Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

The Same Place

Published by

Clarissa

on

If Bernie had won the election – and I had to take a little break here because it’s such a beautiful dream that I got a little blurry-eyed – would we be in the same situation with an investigation and spying accusations right now? Because Russians were promoting both Trump and Bernie on social media. Bernie had taken a trip to the USSR, which means he was accompanied by KGB agents throughout the trip. He promised a kindly meeting with Putin during the election. He was averse to criticizing Russia. He benefited like nobody else from the hacking of the DNC server. It would be easy to accuse him.

Obviously, I don’t think Bernie is a Russian spy. He’s an honest person of the highest moral standards and unempeachable character. I supported Hillary but always recognized that in terms of his quality as a human being Bernie is in a different galaxy from Hillary. And I’m not comparing him to Trump in this sense because that would be offensive to Bernie.

But would we be in the same place with the losers incapable of accepting they lost and creating a ridiculous spy drama? The birtherist idiocy tells me that yes, we would.

30 responses to “The Same Place”

  1. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    I’m not a huge Bernie fan (although I wish he’d won the nomination and election), but I agree that much of the Russia conspiracy/collusion nonsense would’ve certainly happened had he won the presidency. It was baked in whether Trump or Sanders won because the only truly-extant “bros” are the Hillary “bros.” I refer to them that way because though most of them are women, they act like “bros” in their behavior and bullying approach. They certainly would’ve stirred up nearly the same brouhaha because Sanders won as they have with the Russiagate distractions. All the real problems we have are right here at home, and have nothing at all to do with Russia or Putin.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Im obsessed with Putin but I agree completely that all of our problems are right here and have nothing to do with Russia.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Demotrash Avatar
    Demotrash

    Initially I was glad Bernie lost the nomination because I thought he was a douchebag. Now I’m glad he lost because I think he has more influence this way than if he’d lost to Trump, and I think on the whole he’s a positive force in the party (although unfortunately he’s empowered a lot of crazy progressives.) I still dislike him on a purely personal level but he’s really grown on me.

    Winning the general would’ve been fantastic, but I simply don’t see any path to victory for him in that situation.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I also don’t think he would have come close to winning. Which is why I ultimately supported Hillary. He’s an impressive person, though. Even if he is liked by a bunch of very weird and off-putting folks.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Demotrash Avatar
        Demotrash

        Part of why I didn’t like him initially is because these offputting folks had a weird, inaccurate idea of what Bernie believed in and I thought it was accurate. However, he actually cares about way more issues than free college. His views on immigration echo my own, while his weird followers think ICE should be abolished. And the list goes on. He still seems, on a very basic level, like an asshole, but that’s perfectly fine in politics.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          What are his views on immigration?

          He doesn’t look like an asshole to me because he reminds me of my Jewish grandpa. Hardass, bustling yet deeply caring, moral and kind. Maybe I’m projecting because I miss my grandpa.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Demotrash Avatar
            Demotrash

            “Bernie Sanders

            Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

            Ezra Klein

            Really?

            Bernie Sanders

            Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. …

            Ezra Klein

            But it would make …

            Bernie Sanders

            Excuse me …

            Ezra Klein

            It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

            Bernie Sanders

            It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that.”

            This attracted a lot of ire from the open borders left and he’s backed down from this kinda talk now, but it’s clearly what he believes.

            Honestly, I thought he acted like a sore loser and a dick during the later parts of the primary and that’s mostly what it is. When his supporters were sending death threats and stuff after the Nevada convention, he talked about they were being treated unfairly. It’s hard for me to look past incidents like that. He also just has an “asshole” vibe, although more that of a lovable asshole.

            Like

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              He said that? And mentioned the destruction of the nation state?? I had no idea.

              Bernie for 2020!!

              Like

              Reply
              1. Dreidel Avatar
                Dreidel

                The Sanders quotes posted above opposing open borders are from an interview he gave back in 2015, three years ago.

                Two weeks ago Bernie caved in to the “Abolish ICE!” crowd and posted on Twitter: “In 2002 I voted against the creation of DHS and the establishment of ICE. That was the right vote. Now, it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today.”

                Yeah, let the Dems run him or another socialist in 2020! 🙂

                Like

              2. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                Why, why do they all cave to the crazies all the time? It’s the Tea Party all over again.

                Like

              3. Demotrash Avatar
                Demotrash

                Seriously, I felt like I was reading your blog. The more I get to know the real Bernie, as opposed to progressives’ false image of Bernie, the better I like him. That quote also makes me realizes he’s much smarter than I give him credit for.

                Like

              4. Demotrash Avatar
                Demotrash

                @Dreidel Bernie’s caving to the crazies is part of why I wouldn’t support him in 2020. Sherrod Brown is better at sticking to his principles. Any positive quality Bernie has is present in Sherrod Brown, while the negative qualities are mostly absent. Brown is just superior in every way and is my favorite U.S. senator. The more I look at Democrats’ pathetic 2020 field, the more I think we should nominate Brown.

                Like

              5. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                Yeah, it was caving to the crazies that killed it for me too in.2016.

                I’d definitely support Sherrod Brown. I hope he never said anything to upset the PC police too badly.

                Like

              6. Demotrash Avatar
                Demotrash

                He definitely has; he ran on “tighter borders” in 2006, he hasn’t hopped on every hot new trend like most of the 2020 jostlers have, he supports the Trump tariffs, and he said he’d support the wall if we found a way to pay for it and made it with American steel.

                Yet he seems to get away with it in a way others don’t. Progressives love him, often naming him as their second favorite senator behind Bernie. Yet the crazy pro-Hillary crowd likes him too. Someone I know from this crowd wants him to replace Schumer as Dem Senate leader.

                Liked by 1 person

              7. Z Avatar
                Z

                Yes. Also: the idea of abolishing ICE and DHS is not crazy. They were only created in 2003. There was customs and border patrol before that. The whole DHS scheme & the Patriot Act and related projects — torture, extraordinary rendition, etc. — are creatures of the 9/11 hysteria and they are not your friend or mine.

                Like

              8. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                Abolishing ICE is not going to attract the masses. If anything, it’s going to scare away the masses. What would be attractive is a comprehensive immigration reform.

                What’s the point of alienating voters right before midterm elections? Whether the idea of abolishing ICE has any merit, it won’t work now anyway because all branches of power are in Republican hands.

                Like

              9. Z Avatar
                Z

                Comprehension immigration reform would involve rollback of all the 2003 paranoia. But yes, that terminology will sell better. “Abolish ICE,” you know, is just a slogan for rallies, it’s not a program.

                Like

  3. Dreidel Avatar
    Dreidel

    The GOP leaders in the House of Representatives forced a vote today on a resolution expressing support for ICE and denouncing calls to abolish it.

    The resolution passed 244-35.
    Vote breakdown:
    All Republicans voted for the resolution.
    18 Democrats voted for it, 1 Democrat voted against it, and 133 Democrats chose to vote “present,” which is the same as refusing to state an opinion at all!

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Poor dears are terrified of having an opinion because the crazies will wail on FB.

      It’s a ridiculous resolution but fear of crazies is even more ridiculous.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Dreidel Avatar
        Dreidel

        The “ridiculous” (totally non-binding) resolution was designed to show how spineless the Democrats are when dealing with the ultra-crazy positions of much of their party’s base — and it worked! 🙂

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          In that sense it definitely did. The next election is the Democrats’ to lose. And nobody can accuse them of not trying their damnedest to do just that.

          Like

          Reply
  4. el Avatar
    el

    \ It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

    It’s the sign of difference between our countries that even asking this question sounds surreal to me, crazy because … who cares about GLOBAL poor if there is any hint of Jews getting hurt as a result?

    I wanted to be all smug about Israeli nationalism protecting our economy and our salaries to some extent, and then remembered an old article about high-tech companies demanding entrance of foreign hi-tech, not Jewish workers into Israel because of the alleged difficulty of finding competent workers in Israel or among Jews abroad. This despite the wide practice of having workers and branches in other countries. Whether we open borders or not, the end result will be the same. 😦

    I was afraid their demand would work because of Israel seeing hi-tech as its enonomic cornstone and a positive brand of our country abroad, but was not prepared to find this now (Googled to find the old article):

    // Israel eases entry of foreign tech experts
    …
    The Population and Immigration Authority is launching online applications, and promises responses “within days.”
    …
    How many such permits will you give?

    “As many as they ask for.”

    Even if they ask for, say, 3,000?

    “As many as they ask for. We have no quota for experts.”

    This is a different solution from the one in the government’s decision last January.

    “It’s a little different, but we’re constantly looking for ways in which to help the high-tech industry, which is such an important growth engine for the economy.”

    A shortage of 10,000 workers
    …
    For how long will the workers receive permits?

    “The permit is generally for a year, but for high-tech I give two years.”

    https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-eases-entry-of-foreign-tech-experts-1001217775

    I have always thought the claims of insufficient Israeli talent were a complete fabrication and the almost entire reason was to lower wages. Here some agree:

    // It was alleged that CEOs of high-tech companies were seeking to save costs at both ends: to avoid paying high salaries to experienced people, and at the same time to avoid taking on the cost of training young workers.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Don’t worry, these dumb chatterboxes don’t care about “global poor” either. Global poor are just one of the many ways they feel good about themselves and self-congratulate for their great virtue.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        I do not worry about ” dumb chatterboxes.” I am mourning the doing away with workers’ rights and protections which even Israeli nationalism didn’t slow down. I am angry at Israeli government’s behavior and the silence from supposedly Left parties on this issue while the changing Israel’s Nationality Law (“Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People”) takes the headlines. Our livelihood and standard of living are destroyed, and “dumb chatterboxes” cannot even have the decency to stop fiddling while the Rome burns.

        I honestly do not see how globalization won’t hurt 99% of workers in first-world countries like Israel or America, considering the global inequalities.

        If you are interested, here is the information about the law:
        https://www.jta.org/2018/07/18/news-opinion/israels-nationality-law-will-humiliate-jews-diaspora

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Look, you are preaching to the converted. Global capital is destroying the truly amazing achievements of civilization, and all people can do is yell “abolish ICE” or whatever the equivalent is elsewhere.

          And it’s not only hurting workers in rich countries. Whole villages in Mexico are sitting and waiting for the boys they sent out to sell heroin in Columbus, Ohio or the girl they sent to clean toilets in New York to come back with some US dollars. This is destroying local economies because that’s no life. This is not good for any regular people in any country.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Z Avatar
            Z

            But I think they are doing this because local economies are already destroyed

            Like

            Reply
  5. el Avatar
    el

    It’s a bit ironic how the situation between USA and Israel seems to be reversed with Israel now receiving unlimited amount of what hi-tech companies call ‘experts’ (*) , and a new regulation applying only to hi-tech workers lets their spouses join them and work in Israel. This while American discourse centers on the allegedly downtrodden with American experts and ‘experts’ not fearing foreign competition so much they can afford to bleat about open borders.

    When I hear somebody talking about open borders, I want it tried on them. The moment fools start working for 5$ per hour and not “a nationwide minimum wage of $7.25 per hour” OR teaching 6/6 courses in academia, their rhetoric would change in a heartbeat and they wouldn’t care about any global poor.

    Btw, my statement that “Whether we open borders or not, the end result will be the same” referred to economy only. Since there are many non economic factors in human life, it doesn’t logically follow that there are no benefits to not opening borders.

    (*) I do not for a second believe all those workers will be unique, special experts which couldn’t have been found among Israeli Jewish citizens.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      It’s not even about the salaries or the work loads, although what you say is 100% true. It’s also that this would be the end of any welfare state whatsoever. With open borders, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever preventing, say, everybody from everywhere bringing in their elderly to get medical care and pensions. And so on.

      No borders means no welfare.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        Unfortunately, borders do not guarantee preserving even meagre wealfare either.
        Just yesterday I read (Google Translate):

        // The pension contracted: The pension we receive is expected to be 38% of the salary for men and 31% for women. This means that an average wage of NIS 10,000 will give men a monthly pension of only NIS 3,800 and women NIS 3,100. This emerges from a comprehensive study that examined the condition and conduct of the new pension fund insureds
        …
        Compulsory pension has succeeded, but harms the weak […] “Apparently, the National Insurance Institute’s old-age pension is their anchor, “the researchers write.
        https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5312420,00.html

        I am waiting for our politicians to announce we do not have funds for welfare if we want to remain competitive in the global world and promising to protect me from African illegal migrants in Tel Aviv instead. 😦

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          The welfare state contracted precisely when the national borders stopped meaning anything to global capital. It’s a process that started globally in the late 1970s. For capital, there’s already no borders. The last remaining border is that which still kind of exists for labor.

          I’m sure you heard of Trump’s tariffs. He’s trying to put up a border for capital. And the howling against the tariffs has been out of this world.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts