Please Boycott Conservatives' Businesses

Please boycott conservatives' businesses.

A recent study revealed that 90% of Republican voters feel that Trump is doing an excellent job as president. This is tragic. And we have to put a stop to it or we will have that lunatic, racist, criminal, misogynist in the White House for another 4 years at the helm of the most powerful country in the world. We simply cannot let that happen and we have to take serious measures in our personal lives in order to make sure that we put an end to Trump's presidency.

When you buy something, your dollars act like votes. By doing business with an establishment owned and operated by conservatives, you are financing Trump and the Republican Party at large. Conservative business owners everywhere, not just here in Sonoma County, take the money we give them to help finance Republican candidates, including Trump, helping to guarantee their reelection.

To name just one example of many, the Whole Foods owner is a massive conservative who is staunchly against healthcare for all. By shopping at Whole Foods we are financing the Republican agenda. We are ensuring the continuation of the demise of our planet Earth through horrible public policies that worsen Climate Change and empower Climate Change deniers, such as president Trump, who asserts that it is a "Chinese hoax."

I know that this is a difficult request to make but if we are concerned about our communities' needs and the future of the planet, we must make big sacrifices and take stern, serious measures. Republicans in office all over the country, not just in Washington, are taken stern and serious measures everyday against all Americans, not just you and I. They don't care about you and I, or the environment, only their pocketbooks at everyone's expense.

Thank you.

90% is a pretty high approval rating. Can Republican voters all be so wrong about a lunatic? Supposing that 90% of Democrats thought Trump was a lunatic, what would make them correct? What determines Trump’s lunacy? Is it all the positives the country is immersed in? Is the Left’s emotion clouding the facts?
Question, if a person stops patronizing an establishment, does the owner really know the reason his business declines? For all he knows, his business practices are the reason.
Btw, there are Democratic candidates who are against Medicare for all. What to do with these office holders?

Climate change. Been happening since the beginning of time. Question is, how responsible are humans.

GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sY...dex=112&t=178s

Thoughts for consideration.

Amazon is now running Whole Foods. What's your feeling about Jeff Bezos?
Also, do you have a list of better-known businesses that are owned by Conservatives?
I agree with you that Conservatives are all about money and self-interest. However, a petition or write-in campaign directed at a specific business's practices and announcing a boycott until those practices are changed, would be much more effective, IMO.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Please boycott conservatives' businesses....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

90% is a pretty high approval rating. Can Republican voters all be so wrong about a lunatic? Supposing that 90% of Democrats thought Trump was a lunatic, what would make them correct? What determines Trump’s lunacy? Is it all the positives the country is immersed in? Is the Left’s emotion clouding the facts? .....

GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sY...dex=112&t=178s

Thoughts for consideration.

---

yes, they can all be so wrong. Duh. His lunacy, to use the technical term, is determined by observing his actions, listening to him speak, and contrasting with a sane person. I almost never hear anyone defend Trump except by saying you can ignore much of the evidence you see - instead you're supposed to be impressed by who he chooses to fight with, or the fact that his shallow statements seem to suggest he's in favor of something that his apologists also favor. His intellectual and tactical weaknesses are immediately apparent, though some say his strategies are actually really gonna prove to be effective in the long run. Trying to tie the causation any of these 'positives' to Trump's actual policies is a fool's errand. But Gorsuch... is about all you get.

And wow, Dan Pena has figured out the hoax, but all the rest of the reputable scientists are either too dumb or too corrupt to see it? Maybe 90% of them are wrong too, I guess, because sure as hell 90% of Republicans are.

I know you trumpies don't care, but here's a simple example of what I'm talking about. There's nothing ambiguous about this, nothing to say that Trump's brilliance is being misunderstood by the MSM who's out to get him. I mean, of course you can say that but only by incredible intellectual contortionism. And yeah, it's a side issue, but it's completely illustrative of the man. There are similar examples galore, and I can't say there are any compelling counter-examples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c831b7e064c9

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

A recent study revealed that 90% of Republican voters feel that Trump is doing an excellent job as president.

---

I would like to see a source for this, as the highest polling numbers I can find from legitimate polling agencies has had his "approval" rating among Republicans hovering in the mid 60's . (And worth noting - approval rating is not the same as saying they would vote for him again).


But beyond that- this thread is exactly what's wrong with this country. Let's boycott "them"...because "they" are ignorant, evil, "insert adjective here" .

I don't give a ....... whether you are conservative, liberal, or independent. Whether your atheist, buddhist, muslim, christian, or jew. The color of your skin Your gender (or gender identity...or lack there-of).

I know many conservatives who I consider far better people then many liberals I know. And vice versa.

Sigh...and this is why, Trump will win again. His overall polling is below 50%, but NYC and the left coast, along with many of the younger generation- will push a Democrat the majority of the country can not and will not back. Trump will, again, loose the popular vote and win the presidency. Because we are so focused on the fractures with "them" we don't even see that the fractures are even worse among "us" ....

Good points all, SPG, but you left out Russian meddling in the upcoming elections.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

...Sigh...and this is why, Trump will win again. ...

---

What information do you have that indicates that Russia's meddling actually had any effect on the outcome of the 2016 election?

Another perspective might be: if the DNC had not meddled in their own primary, Sanders would have been the nominee. By all polling indications of the time, which I believe you cited, he would have beat Trump in the general. And by the way, polls are showing the same outcome for 2020 in a Sanders v Trump race.

To get back on point of this thread, I believe that boycott is one of the most powerful tools that we have at our disposal. Unfortunately we don't use it frequently enough. It's as though we refuse to flex our muscle. Instead we desperately try to convince the "monster" to change its colors. Perhaps the real culprit is our own refusal to self sacrifice. How many people do you know who are well aware of the despicable labor and business practices of Amazon yet, in spite of that, have every justification in the book as to why they still use them?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Good points all, SPG, but you left out Russian meddling in the upcoming elections.

---

There's been plenty written about ongoing Russian meddling in our elections, Rustie. I'm surprised you missed it. Most recently, Mueller mentioned it in his testimony yesterday:

"WASHINGTON former special counsel Robert Mueller, in quiet and occasionally halting testimony, warned Congress on Wednesday that Russia is still interfering with American democracy and offered some sharp criticism of President Donald Trump.

“They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign,” Mueller said of the Russians, during roughly six hours of highly anticipated testimony before two House committees about his investigation of Russian election interference and Trump’s possible obstruction of justice."

---

I agree about the DNC self-sabotage during the last election and the polls then showing a Sanders win over Trump in 2016. Frankly, I would not be surprised if the same thing happened again in the upcoming 2020 election, I'm sorry to say.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

What information do you have that indicates that Russia's meddling actually had any effect on the outcome of the 2016 election? ...

---

I didn't ask what information you have regarding Russia's meddling. I asked what information do you have to indicate that the said meddling had any effect on the outcome of the election.

Mueller's report does not address any resultant effect or impact of the meddling, only that it happened. In fact he was asked that very question during his testimony and his response was that he could not speak to that as it was not within the scope of his investigation.

I have not seen any evidence indicating that Russia's efforts actually impacted the election results. Russia's meddling, in my opinion, is an excuse for the failings of the Democratic party and the Mueller investigation serves as an excellent distraction.

I think we would better serve the progressive efforts to change the paradigm if we shifted the conversation from Russia, Mueller and Trump and instead addressed the fact that the Democratic party has been moving farther and farther to the right, disenfranchising more and more people. The party establishment no more represents social, economic or environmental justice than does its counterpart. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors that goes into keeping us beholden to our team but at the end of the day the masses are still struggling to feed, house and clothe their families and the environmental crisis is at its zenith.

Rather than signing on to vote blue in the general regardless of who's in the seat, as many are pledging to do, we might want to consider that the DNC and the GOP are functionally two sides of the same coin. It might not be in the best interests or the common good of humanity and environment to consider our vote in the upcoming 2020 primary as not particularly crucial to the framing of our future.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

There's been plenty written about ongoing Russian meddling in our elections, Rustie. I'm surprised you missed it. Most recently, Mueller mentioned it in his testimony yesterday:

"WASHINGTON former special counsel Robert Mueller, in quiet and occasionally halting testimony, warned Congress on Wednesday that Russia is still interfering with American democracy and offered some sharp criticism of President Donald Trump.

“They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign,” Mueller said of the Russians, during roughly six hours of highly anticipated testimony before two House committees about his investigation of Russian election interference and Trump’s possible obstruction of justice."

---

I agree about the DNC self-sabotage during the last election and the polls then showing a Sanders win over Trump in 2016. Frankly, I would not be surprised if the same thing happened again in the upcoming 2020 election, I'm sorry to say.

---

Well, Rustie, I have not made it a point to go looking for published info on the tallied results of Russian meddling, if there are any, but you certainly are free to do so. You could start here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...tion-for-trump However, I have spoken to several people who claimed to be Independents or Dems who voted for Trump because they, like you and me, were sick and tired of the invertebrates posing as Democrats and wanted to shake things up. Some of them were also swayed by the relentless outlandish output about Clinton (Pizzagate, anyone?) the Russians posted on Facebook, etc. Russia has been forced to remove a lot of it from FB and other sites (only because the feds forced FB to do so) but you can be sure they're working on ways to get around it and it will happen again. It's a mistake to underestimate the importance of this. If a lie is told over and over, many people begin to believe it: they think where there's smoke, there's fire. And FB is/was a hugely important source of info for many people.

I also would not be too surprised to learn that Putin has the goods on other pols besides Trump and that is why the Repugs are giving him free rein.

I urged many long-time Dems in 2016 to vote for Sanders in the primaries and if he lost there, they could vote for Clinton later. They liked Sanders but were sure he could not beat Trump, despite the fact that almost all the polls said he had a better chance of beating Trump than Clinton did.

You might be interested in this article: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why...for-jill-stein

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

I didn't ask what information you have regarding Russia's meddling. I asked what information do you have to indicate that the said meddling had any effect on the outcome of the election.
...

---

Conservatives have been boycotting businesses for years:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yo7wIn0bmw
Conservatives Boycott Nike For Supporting Colin Kaepernick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR6-BXqeRG8
Oregon small business owner fed up with liberals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6ek6TaVes
Conservatives Threaten To Boycott Netflix After Obama Deal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh2SaadAc6g
MAGA Supporter Creates App To Determine "Conservative Safe Space" Businesses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2HHQbrdgLI
Conservatives Boycotting Nike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhHj_ddSR0s
Starbucks facing boycott threats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m44Pvc4QgAI
Conservatives Boycott Willie Nelson Over Beto O’Rourke Support

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZdkCxTazWc
Conservative Boycotts Girl Scout Cookies, Blames Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV3B4i9950c
Boycott Right-Wing Businesses?

Quote:

---

"the Democratic party has been moving farther and farther to the right, disenfranchising more and more people. The party establishment no more represents social, economic or environmental justice than does its counterpart. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors that goes into keeping us beholden to our team but at the end of the day the masses are still struggling to feed, house and clothe their families and the environmental crisis is at its zenith."

---

Rustie --
I've been hearing from many that the Democratic party is moving far Left. Moderates displaced by Progressives. And now the AOC Socialists want to displace the Progressives. Do you really feel that the Democratic party is moving right?

Wow. I don't know Jeff Bezos well enough to know whether he is a "massive conservative" but the previous owner was a Big Oil friendly libertarian and that didn't stop Sebastapolians from shopping in droves.

Regarding whether I choose to shop at businesses owned by conservatives, in my experience "conservatives" like "democrats" and even "liberals" come in a wide range of POVs. What I hope they all share is our country's core values which includes freedom of ideas and thought.

I will continue to spend my dollars in my community where ever good service and quality are offered, and save my ideology for the ballot.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Please boycott conservatives' businesses....

---

Certainly, if I wanted to, I could research the veracity of your assertion that the Russians impacted the results of the 2016 election. However, since it's not one of my talking points I don't feel compelled to substantiate the claim.

I absolutely agree with your premise that if you repeat something frequently enough over an extended period of time people will believe it to be true. The overstated sentiment that Hillary's loss was likely because of the Russians, is a case in point.

Political gossip, media complicity and public participation provide the momentum to keep the machine powered. The confluence of these elements has had tremendous results in directing our attention away from the fire while we stay focused on the smoke. It has also been a very successful tool in shepherding us to vote against our own best interests. Your friends, who in 2016, liked Sanders but were afraid he couldn't beat Trump, are a perfect example of this. And here we are again, powering the machine, instinctively repeating the political gossip - America doesn't want Universal Health Care, Tuition Free College or Bernie Sanders in the Oval – despite the fact that polls indicate otherwise.

My point is that we need to choose our battles. I for one don't consider Russia to be the primary threat to our democracy. Apparently neither did our Democratic leaders, until it suited them. As far back as 2014 the Obama administration received Intel that Russia was building a disinformation network that could be used to interfere in Western democracies, including the U.S. They had already breached media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and military organizations.

In August 2016 the intelligence assembled had reached “critical mass” and Obama was warned by CIA director John Brennan that Russia was, without a doubt, attempting to intervene in the election. Apparently Obama felt the breach of our election system by a foreign state was insignificant as he took little to zero action when informed of the threat.

Five months later, in December after the election, Russian meddling suddenly became important. The public was informed, an investigation was launched and since then we have been captivated by the Russian threat to our democracy.

Meanwhile on the domestic front, during the 2016 Democratic primary, there was a significant amount of questionable behavior from inside the party.

In New York, a critical primary state, voters suspiciously disappeared from the rolls. In Brooklyn alone, Bernie's hometown, there were over 100,000 voters “mistakenly” purged. In the end Hillary's NY win was considered excessive as compared to insider expectations and the exit polls.

Additional shenanigans included Bill Clinton's Super-Tuesday visits to various Massachusetts polling stations. Challenging election laws to say the least, his actions deserved greater scrutiny than they received from the media, the DNC and ultimately the public. Inside facilities, during polling hours, he was glad-handing and back-slapping with voters. Outside polling stations, again during polling hours, voters could find him with a megaphone thanking “those of you who are supporting Hillary Clinton”. In my opinion it would be a hard case to make that he was not violating election laws. But in the end, we gave him, Hillary and the DNC a pass.

And lest we forget, though it appears we have, Donna Brazile's findings that exposed clear violations of campaign finance laws in the fund-raising deal between Hillary's campaign and the DNC. Long story short, the DNC was broke, in debt and needed a $2 million loan. The Clinton campaign came to the rescue and arranged the loan in exchange for complete control of the party, including funding distributions.

It's interesting that part of the Russian meddling consisted of a cache of stolen emails posted online pointing to these very unethical campaign strategies and financial agreements between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. That particular foreign assault on our election was not spreading lies and gossip, it was uncovering an ugly truth. Why and how did the facts reveled become less important than the messenger of those facts? My guess, it was the political gossip machine at work directing our attention to the smoke and setting us up to be later burned by the fire.

As I see it, we have a serious domestic problem and it's not limited to the GOP. I agree, it's unwise to underestimate the importance of foreign interference in our elections. However, I consider the importance of domestic interference in our elections, by our own governing bodies, as equally unwise to underestimate. Further, I wholeheartedly believe that our internal election fraud, perpetrated by both parties, deserves more attention than it appears to be getting in light of Russia's meddling.

Deep systemic change, in my opinion, is desperately needed. The window of opportunity would seem to be open wider than it has ever been. I hope we don't blow it by underestimating the importance of this primary and the deceptions of the DNC, the GOP and the media.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Well, Rustie, I have not made it a point to go looking for published info on the tallied results of Russian meddling, ...

---

Quite right and well said, Rustie. Let's also not forget the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual vote tallies in a few key states (whose names I forget now).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Certainly, if I wanted to, I could research the veracity of your assertion that the Russians impacted the results of the 2016 election. However, ...

---

- and, of course, Hillary didn't exactly lose the election, as she won the popular vote (not fully counted) by somewhere between 1.5 million and 2.5 million votes.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Rustie --
I've been hearing from many that the Democratic party is moving far Left. Moderates displaced by Progressives. And now the AOC Socialists want to displace the Progressives. Do you really feel that the Democratic party is moving right?

---

With all due respect, your comments read straight from the scripts of both establishment party narratives. In actuality it's the electorate that is moving farther left. As the populist movement takes hold, the party leadership ramps up the talking points and fear mongering telling us that the Socialists are trying to take over. This is exactly what you've expressed in your post. It all sounds strikingly like Trump's rhetoric, which I would call right of center to say the least.

One doesn't need to look far to find examples of the party establishment desperately trying to hold onto its right-leaning, pro-corporate policies. When the midterms brought us a few new progressive faces, the party leadership immediately began scrambling to protect its old-guard. AOC, who beat the entrenched conservative Crowley, was the first target. As early as January 2019, not even one month after she was sworn in, Democrat lawmakers began looking for someone to run against her in 2020. Rather than acknowledging and respecting the voice of their constituents, Democratic leaders wasted no time in their efforts to gain back their conservative contingent.

Not at all in the spirit of Democracy, let alone left-leaning, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) also went into action in response to the House upsets in the 2018 midterms. Borrowing a page from the authoritarian playbook the DCCC established its new blacklist rules. The end game; to squash any future challenges to party-line incumbents. Many of the House Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, were in full support. Effectively the party leadership is choosing to align with machine politics rather than allowing fair competition with a new generation of leaders seeking office.

Mirroring right wing talking points, the party leadership continues to reject Sanders' version of Medicare for All and Tuition Free College, despite the fact that polls indicate an average of 70% of Americans are in favor of these proposals. And while we sit in the cross-hairs of a climate crisis Nancy Pelosi ridicules the Green New Deal. Sounding very much like the Trump administration, she sarcastically refers to the resolution as the Dream New Deal.

Let's not forget Obama's Blue Dogs and Clinton's Welfare to Work program. There is ample evidence, going back to the mid 80's with the founding of the DLC, to support the observation that the Democratic party has been moving farther to the right.

In summary, to answer your question, yes I really feel that the party is moving right. Or perhaps better stated, is continuing its push to maintain its long established right leanings. I'm guessing that when you reference the many you speak to who suggest the party is moving far left they are perhaps commenting on the party base rather than the party leaders. Either that or they are parroting the Republican narrative.

That having been said, with the seating of our newly elected progressive House Reps the left is certainly gaining a foothold. Hopefully the tide will turn but it is, without a doubt, an uphill battle.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether you identify either party as right, left, center, conservative, moderate or liberal. The majority of our citizenry are struggling to survive. Thirty million people are still without health care, the Federal minimum wage, at $7.25 per hour, has not increased since 2009 and we have been experiencing unprecedented catastrophic climate events with no indication of relief. Our current direction, regardless of what you call it, doesn't seem to be getting the job done. As I've previously stated, in my opinion, deep systemic change is desperately needed.

Rusty of course you're right, you have more info and attention than anyone else on wacco. But the third party possibility? Not gonna happen in 2020. Once again we choose between two parties. If the demos, choose like biden, would you vote?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

With all due respect, your comments read straight from the scripts of both establishment party narratives. In actuality it's the electorate that is moving farther left. As the populist movement takes hold, the party leadership ramps up the talking points and fear mongering telling us that the Socialists are trying to take over. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...Mirroring right wing talking points, the party leadership continues to reject Sanders' version of Medicare for All and Tuition Free College, despite the fact that polls indicate an average of 70% of Americans are in favor of these proposals. And while we sit in the cross-hairs of a climate crisis Nancy Pelosi ridicules the Green New Deal. Sounding very much like the Trump administration, she sarcastically refers to the resolution as the Dream New Deal.

---

I agree with your observations to a large extent, and I expect we'd both be happy if the same politicians were in fact to take over. But I think this claim illustrates where I part from your view. Two things here - I don't think it's true that 70% agree with MFA; instead, it's a 'public option' that's overwhelmingly popular. And the other is the characterization of the Democratic leadership. As you said earlier in your post, the populace is moving further to the left, but not that far (at least yet). And it's of course true that the DCCC is more conservative than its members, attempts to protect incumbents, and isn't wild about having new representatives with different agendas. I think that's kind of, duh, what do you expect? A part of Pelosi's job is to help develop the next generation, but the biggest part is to deal with today's political challenges. I don't think it's obvious that her ideal policies are that much different than yours - but she certainly differs in her willingness to push for them now.

That doesn't mean this kind of criticism isn't necessary, because they do need to be pushed, but this assumption that those in power actually have their hearts in the wrong place and are the enemy because of that seems wrong. When you see the resonance that the Republican's claim that "people just want free stuff, and the dems want to give it to them" has with so many people, it should give you pause about how we're going to implement progressive goals.

The same people who disdain some imaginary others for wanting a handout will vociferously defend their Social Security payments as something they've earned; many of them think Trump earned what he has. Until things like universal access to college are seen in the same light as Social Security, those people will often reject politicians who propose them. That's the definition of 'voting against their own interests'. People always think they're voting in their own interests. The trick is changing their thinking by how you frame your goals. If you can't do that first, you can't win.

Am I correct in thinking that democratic socialism and socialized medicine is simply the norm in Europe and Canada? Aren't we the eccentric outliers? Why is this point not emphasized in political discussions in the United States, in order to counter the Republicans' dire warnings about the dread threat of Socialism, making it sound like totalitarian Communism?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

Rusty of course you're right, you have more info and attention than anyone else on wacco. But the third party possibility? Not gonna happen in 2020. Once again we choose between two parties. If the demos, choose like biden, would you vote?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

Am I correct in thinking that democratic socialism and socialized medicine is simply the norm in Europe and Canada? Aren't we the eccentric outliers? Why is this point not emphasized in political discussions in the United States, in order to counter the Republicans' dire warnings about the dread threat of Socialism, making it sound like totalitarian Communism?

---

Socialism is abhorrent to most citizens. Idea time, let's call it "Democratic" Socialism. :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Socialism is abhorrent to most citizens. Idea time, let's call it "Democratic" Socialism. :hmmm:

---

define "most". Some line from Princess Bride comes to mind, about that word not meaning what you think it does.

But you are not answering my questions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Socialism is abhorrent to most citizens. Idea time, let's call it "Democratic" Socialism. :hmmm:

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

define "most". Some line from Princess Bride comes to mind, about that word not meaning what you think it does.

---

51+%
"as you wish" :wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

But you are not answering my questions.

---

Please state them again young Padawan.

Find out who contributed to who in Sebastopol. Click website link below:
Open Secrets

I'm having trouble finding the year that I want in the the link below. Anyone know how to use this website well enough to find the election year and/or the locality?

Thank you ahead of time!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Find out who contributed to who in Sebastopol. Click website link below:
Open Secrets

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Socialism is abhorrent to most citizens. Idea time, let's call it "Democratic" Socialism. :hmmm:

---

It seems to me, but this is just my interpretation from your discourse, that you are not in favor of a country that addresses the needs of all people equally and empowers the people rather than corporations and the elite ruling class.

You don't say that directly, I'm guessing because that would be considered an abhorrent social outlook. Instead, following the right wing narrative, you intimate your disdain for Socialism, in any form, and by association for Sanders. You then point to everyone else, our citizenry, as the ones who have the problem with a just and equitable society.

Socialism by definition is a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.

Democratic Socialism is rooted in the importance of Democracy. That is to say that any social and governmental changes are determined through voting and fair elections. Democratic Socialism is a philosophy that both the economy and society are governed democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

Democratic Socialists of America was founded in 1982, hardly a new idea and far from a mere PR campaign to change public opinion about a word.

Give it a name, call it what you want, but at the end of the day if one is so frightened by words that they are incapable of hearing meaning, definition and intent, then intelligent conversation is rendered meaningless. For those who fear Sanders, having bought into the GOP, DNC and media efforts to demonize him as an existential threat to the American way, perhaps some clarity from the candidate himself might help assuage the paranoia.

“What democratic socialism means to me is having, in a civilized society, the understanding that we can make sure that all of our people live in security and in dignity.” Bernie Sanders

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

It seems to me, but this is just my interpretation from your discourse, that you are not in favor of a country that addresses the needs of all people equally and empowers the people rather than corporations and the elite ruling class.

---

we'll see if anvil responds directly, but what I hear from the right is the fear that 'addressing the needs of all people' means taking from me and giving to people who won't pull their own weight. There's a weird disconnect on their feelings about the elite - respect for some, since by winning at having acquired power, they've proven their fitness; disdain for others who want to impose un-American values; fear of others who are running things behind the scene.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

I didn't ask what information you have regarding Russia's meddling. I asked what information do you have to indicate that the said meddling had any effect on the outcome of the election.

Mueller's report does not address any resultant effect or impact of the meddling, only that it happened. In fact he was asked that very question during his testimony and his response was that he could not speak to that as it was not within the scope of his investigation.

I have not seen any evidence indicating that Russia's efforts actually impacted the election results. Russia's meddling, in my opinion, is an excuse for the failings of the Democratic party and the Mueller investigation serves as an excellent distraction.

---

I agree with some of your points- and the effects of Russian meddling can not be quantified. But let's be real - this is the first case I can think of where online trolls got masses of people to attend rallies that were created out of thin air.

If you remember... maybe a month ago a researcher testified before congress (he has some high faulting association with some prestigious sounding group... never mind it was just him and some tech who ran his site). He testified -and Ted Cruz among others waxed poetic... about how google's search results changed the vote of millions of voters...

Kinda blows the mind that republicans can believe that banal search results swung an election...yet a coordinated campaign from the Russians... and others, had zero effect...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

I agree with some of your points- and the effects of Russian meddling can not be quantified. But let's be real - this is the first case I can think of where online trolls got masses of people to attend rallies that were created out of thin air.

If you remember... maybe a month ago a researcher testified before congress (he has some high faulting association with some prestigious sounding group... never mind it was just him and some tech who ran his site). He testified -and Ted Cruz among others waxed poetic... about how google's search results changed the vote of millions of voters...

Kinda blows the mind that republicans can believe that banal search results swung an election...yet a coordinated campaign from the Russians... and others, had zero effect...

---

Google wants to hack 2020 election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quCgvqeZrY

"I reported that bias in Google search results likely shifted at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016 with no one knowing and without leaving a paper trail; that Google’s “Go Vote” reminder on Election Day in 2018 gave Democrats at least 800,000 more votes than it gave Republicans; that bias in Google search results may have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes (spread across hundreds of state and regional races) to Democrats in the 2018 election; and that if Big Tech companies all favor the same presidential candidate in 2020, they could conceivably shift 15 million votes to that candidate — again, with no one knowing and without leaving a paper trail"
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/30/e...whistleblower/

I would also add that people with a right-wing bent tend to equate "socialism" with "communism," and "communism" with the sort of brutal dictatorships that have taken over in Russia and other self-styled so called "communist" countries. The term "democracy" is also abused by dictatorial regimes; if I'm not mistaken the "Democratic Republic of Congo" is an example.

If you think Bernie Sanders and his many enthusiastic supporters are pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, you couldn't be farther off the mark! What we want is true Democratic Socialism, more like what you see in England, Scandinavia, and parts of Europe--a system in which medical care is available for all and nobody is starving or homeless, a system in which every citizen's vote truly counts.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

... Instead, following the right wing narrative, you intimate your disdain for Socialism, in any form, and by association for Sanders. You then point to everyone else, our citizenry, as the ones who have the problem with a just and equitable society....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

...If you think Bernie Sanders and his many enthusiastic supporters are pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, you couldn't be farther off the mark!...

---

So you endorse the Sanders spending plans?

Bernie Sanders's 'Green New Deal': A $16 Trillion Climate Plan

I am no financial expert, but I am inclined to trust Sanders, and interested to hear his plan fully debated in congress. I would rather see $16 trillion invested in saving the Earth from climate disaster and plutocratic greed than see it wasted in military extravagance and huge tax cuts for the rich.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

So you endorse the Sanders spending plans?

Bernie Sanders's 'Green New Deal': A $16 Trillion Climate Plan

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

Rusty of course you're right, you have more info and attention than anyone else on wacco. But the third party possibility? Not gonna happen in 2020. Once again we choose between two parties. If the demos, choose like biden, would you vote?

---

Sorry, but I don't recall ever having suggested that a third party had a chance to win a presidential election at this time. Perhaps that's not at all what you're intimating. But to respond more directly to your point, that a third party has no chance in 2020 to win, I absolutely agree with you.

However, what I have suggested in past posts, probably on other threads, is that if we were courageous enough to vote for someone rather than against someone else, we might by now have some viable alternative parties. There's no footnote on our ballots that sends the message; I don't really approve of this candidate's policies I'm only voting for them because I dislike the other person more. In other words, the message sent when we hold our nose and vote for the anybody in blue box is that we are aligned with those policies and principles. As long as we keep sending that message the political conversation will not change.

Regarding Biden being the nominee – I don't think the people will choose him. The DNC however intends to hand him the nomination. The wheels have already gone into high gear on that path. With full media complicity the party is doubling down to split the progressive vote, and it's working.

If you notice, Sanders and Warren combined pass Biden in most all of the polls. On the issues, progressive policies such as Medicare for All and Tuition Free College are also polling favorably in excess of 50%. The fair interpretation of all of this would be that the progressive movement now represents the majority of our voting population. Unfortunately it won't matter what the majority wants. If the stakeholders can split the progressives, resulting in a contested first round at the convention, then the super delegates get to jump in. Now how do you think that's going to end up?

So, if the progressive vote is the majority, which it currently appears to be, then why would or should we accept the centrist? What message do you think that sends?

To answer your question, will I vote in the general election, yes. Will I vote for Biden, no. For me, it's the wrong message.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by american dream:

- and, of course, Hillary didn't exactly lose the election, as she won the popular vote (not fully counted) by somewhere between 1.5 million and 2.5 million votes.

---

True, however the election wasn't her's to win or lose in the first place. Using some of the same illicit techniques that the Republicans used against her, Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie.

After the GOP unexpectedly outmaneuvered the DNC in a race of cheating and deception it was no surprise when the Democrats began crying foul by Russia. Anything to save face over the inexplicable loss to Trump while diverting attention away from their own nefarious campaign practices during the primary.

I give no credit to Clinton “winning” the popular vote. When you enter the race by way of cheating, lying and stealing, in my opinion, there is no victory worthy of recognition

When I checked the polls on approval of MFA, I saw that they were running at around 70%. That having been said, polls move and the numbers do change, especially when you have major media, the DNC & the GOP misrepresenting the issue. On that note it's very likely that the polls in favor of MFA may be dropping. Mainstream corporate interests, politicians and Wall Street are pulling out all stops to distort the debate and misinform the public about Medicare for All.

The veracity of any poll as a barometer of popular opinion and political leaning is directly related to the framing of the question. I find it interesting that you consider MFA without a public option as “far left”. We are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have Single-Payer Health Care. How is it that you have concluded that a single-payer system is an extreme left position?

I suspect, like many, you have bought into the opposition talking points and have decided it's best to take the safe road. Here's the rub, the opposition doesn't come color coded. Until we are willing to grasp that and take a stand accordingly we're not going to implement any progressive goals.

For my money, I would place bets on moving a populist agenda forward with honesty, education and direct articulate confrontation. I believe that those of us who understand the nuances and misrepresentations need to step up and call bullshit rather than making excuses for our leaders in blue who are clearly corporatists.

As the Democratic electorate moves to the left, it's abhorrent that the DCCC attempts to maintain only its conservative incumbent base. Moreover it's disturbing to me that you consider this behavior simply as a duh factor and as such are willing to give it a pass. It also appears that you are willing to give a wink and a nod to Pelosi, which is equally disturbing to me. If part of her job, as you suggest, is to help develop the next generation, then why would you not take issue with her support of the DCCC's blacklist rules implemented specifically to stop the next generation? If her constituent base is moving farther to the left, as I believe it is, her job, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is to represent us, not pander to the traditionalist pro-corporate agenda, lobbyists and elite 1%.

There is no excuse or justification and I won't align myself or give tacit approval to any political representative who aligns themselves with dark money, corporate interests at the expense of public interests and unfettered wealth-driven capitalist policies.

Our job, if we ever want to change the paradigm, effectively address the climate crisis and have any hope for a nation of social and economic justice, equality and equity for all people, is to stop being apologists and providing cover for the elite ruling class, regardless of what color uniform they wear.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I agree with your observations to a large extent, and I expect we'd both be happy if the same politicians were in fact to take over. But I think this claim illustrates where I part from your view. Two things here - I don't think it's true that 70% agree with MFA; instead, it's a 'public option' that's overwhelmingly popular. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

.... I find it interesting that you consider MFA without a public option as “far left”. We are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have Single-Payer Health Care. How is it that you have concluded that a single-payer system is an extreme left position?

I suspect, like many, you have bought into the opposition talking points and have decided it's best to take the safe road. ...

---

sorry, that's not really what I mean. Single Payer Health Care plans, as you point out, are pretty mainstream. I suppose if you must assign such an idea a spot on a political spectrum, it's 'socialistic' rather than libertarian in that it's a public good, communally supported. But so is fire and police protection - and for that matter, the military - so it's not really helpful to think of it that way.

What I said was "the populace is moving further to the left, but not that far (at least yet)". In the current political environment, only those who see themselves as on the left will support establishing such a big government program. People who see themselves as conservative or moderate seem to fear loss of their current insurance, inadequate as it is, even more than they respond to the charges that any MFA will be an immensely expensive government program. And 'government program' is still pejorative to many.

I'm not interested in any 'safe' road, if you re-read my post I'm not taking a position against it, just pointing out that it's not a likely winning position for the near term. The only reason I would oppose pushing for MFA is if it would tip the balance toward keeping the current gang in power. I kinda doubt it'll matter that much this cycle.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

There is no excuse or justification and I won't align myself or give tacit approval to any political representative who aligns themselves with dark money, corporate interests at the expense of public interests and unfettered wealth-driven capitalist policies.
Our job, if we ever want to change the paradigm, effectively address the climate crisis and have any hope for a nation of social and economic justice, equality and equity for all people, is to stop being apologists and providing cover for the elite ruling class, regardless of what color uniform they wear.

---

The Deep State exists on both sides of the Aisle. Perhaps your choices are the Green Party or even the Libertarians.

Yes, the Green Party! But our current two party monopoly is so strong, the best we can do now is to try to push the Democratic Party farther toward the left--which to me means supporting the interests of the masses over the interests of the very rich. Does that bother you, cyberanvil?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

The Deep State exists on both sides of the Aisle. Perhaps your choices are the Green Party or even the Libertarians.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

Yes, the Green Party! But our current two party monopoly is so strong, the best we can do now is to try to push the Democratic Party farther toward the left--which to me means supporting the interests of the masses over the interests of the very rich. Does that bother you, cyberanvil?

---

Yes. Pandering is a danger. When people realize they can vote themselves money, the Republic is doomed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Yes. Pandering is a danger. When people realize they can vote themselves money, the Republic is doomed.

---

sure, because most people were way too dumb to notice that's part of the system.

but you've blown it for us all now, by revealing the secret on the internet.


When your political philosophy is based on such truisms, you might want to open your mind a bit as to whether those cliches are have much tie to reality.

People of all political stripes want to vote themselves more money, futile as that may often be. This is nothing new, is it? The ultra-wealthy Republican donors are the masters of it! Yet the Republic grundles on....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

Yes. Pandering is a danger. When people realize they can vote themselves money, the Republic is doomed.

---

The only people who get to vote themselves money are our representatives themselves. The people vote for the representatives, who often use their control over who gets money to favor particular constituencies that they think will help them stay in office. The people also vote on initiatives and propositions, but these almost never involve voting themselves money. If it were really true that the "masses" had the capability of voting themselves money, why is it that the vast majority of government money goes to people who are already rich? We really need to get beyond these rote phrases that we trot out because they sound plausible but have no basis in actual fact.

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

People of all political stripes want to vote themselves more money, futile as that may often be. This is nothing new, is it? The ultra-wealthy Republican donors are the masters of it! Yet the Republic grundles on....

---

Republicans aren’t happy that Democrats are releasing the names of people and businesses who support Donald Trump, pretending that they don’t know that this information is public record and anyone with an internet connection has access to it. They are pretending to be outraged because they know that they could be next, and that scares them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKKLu-FZGlA

Not one business in all of Sebastopol donated money to Trump in 2016. That is wonderful! Sebastopol has always been a local bastion of the left. Click the website link below to see it for yourselves. This is absolutely great news!

Open Secrets.org

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Not one business in all of Sebastopol donated money to Trump in 2016. That is wonderful! Sebastopol has always been a local bastion of the left. Click the website link below to see it for yourselves. This is absolutely great news!

---

The reality is that your friends, relatives, significant others and etc. will whisper in your ear the correct PC phrases. But come election time, many will pull the Red handle.

How do you know this, cyberanvil? Are you a secret confidant of my friends, relatives, and significant others?
Who knew?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:

The reality is that your friends, relatives, significant others and etc. will whisper in your ear the correct PC phrases. But come election time, many will pull the Red handle.

---