The leaked DNC emails prove the obvious – the Democratic establishment is behind Hillary. I would assume that most of Sanders’ supporters understood the machine they were up against, just as Trump supporters knew the Republican establishment was dead set against Trump bringing an end to their crony money machine.
The question now becomes, will the people that voted for Bernie sell out like Bernie did, even though Hillary is on the opposite side of the most important issues that are destroying our country? Conservatives overcame the Republican establishment, and booed the remaining holdout (Cruz and his Goldman Sachs buddies) at the Republican convention. It will be interesting to see if there are any Liberals that fight against the Democratic establishment. Sorry, the axing of Wasserman Schultz won’t cut it. Admittedly, as a wacho that got tongue tied trying to articulate the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, she does make a convenient scape goat. However, the Democratic bench of central planners runs deep, and anyone that thinks the Clinton machine wasn’t pulling the strings of the DNC also believes Iraq still has WMD’s.
As a career politician, seeing Bernie abandon his conscience is understandable. However, how can his supporters, whose careers are not benefited by religiously supporting Hillary, justify backing the banksters, foreign entanglements, and harmful trade policies that Hillary supports, and her bottom line proves?
The biggest donors to Hillary’s campaign are the exact people that Bernie campaigned against – the biggest being the bankster banks, who were the primary cause of the financial collapse, and remain the weak link by being allowed by govt to continue to be “to big to fail and jail”. The OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement was born from the unprosecuted frauds of the banksters. Now those same protesters are expected to support the nominee who is backed by those same banksters. How dumb does Hillary think Bernie’s backers are?
Now that Trump has forced the Republican’s to make the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall a platform issue, I’m sure the banksters will be stumbling over themselves to see who can throw the biggest bribes at Hillary. It’s apropos that the Dem’s are holding their convention in the Wells Fargo Center, one of the big banks, that also has paid fines for laundering money for drug cartels.
If you don’t understand who eliminated Glass-Steagall and why it led to the 2008 financial crisis, please see our 2013 post on the subject. The short version is Glass-Steagall separated traditional banking, which loans out customer deposits; from investment banking, which makes all kinds of speculative bets. After depositors lost everything during the 1929 crash and subsequent Depression, that caused thousands of banks to go belly up, Glass-Steagall legislation was enacted in 1933 to protect the consumer. For 66 years it prevented investment banks from speculating with grannie’s deposits. If bankers wanted to make investments or take a speculative gamble, they had to do it with the money of partners or direct investors who knew the risks. All that changed in 1999, when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Seagall Act, which did away with those cumbersome obstacles protected by Glass-Steagall.
As the Clinton’s began to learn the personal benefits from taking the bankster’s bribes, the consumer learned who pays when the speculative bets go bad. In 2008 it was the taxpayer. Now that the tax payer will not be conned into endorsing another bank bailout, the next financial crisis will tap the deposits of granny, and everyone else that doesn’t understand they are actually lenders to the bank when they hand over their hard-earned money for safe keeping. This bailout process is called a bail-in, which is now the de facto standard for western banks. When one understands the bail-in is the new bailout, then the rationale for eliminating cash also comes into focus.
Clinton’s connection to the banksters should be a sufficient reason to never vote for her. However, for those that voted for Obama because he was black, and want to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, then maybe they should consider that 20% of Hillary’s campaign financing comes from the Saudi’s. Yes, the same ones that funded and supported the 9-11 attacks and other destabilizing tactics in the Middle East. Our involvement in Syria is largely due to wanting to replace the Russian gas that runs through Syria to Europe with gas from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
If these facts are not sufficient to cause one to think twice and do a little soul searching, then maybe it will matter that many of the Republicans that Democrats hate so much, including the Koch brothers, are now funding Hillary. Why? If one understands that the primary objective of the Republican and Democratic establishments are to preserve their jobs, perks, and power at all costs, then it’s quite simple to understand. There really is just one party – the Establishment Party, and mainstream media that sells their fraud.