What Is Dennis Marks' Agenda Re Bernie Sanders Positive Comments When He Previously Spoke Negatively About Sanders?

This commentary concerns past comments regarding Democratic potus contender Bernie Sanders from Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Past comments regarding Sanders that have all been negative (and extremely so), until just recently. Now when Dennis comments on Sanders the remarks are usually positive. My question is, what explains this sea change?

According to Mr. Marks, who at first brushed off me asking "what gives" in regards to his new position on the Vermont Senator as "old bones", eventually said "I have changed my mind about him in some ways".

To which I say... you lie, Dennis. And I have a theory concerning why he is now talking positively in regards to Sanders when he previously only spoke negatively about him.

But first a look at the negative comments (which are VERY negative).

Dennis Marks: And speaking of Bernie Sanders, the greediest member of Congress, he has announced plans to steal the contents of the Social Security trust. No lock box is safe from a greedy thief who is good at plundering. (5/6/2013 AT 5:06pm). Google Cache. Screenshot.

WTF was Dennis talking about? I surely have no idea. I do know that Bernie Sanders NEVER announced any such plan. Although, Dennis, as "proof" that Bernie Sanders does have such a plan, linked to a video in his comment. I presume the delusional dummy believes this video contains the "announcement". Although (if you watch the video) you will find no announcement.

In any case, I wrote about this previously (SWTD #145). Please see that post for my guess as to why Dennis made this absurd comment. In short my conclusion was that Dennis is on the side of the REAL greedy thieves who wish to steal from the Social Security trust fund. As opposed to Bernie Sanders, an individual who fights to protect the fund and our seniors.

Another pair of extremely negative comments that stood out for me when Dennis made them concerns the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders. Both comments are from a thread on the Libertarian Contra O'Reilly blog, attached to a post concerning Kim Jong Un.

Dennis Marks: He [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm). Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders and [Kim Jong] Un are like peas in a pod. The difference being that Un likes to kill a lot of people in order to bring about an oppressive super-State. Sanders uses corruption and deception, but at least he does not kill people as he fights to make government more powerful and less accountable. (4/27/2013 AT 1:08pm).

The takeaway from these comments is that Dennis views Senator Sanders as a corrupt liar who wishes to transform America into a oppressive dictatorship where the rights of the people are trampled on. I also think it is quite reasonable to assume Dennis believes (because Bernie and Kim are "like two peas in a pod") that senator Sanders wishes this because he is a power mad tyrant (or that he'd like to be a power mad tyrant).

Dennis spews this total nonsense because he hates socialism in ANY form. Which explains why he equates democratic socialism with rulers such as Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Rulers who promised socialism, but delivered autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian and authoritarian governments (that killed and imprisoned it's citizens) with a thin socialist veneer.

And there are MANY more, which (if you wish to take a gander) can be viewed here. As you can see (if you check out this collection of Dennis Marks comments re Bernie Sanders), the vast majority of Dennis' past comments concerning Sanders are extraordinarily negative (as well as extraordinarily nutty).

However, ever since Bernie Sanders has been running for president, Dennis has had VERY different things to say concerning the democratic socialist from Vermont. Very different, in that these comments are now POSITIVE!

Dennis Marks: There's a line that divides real candidacy from the clowns who run vanity campaigns for an ego trip or cash (Sharpton, Keyes, etc). Bernie Sanders is on the right side of that line, I believe. It's a real candidacy, and like Les here, I believe it is good for the election overall. (4/30/2015 AT 10:16:00 PM EDT).

Bernie's is a "real" candidacy, huh? (this, a reference to many on the Republican side who are running knowing they have no chance, but doing so anyway because it raises their profiles and will allow them to charge more in speaking fees and possibly get book deals or Fox Nooz gigs.

Question is, why is Dennis now saying things like "I am liking his candidacy more and more" given his past negative comments? I think the following comment sheds some light on his motivations.

Dennis Marks: Ideology aside, Bernie Sanders is great campaigner, sincere, energetic, has a strong resume, and is fighting like the underdog. All in contrast to Hillary. (8/20/2015 AT 08:39:00 PM EDT).

My theory is that Dennis does not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and is talking up Bernie Sanders... because he believes Sanders will be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. For example, when I said "my dream presidential team would be Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich" (on 9/4/2011), Dennis composed and published the following reply.

Dennis Marks: That's also the dream team of all of the Republican candidates. Romney, Perry, etc would struggle against Obama, but Sanders/Kucinich would make these Republicans salivate over very sure prospects of an 80%+ landslide. (9/4/2011 AT 10:03 AM).

And, here's another one from 2012.

Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders, whose politics represent the interest of a tiny percent of Americans, would hardly get any votes if he ran for President. Sanders might have an initial burst of strength in the polls, but this would rapidly plummet down to the single digits of his base once people realize his first name isn't Harland and that voting for him wouldn't automatically mean free fried chicken. (5/23/2012 AT 10:22am).

Obviously Dennis thinks that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee he will be crushed by the Republican.

Further proof that Dennis is NOW speaking positively on Sanders (when he previously was negative on him) because he thinks he would be easily beaten is the fact that he did the same thing back when it looked like Elizabeth Warren might possibly run.

Dennis Marks: How about Warren? A fresh face to a country wear of clintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclintonblush... And whatever Warren's distance from the center, she's pretty clean (other than the receding fake Indian claim, which was really a long time ago). I think there's that one skeleton in her closet, and it's rather dusty. Hillary Clintons got a dancing army of them. Warren could have a good chance at nomination, especially if something similar to Hillary hiding the emails comes up in the heat of the early primaries. (4/12/2015 AT 09:29:00 PM EDT).

But Dennis had an ENTIRELY different view re the "fake Indian claim" in the not-to-distant past.

Dennis Marks: ...Elizabeth Warren, who has fraudulently presented [her]self as a Native American for personal gain. It's a form of racism... (9/10/2014 AT 8:39pm).

And, as with Bernie Sanders, there are a LOT more of these negative Warren comments. (See here for a catalog of Dennis' Warren-bashing comments and TADM #57 for my rebuttal to Dennis' claim that Elizabeth Warren "fraduently" claimed to be native american).

Previously Dennis referred to Warren as an asshole, a fake and a fraud, because she is "a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege".

So Warren went from being a racist to "a fresh face" whose "fake Indian claim [is] receding". This happened (I believe) because it looked like Warren might challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination. And because Dennis believed Warren would be easy to beat.

Here is an example from July of 2014 in which Dennis predicts how Warren would do if she ran for president.

Dennis Marks: Warren's views are extreme, as in driving off moderates (as well as conservatives of course). She will capture the hearts of the "99% Movement" (which really represents only 20% or so of Americans, and as you can see, is rather self deluded). It would take a pretty bad Republican candidate to lose to either of these. (7/7/2014 AT 07:51:00 AM EDT).

He then added "I have no doubt that the Republicans will rise to the task and provide such a candidate", but I don't buy it. This, IMO, only represents a very small fear of Dennis'.

In fact I'm positive that Dennis wanted Warren to run because he was convinced the Republican (any Republican) would beat her. Another example of this thinking was expressed when the blogger rAtional nAtion said "the thought of a Sanders or Warren presidency gives me the shudders". This caused Dennis to reply with the following.

Dennis Marks: No worries. They represent a rather small percentage of the electorate, and certainly can't capture the conservatives, or even the middle. (12/30/2014 AT 07:48:00 AM EST).

See... he is NOT worried. He was convinced that Warren, should she be the nominee, would lose. Just as he is convinced that Sanders, should he be the nominee, will lose. This is why he talks up Sanders. Dennis wants Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic potus nominee so that the Republican will win the election with a "80%+ landslide".

And, this also explains why he whines and cries about "old bones" when I bring up his previous negative comments re Sanders. It is because he lies and has NOT "changed [his] mind about [Sanders] in some ways". And he does not want others to suspect he is lying.

Of course anything Dennis says (positive or negative) about Sanders will likely have no effect on whether or not Sanders secures the nomination. However, the same as some religious folks ask others to pray for something (and truly believe that there might be a positive benefit to getting as many people as possible to pray) - Dennis likely believes that the more people are speaking positively about Sanders, the more likely it is he will get nominated.

And, with this in mind, Dennis is doing his part. He is contributing (if only in a small way) to a narrative that could lead to Sanders being selected by the voters as the Democratic nominee. After which (in the mind of Dennis), he will be easily defeated by the Republican nominee.

This is part and parcel to the false narrative that says Hillary Clinton is "untrustworthy" and plagued by scandals... and therefore someone else should be the nominee. Someone the eventual Republican nominee can go against and win. Someone who isn't Hillary, as she would likely defeat any Republican.

Which is why Dennis desperately wants anyone but Hillary. And why he lies and posts his (fake) positive Sanders comments. But, as I said, I don't buy it. Dennis' MANY past comments represent how he truly views Sanders. He views Sanders as following the lead of past "evil socialist" dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin. (In Dennis' mind) Sanders does this as a Senator and would do this (to a greater negative effect) as president.

Not that I believe that Senator Sanders would be defeated, easily or otherwise. If Sanders secures the nomination I think he has a decent shot, given the fact that he is a true Progressive and not a corporate Dem like Hillary. But the deceiving Dennis CLEARLY believes otherwise. Which is why Dennis (first) talked up Warren and is now talking up Sanders... because he is convinced that Hillary will be our next president if she is nominated in the Democratic primary.

Supporting Documents
[1] Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Bernie Sanders. Note that most of the comments are negative, while only a few are positive).
[2] Elizabeth Warren Is A Lying Asshole, A Fake & A Contemptible Wannabe Who Boosted Her Career With A Fraudulent Claim Of Being A Native American & Who Supports The Evil Occupy Wall Street Movement. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Elizabeth Warren. Note that most of the comments are negative, while I could only find ONE that was positive).

TADM #82

Dennis Marks Frying Up Old Bones In Canardo Oil Re Elizabeth Warren Native American Controversy

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren and, although it didn't work for Scott Brown (Warren receiving 54% of the vote comparred to Brown's 46%), Dennis still brings up the "Native American controversy" quite often... for example...

Dennis Marks: ...Elizabeth Warren, who has fraudulently presented [her]self as a Native American for personal gain. It's a form of racism... (9/10/2014 AT 8:39pm).

So, did Elizabeth Warren "fradulently" present herself as a Native American for personal gain? Did the voters think she did but simply not care? "No", to the first question and "I don't know" to the second one. Obviously she was the better candidate, even if she believed some family stories that (apparently) later turned out to not be true, or at least not provable. But Warren did NOT lie, as saying something you believe to be true is not a lie, nor did she "gain" from believing she had a Cherokee ancestor.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post: [Scott] Brown said that Warren "checked the box claiming she was Native American" when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her. The senator's debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university. (Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American heritage, 9/28/2012).

Senator Warren "personally gained" from her ACCOMPLISHMENTS and had absolutely no need to fradulently present herself as Native American...

WP (quote from same article as above): [Warren] did groundbreaking research while teaching at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on how the nation's bankruptcy code was affecting average families. ... [Her] work put Warren at the cutting edge of a new school of legal thought that emphasized real impacts on people's lives rather than mere theory. It also led to her first book, "As We Forgive Our Debtors", which won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award after it was published in 1989. ... Warren went on to write bankruptcy-related articles for The Yale Law Journal in 1992, and Michigan Law Review in 1993.

Now, it is true that various Native American groups have looked into Warren's (old) claims of Native American heritage and have not been able to verify she has any Indian ancestors, but Warren didn't personally gain from the claims, nor were her claims "fraudulent", as she believed them. Her belief based on "stories she says she heard from family members as a child".

Warren did not anticipate running for political office and therefore did not anticipate that her past would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Otherwise she probably would have researched whether what she was told was true or not, instead of "stupidly" believing what grandparents told her and her brother, which was that "your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee".

Also, as the WP article linked to above points out...

Undocumented claims of Native American ancestry, especially those based on family lore, are not uncommon in this country. That's especially true in places like Oklahoma, which ranks second in the U.S. in number of Native American residents and third in percentage of population of that descent, according to U.S. Census data.

So, did Warren make a mistake when she "listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory"? Perhaps. But she did so because she believed her grandparents. Also, as I already pointed out, Warren did not gain anything from doing this. So who really cares? Besides Dennis, that is. He's convinced she lied and did so to gain something.

But, as I have just pointed out, the evidence does not support this conclusion. Dennis continues beating this dead horse (or "frying up old bones in canardo oil") regarding Warren "lying" about Native American heritage she may or may not have due to hatred for Progressives - and not because the facts support this position. A dead horse for sure, due to the voters not rejecting her because she "lied".

And he ridiculously labels Warren's belief that her grandparents did not tell her the truth as "racism", which is outrageous given Dennis' own racist proclivities (which I have documented on this blog extensively).

Supporting Document
Elizabeth Warren Is A Lying Asshole, A Fake & A Contemptible Wannabe Who Boosted Her Career With A Fraudulent Claim Of Being A Native American & Who Supports The Evil Occupy Wall Street Movement, DSD #14

Update, 10/15/2018: DNA Test Reveals Elizabeth Warren Has Native American Ancestry, WYM #85.

TADM #57