Please Boycott Conservatives' Businesses

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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...

[cyberanvil]

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/

[occihoff]

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.

... 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....

[cyberanvil]

...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

[occihoff]

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.

So you endorse the Sanders spending plans?

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

[Rustie]

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.....

[Rustie]

- 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

[Rustie]

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.

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. ...

[podfish]

.... 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.

[cyberanvil]

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.

[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?

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

[cyberanvil]

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.

[podfish]

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.

[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....

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

[pbrinton]

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

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....

[Valley Oak]

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:

[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!

Open Secrets.org

[cyberanvil]

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.

[occihoff]

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

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.