when sanders announced his candidacy i predicted that he would receive the "ron paul" treatment.the are a few reasons why i made this assertion:
1.they both refused money from big business and wall street,instead relying on small donations from the average voter.
2.while their politics differ,they both seek to audit the fed,challenge money in politics and get rid of citizens united.
3.they both appealed to the common interest of the people and not the establishment.
the establishment wants hillary.
we can assume this by the way the media is ignoring sanders.just like they ignored ron paul and earlier ralph nader.
i further predict that the democratic party will later attempt to make the argument that voting for bernie will somehow devalue their vote and therefore usher in a republican president.the "lesser of two evils' argument.
this is what they attempted with nader and still to this day blame nader for gore losing,which is a bullshit argument when you look at the facts.
if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul.
could i be wrong?
of course..i am wrong often,but i think there is enough historical precedent to rely on to say that my case is not easily dismissed.
for a little reminder:
http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
Load Comments...
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.