Blog-Archive

Nicht Trump hat die US Wahl 2016 gewonnen, sondern Hillary Clinton hat sie verloren!


Datenanalyse zur US-Wahl


Diese neun Grafiken erklären, warum Clinton verloren hat

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Hillary Clinton, eine viel zu schwache Kandidatin, hat die Wahl verloren! Hillary Clinton war ganz einfach die falsche Kandidatin!

Am Ende haben sogar mehr Frauen Trump gewählt als Männer Clinton – und das war bei weitem nicht das einzige Problem der Demokratin: Erste Datenanalysen erklären die Sensation der Wahlnacht.

Kurz vor der Wahl waren sich die Prognostiker noch einig: Höchstwahrscheinlich wird Hillary Clinton die Präsidentschaftswahl gewinnen. Die New York Times sagte der Demokratin eine Siegchance von 85 Prozent voraus, die Huffington Post 98 Prozent, andere sahen sie sogar bei mehr als 99 Prozent. Am Ende siegte Donald Trump – und das durchaus deutlich. Wie konnte Clinton diese sicher geglaubte Wahl verlieren? Welche Faktoren waren für die Niederlage verantwortlich? Eine Annäherung.

  • Clinton verliert bei Schwarzen und Latinos gegenüber Obama

Fast jeder dritte Latino hat seine Stimme an den republikanischen Kandidaten gegeben. Darauf deuten Zahlen aus den Umfragen nach der Wahl hin (Details dazu siehe Ende).

Die These, ethnische Minderheiten würden Trump nicht wählen, hat sich nicht bewahrheitet. Zwar haben die Schwarzen, Latinos und Asiaten überwiegend für die Demokratin gestimmt. Clinton hat fast 90 Prozent aller Stimmen von Schwarzen geholt, 65 Prozent bei Latinos und Asiaten. Aber Clinton erreichte nicht die Strahlkraft eines Barack Obama bei der Wahl 2012 – im Vergleich zu damals sind die Werte um bis zu acht Prozentpunkte zurückgegangen.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

  • Mehr Frauen wählen Trump als Männer Clinton, und Junge fehlen auch

Gründe, der Demokratin die Stimme zu geben, gab es für weibliche Wähler zuhauf: Clinton wäre die erste Präsidentin der Vereinigten Staaten geworden. Eigentlich hätte Sie triumphieren müssen, hat sie aber nicht.

Zu den Wahrheiten dieser Wahl gehört aber auch: Trump konnte Männer so gut motivieren wie Clinton die Frauen – und wirkte auf Frauen weniger abschreckend als Clinton auf Männer.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Der Sieg Trumps ist außerdem ein Sieg der älteren Wähler. Ab einem Alter von 45Jahren vertrauen die Amerikaner mehrheitlich auf Trump. Bei den 45- bis 64-Jährigen schneidet Clinton mit 44 Prozent am schlechtesten ab.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Bei den jüngsten Wählern kann Clinton zwar punkten, ihr Lager hat bei den 18- bis 29-Jährigen aber auch massiv verloren: Nur noch 54 Prozent der unter Dreißigjährigen wählten die Demokratin. Hinter Obama standen 2012 noch 60 Prozent der Jungen.

  • Clinton kann bestenfalls in den Städten gewinnen

Florida

In Florida, der Mutter aller „Battleground-States“, gewann George W. Bush vor 16 Jahren die Wahl gegen Al Gore wegen ein paar hundert Stimmen. Barack Obama legte hier die Grundlage für seine erste Präsidentschaft und konnte auch 2012 gewinnen. Trump erhält hier mit 49,1 Prozent der Stimmen genauso viel Zustimmung wie Mitt Romney 2012. Doch Clinton verliert im Vergleich mit Obama 2,4 Prozentpunkte. Der Blick auf die Wahlbezirke zeigt die tiefe Kluft zwischen Stadt und Land. Vor allem in der Metropolregion Miami, die sich bis nach Palm Beach erstreckt, liegt Clinton weit vor Trump. Dagegen fährt Trump in ländlichen Wahlbezirken zum Teil vier mal mehr Stimmen ein als seine Widersacherin.

 

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Pennsylvania

Spätestens als die Nachrichtensender Pennsylvania zum Trump-Staat erklärten, war die Präsidentschaft für Clinton verloren. Seit 1992 gingen die 20 Wahlmänner immer an die Demokraten. Obama holte vor vier Jahren in Pennsylvania mit noch fast fünf Prozentpunkte Vorsprung zu seinem Konkurrenten Mitt Romney den Sieg. Nun liegt Trump mit 48,8 Prozent mehr als einen Prozentpunkt vor Clinton. Die Demokratin gewinnt in den drei größten Städten Philadelphia (hier sogar mit mehr als 80 Prozent der Stimmen), Pittsburgh und Allentown. Auf dem Land kommt Trump hingegen zum Teil auf Werte deutlich jenseits von 80 Prozent der Stimmen.

 

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Ohio

Seit 1964 hat in Ohio immer der Kandidat gewonnen, der später auch Präsident wurde. In diesem Wahlkampf hat sich schon früh abgezeichnet, dass es für Clinton hier schwer werden würde – der Bundesstaat ist stark industriell geprägt, die Arbeitslosigkeit hoch und viele Wähler frustiert. Am Ende wird Ohio zu einem Desaster für Clinton – sie liegt 8,6 Prozentpunkte hinter Trump, der hier sogar mit Dayton eine der größeren Städte für sich entscheiden kann. Neben Cleveland, Athens County und Columbus gehen nur vier weitere Bezirke an Clinton.

 

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Wisconsin

Noch überraschender als die Niederlage in Pennsylvania ist Wisconsin. Seit 1980 haben die Demokraten hier nicht mehr verloren. Und nun färbt sich die Karte auch hier republikanisch-rot.

 

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

  • Trump stiehlt Clinton geringverdienende Wähler

Traditionell wählen Amerikaner mit geringem Einkommen eher die Demokraten. Das war auch bei dieser Wahl so. Wer weniger als 30.000 Dollar im Jahr verdient, wählte mehrheitlich Clinton. Im Vergleich zur Wahl 2012 hat sie in dieser Einkommensklasse aber 10 Prozentpunkte verloren. Auch bei den Gehältern bis 50.000 Dollar verlor Clinton deutlich.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Erst bei einem Einkommen von mehr als 100.000 Dollar konnte sie etwas Boden gutmachen. Doch in dieser Gruppe gibt es natürlich weitaus weniger Wähler.

Weiße ohne College-Abschluss: 67 Prozent dieser Wähler haben der Nachwahlbefragung zufolge Trump ihre Stimme gegeben. Das sind 6 Prozentpunkte mehr als bei der Wahl 2012.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Clinton wollte als erste US-Präsidentin eigentlich für Fortschritt und Stabilität stehen. Das kauften ihr die Wähler aber nicht ab. Viele misstrauten ihr, sahen sie als Teil des verkrusteten Establishments. Etwas mehr als 60 Prozent der Trump-Wähler befürchten, dass das Leben der kommenden Generation schlechter verlaufen wird als das der jetzigen. Fast 80 Prozent der Trump-Wähler schätzen die derzeitige finanzielle Situation verglichen zu 2012 schlechter ein, für fast 70 Prozent ist die USA auf dem falschen Weg.

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016

Exit Polls

In den Nachwahlbefragungen haben Meinungsforscher 24537 Wähler befragt. Wie bei allen Umfragen werden die Ergebnisse ungenauer, je kleiner die Gruppe ist, für die großen demographischen Gruppen (Ethnie, Einkommen) sind die Ergebnisse aber durchaus zuverlässig.

Fazit:

Bernie Sanders wäre für die Demokraten ganz sicher der bessere Kandidat gewesen. Er hatte die Massen bewegt und hinter ihm standen vor allem die abgehängten dieser Gesellschaft. Für einen  großen Teil der Sanders Wähler war Hillary Clinton aber schlichtweg unwählbar. Dieses Wahldebakel darf man somit zuallererst der demokratischen Partei und seinen Machenschaften während der Vorwahlkämpfe zuordnen. Jede andere Interpretation dient vor allem wohl dazu dem Partei-Establishment auch weiterhin die „Freßnäpfe“ zu erhalten.

The Greatest President America Never had!

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016 Bernie Sanders, the greatest President America never had!

US Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016 Bernie Sanders, the greatest President America never had!

Viel wird jetzt auch davon abhängen, wie die Demokraten jetzt mit diesem katastrophalen Wahlausgang umgehen werden.

Wer in den USA zukünftig Wählen gewinnen will, der braucht die Junge Generation und die wollen authentische Politiker, einen wie Bernie Sanders…er war „The one in a Million“ aber er ist für die zukünftige Wahlen ganz einfach zu alt.

Werbeanzeigen

Hillary Clinton drop out! She is unelectable! Hillary Clinton the face of corruption!


Guccifer 2.0 DNC’s servers hacked by a lone hacker – GUCCIFER 2.0


Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by “sophisticated” hacker groups.

I’m very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy, very easy.

Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers. But he certainly wasn’t the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC’s servers.

Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I’ve been in the DNC’s networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC’s network.

They mentioned a leaked database on Donald Trump. Did they mean this one?

Some hundred sheets! This’s a serious case, isn’t it?

And it’s just a tiny part of all docs I downloaded from the Democrats networks.

DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said no financial documents were compromised. Nonsense! Just look through the Democratic Party lists of donors!

This one

Another one

And another one

They say there were no secret docs! Lies again! Here is a secret document from Hillary’s PC she worked with as the Secretary of State.

Here are other docs:

2016 GOP presidential candidates

HRC election plans

NATIONAL SECURITY TRANSITION PLANNING

2.19.16 Friends of HRC List_HFA16 Giving History

4.16 Commitment Sheet_040416 Update

7.1.15 Commitment Sheet

The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon.

I guess CrowdStrike customers should think twice about company’s competence.

Fuck the Illuminati and their conspiracies!!!!!!!!! Fuck CrowdStrike!!!!!!!!!

Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading…

Why Hillary Clinton has lost the race against Bernie Sanders.


Hillary’s Delegate Lead Narrows to 194, the Media Continues to Report Inaccurate Counts


Washington Examiner

Numbers don’t lie unless you report the wrong numbers. What if I told you the current pledged delegate count was Hillary 1,299 to Sanders 1,105. Bernie has gained 24 delegates over the last two weeks at county and state party conventions. Many news outlets also continue to falsely report uncommitted Superdelegates despite even the DNC requesting otherwise.

  • Colorado Sanders +6 Clinton -6 = 12
  • Nevada Sanders +2 Clinton -2 = 4
  • Missouri +2 Clinton -2 = 4
  • Arizona +2 Clinton -2 = 4

 

 

Here is the Clark County results in Nevada. Sanders Delegates showed up in YUGE numbers Giving him the lead ahead of the upcoming state convention. This followed questionable activity during the Caucus and removal of Christine Kramar Chair of the Credentials Committee. It is increasingly possible other similar events will happen in other states as we draw closer to the election.

That is a 194 delegate difference.

No one would be wrong to say that is still a significant lead. Although it is a large lead, both candidates must clearly lead the remaining races to receive enough delegates to achieve the 2,383 delegates needed for an uncontested Democratic National Convention. A 50% split on the remaining 1,647 delegates would leave both delegates well short of that number. Bernie currently leads or is statistically tied in national polls so he has a strong chance given the road ahead to outperform Hillary by race end. A contested convention would mean a showdown at the National convention for the Nomination.

The DNC dismisses that possibility but the numbers simply do not lie. It is more likely than one would presume. Hillary prior to the New York race needs 1084 delegates out of the remaining 1,647 available. to go uncontested. Even to the Hillary leaning fivethirtyeight.com blog, Hillary’s last strong state is Maryland.

Despite all these numbers the corporate media has continued to push inaccurate or completely deceiving numbers.

 

 

Many major outlets continue to report counts to include non-pledged Superdelegates deceivingly into their counts despite even the DNC’s request for that to be corrected. Many of the others still deceivingly show the Superdelegates in total counts.

One would like to think the majority of media is not so ignorant to that fact. This can only be perceived as a completely underhanded attempt to dishearten Sanders supporters from showing up to the polls. Pollster and blogger Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com although having been repeatedly wrong or Clinton leaning in their primary predictions have the most accurate numbers but have failed to correct for Democratic Convention changes.

With the key race in New York, the US’s second-largest delegate state tomorrow, the 19th of April, the race has heated up. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton despite the media machine saying otherwise are aware of what is at stake in this and upcoming state elections. Hillary needs over 60% of the remaining delegates to prevent a contested National Convention.

April 19th

April 26th

  • Pennsylvania 189
  • Maryland 95
  • Connecticut 55
  • Rhode Island 24
  • Delaware 21

So don’t let the talking heads fool you into thinking this race is over. Both candidates need every last delegate moving forward. Why is the media saying otherwise? Self-interest. Even MSNBC and CNN are owned by corporate giants. Comcast owns (MSNBC), and Time Warner owns (CNN) just naming to so-called liberal media outlets. Comcast and Time Warner are large contributors and fundraisers for the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Time Warner is Hillary’s 8th largest donor. You won’t see that disclaimer on any of their televised debates.

These large media outlets are very dependent on campaign money ever since The Telecommunications Act of 1996, was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Yes, Bill Clinton helped fundamentally changed the way our media works. Media became big business. It is no longer just a public service provided for the use of public airwaves but a means of YUGE profit. In the past to be called news outlets had to conform to reasonable rules of integrity. Bernie Sanders has been a YUGE advocate against such corporate control on two fronts. Pushing for tax rates similar to the 1950’s and reform on political spending in elections. Hillary Clinton has said she wants money out of politics but argues that campaign contributions do not affect her judgement. Bernie Sanders and his proponents suggest that want for changes in that system is disingenuous on a good day.

So next time you see numbers in the media take the time to make sure those numbers actually hold any weight.

1,299 to 1,105.

Bernie Sanders, die US-Primaries und das totale Versagen der US Medien


US-Primaries Bernie Sanders hat die letzten sieben klar gewonnen!


US-Primaries Bernie Sanders hat die letzten sieben Vorwahlen klar gewonnen. Die Medien sehen seine Kampagne am Ende. Dafür räumen sie Ted Cruz Chancen gegen Trump ein. Es ist absurd

Bernie Sanders in Phoenix, Arizona

Foto: Charlie Leight/Getty Images

„Wäre da nicht ein gewisser Milliardär aus Manhattan, Bernie Sanders‘ überraschende Stärke und Hillary Clintons relative Schwäche wären die politische Story des Jahres.“ – So schreibt es die Washington Post in einer ihrer seltenen Artikel, in denen Bernie Sanders nicht schlecht wegkommt. Wie wahr. Die mediale Übersättigung durch Donald Trump spielt klar Hillary Clinton in die Karten, dennoch ist die sträfliche Unterrepräsentierung Sanders‘ auch unabhängig von Polterkasper Trump ein offenkundiges Zeugnis für schlechte Pressearbeit.

Ob Absicht oder nicht, ist sicher von Fall zu Fall zu prüfen, dass Sanders und gerade auch sein überwältigender Erfolg gerade bei jungen Leuten sowohl für das politische als auch für das mediale Establishment eine Gefahr darstellt, ist allerdings eindeutig. Die jungen, alternativen Medien wie Mother Jones, The Raw Story oder The Young Turks geben sich enthusiastisch Mühe, die mediale Stummschaltung Sanders‘ durch die etablierten Medien aufzuzeigen und gleichzeitig Hillarys Doppelzüngigkeit und ihre klare Bevorzugung durch die demokratische Parteiführung zu entlarven. Noch ist es ein ungleicher Kampf gegen Windmühlen, doch Sanders‘ jüngste Erfolge sind unter diesen Vorzeichen geradezu – und dieses Wort gebraucht er ja selbst – revolutionär.

Sieben der letzten acht Primarys hat Sanders nun für sich entscheiden können, zuletzt gestern in Wisconsin, wo er Hillary mit 13 Prozentpunkten Vorsprung schlagen konnte, ein vergleichbar geringer Vorsprung verglichen mit den Ergebnissen in Alaska oder Hawaii, wo er beinahe 80% der Stimmen sammeln konnte. Clinton hat bisher in 18 Staaten gewonnen, Sanders in 15. Zählt man die Superdelegierten nicht mit, so hat Clinton auch nur noch etwa 20% Delegiertenvorsprung. Kontroversen um ihre hochbezahlten Reden vor Wall-Street-Bankern wie Goldman-Sachs und aktuelle FBI-Ermittlungen gegen sie, Sanders‘ Aufholjagd und ihre deutlich anzumerkende Dünnhäutigkeit weisen darauf hin, dass das Clinton-Camp nervös geworden ist. Selbst wenn sie die benötigte Delegiertenzahl erreichen sollte, ihre Politikmarke hat eine klare gelbe Karte bekommen. Das ist sowohl auf demokratischer wie auch auf republikanischer Seite ohne Zweifel.

Trumps Zenith scheint derweil überschritten, Ted Cruz hat die Aufholjagd begonnen. Zu beneiden ist die GOP nicht. Sie versucht, den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub auszutreiben. Ihr Zustand ist noch zerrissener und desaströser als der der Demokraten. Dass jedoch Ted Cruz größere Chancen zugerechnet werden, Trump zu schlagen, als Bernie, Hillary zu schlagen, ist ebenso absurd, wie vorhersehbar. Trumps Vorsprung vor Cruz ist weit größer als der Clintons vor Sanders, aber die Establishmentpresse hat eben ihr ganz eigenes Narrativ.

Zuletzt präsentierte die New York Times eine geradezu erstaunliche Argumentation: Hillary Clinton hatte im Austausch mit einer Greenpeace-Aktivistin, die sie fragte warum sie sich immernoch von der Öl- und Gasindustrie mitfinanzieren lasse, die Contenance verloren und die Aktivistin angeblafft, dass sie „die Lügen des Sanders-Lagers leid sei“. Die Greenpeace-Frau war zwar kein Mitglied des Sanders-Teams, sondern im Sinne von Greenpeace für Umweltschutz unterwegs, aber Sanders‘ Kampagne wirft Hillary durchaus ab und an die Verbandelung der Clintons mit den fossilen Energieerzeugern vor. Wie sind die Fakten? Direkt erhielt Clinton „nur“ etwas über 300.000 Dollar von Öl- und Gaslobbyisten (Ted Cruz lag im Bereich von 2 Millionen), mit SuperPAC-Zuwendungen und dergleichen kommt am Ende jedoch eine Summe um über 4 Millionen US-Dollar heraus, die direkt und indirekt von der Öl- und Gasindustrie an Clinton geflossen sind. Und hier wird es interessant: Die New York Times bestätigt diese Zahl, hält die Millionen an das SuperPAC allerdings für irrelevant, da rein rechtlich die Kandidaten nicht im direkten Kontakt mit ihren SuperPACs stehen dürfen. Dass das schlichtweg eine bewusst naive Lesart des Verhältnisses zwischen SuperPACs und Kandidaten ist, ist das eine. Dass die NYT daraus schlussfolgert dass das Sanders-Team tatsächlich gelogen habe (sie vergab dazu „3 Pinnochios von 4 möglichen“), ist schlichtweg skandalös.

Und einen Streit um einen TV-Debattentermin in New York stellt die Washington Post so dar als habe sich das Sanders-Lager quergestellt, obwohl das Clinton-Lager zunächst sich gegen eine Debatte verweigerte „wenn Sanders seinen Tonfall nicht ändere“ (Sanders ist der Kandidat auf beiden Seiten mit den allerwenigsten persönlichen Angriffen), später einen Termin während eines Fußballspiels vorschlug und am Ende Sanders dazu zwingen konnte, eine seiner Rallyes zu verschieben um den Debattentermin wahrzunehmen. „Bernie verliert seine Kissenschlacht gegen Hillary“ titelte die New York Times. Ein Schelm, der hier Böses vermutet.

Dass die stiefmütterliche bis klar ablehnende Behandlung Sanders‘ durch die etablierten Medien mittlerweile durchaus vielen Menschen in den USA bekannt ist, liegt an den alternativen Medien, sowie den Satirikern wie Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert und Trevor Noah. Selbst die Late Night Game Show „@midnight“ inszenierte eine brüllend komische Fake-TV-Debatte, nicht zwischen einem Trumpimitator und einer Clintonimitatorin, sondern zwischen einem Trumpimitator und einem Sandersimitator, der in seinem Abschlussstatement noch eine Nachricht an die Medien hatte: „I’m running for president. You can put me on TV from time to time.“

Bernie Sanders: Nett, sympathisch, vertrauenswürdig aber aussichtslos?


Gerne wird der Kandidat der Demokraten zum US Präsidenten, Bernie Sanders als nett, sympathisch, vertrauenswürdig, aber ohne Aussicht auf Erfolg, dargestellt. Vor allem in Deutschland neigt die Medienlandschaft ziemlich eindeutig dazu das US Establishment zu unterstützen. Berichte und Artikel über diesen Bernie Sanders sind selten zu finden und wenn, wird Bernie Sanders darin eher als aussichtsloser Träumer dargestellt. Zum Beispiel hier:

Der aussichtslose Underdog Bernie Sanders

Der aussichtslose Underdog Bernie Sanders

 

Ziemlich schwache, oberflächliche und falsche Darstellung sowohl in diesem Beitrag, als auch in dem verlinkten „Zeit“ Artikel. Senator Sanders hat sich zu dieser Thematik ebenfalls eindeutig und realistisch geäußert. Er hat völlig richtig einen möglichen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahl nur als „einen Schritt“ bezeichnet. Im November 2017 soll und wird es mit der „political Revolution“, mit den Wahlen zum US Congress, weiter gehen. Zum Ende einer ersten Amtszeit als US Präsident würden dann in 2020 die Neuwahlen zum US Senat anstehen.
Ist das überhaupt realistisch?
Ja, denn seine Kampagnen Basis, ist in der Geschichte der US Präsidentschaftswahlen sowohl einzigartig, als auch die Vorraussetzung für erfolgreiche Wahlkämpfe zum Congress und zum Senat. Diese Basis, die eben nicht aus wenigen Einzelspendern besteht, sondern aus einer riesigen Basis von ca. 4 Millionen begeisterten Einzelpersonen ist motiviert, vorbereitet und wie sich ja gerade gezeigt hat eine solide finanzielle Grundlage um diese Wahlkämpfe zu führen und zu gewinnen.

Noch ein letzter Aspekt, der in dem „Zeit“ Artikel angesprochen wird und vor allem ein Zeugnis für eine maßlose realitätsferne darstellt, warum sollte Bernie Sanders denn überhaupt die „wohlhabende Bevölkerungsschicht“ für sich gewinnen müssen? Diese wohlhabende Schicht, die einmal die obere Mittelschicht darstellte, gibt es doch so gut wie nicht mehr, sie ist zahlenmäßig so gut wie unbedeutend oder kämpft massiv um die Erhaltung ihres Wohlstands, womit sie zwangsläufig zum Sanders Klientel zu zählen sind.
Fazit:
Die „politische Revolution“ hat in den USA gerade erst begonnen und wird mit den US Präsidentschaftswahlen einen ersten Schritt für weltweite Veränderungen darstellen.
Und das ist auch gut so!

Das sollte man über den aktuellen Stand der US-Vorwahlen wissen:

Ergänzend zu den nicht erwarteten Wahlsiegen in Iowa und New Hampshire, sollte man wissen, Bernie Sanders muss auch gegen das Establishment innerhalb der „Democratic Party“ kämpfen. Die Ex Wahlkampfmangerin von Hillary Clinton Mrs. Wasserman Schultz spielt dabei eine ziemlich schmutzige Rolle. Zuerst wurde dem Sanders Wahlkampf-Team der Zugriff auf die Parteimitgliedsdaten verwährt (erst eine Gerichtsentscheidung hat das korrigiert), dann hat quasi im Alleingang Mrs. Wasserman Schultz die Anzahl der öffentlichen Debatten von 26 (in 2008) auf 6 reduziert und zu guterletzt wurden spezielle Spendengrenzen, diese sollen den sowieso schon enormen Einfluss der Kapitalgeber, begrenzen, erst gestern aufgehoben. Der Nutznießer von dieser Aktion ist ausschließlich Hillary Clinton, die einen Riesen Anteil ihrer Wahlkampfspenden von den sogenannten „Superpacs“ erhält. Die durchschnittliche Spendenhöhe bei Bernie Sanders beträgt lediglich 27,-$! Seine Unterstützeranzahl ist mittlerweile so gewaltig, zuletzt bekannt sind ca. 4 Millionen Einzelspender, dass er es geschafft hat innerhalb kürzester Zeit mit Hillary Clinton gleichzuziehen.
Es ist tatsächlich eine Bewegung in Gang gekommen die sich scheinbar auch in den Staaten, die noch vor ein paar Tagen als sichere Hochburgen für Clinton galten, wie z.B. Nevada und North Carolina, fortsetzt. Laut der letzten seriösen Hochrechnung von Freitag hat Bernie Sanders einen 30% Rückstand komplett aufgeholt und liegt jetzt mit 45% gleichauf mit Clinton.
Nicht unerwähnt sollte in diesem Zusammenhang noch die Besonderheit, der sogenannten „Superdelegates“, bleiben. Das sind insgesamt 712 Parteimitglieder der Demokraten, die ein, von Wahlen unabhängiges, Stimmrecht bei der endgültigen Festlegung des demokratischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten, haben. Über 300 von ihnen haben ihrer Stimme bisher Clinton gegeben.
Aber, das ist nicht mehr als Symbolik, denn dieses Phänomen gab es auch im Wahlkampf 2008 zwischen Clinton und Obama. Obama hatte nur 68 dieser „Superdelegates“ Stimmen zu Beginn auf seiner Seite, am Ende vielen ihm fast alle der zuvor für Clinton versprochenen Stimmen zu. Ein bekanntes US Phänomen, das man allgemein als „FlipFloping bezeichnet.
Übrigens dieses FlipFloping dürfte auch für die diversen konträren Aussagen von Hillary Clinton bis zum Sommer eins ihrer größten Probleme sein, denn anders, als Bernie Sanders, der über 40 Jahre nahezu den gleichen Standpunkt inne hat und die gleichen Aussagen gemacht hat, gleichen die Aussagen Clintons der eines Chamäleons….Keine gute Eigenschaft für einen zukünftigen US Präsidenten.
#FeelTheBern und #EnoughIsEnough sind die Slogans der Bernie Sanders Wahlkämpfer….
Und es sieht so aus, dass sich das Ganze zu einer Bewegung ausbreitet. Leider fehlt mir persönlich ein Pendant für Deutschland oder für Europa…

Bernie Sanders vs. HClinton eine Frage von Vertrauen…


Real Change

 


Hillary Clinton Flip Floping

Hillary Clinton, das Chamäleon, richtig, sie richtet sich immer nach dem was die Menschen hören wollen.

Als Bernie mit Martin Luther King Jr. marschierte und festgenommen wurde weil er in Chicago gegen Rassentrennung protestierte hat Hillary Wahlkampf für den Rassisten und Republikaner Barry Goldwater gemacht.

In 1985 hat Bernie als Bürgermeister von Burlington bereits einen „Gay Pride Day“ eingeführt, weil „die Schwulen und Lesben einen wichtigen Anteil leisten das Leben in unserer Stadt, dem Staat und den USA zu verbessern.“ Hillary hat derweil noch 2004 gesagt, dass für sie eine Ehe nur zwischen Mann und Frau sein kann.

Hillary Clinton stimmte für den Irakkrieg und sagt heute, dass das ein Fehler war, ja, ein Fehler der Hunderttausende von Leben gekostet hat. Bernie Sanders hat die Opposition gegen den Irakkrieg angeführt.

Soll ich weiter machen?
Ich unterstütze lieber den Mann, das seit 30, 40, 50 Jahren für die Werte einsteht an die er glaubt, als ein Fähnchen im Wind aus dem Hause der Oligarchie.

Erica Garner, ihr Vater wurde ohne Grund von der Polizei ermordert…

Und was den engsten Freund von Hillary Clinton, der in vielen Ländern vorgeladene, vermeintliche Kriegsverbrecher Henry Kissinger angeht, so sollte sich jeder einmal diese Dokumentation andchauen…

Was Henry Kissinger a War Criminal? Christopher Hitchens on the Controversy (2001)

Fascinating video. I wasn’t aware of a lot of Kissinger’s appalling murderous dealings. I knew about Cambodia which in itself turned into Pol Pot’s murderous genocide of millions, but I’m ashamed to say I knew little of his hand in Chile, East Timor, and Cyprus. The woman at about 01:02 made a great point about why is it this man is still walking around free?, and this video was filmed around 15 years ago, and he’s still a free man.

 

Veröffentlicht am 10.02.2016 Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, says Bernie Sanders is right to be concerned about economic inequality and the power of financial interests in politics.

 

Veröffentlicht am 21.01.2016 „They’ve all come to look for America…“

 

A Rigged Economy: This Is How it Works
Veröffentlicht am 20.11.2015 Bernie Sanders is taking on a rigged economy held in place by corrupt politics.


★ Join the political revolution at http://www.berniesanders.com

★ Connect with Bernie:
Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/
Twitter → https://twitter.com/berniesanders
Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/berniesanders/
Tumblr → http://berniesanders.tumblr.com/
Snapchat → bernie.sanders

★ About Bernie:
Bernie Sanders is a Democratic candidate for President of the United States. He is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. Sanders previously served as mayor of Vermont’s largest city for eight years before defeating an incumbent Republican to be the sole congressperson for the state in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lives in Burlington, Vermont with his wife Jane and has four children and seven grandchildren.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders was born in Brooklyn, New York, to immigrant parents and grew up in a small, rent-controlled apartment. His father came to the United States from Poland at the age of 17 without much money or a formal education. While attending the University of Chicago, a 20-year-old Sanders led students in a multi-week sit-in to oppose segregation in off-campus housing owned by the university as a Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) officer. In August of 1963, Sanders took an overnight bus as an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to hear Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech firsthand at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

After graduation, Bernie moved to Vermont where he worked as a carpenter and documentary filmmaker. In 1981, he was elected as mayor of Burlington as an Independent by a mere 10 votes, shocking the city’s political establishment by defeating a six-term, local machine mayor. In 1983, Bernie was re-elected by a 21 point margin with a record amount of voter turnout. Under his administration, the city made major strides in affordable housing, progressive taxation, environmental protection, child care, women’s rights, youth programs and the arts. In 1990, Sanders was elected to the House of Representatives as the first Independent in 40 years and joined the Democratic caucus. He was re-elected for eight terms, during which he voted against the deregulation of Wall Street, the Patriot Act, and the invasion of Iraq.

In 2006, Sanders defeated the richest man in Vermont to win a seat in the U.S. Senate as an Independent. Known as a “practical and successful legislator,” Sanders served as chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs where he authored and passed the most significant veteran health care reform bill in recent history. While in the Senate, Sanders has fought tirelessly for working class Americans against the influence of big money in politics. In 2010, he gave an eight-and-a-half hour filibuster-like speech on the Senate floor in opposition to extending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy. In 2015, the Democratic leadership tapped Bernie to serve as the caucus’ ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Known for his consistency on the issues, Senator Sanders has supported the working class, women, communities of color, and the LGBT community throughout his career. He is an advocate for the environment, unions, and immigrants. He voted against Keystone XL, opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, wants to expand the Voting Rights Act, and pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
To learn more about Bernie on the issues, click here: https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Veröffentlicht am 10.02.2016 Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, says Bernie Sanders is right to be concerned about economic inequality and the power of financial interests in politics.

US Primaries 2016 „The Superdelegates“ will vote on Convention Day! Not today, not tomorrow, not next month…


New Hampshire Primary 2016 Honest & Trustworthy A matter of Trust! Just #FeelTheBurn

New Hampshire Primary 2016
Honest & Trustworthy A matter of Trust! Just #FeelTheBurn


I’m from Germany and so I want to say to all of you Hi, let us #FeelTheBern.
I am an enthusiastic fan of Bernie Sanders and his political Revolution. I am a little bit jealous because Germany would need the same political Revolution but we don’t have anyone to fill this gap. I am following the US politics especially the primaries for several years now and to me there is nothing to fear for Bernie Sanders! It will all depend on your votes and the Superdelegates will follow them, the same story as they did in 2008.

New Hampshire Primary 2016 Honest & Trustworthy A matter of Trust! Just #FeelTheBurn

New Hampshire Primary 2016
Honest & Trustworthy A matter of Trust! Just #FeelTheBurn

Convention Day is the only day when the Superdelegates and all the other Country delegates will vote, not today, not tomorrow and not next month, this will happen after all primaries and caucuses are done and up to D-Day these Superdelegates „votes“ simply doesn’t matter, this is a fact.
But what this Superdelegates are all about is the the thought to prevent the democratic Partie from a nomination of a candidate from outside of the democratic Partie! Therefor these Superdelegates exists.
But there are a lot of reports telling you that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is claiming commitments from as many as 440 superdelegates, perhaps giving her an insurmountable lead in the race for the approximately 2,250 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

There is both more and less to this story.

For starters, superdelegates are formally unpledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are chosen by position, not through votes in primaries and caucuses. The two big groups are elected officials (members of Congress, governors) and party officials.

Superdelegates were added in the 1980s for two reasons. One was practical: It was the only way to ensure that those party leaders could get to the convention, at least as delegates. The other was political: Democrats were concerned that their new system didn’t place enough weight on electability, and believed a larger voice for politicians and formal party leaders would tilt the nomination in that direction.

In the event, the “supers” have never tilted the nomination; they always line up with the candidate who won the most delegates in the caucuses and primaries. That’s essentially what happened in 2008: Clinton had an early lead in superdelegates, but as Barack Obama started winning caucuses and primaries, he wound up picking up almost all the undecided supers and even some defectors from Clinton.

And the supers will go with the winner in 2016, too. It’s technically possible for Clinton to win the nomination by dominating the superdelegate count even if she (narrowly) loses every state: Thanks to strict proportional allocation on the Democratic side, a candidate only gains a small delegate advantage for a small edge in primary votes. Realistically, however, politicians and formal party leaders would never go against a clear decision by voters. If Clinton lost every state, she would lose her superdelegates, too.

At best, the supers would serve as tiebreakers should Clinton and Bernie Sanders (or Joe Biden) wind up tied after the primaries.

In other words, Clinton’s impressive haul of supers won’t make any direct difference at the convention. So in terms of pure delegate counts, this isn’t that big a story.

And yet, Clinton’s appeal to superdelegates demonstrates her huge lead among party actors — the politicians, campaign and governing professionals, formal party organization officials and staff, activists and donors, party-aligned interest groups and media. And that matters.

Yes, Clinton also had an early lead in the 2008 cycle, but this is different. The AP reported in early December 2007 that Clinton had 169 supers, only a few more than the 130 or so that have publicly committed to her so far, three months earlier in the process. In August 2007, however, Obama was a solid second with 63 supers, and other candidates had 86, meaning Clinton only had 53 percent of publicly committed superdelegates. We don’t have a full public count this time, but given the tiny number of politicians supporting other candidates, it’s likely Clinton has close to 90 percent or more of declared supers. And that’s not even counting her campaign’s larger claim, which includes private commitments, of 440 supers — more than three times as many as she amassed in 2007.

Could all of this support disappear? Sure. But it will hold as as long as Clinton keeps her large polling advantage; nor are party actors likely to panic while Clinton is leading in head-to-head trial ballotsagainst each of the Republican candidates.

I’ll stick with what I’ve been saying since January. Clinton has essentially wrapped up the Democratic nomination.

Das sollte man über die US-Wählen wissen: Die Bedeutung der „Superdelegates“? Noch nie haben diese Kandidaten gegen das Wählervotum gestimmt!


After Sanders‘ Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here’s Why It’s Bullshit


Das sollte man über die US-Wählen wissen: Die Bedeutung der „Superdelegates“? Noch nie haben diese Kandidaten gegen das Wählervotum gestimmt!

One thing worth keeping in mind: Superdelegates can switch their endorsements, so the numbers are not set in stone!

Bernie Sanders’ win in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night came with some pretty impressive footnotes:

1. His margin of victory was the highest for a non-incumbent candidate in any state since JFK.

2. He won almost every demographic group—male, female, young, old, moderate, liberal, college educated, high school-educated—with the exception of voters making more than $200,000 per year.

3. He became the first Jewish candidate to win a state primary in U.S. history.

4. He became the first non-Christian candidate to win a state primary in U.S. history.

Sanders isn’t one to emphasize his religious affiliation—his political beliefs make him enough of an outsider as it is—so you won’t read much coverage about the historic nature of his win. What you will read about is how it’s going to change his primary battle against Hillary Clinton. The path to the nomination is still difficult for Sanders, and Clinton should still be considered the favorite, but winning New Hampshire in a blowout will give his candidacy a new kind of credibility and momentum. Sanders was polling below five percent nationally when he joined the race, and to come this far in such a short time, against an overwhelming favorite, is a bit staggering—so staggering that a frustrated Clinton “might “shake upher entire campaign.

The narrative has changed, which means that establishment figures are duty-bound to change it back. If you’re an avid follower of politics, you may have seen tweets like these in the aftermath of the win:

The Superdelegates will Never vote against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee...

The Superdelegates will Never vote against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee…

Oh no, you might be thinking, look at those delegate totals! He’s getting killed! The New Hampshire primary is meaningless! He didn’t even really win! On the Sanders Reddit page this morning, users were asking whether the whole primary process was a Sisyphean task, and if victory was impossible.
Make no mistake: That’s the point of this kind of messaging. To discourage, dismay, and dishearten, in the wake of something that should feel really positive for Sanders supporters. Reality check: The system is bigger than you, and you can’t change it, so go home.

I have no clue if Timothy McBride has any affiliation or even affection for Hillary Clinton, and he was certainly not alone in advancing this talking point. What I do know is that he tweeted these statistics out last night and again this morning, and whatever his intentions—and those like him—Clinton herself could not have written a better media script.

So what’s happening here? Are those delegate counts right?

Well, no—McBride’s math is wrong, but I’m assuming that wasn’t a malicious mistake. The actual count is 394-42.

So technically, yes, the count is close to accurate. He’s not overtly lying. But are they illustrative of some critical, insurmountable problem for Sanders? Not at all. Are they even relevant to the primary race? Barely. Certainly not now, and probably not ever. Are these messages deceptive, even subtly? Yes. Absolutely. And they’re propagated by people who are withholding the full story in the hopes that people like you and me are too stupid and complacent to find out on our own.

McBride’s sneaky tactic is to count “Superdelegates,” which is how he arrives at his imbalanced total. Accept the numbers blindly, and you might feel an impulse toward panic. My message to you: Chill. It’s a clever trick, but a silly one, and it won’t affect anything. To counter this narrative, let’s examine the political reality behind Superdelegates, and explain how they really work, Q&A style.

Q: You say Superdelegates don’t matter, but I don’t even know what they are. How does Hillary have 300+ already?

A: Let’s start simple: The Democratic nominee for president is decided based on which candidate wins the most delegates. You will find conflicting information about how many there are in 2016, but according to the AP, the delegate total is 4,763. It takes 2,382 of those to secure the nomination. And of the 4,763, 712 are “Superdelegates”—about 15 percent of the overall total.

Q: Okay, but what’s the difference?

A: The 4,051 “normal” delegates are allocated based on the votes in each state. That’s why we have primaries and caucuses in all of them, eventually—the will of the people decides where each of these delegates goes. In New Hampshire last night, Sanders won 13 delegates to Clinton’s nine, with two left to award when the last precincts report (in all likelihood, based on current percentages, it will finish 15-9 for Sanders). In Iowa, where Clinton won a narrow victory, the current delegate count is 23-21 in her favor. This process will repeat in every state until all 4,051 “normal” delegates have been alloted.

On the Democratic side, these delegates are rewarded proportionally in each state, rather than on the winner-take-all basis most states use in the electoral college. Those delegates are “pledged” to the appropriate candidate, and will not change affiliation at the national convention.

Q: That makes sense, but what are Superdelegates?

A: The remaining 712 delegates are not decided by each state’s popular vote, but rather by individuals who are given a vote by the Democratic party. They are free to choose whoever they want at the national convention, regardless of how the vote went in their home state.

Q: Who gets to be a Superdelegate?

A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates—an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.

Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?

A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.

Q: How did this system come to exist?

A: I’ll make this history lesson brief: In 1968, after the riots at the Democratic national convention in Chicago, party leaders knew they needed to change the nomination process to give ordinary people more of a say in how the potential president was chosen. Thus, the state-by-state primary/caucus system was born. By the 1980s, the party elites felt left out of the process, bereft of all influence, and they thought their absence had hurt the party with weaker candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, was commissioned to come up with a new system, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented. Democrats thought that by giving more power to party leaders, it would prevent “unelectable” candidates, beloved by the populace, from costing them the general election.

Q: Why does Hillary Clinton have so many more Superdelegates this time around?

A: Because Superdelegates are the establishment, and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Period.

A quick look at the chart below, courtesy of Wikipedia, shows how insanely imbalanced the Superdelegate race is at this point in time:

In Congress, Hillary Clinton has 39 of the 47 Senators, with seven uncommitted. Bernie Sanders has an endorsement from just one Senator. That Senator’s name? Bernie Sanders. In the House, Hillary leads 157-2, and her advantage in the DNC is 138-10. Even among the “distinguished party leaders,” which includes Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, and Walter Mondale, she leads eight to one. Overall, the total is 355-14, with 341 uncommitted.

So when you see tweets like McBride’s above, where he cites Clinton’s 431-50 edge, he’s adding these “pledged” Superdelegates. We’ve already seen that his math is wrong—per the New York Times, the actual updated total is 394-42. But when you look at actual popular votes that have taken place, Sanders leads 34-32.

Q: From everything you’ve told me so far, I can’t understand why you’re calling Superdelegate votes “irrelevant.” It seems to me like they have the same voting power as a normal delegate, and this puts Sanders in a tremendous hole from the word “go.”

A: Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election. When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.

Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.

The important thing to know here is that Superdelegates are merely pledged to a candidate. We know who they support because they’ve stated it publicly, or been asked by journalists. They are not committed, and can change at any time. If Bernie Sanders wins the popular vote, he will be the nominee. End of story.

Q: But it’s not the end of the story, is it? Hasn’t the DNC pulled some shady shit already?

A: Oh yeah. They totally rigged the debate schedule to limit Sanders’ exposure, and now that he’s gaining ground on Clinton, they’re desperate to add more. Sanders probably won the popular vote in Iowa, but the party elite there are refusing to release popular vote totals, even though that’s exactly what they did in 2008. It’s been an embarrassment of Clinton protectionism from the very beginning.

However, that doesn’t mean they’ll overthrow the will of the people when it comes to the presidential nomination. Assuming Sanders wins the popular vote nationwide, and assuming the Superdelegates put Clinton over the top, let’s consider the consequences:

1. Sanders supporters abandon Clinton completely, cutting off a huge portion of her base.

2. Massive protests at the convention, and a party split in half.

3. Republicans have the easiest attack in presidential election history: “Her own party didn’t even want her!”

4. The perception that Clinton is a dishonest politician grows wings, and even if people are reluctant to vote for the GOP nominee, an independent like Bloomberg could strip away an awful lot of votes.

All of this spells disaster for the Democrats. It may not be too corrupt for the DNC to imagine—they’ve got good imaginations—but it’s too transparent to execute. The winner of the delegate count from state primaries and caucuses will win the nomination, and the Superdelegates will fall in line. Just as they have in every single election since the system was implemented. (Including in 2008, when this same concern was raised—would Superdelegates cost Obama the nomination?)

Even the Democratic power structure isn’t so short-sighted that it would cut off its nose to spite its face.

Q: If Superdelegates can shift allegiances, and if going against the people’s will is so unthinkable, why don’t the pundits ever mention it?

A: It’s almost like there’s an agenda, right? Not to keep picking on McBride, who is a very minor figure in all this, and who had the bad luck to appear on my timeline yesterday, but what purpose do those numbers serve other than to discourage Sanders supporters? They’re essentially meaningless, but when presented without context, they give the impression of an unbeatable juggernaut, and tacitly encourage outsiders to give up all hope. On a smaller level, it’s the same when you see charts like these, from Politico:

Sanders wins, but still loses the delegate count? How? Why?

It’s enough to provoke despair, if you don’t understand the system, and none of these outlets are bothering to explain. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions, and it can seem overwhelming. I don’t know if the explicit goal is to have a chilling effect on participation, and to discourage passionate people from participating in our democracy, but it certainly feels that way.

So, do yourself a favor and ignore the Superdelegates. If Hillary Clinton wins the most popular delegates, she will be the party nominee. If Bernie Sanders wins the most popular delegates, he will be the party nominee. And anyone who tells you otherwise—even by implication, and even armed with misleading statistics—is selling you a bill of goods. Don’t buy it.

 

Lesenswert:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

Time to Look back! Bernie Sanders FDR und JFK, alle drei stehen für radikale Veränderungen…


Would The Establishment Allow Bernie Sanders To Be President?

 

Time to Look back! Bernie Sanders FDR und JFK, alle drei stehen für radikale Veränderungen…

Ich weiß, ein Horror Gedanke! Aber kann man eine Wiederholung von Geschichte ausschließen? Hatte nicht auch JFK radikale Veränderungen vor? Das Attentat hat alles gestoppt, es gab niemanden, der die Lücke, die JFK hinterlassen hat, schließen konnte! Amerika ist das Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten, ja auch deshalb denke ich darüber nach, es gibt sie, die konspirativen Mächte von denen JFK am 27. April 1961 in New York sprach, es gab sie und es gibt sie immer noch! Was, wenn sich Geschichte wiederholt? Sollte Bernie Sanders tatsächlich zu einer Gefahr des Establishments werden, wird er dann nicht auch eine Gefahr für die konspirativen Kräfte von denen JFK gesprochen hat? Machen wir uns nichts vor, ganz klar dieser Gedanke, diese Gefahr ist real, es ist nicht auszuschließen, das sich Geschichte wiederholt! Aber, anders als damals, könnte diese „Lücke“ von Elizabeth Warren, nicht nur geschlossen werden, nein, sollte das unfassbare tatsächlich stattfinden, dann wäre die Kandidatin Elizabeth Warren der „Phönix aus der Asche“, ein echter Albtraum für die „Mächte des Bösen“! Genau an diesem Punkt unterscheidet sich die JFK Geschichte von der aktuellen, damals war das Attentat für die „finsteren Mächte“ eine Lösung, heute wäre ein Attentat auf Bernie Sanders genau das Gegenteil, denn mit Elizabeth Warren stünde eine potentielle Kandidatin zur Verfügung, die mit ihrer Aura, aus dem, von Bernie Sanders angefachten Sturm, ganz schnell einen Orkan werden lassen könnte….Mit ihr als Kandidatin oder, hoffen wir das Beste, als Unterstützerin von Bernie Sanders würde quasi der Turbo dazugeschaltet,  jeder Gegenkandidat, egal ob Demokrat oder Republikaner, wäre dann im Grunde chancenlos. Aber wie gesagt hoffen wir das Beste und hoffen wir dass sich die Geschichte nicht wiederholt und uns allen, die Bilder, die Trauer und die Entrüstung von damals erspart bleibt….Hoffen wir auf den Erfolg dieser Revolution!

Feel The Bern!

 

Lesenswert:

Time to look back! John F. Kennedy talking about Secret societies…


Speech of President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961


Listen to speech here: Audio Record of the speech of President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961

View related documents here: Original Documents of President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961

Diese Diashow benötigt JavaScript.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the „lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.“

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight „The President and the Press.“ Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded „The President Versus the Press.“ But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word „secrecy“ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of „clear and present danger,“ the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of „clear and present danger,“ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: „Is it news?“ All I suggest is that you add the question: „Is it in the interest of the national security?“ And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: „An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.“ We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply „give the public what it wants“–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

 

Lesenswert:

https://dudeweblog.wordpress.com/?s=John+F.+Kennedy

%d Bloggern gefällt das: