Trump and Bernie on the same ticket; take the ride
by Jon Rappoport [full nomorefakenews.com column here]
As Bernie throws charges at Hillary for vote-rigging to gain the nomination; as Hillary solidifies her prurient control of so-called super-delegates (Democrat insiders and hacks), thus overturning the force of Primary voting; as Trump, Cruz, and the Republican leadership heat up an internal war over delegates; as Colorado and other states reject the validity of Republican Primary voting; the hallucination that is 2-party politics in America is on the verge of cracking. And if the crack widens, the foul creatures who emerge will reveal an oozing Hell in broad daylight.
We’ve gone past crazy.
And since that’s so, anything goes. It’s important to understand “anything,” which is why I’m dreaming about an independent ticket of Bernie Sanders, fresh off his rigged loss to Hillary, and Trump, emerging from his stinging defeat at the hands of Republican Beelzebubs. The two enemies on the same side.
Bernie and The Donald. Donald and The Bernie. Can’t agree on much, but who cares. Burn the political house down. Walk away and start a new campaign for the White House.
Left populism plus right populism. Together.
A realistic winner in November, as long as they have a cold-blooded army of pros investigating the voting machines.
Bernie: “I hate Donald, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”
Donald: “I hate Bernie, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”
Could be a lot worse.
How about this? “The ticket,” a new independent party spokesman declared at a Washington Press Club gala, “is Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. Deal with it.”
Remember, the 2-party hallucination is matched by the American-public hallucination. Both sides of the equation represent absolute insanity.
The public is ready to accept the fact (after a few huge protests) that the Primary votes aren’t votes at all. Just a beauty contest. The two parties pick their candidates in whatever way they decide to.
“Okay, you voted, now shut up and let us give you the most corrupt candidates we can conjure. That’s how the system works.”
“Who’s more hideous? A or B? B, right? So let’s give them B.”
Here’s a plus for a Bernie-Donald ticket: the media will gnash and weep, weep and gnash.
“How can you possibly explain running with Bernie, Mr. Trump?”
“I don’t explain. I hate him, but he’s a pretty good guy. When we’re elected, we’ll argue every point. We’ll hammer it out. We’ll have to. Just last night, we both decided we don’t want any unnecessary wars. That was big. It’s better to defend America than go off attacking people overseas. What else? I think he sort of likes Putin. So do I. So we’ll go over to Moscow and see him and tell him this new Cold War is ridiculous. We’re going to cancel the strategy of surrounding Russia with bases.”
“And you, Mr. Sanders. How can you possibly explain running with Mr. Trump?”
“I hate him. He stands for everything I oppose. But I kind of enjoy talking to him. We’re working on a plan to stop US companies from shutting down factories and going abroad. We want to bring jobs back here. Turns out there are a lot of things we can do.”
“But Mr. Sanders, just a few months ago, you said Mr. Trump was a sleaze-bag capitalist.”
“He is. But I’ve come to realize he has advantages over Hillary Clinton. To your point, he’s somewhat less sleazy. Actually, far less sleazy. I presented him with my plan for worker-owned businesses in America. Not as a mandate, but through tax breaks and minor funding. He wasn’t opposed. In fact, he said he was willing to try that with one of his companies, which I understand is going broke. I convinced him this isn’t some Communist plot. It’s motivating to employees. It’s participatory democracy. And if it works, it’s good.”
“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders wants to revisit the federal bailout of big banks. As you know, he pegged that fiasco at many trillions of dollars—far more than the government was willing to admit.”
“Bernie’s four hundred percent right on that one. We gave away the farm to those bastards. They held us up. It was highway robbery. I’ve been talking about the banks and Wall Street for years. They’re running a long con on the American people. We should get a large chunk of the actual bailout money back. I mean, what do those guys actually produce? Nothing. They sit there and make money make money. I build hotels and casinos and golf courses. I’m a builder.”
“Mr. Sanders, isn’t Mr. Trump unconscionably and disgustingly rich?”
“It makes me sick to think about it. But at least he does put people to work. That’s more than I can say for Wall Street traders. Now, when we get to immigration, Donald and I are definitely on opposing sides. But I’ll admit our screening process to detect potential terrorists coming here is broken. Donald and I have been talking to border officials. They’re honest and hard-working. They’re at the end of their rope. We’ve got to give them help, if we want to prevent what happened in Paris and Brussels from visiting our shores. I’m not in favor of public places in our cities blowing up. Are you?”
“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders is a declared socialist. How can you put up with that?”
“I can’t. Socialism is the most stupid form of government humans have ever tried. Obamacare is a complete mess. Bernie sees some of the flaws, too. He wants single-payer. I tell him that’ll be far worse than what we’ve got now. I want free competition among companies, so the best plans attract the most customers. Bernie and I are still arguing on this one. But he’s open to the concept that we want a healthcare system that works. What an idea, right? Something that works? And the medical people—we can’t let them off the hook, either. Too many drugs. The big drug companies are killing us with their marketing campaigns. They’re inventing diseases to fit the drugs they’re developing. I think Bernie and I are both beginning to see that. Their lobbyists are feasting off the Congress and the President.”
“Mr. Sanders, what about—“
At this point, the live television feed suddenly goes dark.
Trump’s voice can still be heard for a few moments.
“They’re censoring us. Don’t worry, folks, we’ll pick this up on the Web. Go to our site, ‘Trump plus Bernie’. If they shut that down, you’ll know we’re under martial law. Go to the White House and make your voice heard…”
Trump plus Bernie? Horrible? Unthinkable?
Worse than Hillary or Cruz or Ryan or Romney? Really?
Is the hallucination that “everything is all right and everything is under control and everything is standard” better than cracking the political two-party egg?
Is the endless media gloss better than the media desperately trying to deal with Bernie and Donald on the same ticket?
If this country is internally starting to pull itself apart even further, into two battling camps, is it better to put a war-crimes gargoyle like Hillary in the White House, and listen to her babble about national unity—or is it better to shove the two men who represent the great separation out there together?
And if putting those two men out there together on one ticket drives the American people nuts…is the contradiction actually making people crazier or is it starting to bring them back toward sanity?
What’s the fear of two opposing candidates on the same ticket all about?
Is the fear authentic, or is it just a reaction to the fact that we’ve been fed fake unity wall-to-wall forever? Candidates and leaders have been selling us fake unity to cover their crimes and their hunger for control. They’ve been pledging togetherness while they’ve been tearing us apart, because divide and conquer is still the first rule of politics.
Instead of pretending the fake unity is real, why not dump that delusion and put two men who are, in many ways, opposed to each other on the same ticket?
Why not bust the delusion?
Why not let them argue?
Why not let them come to some agreements—because they would.
Why not show the American people that endless whining and moaning about issues and differences is best displayed by taking the differences to the top of the political food chain, in the form of two men who might actually believe at least some of what they’re saying?
Let them argue, disagree, and try to hash out their problems with each other. In full view.
At the very least, it will create a pause in the mind.
The public mind, such as it is, will spin wheels and break cogs, and flip and grind and stop—because it can’t process the new situation, because it can’t deal with an actual dialogue between two enemies. Because it can’t conceive of the possibility that it’s viewing two extremes having voices in the same space, out in the open, on the same ticket. Because the public mind has been tuned to thinking that never the twain will meet. Because the public mind wants the conflict to seethe and boil under the surface rather than on the surface. Because the public mind wants non-resolution. Because, yes, the public mind wants to moan about what can never be resolved. Because the public mind is a mad insane child who can’t be satisfied and wants it that way. Because the public mind is a vast loser. Because the public mind is an artifact, a synthetic substance molded from a thousand personal dissatisfactions into exactly the kind of Mass Victim our politicians need and desire.
And even for those who have escaped the left-right, black-white, yin-yang, ding-dong status quo, who have seen through the divide and conquer formula and the two-political-parties- with-one-head ruse; the prospect of seeing two men who are apparently on opposite ends of the spectrum put their cards on the table in public, together, and go at each other, in order to come to some understanding—-that would be a relief. That would be a start of something interesting in a White House that has, for decades, been rigged to disable the country and the people and the world.
If there is a sliver of a chance of turning fake share and care into real share and care…why not? [Full Rappoport column here.]
This post has been read 538 times!