Trump is not "Putin's Pet"

 I've got to admit that I'm surprised I would agree with Fiona Hill, but

 Trump wants to be Putin's pet, but he's not.

David Hogg needs to join the Green Party.

I said I am on the outs with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention" crowd lately and David Hogg's ejection from the DNC is yet another glaring example of why. I don't know what he is hoping to do, but it won't get done through the duopoly. The Dems have a habit of talking progressive, but doing nothing significant about it.

Instead, they hope to get people that they can point to and say, "They are progressive" while the rest of the party sits in the malaise that Hogg finally pointed out.

But hoping to get a solution from the parties which are the problem is going to prove fruitless: especially if you are trying to get reform by attacking their standard operating procedure. There's a reason that the primaries are pretty much meaningless.

And what has changed in regard to your pet issue? If anything, it's much easier to buy a gun now than it was when I was your age. And fully automatic weapons are more freely available along with talk of silencers being struck off the NFA list.

Just think of the carnage if the Parkland shooter had one of those!

I could get into how the duopoly uses the "hot button" issues to avoid addressing real problems. After all, I've been pointing out how meaningless Juneteenth is. After all, what is the state of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Anyway, David, we have a couple of issues in common: political change in the US, in particular election reform, and Firearms Regulation/Second Amendment. I can tell you that you are being overly optimistic if you have any hope in bringing about change within the Democratic Party/Duopoly.

And while making the switch to a third party is something I did myself: you  have to commit to getting new parties in the game, which the duopoly have hindered. But that's the only way for change to come about.

 It's the big donors, not the average person.

Shocking Report Shows How Democrats Protected Biden

OK, I left the Democrats in 2016 when they ran Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. It would be nice if more people looked into third parties to get some change in the political landscape. 

Why you should consider third party voting

James Zogby points out that the "Democratic" party is barely left wing, it's run by the consultants.

I think Zogby is indeed being Charlie Brown, especially since nothing will change unless there is that alternative voice. And he admit that there is no alternative voice in the "Democratic" party. Instead, the duopoly controls the process.

The reality is that the duopoly makes money off of the fake elections.

🚨BREAKING: HUGE problem for Dems!

I always thought she sounded stoned, but this is a real scary thought if this is true.

If there ever was a time for people to vote third party, it's now.

Kamala Harris Says She Was a Progressive Prosecutor...

There's a reason why she dropped out in 2020, yet the Democratic party is trying to ram her down our throats without her having to go through the primary process. She doesn't withstand scrutiny, yet she is getting a pass from the media.

Revealed: the hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

OK, maybe you don't give an fcuk about Palestinians, but Israelis live high on the hog with universal health care, nice homes, education, and all sorts of other goodies paid for by the US tax payers.

You don't get the "socialism" and "welfare state", but you pay to support a nation that does not act in the US interest.

Remember the US Liberty.

Kamala Harris: "She's completely incompetent!"

I thought about posting Tulsi Gabbard ripping Kamala Harris on her record for those people who talk shit about 'Orrible 'Arris being "a real lefty". You can look those up since I disagree with Gabbard's direction these days. And there were questions about whether Tulsi was a lefty back in the day.

But as I like to say, most of "the Democrats are the party of the left" wouldn't spot a lefty if they walked up and smashed them over the head with a "smash the state" sign.

That said, Here is Norman Finkelstein who is a true lefty and the subject of "American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein"

Kamala Harris is in no way a lefty.

It's too bad the Green Party isn't allowed any publicity because we wouldn't hear nonsense about the Democrats being a "party of the left".

You know that Russian Interference?

Actually, it's more like they blame Russians for interference even though the 2016 election was thrown by the Electoral College, which comes from the US CONSTITUTION! It's called distraction.

 The Israel lobby actually does what the Russians have been alleged to do. 

And I don't care how pro-Israel you happen to be: that money would be much better spent here.

More 'Orrible 'Arris, and she's even more 'Orrible...

The scary thing is that I'm not sure what her position is on cannabis use. That's OK, I don't think she does either. For that matter, I think she's totally out of it.


We won't need ads telling people cannibis use is bad. We will just say--"look at our president..."

It's 'Orrible 'Arris

Every wonder why she is being pushed as the "democratic" nominee despite not having campaigned or won a vote?

Because she's 'Orribe 'Arris. She had such a poor showing in 2020 that she had to drop out early on.

And for those on the right who believe she is somehow a radical leftist.

Give me a break. You wouldn't know a radical leftist if they smacked you over the head with a smash the state sign.

There's no real difference between her and Trump.

Amazon REMOVES Books Critical Of Kamala Harris

No surprise here. Well, other than that her father is a true radical leftist. But Kamala is estranged from him and has been for a while. So much for Rita Panahi who is someone I think wouldn't know a real lefty if they smacked her on the head with a "smash the state" sign.

Don't try and raise our hopes with someone who is in no way progressive, Rita.

Rita should stick to Oz politics since she has no idea about US politics.

But that pretty much goes for most of the Sky News Oz crowd.

Alas, this is a clip of a much longer show, but Caleb Maupin is on a few others as well. Rita needs to swot up (do Aussies understand that term?) on US politics before she says ANYONE in the "Democratic" party is in anyway "lefty".  Start with Real News Network's piece on Undoing the New Deal: the 1944 Coup against Henry Wallace. Bernie Sanders wasn't the first "lefty" to be torpedoed by the duopoly establishment.

Next, Rita, look up "La France Insoumise", they do have translations of the material on the party. You will encounter something closer to the left that wants to nationalise industries and do things that real leftys like.

But steer clear of AI since it is horrible with languages if you need a translator. Mais je me porterais volontiers volontaire pour ce poste.

And while we're at it, this book has been censored by Amazon, which is a LOT OF POSTS relating to how they are something any freedom loving person should despise. Fortunately, you can buy the book at Lulu (https://www.lulu.com/shop/caleb-maupin/kamala-harris-the-future-of-america-an-essay-in-three-parts/paperback/product-zmkjegd.html?q=Caleb+Maupin&page=1&pageSize=4), buying from something other than the monopoly called Amazon is a strike for freedom.

Do your research, Libertarians, Amazon is everything you claim to despise. 

Actually, Lulu is having problems processing the orders for this book. 

‘Knows she can’t win’: Barack Obama withholds endorsement of Kamala Harris

The Dems haven't learned their lesson, but then again there are the people who will "vote blue no matter who" even if the candidate is terrible.

 

For me, Sanders 2016 run was a confirmation of how bad the process is. The duopoly is pretty bad with the Dems being open about how bad the electoral process is.

Not only will they push a candidate, they will push a candidate who hasn't gone through the process of campaigning for office. But that is because Kamala Harris is an awful candidate. I was surprised they picked her to be veep in 2020. Even more surprised when Biden-Harris won the election.

Anyway, Sky New Australia has a good piece on how bad she is and how she is dividing the party, but that began the moment Hilary Clinton ran for president in 2008. I have a long piece on why I don't like the Democrats. 

And the Republicans are pretty much the same thing. It takes culture war issues to give the appearance of a difference.

As I said, get ready for Trump II.

Kamala Harris's Record Will HAUNT Her In November: Elizabeth Nolan Brown

All the people who are thankful that she is running are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

No, I will not vote for a duopoly candidate--especially not this one.

She makes Hilary Clinton look consistent.

And Sky News Australia agree with real progressives!

Could Kamala Harris actually win in swing states?

Sort of a repeat of the previous post, but a bit more in depth.

What I find interesting sort of goes to my comment in the previous post about the Democratic Party being in no way lefty. They ran when Sanders was running: and he is nothing compared to the left once one leaves the the United States.

Yet, he frightens the Democrats and Fox News loves to say how "socialist" the opposition happens to be.

But don't mention medicare for all...

Get ready for more Donald Trump

Joe Biden was bad, Kamala Harris is worse. She will not appeal to much of anyone other than the same people who would have voted for Biden.

 

In the conceptual blog post on how US elections are rigged, the Democratic Party and it's joke primary elections is a prominent feature. The Democrats would rather lose with someone like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, et al than  run someone like Bernie Sanders.

And while Sanders calls himself a "socialist", he's pretty centre on the political spectrum. After all, he does represent a historically red state (and I don't mean that in the way the rest of the world does, which is socialist, communist, and beyond--except for Anarchists, who are black). So, the despite the Fox News attempt to make "socialism" a "bad" word, most people like it.

At least in its more moderate incarnations. On the other hand, maybe people in the US are total idiots.

I mentioned La France Insoumise, the ultra left party, which "won" in the last elections. I have to wonder what people in the US would think about things like:

• reinforcing the 35-hour work-week and moving towards 32 hours (and people in Europe start work with three weeks PAID holiday/vacation); 
• and reducing the retirement age to 60
• The protection of common goods such as air, water, food, living, health, energy, or currency by preventing their commodification in order to preserve the general interest and by developing corresponding public services.
• The separation of investment and retail banks aimed at separating speculative activities from lend and deposit activities in order to protect the latter and the creation of a public banking center, which would finance small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and carry out credit policy on social and ecological criteria.
• Raising the minimum wage (called "SMIC") from 1,149 to 1,326 euros per month net for 35-hour weeks and raising civil servant salaries frozen since 2010.
• Withdrawal from free trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
• The "democratic re-founding" of the European Union treaties including changes in monetary policy, common agricultural policy, and environmental policy. Failing this, the program envisages a "Plan B" of unilateral exit from European treaties, followed by proposing further cooperation between countries.
• The implementation of an energy transition plan towards a target of 100% renewable energy in 2050, following the studies of the Association négaWatt and the public and interdepartmental agency of the environment and the control of the energy (ADEME). This transition involves shutting down France's nuclear power plants, criticised by the movement for their dependence on uranium supply, their alleged lack of safety, their radioactive waste management and their financial cost.

Even if some of those ideas didn't gain too much traction, it would be fun to see them being debated in an intelligent and informed manner.

Can Trump really win again in 2020?

 Yes, I am still of the opinion that Trump will win again in 2020 and that any other outcome is wishful thinking.

Trump supporters are (1) still fairly solidly behind him, (2) not very vocal in their support, and (3) going to be more inclined toward him that a Biden-Harris ticket. Let's toss in that most voters have pretty much already decided who they will vote for and will not switch.

Biden supporters are the case in point. Trump derangement syndrome has literally set in. How to tell if you have it: would you be vaccinated if Donald Trump announced there was a vaccine for corona virus? 

Remember that any approved vaccine would have to pass FDA regs.

Biden is unscrutinised and even when scrutinised things like #metoo and "Believe all women" goes down the shitcan when it's Tara Reade. And never mind all the videos out there. Same goes for the allegations of bribery from Ukraine and China.

"But Trump..."

On the other hand, can the allegations that Trump "mishandled" the pandemic lockdown play that well with voters who are having to actually deal with the lockdowns? I have the luxury of their being an inconvenience, but this is a hardship for a lot of people.

The proper course of action would indeed be things like medicare for all, universal basic income, job security, and other "socialist" programmes. Toss in contact tracing and a lot of other things which people in the US would balk at.

Despite what Fox and Sky News Australia say, Biden is in no way willing to do the necessary steps to truly handle Covid-19. I would also guess that Harris wouldn't either. It seems to be one of the qualfications for being a Democratic nominee that you have a public and private position. Biden has made it clear that nothing will change if he is elected, but there will be lots of committees and investigations. 

I'm not sure how persuasive Biden and Harris are to the people who will really decide the election: the actual undecided voters. On the other hand, both Biden's and Harris's campaigns were considered dead until the "super Thursday" miracle. Then what was previously left for dead was declared the hope for the US.

The prognoses are still not good, but we can't criticise the chosen ones or we are somehow "helping Trump win".

Wouldn't running a couple of the shittiest candidates imaginable (even shittier than Hillary Clinton) count as "helping Trump win". "Trump bad" only works with the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome and not uncommitted voters.

Or voters who want to hear real policies and agendas instead of what one would expect someone who has been in the US legislature to spew out.

Given the possible outcomes. 

1. Trump wins and the Dems really sit back and do some serious self-examination. Although, deep in my heart I know the Dems will blame everyone and everything except for the fact they chose to run an unpopular candidate.
2. Biden wins and the self-satisfied "Democrats" feel vindicated in shoving shit candidates down the people's throats. The ultimate outcome is that something far worse than Trump becomes president.

A Trump win is the better choice since real reform can only come from having to make compromises and changes to the system. The "lesser evil" system is how we got into this mess. Case in point, the Presidential Debates, which at one time were run by a non-partisan body, the league of women voters, but are now run by the "Commission on Presidential Debates", a partisan body.

 The two party system sure as fuck isn't how we will get out of the current mess in US poltics. And it would have made a lot more sense to work on electoral reform the past four years than chase imaginary Russians.

Netherlandish Proverbs

I love Bernie Sanders: don't get me wrong.

I was one of his early supporters in 2016 since I couldn't see Hillary Clinton run unopposed for President.

I am firmly of the belief he would have won and been a much better president than anyone else if he had a chance to win.

Unfortunately, the "Democratic Party" has been biased against truly progressive candidates: as Henry Wallace and Bernie Sanders have shown. Those are the most obvious examples of the "Democratic Party" not being truly democratic.

Sanders was the people's candidate in that he ran his campaign on small donations. He was like "the people's millionaire" who had one million people send him a dollar each. Yet the "Democratic Party" chose to run Hillary Clinton with the obvious result that she lost.

And she lost in such a way that she should never think of running for office. Also that her supporters should accept that they are pretty much responsible for the Trump presidency. I say this because Clinton could not understand that the electoral college was where the election would really be won.

And while Clinton had one of the largest popular victories ever, that means fuck all.

The system is corrupt in that it is rigged against the popular candidate, whether in the primary process or the actual election being thwarted by the Electoral College.

There is an irony that someone who "won" the nomination (Clinton) did do in a way that a popular candidate (Sanders) would lose. But the system is rigged so that the popular vote is meaningless and her victory is without significance. Even more importantly her campaign was clueless to that aspect of the election.

Where do Netherlandish Proverbs come into all of this? At the bottom of the painting is a man filling in a hole where the calf has drowned ("Als het kalf verdronken is, dempt men de put").  This is the Dutch equivalent of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". This saying is quite widespread in the Dutch language. It is used in many occasions where something should have been done before, but nothing has been done.

The "Democratic Party" has already demonstrated that it isn't democratic in any way. Likewise, it will look for every excuse and issue except for what has actually led to this mess. That requires too much self-examination for the establishment parties.

So, while I was hopeful that a Sanders candidacy could have been meaningful in 2016: that election demonstrated that the popular vote is meaningless.  I have happily left the two party system to once again be an independent.

Why progressives and "Democrats" will never mix

I am amazed at the people who tried to persuade me that the "Democratic Party" was somehow a "coalition".

Especially if they made comments like this!

And the Clinton Supporters wonder why they lost the election.

Anyway, there is a long history of disdain for real progressivism in the "Democratic Party". Its treatment of Henry Wallace being one of many instances of which the Sanders Campaign was one the latest example (along with ambivalence toward Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Sure, the "Democratic Party" are hoping that an embrace of "A Green New Deal" in name might attract people.

Toss in the progressives lite candidates that are being mentioned in the press: many of which don't stand the scrutiny of being truly progressive. This is made worse since the environment is the most important issue now facing the US world.

There is a laundry list I had with Clinton, but her inability to give a solid stance on the environment and climate change was a real biggie for me. The difference from Trump, a climate change denier, and Clinton, someone likely to do fuck all, was non-existent in that regard.

So, I will take the advice of the "Democrat" who doesn't want my vote and move to a party more in line with my political beliefs.

Just don't try and blame me for your mistakes.

See also:
Bernie is not even a Democrat, so why is he ripping our party apart?
The real secret to Bernie Sanders’ success
2020 Is Already Shaping Up to Be Another Festival of Stupid
Opinion | The Democratic Party left me — and I'm not alone
NYT: Don’t Be Progressive, Be a ‘Liberal’
Yes, let's wipe out Trump. But take neoliberal Democrats with him, too
Henry Wallace, America’s Forgotten Visionary
Untold History: The Rise and Fall of a Progressive Vice-President of the USA
On climate change, the difference between Trump and Clinton is really quite simple
The Democratic Party Has a Climate Change Problem

Voting Green

Yes, I voted for Jill Stein and the Green Party in the 2016 election.

This is one of the many reasons I am skeptical about "Russian Influence". The other one was that Trump won in the Electoral College, not the popular vote. 

Of course, you won't hear from the likes of me in the Media. And I won't even let off supposedly unbiased sources like the Guardian or the BBC in this rant. Neither of these news sources has paid attention to the US third parties. This is sad since any truly unbiased new source should be interviewing people like me.

Instead, I see bullshit like this trying to point out how Green voters were duped. Toss in the attempt to make third party voters somehow responsible for the Electoral College fiasco.

Anyway, Jill Stein didn't need any social media help for her campaign. Most of the people who voted for her were so disenchanted by the two party system that we were ready to vote for the Greens, Libertarians, or Roque de la Fuentes. I've said it before, the only way I would have considered voting for Hillary Clinton would be if ranked choice voting existed. In that case, I would have cast my vote something like this:

Jill Stein
Gary Johnson or Roque de la Fuentes for Second or Third
A Write in for Bozo the Clown for fourth
And then I would have voted for Hillary Clinton.

So, the "Russian influence" horseshit tends to neglect that Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates to ever run. But, never mind that the DNC and establishment democrats chose her over Bernie Sanders. There is another aspect to all of this which I have covered before and won't bother here about my disenchantment with the two party system.

So, any accusation of "Russian Influence" needs to examine how the two party system works since the bottom line of the whole argument seems to be that the Russians used it against itself.

So, any "Russian support" was pretty much negligible. I think Paul Jay of the Real News Network also does a great analysis of the Russian Influence issue.  As a lawyer, the standard for criminal convictions is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and no one has persuaded me beyond that that their assertion of "Russian Influence" outweighs any of the other issues (such as the Electoral College) for Trump being president.

Remember, persuasion require the person to be somewhat inclined to whatever you are trying to persuade them to do. I wouldn't have voted Green if the Dems had addressed: Climate change, election reform, and all the things Bernie was on record as being for. As Stein pointed out, You will love her if you liked Bernie.Toss in I am disgusted with the Democratic Party and its sham primary elections.

As for social media, pretty much everyone who supported the Green Party did so for the same reasons I did: disgust with the two party system (notice how the Media fail to talk about that Green talking point). The Green Party wasn't on the ballot in every state, which meant that a lot of people voting Green were doing so in the hope of gaining ballot access by getting 5% of the vote.

I'll toss in another reason I voted Green was that Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide, which she did if the popular vote actually mattered.

But the popular vote doesn't matter.

US elections are a sham.

And who better to make the baddie if the US wants to pretend it is the "Great Democracy" (or republic for that matter) than an actual "dictatorship".

In other words, distract the people as the world falls apart.

Sorry, I am one of the many people who isn't buying into the "Russian Influence" thing. And you can read all my posts to see why, but the bottom line is that nothing the Russians, or any other foreign power, have done tops the mess that is US politics.

See also:

• No, Jill Stein Did Not Cost Hillary Clinton the White House