as you go.

Healthcare. The one which most Bernie supporters focus on solely and all else is fluff. Universal healthcare.

Bernie: “ Joining every other major country on Earth and guaranteeing health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.”

Tulsi: “Too many people in this country are getting sick without the care that they need. As president, I will work to ensure all Americans have quality healthcare incentivized to increase health and prevent and heal disease.”

Also Tulsi: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role for private insurance.”

BOTH are for universal healthcare. When you look at these two, many believe Tulsi does not endorse universal healthcare. She has made it clear since 2016 that she absolutely does. It is also believed that Bernie opposes supplemental health insurance. Yet there is no indication he would oppose such a thing.

Supplemental coverage is in all countries with universal healthcare. It is fact that nearly or all countries that utilize universal healthcare have some form of supplemental health insurance. Don’t believe me? Healthcare Triage on YouTube did an entire series comparing universal healthcare in the countries that offer it. The channel is very much favorable toward universal healthcare and the series is expertly, professionally, objectively done. https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage

Medications. Both candidates have virtually identical stances on medication prices.

Bernie: Allow Medicare to negotiate with the big drug companies to lower prescription drug prices with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act.

  • Allow patients, pharmacists, and wholesalers to buy low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries with the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act.
  • Cut prescription drug prices in half, with the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, by pegging prices to the median drug price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan.

Tulsi: “No one should be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for life-saving medication. But that’s exactly what’s happening to millions of Americans as a result of Big Pharma’s chokehold on Medicare. They’ve managed to buy access into Congress, barring the government from negotiating cheaper prices for consumers, so they can continue to price-gouge those trying to buy life-saving medication and rake in profits at the expense of the American people.”

Foreign Relations. This is where these two candidates part ways most severely. You can read their entire pages but here I will focus on the most crucial differences.

Bernie: Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under threat by forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism.

Tulsi: I think it’s important, for the sake of our country’s national security, to keep the American people safe, and in the pursuit of peace, for our president and commander in chief to have the courage to meet with leaders of other countries — whether they be adversaries or potential adversaries — in order to achieve peace and security.

Why are these statements different? If you are old enough, think back. Matter of fact, think of now. What are the words, “pro-democracy forces” code for? Haven’t we heard these words before? What followed? What Bernie is saying is that he will work with countries that are already our allies, that bend to our will in worship of the American Empire. Otherwise, he will oppose them. Oppose how? Those options are really limited, aren’t they? Sanctions which kill or military force tend to be the only options available once you remove diplomatic relations with those you disagree with.

Tulsi has already clearly demonstrated that she is willing and ready to meet with foreign leaders with whom we do NOT agree for the purpose of diplomatic relations. Force and threat are used as final options. Bernie has not made any statements even alluding to such an approach.

Why is this important? If you want universal healthcare, improvements in the economy and social support programs, military spending MUST be reduced. The military budget is used as THE biggest excuse for ripping money away from or saying we cannot afford these programs. To reduce military spending, it is MANDATORY we strive for peace with other countries. Tulsi makes it clear that she would divert those funds from military spending to social spending.

“..democracy is under threat..” These are highly troubling words by Bernie. They indicate clearly that he is continuing to push Russiagate and will follow it right through with Ukrainegate, both of which are nothing but cover stories for corruption of DNC elite.

Elections. Both have similar policies regarding election rights. However, Tulsi is the only one who mentions implementing an auditable paper trail.

Criminal Justice Reform. Both have similar policies on criminal justice reform, including legalizing marijuana, ending for-profit prisons, stricter penalties for white collar crime and ending cash bail. (I have heard Sanders speak on these subjects but ending cash bail is not on his policy page.)

Wall Street Reform. Both have similar policies regarding reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up “too big to fail” banks. I will state Sanders has some more Progressive policies regarding public banking, capping interest rates and controlling ATM fees.

This guide is not meant to be comprehensive. It is intended to encourage voters to actually read the policy pages of the candidates and listen closely to what is being said and WHAT IS NOT BEING SAID. When I say “Do Your Research” I MEAN IT. I am telling you to go straight to the source, as you should be doing, any way.

In all cases, stop allowing corporate media or biased pundits tell you what to think. Get out of the echo chambers. If you want actual progress, you have to think critically about what that means.

Would I support a ballot that has both of them on it in the general election? Yes but ONLY with Tulsi as president and Bernie as VP. NOT the other way around.

Peace Before Healthcare Is Mandatory

We keep hearing how we cannot afford universal healthcare because we “MUST” keep paying for bombs.

Then the bombs never stop. 

Which candidate is actually MOST in favor of real steps toward peace?

Look at policies and history. Not talking points.


https://youtu.be/ZryNBKKZ-8Q

Yes, Bernie Had A Heart Attack

On Wednesday, 10/2/19, Bernie Sanders had an episode of chest pain. He was rushed to an ER and received two cardiac stents.

There has been debate among those with cognitive dissonance, some claiming that he did not have a heart attack. I can absolutely assure you he did.

I have many years experience in cardiac and emergency medicine, including ER, ICU, Cardiac Critical Care, Intermediate Critical Care and Telemetry. The sequence of events lead to one conclusion and one conclusion only.

On experiencing chest pain, Sanders was taken to an ER where he received an EKG, lab work including Troponin which tests for damage to the heart muscle, a chest xray to rule out lung problems causing the pain. He may have had a 2 dimensional echocardiogram or chest CT to identify which vessels were occluded and to what extent. Then he was taken to the Cardiac Cath Lab, where they inserted a long catheter into his femoral vein and two cardiac stents were placed via that catheter. He was kept on complete bed rest for a number of hours to prevent bleeding at the groin insertion site and allow recovery while direct pressure was kept on the groin site.

At this point, he is on statin drugs for cholesterol and possibly blood thinning medications.

When he restarts his campaign, it will be with a reduced pace.

Many people return to normal activity after a heart catheterization and MI (Myocardial Infarction, the medical term for heart attack). However, one must keep in mind that being a president or even campaigning for president is not what most of us can consider “normal activity”. Being president is a position which includes immense stress and ages any person. Becoming president at this particular point in history would be the most stressful position any president has ever encountered.

Like it or not, this in conjunction with his age brings into question Sanders’s physical capacity to maintain the position of president at this point in time.

This is one of my greatest fears. His supporters will still continue to support him. Or they will not. This will be used against him by the media on both sides. I expect to see his poll numbers plummet.

So the question becomes, who will people now support? You either move left or right. If Progressives are not moving left to support either Tulsi or the Green Party, they will move to the right. Which is exactly where we do not want to go.

In all ways, the Green Party is to the left of Bernie and have had many of “his” suggestions (which from him are suggestions, NOT policies) on their party platform since 2014. Yet none of those ideas are new, they have been around longer than anyone reading this has been living. Many of “his” ideas have been around longer than Bernie has been living. So STOP calling them “his ideas”. Just because you haven’t heard of something before does not make it new!!

In many ways, especially the most important ways, Tulsi is far to the left of Bernie. I will detail that in an upcoming video this weekend.

EVERY other candidate, no exceptions, stands to the right of Bernie. This is my greatest fear. Bernie is far enough to the right, no matter how his supporters engage in wishful thinking to say otherwise. Yet any other candidate will continue the march to the right which the DNC has perpetuated for nearly 30 years. Most people today don’t even grasp how far right the DNC and Establishment candidates are because centrism has been so constant for so long that their memories fail to recall any party being on the Left or they are too young to have seen it at all. So it has become too difficult to imagine what being a Leftist really is for the majority of people today.

There Is A Massive Difference Between Populism and Rationality

Right now in America we have people claiming to be political supporters, radicals, dissidents, activists, revolutionaries and patriots.

One one side we have so-called patriots who think that their rights are being taken away if they’re not allowed to personally own a Vulcan large bore, 6 barrel, 6600 round per minute machine cannon. Meanwhile they are perfectly fine with allowing corporations to think for them and determine what rights they do or do not have. Tune in to Fox News.

On another side, we have neoliberals who support the DNC manipulating and rigging elections. Also allowing corporations to determine their rights and think for them. Just tune in to Rachel Maddow and the corporate heads at MSNBC or CNN.

Then we have Libertarians and MMT cultists, who want to hand the entire economy, environment, healthcare and wages to capitalists.

Then there are the Communists who want all wealth seized and redistributed. No need to study or understand basic psychology and human motivation.

The one thing all groups agree on is that our government is not representing our interests. What is bad is that these groups have been driven to despise one another so much that they refuse to talk to each other. They have been conditioned to respond to any attempts at civil discourse with extremism, offense and aggression. All think they represent this country and anyone outside of their exact mindset is “the enemy”.

This is what causes me the most emotional distress. Some people try and portray me as or accuse me of being an extremist. Why? Because I refuse to join an extremist cult or follow any candidate/group blindly. Because I always promote the concept of paying attention to policies. Because I listen and illustrate not just what is being stated but what is not being stated. I ask questions and demand answers.

What is popularly called centrism is not centrist. Being pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-WAR Street, pro-party, pro-hate-Trump, pro-Trump is not centrism. Every one of these attitudes are extremist.

The very term centrist means being in the middle. It means striving for balance. It means being against war while agreeing defending our own country is necessary, defending corporate profits at the cost of human lives is not necessary or desirable. It means being in favor of capitalism while imposing strict controls on capitalism. It means allowing the rich to be rich but not so much that they destabilize the entire global and national economic balance. It means being in favor of election reform so that our governmental structure represents the people of this country and should not be in any way attached to the bribery of the most privileged. It means knowing our service members should be respected, not worshiped. The same is true of our police. It means knowing our media should be forced to equally represent opposing views and opinions are not news.

Our entire government and media have devolved into partisan bickering and attacks with no discussion on the merits of policy. Political ethics, if there were such a thing in this country, would demand that to be the focus of all political discourse. Any and every elected official should be sanctioned for name-calling, personal attacks or intentional partisan division.

This tends to be the entire goal of my writing. To discuss the pros and cons of policies and attitudes. To explain where things are damaging, what the damages are, what options are better choices and detailing exactly why.

We cannot continuously be cheer leaders for populism. Just because a given candidate is popular or has one or two policies you approve of does not mean you should be ignorant or dismissive of the dangers their other policies pose. There is far too much of this going around.

This is how we got where we are right now. By Americans reacting emotionally with no critical thought. Many people voted for Trump not because they supported Trump but because they opposed Clinton. In most cases on both sides, the candidates had no definitive policies that supporters approved of, in some cases their supporters did not even know what the policy proposals the the candidate were. Now we are headed into 2020 and many are either blindly supporting Trump because of his false and ludicrous claims or supporting certain opposition because of an emotional claim that, “We have to beat Trump”.

That’s not good enough.

No matter how much you tell yourself that that is good enough, it’s NOT good enough.

Simply getting rid of Trump as a singular goal means running the risk of winding up with far worse than we have now. It is mandatory that we move leftward on policies starting immediately if we want effective change.

It is mandatory that you know what you are voting FOR, not just against.

It is mandatory that you are not assuming that a candidate represents your values. They must actually state that they will work toward peace and explain precisely how they will do so. Universal healthcare will count for nothing if we wind up in nuclear war. Guaranteed jobs means nothing if there are no jobs. Increasing wages means nothing if the economy collapses and inflation runs double and triple digits.

I really do not care how popular your chosen candidate is. Joel Osteen is popular. NFL football is popular. Professional wrestling is popular. Trailer park wives of whatever are popular. The Kardashians are popular. Popularity doesn’t mean anything at all. If candidates only speak about domestic economic issues, that’s not enough. They HAVE to address international relations in terms which do not include bullets, bombs, sanctions and threats. We will NEVER have prosperity without peace. They HAVE to address election integrity and methods of permanently removing corporate money from politics. Peace and election integrity cannot be vague, meaningless talking points. They cannot be assumptions you make. Incremental change is not an option.

You know what the truth is. Stop denying it. Stop making excuses.

The Case For Forgiving Student Debt And “Free” College

I have been in favor of forgiving student debt since first hearing Jill Steintalking about the subject. To be honest, while I have been in favor of universal adult education for decades, I had not considered this possibility until I heard her speaking about it.

I get sick of hearing people calling this idea “Bernie Sanders’ idea”. No, it’s not. Fact is, this has been on the Green Party platform since 2014. Yes, the party platform. Compare to the DNC, which opposes the idea as a party. This is not something which will make it to the DNC platform any more than universal healthcare will. BTW, universal healthcare is also not “his idea”. I have been in favor of universal healthcare for decades also. Numerous countries have had universal healthcare and adult education for as long as 70 years.

If you truly support an idea, an issue, that means voting in a way that you can believe it may be acted upon because it takes more than one person to bring it to reality. When a party opposes legislation and a candidate has a history of compromise on vital issues, then talking points mean nothing at all.

No matter who may or may not bring student loan forgiveness into being, it is a very good, very effective idea which would benefit the economy to a great degree. So, let’s explore how it would help the economy and real people on the ground.

First of all, this would free up billions of dollars in a single year which is currently being paid to banks. In other words, this money is suspended from being used in the general economy. So forgiving student loans would put money back in the pockets of consumers. This is money which would nearly all be spent in the general economy. This would increase real profit margins, maintain and create jobs.

Obviously, this would generate sales tax revenue for municipalities and states. In addition, it would increase income tax revenue from workers who benefited from the jobs maintained and created.

This would not be a short term boost to the economy. A one time forgiveness of student loans would mean increased money in the general economy for years, even decades. Students who currently have large student loans with years to pay on them would instead be boosting the economy with the money currently going to banks for the entire length of the remaining time left on their loans. So this would not be a one-time-and-done deal. Nor would it be like tax breaks for the rich, which just went to increased profit margins and stock repurchases.

Student loan forgiveness would be best if coupled with universal adult education. In other words, “free” college for US citizens.

However, in each case this should come with certain limitations and exceptions to truly benefit the economy.

First, both student loan forgiveness and free adult education should have an income cap. Being reasonable, say only available to students whose family incomes are below $200,000 a year. (Income meaning from all sources.) For families with incomes above that, it would simply result in more welfare to the rich. The wealthy simply don’t even feel the cost of education like poor and middle class people do. That’s not saying they could not deduct tuition, fees, books and student loan interest on their taxes, so that amount is not taxed.

There should also be legislation placing a cap on profit percentage for adult education facilities and organizations. Something reasonable like 15% at most. No deductions allowed for executive bonuses, sports facilities and related expenses, advertising and extracurricular events/facilities/etc. This would limit the continued rise in the cost of education.

Participation in universal adult education should not be mandatory. Colleges and universities that choose to opt out should be allowed to. However, this should come at the cost of no longer receiving any federal or state funding at all. No federal research contracts, either.

For those that object to student loan forgiveness because “I paid for my college”, I challenge you here and now. Pick a college or university. If the one you attended still exists, use that one. Go to their website and look at what the current costs are to attend compared to when you attended. Be sure to include all fees. Then look up the cost of textbooks for the subject you studied. Multiply the cost per credit hour times the number of hours you completed. Do not comment until you do so. When you do reply, be sure and include how much you paid and how much the same program costs now. Then and only then, explain how you don’t understand the situation students face today. No insults, no profanity, no diversions, no exceptions.

If enacted these issues would improve the US economy, the standard of living for millions of Americans, expand availability of higher education and improve the education level of the US, which has badly fallen behind other countries.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

I am an independent writer with no corporate sponsors or backing. The only income I make from my writing comes from views. At least I have reached the point where it makes more than it costs me! lol! (Not by much.)My writing is done in between full time (and overtime) nursing, shared custody of my brilliant daughter and mundane existence.

I have opened my new website which is intended to be a central listing of protests and political rallies across the US. It’s still a work in progress but is functional. You can find it at http://RallyAndProtest.com

Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon. I try and average at least 20 articles a month, so a $1 a month donation would come down to 5¢ per article to support independent, non-corporate writing. My Patreon page is here.

If you care to share articles with those who do not have Medium or Patreon accounts, I also post most of my articles on my own website, which has no advertising and I pay for with income from writing. My website is at https://issuesunite.com/ and all articles can be shared freely. You can always quote me, no attribution required. My goal is spreading information and awareness. The whole point is building a better, more peaceful, more equitable world for us and future generations.