Tuesday, March 17, 2020

"Driftglass" - Evil AND Stupid


Forward: I know that an insignificant number of people read this blog. But just so that the number reading this post won't be even more insignificant, please understand that the topic isn't just me ragging on one individual blogger. As I'll explain in the piece, there are larger ramifications arising out of the behaviour of the individual being critiqued.

The Post Itself: 

Once upon a time I was legitimately confused as to whether hopeless Democratic Party hack-blogger "Driftglass" was evil or stupid:
You see, to hear Driftglass speak it, the Democrats can simply do no wrong. (Except, that is, fail to stand up to Repugnican hatred and bullying.) Is he a chump or a paid stooge? If he's the former, then he really should cut it out with the photoshopping and the blogging, because they don't appear to be paying for themselves and he's just cheer-leading for his own exploitation. But if he's a paid shill? Then that's evil. Doing stupid shit like posting White House press releases to fight against reality. Pushing that ridiculous "Putin stole the election" meme on gullible liberal fools. Perpetuating the Democratic policies of corruption, imperialism and betrayal, as if they're a genuine alternative to Repugnican atrocities.
Well, after reading this post I can now confidently assert that the old boy is both very evil and quite stupid. It's clear that Driftglass has consciously developed a semi-coherent, semi-clever narrative of pretending to engage in constructive criticism of the Bernie Sanders campaign (with no criticism or at least almost no criticisms of any other candidates) while at the same time insisting that after the primaries that he will support the party's candidate wholeheartedly (even if it's Sanders) and that he expects Sanders supporters to do the same (even if it isn't Sanders).

He is doing this because many Sanders supporters are saying that if the Democratic leadership steals the nomination from Bernie then the whole party can burn to the ground for all they care. And this is not an empty threat. And some are expressing this sentiment out-loud because they don't want the party leadership to say they hadn't been warned.

Now, Driftglass probably would vote for Sanders against Trump if Sanders managed to wrest a victory out of the corrupt, anti-democratic, duplicitous establishment. Because he's a Democrat and he hates Trump. On the other hand, he clearly hates Sanders and might deny him his vote so that his prophecy that Sanders is unelectable can be self-fulfilling. It's also possible that he thinks Sanders' commonsense, milquetoast social democratic policy proposals are dangerous Bolshevism and he won't vote for him for that reason. I can't see him being that stupid though.

[As I type this post I can already tell it's going to be a long one. Why expend so much effort on one deluded, dishonest US-American blogger? Because he's a symptom of a much larger problem. Because he's a foot-soldier in a vast army of evil. Because I have friends and acquaintances who support one or the other of the shitty candidates that Driftglass supports and they do so using arguments made by hacks like him and due to ignorance of truths that are obscured by hacks like him. And all of this is to decide who is going to be the Democratic Party candidate for the position of titular leader of the most powerful government in the world.]


Now, before getting into Driftglass's stupid post, I want to discuss some of the man's long-term disabilities as well as the general stupidity and hypocrisy of his critique of Sanders.

First of all, there is his moronic belief that United States politics is divided into the racist shit-head Republicans and the tolerant, adult, good-faith Democrats. This reality (he says) is obscured by a media system that "dines-out" on the notion that "both sides do it." That the Republican Part and its toxic base screech that Obama isn't a US-American and that Hillary Clinton should be thrown in prison, because they're racist, misogynistic scum, while the Democrats occasionally point this truth out, and the mainstream media stupidly invents a false equivalence and blames "both sides" for "partisan rancour."

I deal with this whole thing here:
"Both Sides Do It" AKA "Both-Siderism" is also the main pet peeve of stupid Democrat chump or evil Democrat hack "Driftglass." This is the phenomenon in US mainstream political culture wherein it is claimed that both the Democratic Party USA and the Republican Party USA are moral and intellectual equals. This phenomenon has the effect of increasing the vile Repugnican's moral stature while decreasing that of the Democrats.
So, for example, the Republicans can petulantly threaten to shut-down the government if Obama doesn't give the super-rich another tax-cut and they can stymie almost every initiative he comes up with, and the Democrats will, meanwhile, seek compromise and "grand bargains" with the Republicans, and the Sunday news talk-shows and major newspaper columnists will blame both parties for the partisan rancour and gridlock. The Republicans can indulge in brazen homophobia and get caught on tape claiming that they're targeting African-Americans with their voter suppression laws, but if a Democrat somewhere complains that die-hard Republicans are low-information voters, then its BOTH SIDES who are creating the culture of division that is harming the republic.

In this instance I agree with Driftglass. The Republicans are repugnant. They'll bash homosexuals and then they'll cover-up when one of their own is found to be a not-so-closeted one who is trying to seduce teenage Congressional pages. Their spokesperson Ann Coulter can gleefully call for the murder of her political opponents, but if Michael Moore angrily criticizes someone, then it just goes to show that BOTH SIDES are equally angry and dangerous.

But going beyond all of that surface stuff, when it comes to the interests of ordinary US-Americans, how different are the Democrats and the Republicans? BOTH SIDES support the surveillance state. BOTH SIDES serve Wall Street with slavish devotion. BOTH SIDES were united in bringing "regime change" and all the death and devastation that entailed, to the Middle East. BOTH SIDES have sided against organized labour. BOTH SIDES have conspired to keep public health-care for all (as opposed to cheaper health insurance for most) off the table.
And the takeaway from all that is supposed to be that while the Republicans (and I'd say the majority of their supporters) are deplorable, the Democratic Party itself is a corrupt, elitist, anti-democratic tool of the oligarchy.

Now, in my occasional charitable moods, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Driftglass is so traumatized by living in a society so dominated by Republican monsters and their brainwashed, low functioning, low information chump supporters, ... traumatized and contaminated by such an environment ... that he's become like Montreal Simon, utterly incapable of processing that just because the Democratic Party (or, for Simon, the Liberal Party of Canada) is the Republican's/Conservative's main rivals, it doesn't make them the People's Champions. But even then I don't have much sympathy for them. Because if someone like me (or Jimmy Dore) can figure this out, ... well, it just ain't that hard to figure out. My empathy for liberals ends where they refuse, or appear incapable of grasping, the failings of their own politicians.

Continuing; stupid hack Driftglass likes to sneer about how people like David Sirota or Glenn Greenwald block him on twitter. He'll pompously claim it's because these snowflakes are allergic to the cut-and-thrust of intellectual debate. But having read his garbage for years it seems much more likely that Driftglass's hacktackular stupidity and intellectual dishonesty makes him an annoying waste of time to these gentlemen.


Here's a post where the shit-head tries to condemn Sirota for drawing attention to an article by one Zephyr Teachout about Biden's "corruption problem." The hypocritical corporate Democrats screamed blue murder about this (you can read this Jacobin article to see why their shrieks can be totally disregarded) while Driftglass said nothing better could be expected from such a divisive figure as Sirota:
...when David Sirota was hired as "Director of Outreach to Those Fucking Moron Loser Corporate Dems Who Are Worse Than Republicans and Too Brainwashed By MSNBC to Think for Themselves and Realize That It's Either Bernie or the Fucking Apocalypse People!"
 Ha-ha-ha. Driftglass tries to convey how counterproductive someone like Sirota is for the Sanders campaign:
I would bring this matter to Mr. Sirota's attention personally, but Mr. Sirota is a notoriously thin-skinned git who blocks anyone on Twitter who disagrees with him, which is exactly what you want in a coms guy when your campaign is ultimately going to depend on coalition-building and not bridge-burning.   
Which is rich when you consider how these corporate-fuckfaces have treated Sanders and his supporters. How (for instance) Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly stated that he didn't care about the party losing blue-collar voters because they expected to pick up two moderate, suburban Republicans for ever one working class voter that they'd abandoned.  Or how Hillary Clinton heaved a hearty "Fuck You!" at Bernie supporters by abusing them at the 2016 Convention and selecting a right-wing, anti-choice Tim Kaine as her running mate, and then spent the next three years calling them sexist, treasonous stooges when she lost.

Despite his falling on his face constantly for years with his idiotic and empty opinions, Driftglass likes to affect a reasonable, superior tone in his criticisms of more intelligent and moral people who find his favoured politicians to be disgusting. Sanders has to learn how to reach out to African Americans, despite having been arrested during the Civil Rights Movement whereas Joe Biden fabricates his involvement/despite Biden's long-time opposition to bussing and his large contribution to the racist "anti-crime" legislation in the 1990s, it's Sanders who has to work harder to build bridges.

Sanders has to be more of a gentleman when Elizabeth Warren accuses him of making a sexist statement in a one-on-one conversation a year previously. When Sanders is on record as repeatedly saying things the opposite of what Warren accuses him of, he is (apparently) supposed to graciously admit his sin and furthermore admit that he was lying when he initially denied it.

Sanders has to accept that he has a problem with misogyny. Both personally and with his supporters; ... the "Bernie Bro's." In fact, Sanders must work much, much harder to rein-in this toxic, divisive, "schismatic" (to quote deranged Russia-gate peddler Rachael Maddow) movement that threatens to poison the USA's political culture and divide progressives in the face of the true enemy of Republican nastiness.

I'll first refer to Katie Halper speaking to this issue here (in 2017):
The media dedicated much time and energy to covering online abuse, towards women in particular, during the Democratic Primary. The vitriol was, and remains, disturbing. Posting a photo of a female campaign surrogate on Facebook, a man wrote, “Every time i see this… creature on CNN, I want to reach through the tv screen and choke her… (I don’t believe in hurting women… but i’m not sure if this is one).” Another surrogate, a black woman, has been called everything from a “bitch” to a slave to a “hood rat.” One man tweeted, “I hope you and your family die,” and another person told her to “just end her misery. A pill cocktail will do the trick…” There has even been actual physical violence against women: Two women were hit because of their allegiance to a candidate, one of them, a young woman of color, was struck by an older white man with his hand and cane.
Readers may be familiar with the term “Bernie Bro,” but they might be surprised to learn that every attack cited above was made by Clinton supporters against Sanders supporters. Though the abuse of Sanders supporters has been ignored, the Bernie Bro trope is as strong as ever.
 and here (at roughly the 8-minute mark in this recent podcast of "Useful Idiots.") Among other things, in this current Democratic Primary, an Elizabeth Warren supporter accused a woman with cancer who was supporting Sanders for the issue of "Medicare for All" of not caring who won in November because she'll be dead by then; Biden supporters saying that Sanders-supporting Congresswoman Ilhan Omar married her brother; various people saying for Sanders supporters to "suck his dusty dick"; someone telling Halper herself to fellate Cenk Uygur's dick. But it remains the case that it is only Bernie Sanders who has a problem and who must call it out.

And this isn't a recent phenomenon. And it's not just been inflicted upon "Not Even a Democrat!"/"Unpopular Old Man Who Can't Win" Bernie Sanders.  In this editorial (about the Democratic leadership's currently asserting that concerns about Joe Biden's possible dementia are offensive bigotry) Glenn Greenwald reminds us of how Hillary Clinton's campaign treated Barack Obama:
In December, 2007, the Clinton campaign — weeks before the Iowa caucus — was forced to “request” one of its volunteer county coordinators leave the campaign when it was revealed that the official, along with numerous other Clinton supporters, were forwarding and posting emails claiming Obama was Muslim and sent by “madrassas” to infiltrate the U.S. on behalf of radical Islam.
When Donald Trump, in 2011, began pushing the “birtherism” attacks against Obama into the mainstream, Politico’s Ben Smith and Byron Tau wrote an article entitled “Birtherism: Where it all began,” and explained: “The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008.” While the blatantly false theory that Obama was not U.S.-born first originated on fringe right-wing sites and not from Democrats, Politico documented that it was during the 2008 Democratic primary, not the General Election, when the repellent theory first gained traction as a result of Clinton supporters spreading it:
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See:  Birther debate alive across U.S.)
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
All of that was consistent with a very deliberate and carefully crafted strategy from the Clinton campaign of depicting Obama as an exotic, foreign, non-American Other. In early 2007, the Clinton family’s long-time chief political strategist Mark Penn wrote a now-notorious memo proclaiming Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and decreed: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” and directing that Obama be targeted for his “lack of American roots.”
The actual subject of that Greenwald piece is something we'll return to, but just to reiterate, according to Driftglass, it is the Sanders campaign, and only the Sanders campaign, that has a problem with toxic supporters. And it is only the Sanders campaign that has to condemn its own movement, and perhaps ponder just what it is about Sanders that he attracts such vile people. And if Sanders does not make more of an effort to criticize his supporters then he is guilty of refusing to build bridges to the rest of the Democratic Party and its supporters. Meanwhile, the mainstream Democrats are free to treat the Sanders movement like shit, because they are shit. Vile, bigoted scum.

I think I'll take this moment to say that I've always admired the works of writers like Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota and Matt Taibbi. These three writers are condemned by people like Driftglass and his ilk for not slavishly adhering to the "Blue no matter who" totalitarianism that Driftglass espouses. Have they made mistakes? Yes. Do I always agree with them? No. But are they writers of principle and integrity who produce work more substantive than Driftglass's repetitive mewling against "both sides do it"? Definitely.


So, now that I've established what a shameless, hypocritical hack Driftglass is, it's finally time to turn my attention to the post that has caused me to lose all respect for him. (I'd said in the past that I couldn't read him anymore, but I ended up returning to that habit when I saw new posts at the blogroll of "The Galloping Beaver." But since reading the post in question, I find myself not caring to subject myself to Driftglass, or any of the other centrist US-American blogs. Obama's failure made me give up hope in that party and the behaviour of these shit-heads ever since has made me even more contemptuous of that entire political bowel movement.) It's obvious that Driftglass is fairly bright. Because he's capable of constructing admittedly clever (read: "devious") attacks on Bernie Sanders and on the justified rage of his supporters. (They might not be convincing, but they're internally consistent.)


In "Have Fun Storming the Castle" Driftglass attempts to lecture naive idealist Sanders supporters about the superiority of (what he imagines is) nuance and pragmatism.
Based on my keen observation of the obvious, it seems clear that, on a very basic level, many politically moderate Liberal persons fundamentally do not understand how politically radical Leftists persons think and act, and vice versa.  So, as a public service, allow this tiny blog in the middle of Middle America to be your bridge to a greater understanding.
Prepare to be disappointed:
For politically moderate Liberals, the complexities of the world are ... complex and costly.  Providing health care for everyone while not bankrupting the country is a complex problem. 
Oh dear! Driftglass stepped in it pretty early into it, didn't he? It's an undeniable fact that the USA currently has the most expensive healthcare system in the OECD with some of the worst outcomes. "Medicare For All" has been confirmed in studies and by examples in other countries to be cheaper than profit-taking, de-centralized private schemes. Even studies by anti-public health insurance vultures end up confirming this. Either Driftglass has his head up his ass, or he's lying.
Operating a humane border with Mexico that serves both countries interests is a complex issue.
Sanders opposed NAFTA. NAFTA forced Mexico to allow the free import of massively subsidized US agriculture which devastated Mexico's farming population (which was around 25% of the population). It also allowed US corporations to move manufacturing jobs to Mexico, which devastated many US working-class communities. Mainstream Democrats have responded with platitudes for the American working class and tear-gas and detention camps for Mexicans attempting to cross the border. Although his family separation policy is barbaric, Trump is only building upon the structures built by previous administrations, Republican and Democratic. I won't blame anyone who actually finds themselves losing survival jobs to underpaid undocumented immigrants for being resentful. But the blame for their desperation rests higher up the ladder and only Sanders has articulated an alternative to standard corporate scapegoating and cruelty.
Making sure college is affordable to anyone who wants to attend is a complex issue.  
No it isn't! The US-American political system routinely adds tens of BILLIONS to the nation's military budget every year. This is bloated, wasteful spending. It subsidizes profitable fossil fuels producers to the tune of hundreds of billions annually. They produced TRILLIONS via "Quantitative Easing" to bail-out and subsequently subsidize Wall Street fraudsters. But for some reason, assisting US-American students who are under water from having to pay tuition rates which have risen above the inflation rate anywhere from 2-5% annually for decades is "complex" and require agonizing parsing of policy options so as to not inconvenience the super-rich.

Bernie Sanders has a workable plan that will cost $2.2 trillion over ten years. It will be paid for by a variant of the Tobin Tax and it will apply to all public colleges and universities. At the very least, it is plausible and it shows young people and the disaffected MAJORITY that doesn't vote that there is a politician offering bold plans to do something for them and not for the oligarchy.
Amending to constitution, whether to guarantee a woman's reproductive rights or to drastically curtail the power that wealthy donors and dark money have over our politics, is a fraught and hugely complex undertaking.
And what did Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer do to achieve this? Less than nothing. Bill Clinton made them wealthier. Obama bailed them out and made them wealthier and protected them from prosecution. Hillary Clinton accepted bribes from them. And Pelosi and Schumer have only done the same. Fuck you Driftglass. Fuck you, you pathetic hack.
Each of these are laudable goals, but each come with a very high degree of difficulty given the deliberately hobbling setup of our constitutional democracy, and the inevitable lockstep and well-funded opposition each of these noble projects would face from the Republican party and the mainstream media.
Which is why the corporate Democrats you support did less than nothing. Right.
For the radical, the complexities of the world are radically simplified.  Whatever the problem, the revolution will solve it, which is why the revolution is the all-important goal, and why all conditions and circumstances are seen within the revolutionary context.  That which advances the revolution is to be nourished.  That which stands in the way of the revolution must be converted or destroyed.
If you think that Bernie Sanders' commonsense social-democratic policy proposals constitutes an actual "revolution" you are fucked in the head. He's been described numerous times as an old-fashioned FDR "New Dealer" who seeks to work within the system. If Sanders uses the term "revolution" it is as a marketing ploy, nothing more. The same way that right-wing parties and capitalist advertisers exploit it. But yes; Sanders and his supporters see these proposals as necessary to get the USA off the disastrous trajectory that it has been on since the Reagan "revolution." To the extent that neo-liberal, corporate Democrats adhere to this train-wreck, to that extent do they need to be pushed aside. (Bernie Sanders never talks about "destroying" them.)
Moderate Liberal persons see suffering and calamity and work to alleviate it by whatever means are available.  Usually those solutions are frustratingly flawed and imperfect, but they act anyway because doing something is better than doing nothing.
Sorry, no. They make things WORSE. They do this by proposing half-measures that may alleviate some of the symptoms of the problem but maintain the structures that cause the problems. This means that for all the instances where some people are helped, many more continue to suffer and be abused. Take "Obamacare" (real name: "Affordable Care Act.") Essentially, this legislation subsidized private health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions and to pay for preventative medicine (among other things). To pay for this and not make things too onerous for the profits of the hated, parasitical health insurance industry, Obamacare produced a convoluted, expensive system that caused some people to lose their coverage and which failed to contain costs in the long-run.
For politically radical Leftists persons the exact opposite is true.  Suffering or calamity are real and tragic, but their importance is inextricably tied to how they serve to bring about revolution. Which means that, for the committed revolutionary, the moderate/good will always be the enemy of the revolutionary/perfect.
Horse shit. There is a homeless crisis in the United States. There is massive inequality. Both parties have pursued endless imperialist wars which the majority of US-Americans reject. Global warming is real and it will destroy civilization and much of the ecosphere and thereby kill tens of millions of people and Obama bragged about increasing US oil production and his government invested in overseas carbon projects (including coal burning plants) that cancelled out his own cuts to domestic coal use.


Driftglass is attempting the old corporate Democrat line of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." But, for obvious reasons, that adage is completely inappropriate in these circumstances.
You see, for the revolution to work, it must be the answer to all questions, which means that any compromise or half-measure that falls short of revolution is not just a failure, but the rankest betrayal.  Positively counterrevolutionary.  Because any improvement in circumstances or alleviation of suffering short of revolution saps the revolution of its energy by showing the masses that things can get somewhat better without resorting to burning the system completely to the ground.
Therefor those who advocate compromise must be destroyed.
If serial Democratic leaders hadn't been blood-soaked servants of the plutocracy, all your stupid fucking mewling would be relevant. But they have been, so it isn't. Jeeziz-Krice! We haven't even discussed the Democrats maintenance of the USA's insanely high (and racist) mass incarceration rate!
And this is where politically moderate Liberal persons get very confused.  Because they cannot understand why politically radical Leftists are so contemptuous of them when everyone agrees on the goal of the alleviation of human suffering and improving people's circumstances.  Why such loathing when we just disagree on the means to those ends?

And the answer is, that moderates and radicals do not agree on the goals.  The goal of the moderate is to alleviate human suffering and improve people's circumstances, and the moderate's means to those ends are various policy proposals they would like to see debated, enacted and funded though the frustrating, boring, contentious political process.

The radical's goal, on the other hand, is a revolution which would sweep away that frustrating, boring, contentious political process because it is that system which is the root cause of all injustice and suffering which both groups claim to care about.  Moderates wish to patch up the rattletrap American political system so it can enact the policies they believe are critically important to the life of the nation.  Radicals cannot settle for anything less than overthrowing that system in its entirety and replacing it with ... something.
Again, Sanders is talking about working within the system. Unless you're a liar or a complete dullard, this should be patently obvious. Second of all, corporate Democrats are NOT trying genuinely to alleviate suffering. They are trying to nibble on the fringes of the problem so as to give the appearance of doing something, to attempt to fool people, contain the anger, and let the system continue to abuse and exploit people. They are frauds. They are bought-and-paid-for tools of the oligarchs.
Which is where things get always get hazy.

Because where a moderate will acknowledge the specific structural impediments that they need to overcome (example: the filibuster and/or the lack of a solid supermajority in the Senate) and quantifiable outcomes that are required to overcome them (getting rid of the filibuster and pouring resources into down-ballot races in Democratic-flippable states), radicals speak of The Revolution in quasi-mystical terms.  Somewhat akin to a Catholic trying to explain the Holy Spirit.  The Revolution will manifest itself as ineffable force which shall be loosed upon the land and before its irresistible power, no obstacle can stand.

Or whatever.  As I said, details are hazy.
Indeed. Especially since you're either lamentably clueless as to the extent of the crisis or a deliberate liar. The massive alienation that the majority of US citizens feel towards their political system is a mystery to you because of your mental and/or moral shortcomings. You babble about the difficulties of achieving Senate supermajorities and ignore the Democratic leadership's continued support for corrupt, corporate Democratic candidates against progressive opponents. You ignore the outright hostility these unpopular, doddering fools display even towards popular progressive figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Dennis Kucinich.

The long and the short of it is that the Republicans can cheerfully sabotage any and all attempts to benefit ordinary people and brazenly serve oligarchic interests, because their whole identity is bound up in this nonsensical notion of being "pro-business," with what mass appeal they possess stemming from the toxic stew of bigotry and stupidity known as "traditional values." Corporate Dems have a harder row to hoe because they have to pretend to be the alternative to this without actually doing anything to threaten the capitalist class. So they lean heavily on cost-free rhetoric (especially with regards to identity politics) while doing as little as possible to actually changing the status-quo.

This is all so fucking obvious.
Finally, like any other form of fundamentalism, the radical worldview is reduced to a simple, all-inclusive Manichean struggle between the Saved and the Damned, which dooms any debate over any issue from the start.  Since the only acceptable solution to all problems -- the only path to salvation -- is revolution, if  you are down with the revolution, you are Saved.  And once in a state of revolutionary grace, it not only doesn't really matter that Trump won in 2016 (or that the Both Parties Are Equally Damned ethos of the revolution may have helped him get elected) but Trump winning re-election might actually be a good thing because it heightens the contradictions!  Because all suffering and catastrophe are grist for the revolutionary mill.

Contrariwise, if you are not down with the revolution -- if you are willing to accept imperfect half-measures rather than accept that a rising tide of misery and Republican fascism provide the necessary rocket fuel that will bring about the revolution -- you are Damned. Worse than Republicans, really, because while they're just racist brutes acting on instinct, you know better.  You pretend to care about human suffering and you have been bathed in the light of glorious revolution but have walked away from it.  And since you refuse to embrace the only true path to salvation, for some dark reason you must secretly really want people to die for lack of health care.

...

You must really not give a shit about babies in cages.  You must really want to see the planet burn.

OMFG, you're the worst!

And as the worst, you deserve to be slagged and berated on social media.

Because you're not being bullied, you ignorant corporate establishment stooge.

You're being Truth-Bombed, for your own good and as a lesson to others.

I've decided to just post that self-pitying, self-righteous drivel as a quote and leave it basically unanswered. Because I've spent long enough on this post and because everything I've said to answer the rest of his stupid post should be enough to show his conclusion for the sickening nonsense that it is. Driftglass is either a shit-head or a con-man, and is most likely a combination of the two.

And, finally, after all that shit-headdery in his writings, it's the icing on the cake to be able to point out that in "The Princess Bride," Wesley, Montoya and Fezzik ended up being SUCCESSFUL when they did, in fact, "storm the castle." Wesley was motivated by true love; Montoya from justice, and Fezzik wanted to help his friends. If they'd listened to an idiot like Driftglass the movie's ending wouldn't have been quite so nice. I would recommend that Sanders and his supporters disregard the mentally corrupt scribblings of Driftglass as well.

But as I conclude this post it seems that, thanks to deliberate media malfeasance and Democratic Party election fraud, Sanders is going to lose to the corrupt, lying, arguably suffering from dementia, corporate tool Joe Biden. Sanders seems likely to (unlike a Leninist revolutionary) campaign for Biden, but the movement that rallied behind him will be less likely to hold their noses and vote for the foul shit that Driftglass likes to eat. In these insane times, it seems that the monstrous, ridiculous loser Donald Trump might lose to the ridiculous Biden due to his appalling mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Only in America. Only in America.

Fuck you Driftglass. Fuck you, you mewling neo-liberal asswipe.


4 comments:

thwap said...

Dear anonymous person who left an empty-headed comment,

You'll have to try harder.

Evil Brad said...

Exactly how did the Democratic establishment "steal" the nomination from Saint Bernard?
Sanders had twice the budget, but is still 2 million+ votes behind Biden.
He lost, fair and square. It's high time Sanders got the hell out of the way so Biden can unseat the tyrant in November.
Otherwise he might as well just put on a MAGA hat at this point.

thwap said...

"Exactly how did the Democratic establishment 'steal' the nomination from Saint Bernard?"

I never said Sanders was a saint. I never said I wanted to suck his cock. I never said he was a God. I never said he was a flawless individual. You fucking liberals have this annoying habit of inventing fanatical hero-worship to supporters of politicians you don't like. And then you all chuckle and snicker at the silliness of the political opponents you imagine in your head.

With regards to how they stole it; Oh, I don't know, ... between the clear media malfeasance, the Iowa debacle, the voter suppression in Texas and California, the discrepancies between the exit polls and the unverifiable machine counts in other states, ... I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.

Then again, you're obviously not embarrassed to appear so clueless.

"Sanders had twice the budget, but is still 2 million+ votes behind Biden."

Yes, but you must understand, you half-wit, that if the election was stolen then the incongruity between Sanders' spending and Biden's alleged votes becomes more understandable.

"He lost, fair and square."

An empty assertion based either on ignorance or deceit. Again, how can you not be embarrassed by you behaviour?

"It's high time Sanders got the hell out of the way so Biden can unseat the tyrant in November."

Well, thanks to your team's shameless, brazen, anti-democratic fraud, it truly is hopeless for Sanders. But you amuse me: "unseat the tyrant"??? Ha-ha-ha!

Yes, you stupid fuck! The "tyrant" that the Democratic House gave sweeping domestic spying powers to!

To be honest, at first I thought Trump would eat Biden alive. (What with Biden's growing dementia and all.) Then, after Trump's selfishness and incompetence in the face of the pandemic, I thought it possible that Biden could coast to victory. But now, with the disgraceful pushing through of the voting in the recent primaries during the emergency, and against the advice of health officials (and shamefully endorsed by Sanders who more and more acts like a victim of domestic abuse), I think it's a toss-up between your lying, corporate champion and the lying spray-tan con-man.

What a testimony to US-American democracy!!!

"Otherwise he might as well just put on a MAGA hat at this point."

Oh, grow the fuck up.

thwap said...

If anybody is reading this and has genuine concerns or criticisms of the caustic nature of my reply to Evil Brad allow me to say that I'm simply disgusted with the dishonesty, the cynicism, the unwarranted arrogance, of liberals like him.

Their massive intellectual failures, the cruelty of their policies, the insanity of the delusion, ... these are all potentially civilization-threatening shortcomings and I can't be bothered to be polite to them.

Furthermore, Evil Brad is an intellectual non-entity and I simply don't care if he got offended and never pesters me again.