Why it's different this time
Most of the conflict I've had on C99P has been about my support of the new progressive insurgency in the Democratic Party, and those who think I'm being suckered.
Most responses have been something like "We've seen this before in 2008 and 2016."
I finally figured out a way to empirically prove to those doubters why it's different this time, and it should've been obvious to me long ago.
It's the money!
First let me say that if you think that money doesn't have a huge impact on politics, you can stop reading here.
But if you are like most people you will agree that money is the most important issue in politics.
Comparing 2008 v. Now
Obama fooled a lot of people. They really thought he was going to change things.
The Progressive Insurgents also promise to change things.
That's where the similarities end.
Obama was vague. Justice Democrats are specific with their plans.
Justice Democrats do not "take any corporate PAC or corporate lobbyist money."
Obama in 2008 took a mountain of Wall Street cash.
Illinois Sen. Obama, who captured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday after a lengthy primary battle against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, has received $7.9 million (4.1 million pounds) n contributions from the securities and investment industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.His opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, banked a little under $4.2 million, putting him behind fellow Republicans Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have long since dropped out of the race.
Overall, Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from the securities and investment industry. If that trend continued through November, it would mark the first time since 1994 that they have drawn more Wall Street cash than Republicans in a presidential election year, according to the data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Do you think that this makes a difference?
It's the difference between politicians that have been bribed and those that haven't.
Compare 2016 v. Now
This is a bit harder, but there is still a clear difference.
2016 was almost entirely about Bernie Sanders.
All of the progressive insurgency groups were founded after the 2016 primaries ended.
JD was founded on January 23, 2017.
Brand New Congress was founded in late April 2016 as Sanders conceded the primary to Hillary Clinton.
Our Revolution was officially launched on August 24, 2016.
So what we are looking at is the difference between a campaign and a movement.
Even the WashPost recognizes that something is different this time around.
It’s been decades since Democrats had to confront a genuine challenge from the far left.
Now you can claim that the outcome will be the same, but you can't use 2008 and 2016 as examples of why nothing will change.
Comments
The people constantly harping negativity
Are doing the corporocrats job of undermining the left. I think they probably stir up the whole Us Them around here for that reason.
Some of us
don't particularly care for the four. I believe they are as racist as any racist that exists.
IMO, between them and anti-fa, they are going to set back progressive causes for years, because there is going to be (actually, it has already started) a backlash.
I think the backlash could be as severe as it was in the '60s, when the radicals of those days created a backlash from which progressives/liberals didn't even recover until the early 2000's.
Remember how long 'liberal' was a dirty word?
My time line may be off some.
The radicalism of the four simply doesn't lend it self to accomplishment or working with others to achieve legislative goals. They are show boats all wrapped up in themselves who speak with so much condescension, it just drips from their lips.
It's unfortunate that these causes, such as medicare for all or single payer, have such obnoxious supporters. Nice, genuinely loving people like Bernie can make the sell, and they have made the sell. After all, it was Bernie who changed the entire conversation and caused the dem party to adopt some of his positions.
These obnoxious women can talk, scream, and cry all they wish, but I seriously doubt their ability to change one single mind to switch positions on the MFA or single payer policies (or for that matter, other policies). And changing of minds needs to happen if they want to get the policies they support implemented (even in the dem party itself).
dfarrah
so
you "believe they are as racist as any racist that exists"? That's fine. You can also believe that from your forehead sprouts a penis that is 300 feet long. But believing it, won't make that true, either.
After those comments I'd block you if I could
because it is worthless to waste a second talking to you.
Markos is that you?
I thought he had a copyright on it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I left DKos long ago
because the same paid shills operated there with Markos guidance and coaching that operate here under the guise of being lefties.
I am optistic that change is coming.
But not because Progressive Democrats moved the change to the left.
I think it is going to come from people who have no party affiliation.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I think it's happening now
The momentum that developed organically during Bernie's 2016 campaign, and the movement that coalesced from that, mostly did not come from Democrats. It came from long-time independent-minded voters (like me) and younger people who have never identified with any political party.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
It comes from the ground up
and I believe we are approaching that critical mass that the politicians cannot ignore, unless they choose to do so at their own peril.
Politicians are the guardians of the status quo and the power of money. They only react to changes from social movements when those movements become too big to ignore.
While the majority of people in the US believe we should have changes that slant toward socialism, there still is not a real movement in that direction yet. But Occupy was the precursor and one will spring up eventually. In most cases, these serious changes appear to happen over night, but in reality, they were a long time coming. They have been a long time coming in the US and I believe they will happen soon.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I definitely sensed them during the 2016 primaries.
I can feel them, too. They will materialize out of the fog and gather. They are the ones who can bring change. They are unopposed.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
It is different this time gjohn, count on it
There are a few people here who always piss and moan anytime there's a potential to take positive action. They love their fear and cynicism too much to ever hit the streets or challenge authority.
Ignore the cowards, and fight. We'll win 2020 or we'll wear yellow vests, or maybe both, but we're going to fight.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Wow, Dervish
That gets me thinking beyond just giving up all hope come 2020.
But I still figure 2020 is it, at least for an old fart like me. High Noon for electoral politics.
I'm partial to keeping my eyes, my limbs, and my life.
I'm also not too keen on tipping windmills, standing in front of armored tanks, or fighting in the streets wearing yellow vests against a government that has amassed all the tactical advantages in a deadly struggle for the sake of being memorialized in romantic poems after I'm taken out. If that makes me a "coward", then a coward be I.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Or you could just vote for Bernie
Even if that doesn't work out, the limited effort will always remain right and just.
I don't have it in me either, to wage that kind of resistance, and besides I figure yellow isn't at all becoming to me.
But I'll still admire Sisyphaen heroism.
You know what I admire?
I admire the ability to let go of your losses when staying at the communal table of betting will render you penniless. I'm also not surprised that my belief about the political system is in the minority. Giving up long held beliefs about politics and imagining alternative views to living, in the absence of believing politics as the vehicle for better living, is a personally unique road to travel. And as far as I can tell, unique never really garnered much of a majority. I'm ok with that. How about you? You ok with me doing what I feel is best for me?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
So much for the "communal" and the common good
. . . but you do what you think is best and necessary for you.
I don't consider you the enemy.
Just please don't diss people who seem willing to politically resist.
It's the fine art of knowing when to fold 'em.
It should only matter to you that you have that skill and discipline to limit your risk.
I am amazed that I have done as much as I have to bring human rights to the American people. It was not my original intention. But I have never for a moment regarded myself as an American. I'm happy to help, but I know where they end and I begin. This pile of dirt in the middle of the Pacific does not define me. I'm not indigenous to this land and I have no spiritual or ancestral connected with it. Indigenous people have those connections and they do not poison their waters and kill their lands. Those are the actions of invading alien armies. This is the orginal dichotomy; it's what tears the empire apart, and that's a war the aliens brought with them. It's not my war. I can leave.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
You're writing.
You're putting your words and thoughts out there for the world to read. In my book, that makes you not a coward.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Thank you for that..
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I guess I am middle-ish. I vote. In the Democratic primary,
I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi, depending on what I then think is the best statement my vote can make. All the worn out "purist" bs to the contrary, I don't view either of them as perfect. Who is? Not I, certainly. But I don't view either of them as evil, either.
I think Bernie in particular makes the deals and compromises he believes that he has to make in order to continue representing the people of Vermont should he not win the primary. And get something done with Congress should he become President. I think the Democratic machine could crush him like a Cheerio underfoot if he didn't, fairly or unfairly.
Meanwhile, I will continue to support Greens. In the general, I will vote Green without a second thought because I would bet my life that today I know how my state's electoral votes will go. So, my voting Green is, in the words of Nader, a "no brainer."
However, I also know what is and is not empirical proof. And interpreting facts differently than someone else does is not proof.
Exactly. Where were all these people before 2016? We could conclude that all these people suddenly sprang out of the woodwork because Bernie inspired them, even though Democrats and establishment media stonewalled him and then some and he lost, honestly or otherwise. And, that's one interpretation that I consider reasonable, but I can neither prove it nor disprove it. There is at last one other reasonable interpretation that I can neither prove nor disprove, though.
In the 2016 primary season (I would say 2014-15) Bernie did a few things that stunned the establishment. One of those things was his ability to fire up younger people, younger people being the future of vote getting. Another was his ability to raise money without big donors or PAC money (aside from one donation and some "in kind" stuff from the PAC of a nurses's union that supports Medicare for All that Hillbots laughably tried to equate with the PACs donating to her). That skill may have stunned and impressed the establishment even more than his large rallies because it's never been a secret to politicians that supposedly "free stuff" appeals to more people than lowering capital gains taxes.
Another thing was that Bernie posed a threat to 2016's most powerful political machine--despite attacks and almost zero endorsements from national, state and local politicians.
So, if you can raise money and GOTV, especially the vote of the biggest current US demographic (Millennials) despite a united front against you from Democrats, why not go into politics as something other than a Republican or a standard issue Democrat? For one thing, since we're talking money, Democrats don't even look at you for a position like the House unless (1) you can put up a million or two dollars yourself and (2) no Democratic incumbent is running for the seat.
And either way*, nothing says people cannot be and will not be corrupted while in office.
I am not saying that you are wrong and I am not saying that you are right. I am just saying that, right now, no one has proof, one way or the other. I'd certainly love a sea change, as would we all. And, as with so many other things, time will tell.
ETA: Either way, "Follow the money" (not actually said by Deep Throat) was the best and most succinct political advice ever.
*For a time before he passed, my father said only "either way" when offered alternatives. And, so often, it seemed like a reasonable response under the circumstances, given who he was, that we could not tell if he was actually understanding us or not.
Not that different
The people who contribute, the small donors, are fairly well off even if they aren't big Wall Street banks. The 10% has much different priorities than the rest of the US. I've liked AOC in that she does her homework and attends meetings, she doesn't phone it in. I could care less about some of her priorities and on other issues she want's to hurt my income and my ability to support my family.
So no, they aren't any better, or not much.
I'm still ok with Bernie, but I don't think he'd be able to enact much legislation, and legislation is where it's at. Also Sanders has given some ground to the nutty left, he needs wealthy cat ladies to donate and volunteer in the primaries.
I won't vote easy this time.
Either a lot of posters I'd posted with between 2008
and 2016 lied about donating or even people on welfare donated to Bernie; and more than once. I especially remember one impoverished, aged woman with a severely disabled daughter doing so because she was terrified about what would happen to her daughter once she (the mom) passed. For the same reason, she believed that she had to vote blue, no matter who, but Bernie gave her actual hope.
I'd hate to think she and those in similar shoes were lying about donating and I don't think they were. I was not in her shoes, but to say that I am nowhere near the top 10% is such a vast understatement it's ridiculous. But I donated..a LOT. And that is what hope, after decades of alt neoliberal cons, does to you.
I did it for Obama and regretted it, although he won. Initially, I did for Bernie knowing he would lose, but so I could help spread his message. After the Boston and LA rallies, I began to kid myself--and, yes, his fundraising emails helped me with that. But I still think spreading the message was valuable. Whether that results in measurable improvement, time will tell. for me, though, it was worth a risk.
I think I'd like to see
some sources to back up this assertion.
Edited to add: In fact, according to Bernie's recent campaign filings with the GEC, the employer with the highest number of Bernie donors is WalMart. Also in the top ten employers of Bernie donors are Amazon and the US Postal Service. Those donors do not sound like "fairly well off" people.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Omar
I'll be interested to see what goes on if Democrats control
both Houses and the White House, as they did 2009-2011.
When Bush was in office, every public Democrat seemed like a kindred spirit because we were all spot on bashing Bushco and its deeds and inactions. When Obama was elected, however, even before he took office, seeing who was a Democrat and who was a leftist soon began getting very easy.
To Irish King
Thank you for publishing one of the most significant and favorite poems in our culture.
It's easy to think the rough beast has already landed in DC, but the poem surely has a wider view than one orange fool.
IMHO, Greed will bring the total chaos. Possibly leading to a different future.
NYCVG
The fact that money remains the primary determinant
in electoral success is the elephant in the room in this discussion.
Can the “loony left” out fundraise Wall Street sweethearts? Of course not. A few junior representatives have won office on populist platforms in left leaning districts, and now will face the ire of their own party for rocking the boat that keeps Nancy and her ilk afloat. Republicans and Democrats alike fear populism and will work together to stomp it out. Our two major parties own the system, and they will work across the aisle, not for legislation for the good of the people, but for preserving their own places of privilege, at the expense of the people.
The movement may spawn a few successful progressive candidates within the confines of one or another of our two major parties, but they will be unwelcome guests. A critical mass, enough to actually bring successful progressive legislation into existence, will require a Progressive Party. Even then money will be the stumbling block, same as it’s always been.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Do we have the time to create a new progressive party . . .
. . . that can win elections in locales across the country or even on a national level?
I think not given the imminent reality of the global environmental crisis that confronts us.
I know I sound like a broken record, but it's Bernie 2020 or we are mos' def' phluckled.
No other candidate has the kind of mass movement and critical mass that is making Bernie a legit and very, very, very, very feared contender for the Dem nomination.
It was already too late 35 years ago
when ExonMobil had enough solid data on the fossil fuel-CO2-global warming connection and what did they do with it? They sat on it.....because it would be “bad for business”. No good capitalist is going to put the health of the planet above corporate profits. Hell, there’s a lot of money to be made in times of war and in catastrophes!
No group of corporate backed capitalism embracing toadies is going to save us from the sixth major planetary extinction. It’s already baked in, barring a carefully orchestrated series of Krakatoa level eruptions to throw some shade on the planet for several thousand years. What might help is replacing those toadies with people who actually care more about each other and the rest of life on the planet than they do about the health of their stock portfolio. The Democratic and Republican Parties have amply demonstrated their fealty to capitalism. A new direction calls for a new Party.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Now now, let's
not be so pessimistic. The Donald will probably manage to destroy us before climate change does. War with Iran, next year, then Russia enters, then all Heck breaks loose.
And if we are so lucky and we manage to get him out of there, we can always look forward to the Apophis asteroid coming our way, first in 2029, then possibly fatally for the majority of mankind in 2036. Only 17 years out. Please be patient. Should be quite a show, and let's hope I make it through it.
Cheers ...
Pot calling the kettle black there.
Your assessment of the disaster of the Donald eclipses my pessimism by an order of magnitude or two. At least my scenario allows for enough time to form a new third Party, for however much good that may bring. A third Party may become much more useful than I expect.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
If it was too late 35 years ago . . .
. . . . what good is a new party gonna do now?
Look, I sent a few bux to the Peoples' Party (I forget what it's called now) in 2017 but I honestly just don't see that panning out in the limited time to effectuate the far reaching change we have to before it's simply too late. I've been voting Green in November more than a few times over the past coupla decades. I always make a point of voting Working Families Party otherwise. Or writing in this or that name in an effort to be at least a miniscule pain in the butt to TPTB.
I felt a glimmer of hope in something Dervish said about fighting on no matter what, so whether you go on in trying to pull together a third party or decide to don a yellow raincoat, go for it, I won't be busting your chops. But please vote for Bernie in the primary just this time.
Money is important
but not always determinative. And didn't Hillary outspend Donald?
If you build it, they will come. Build up the progressive forces already there and currently running, throw a few pesos their way. A lot of a little, per Bernie Sanders, can go a long way. Step up in other ways to support them.
The old guard will soon die out and before that -- it's already happening -- be exposed for the aging, geriatric crowd of the status quo set in their old dying ways that they are.
Hmmm..
So your scenario does not envision a younger generation of politicians that are equally rapacious and power hungry as the ones currently in office?
Interesting...
Well, if the many years working down on Wall Street taught me anything, it is that the old guard grooms their young in a very special way. Akin to the Doberman puppies that were moved out of the barn and trained in the Big House, the young ones will be prepared to obliterate us just like the old ones.
I guess you could say I'm not quite as sanguine as you are that the old guard dying off will improve the political landscape in any consequential way.
This is of course my opinion. I do not speak for anyone but myself and I do not bring any citations to qualify my opinion.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Oh c'mon
a gross distortion of what I wrote.
I said essentially we have a group of leaders who've been in power too long. Note here that does not preclude the possibility of a young group coming in equally ineffectual and so forth.
We have to deal with the hand before us. Which happens to be on the older side. And they've been there too long. They are starting to remind of the old USSR leadership post-Khrushchev, one old guy after another, all stuck in the old ways, a system rotting on their watch.
Time for fresh blood.
But Bernie, age 70whatever, I would consider fresh blood even at his age, so it's not strictly based on age. It's attitude. And new ideas. Even ones recycled from the New Deal. That would pass for refreshing in my book these days.
Is that clearer for you?
Ah, I see
And the power structure is going to be dismantled by new and better ideas, ushered in by new blood. I'll bet that's never been tried before, eh?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
In one way, 2008 was similar.
There was at least one real progressive running; Dennis Kucinich. Back then, establishment Dems were equally as good at crushing progressives, it just wasn’t noticed by many.
I don't recall many true progressives back then
and certainly no organized movement.
In fact, what is happening now is a first in my lifetime.
@gjohnsit In my youth, I
In my youth, I remember just being a Democrat meant you were a progressive.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Dunno when
your youth was, but in my day they were called liberals, not progressives (Wisconsin maybe excepted) and they didn't have to run from the label, as they later did in the 80s (Dukakis et al), which roughly was the beginning of the WimpDim Era.
Liberal Ds in the senate from Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana even. Incredible as it sounds. Not wishy-washy centrist Dems, but true liberals on most issues.
@wokkamile True that
True that "progressive" wasn't the label in the 1950's and 1960's. "Liberal" is not today's vernacular. "Progressive" has replaced the word.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
There were also
the racist southern Dems in congress, until the 80s when they became R. Also Dems had a certain crusty conservative, southern and non-southern corporate-friendly, hard cold warrior element -- typified by LBJ, his mentee Gov John Connally, Bobby Byrd, that oil-n-gas funded Dem senator from OK who helped (along with the powerful Arkansas rep heading Ways and Means) block JFK's Medicare plans, and a few others out west as I recall. Johnson for instance was squarely in the corporate-friendly/conservaDem camp from TX -- the so-called TX Democrats -- and they did not get on at all with the lesser in number TX liberal Dems, like Sen Yarborough.
Until the '64 landslide for Dems election, there was no working liberal majority in Congress. And the '64 CR bill only passed, after a record-setting Dixiecrat filibuster, because Ds could get enough Rs from their former moderate-liberal wing.
But yeah, liberal was the proudly used term then, not progressive. And liberals like JFK stood up and proudly defended being called liberals.
You may be older than me
I'm sure that there was a progressive challenge to the establishment in 68-72, but I was too young for that.
I was politically engaged in 1980 and by then most Dems were running away from the label "liberal".
After liberal RFK died
in '68, liberal SD senator George McGovern led point to change the party, certainly by the time of the '72 convention, when the changes were on full display. Before the term IdPol had been coined.
Didn't make the old Dem guard very happy. They'd lost some of their enormous power. Mayor Daley, Connally, the old union leaders.
Another example of Old Guard Dems (mostly up there in years, but certainly old in spirit) who needed booting out or a clipping of the wings.
Gravel ran in 2008 as well.
I'd forgotten that
Yes, there were lone heroes back then.
Both decent people
and principled pols. Just that, the support for Gravel and Kucinich, you could fit them all into my house and we'd have a nice party.
And I'm well aware of how the MSM and debate mods tried to embarrass Kucinich with the ufo stuff. Tim Russet I believe was the guy. And Gravel was treated as the crazy aging uncle.
Good grief, how did I forget Gravel?
Gravel was my second choice after Kucinich. Of course, he got the Crazy Uncle treatment from the media.
For anyone truly motivated out of the goodness
Of their heart to make a difference in the world, with all due respect, politics is the last place to go.
I speak, of course, on behalf of myself and bring no citations to qualify my opinion.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Movement vs. campaign
I have always thought that the greatest value of Bernie (and now others) is that he has created a movement around a number of policies. Will Medicare for All and free college tuititon every be off the table now? I remember from back-in-day TOP having people working in obscurity trying to bring universal health care on the table. People will win elections based on that.
By campaign I take that to mean the comings and goings of the democratic party apparatus, leaders, donors, etc. The democratic party is utter corrupt and cannot be fixed. Schumer recently met with the Progressive Caucus in House and told them he was surprised that the Senate border bill was immediately passed. He and affirmed by Merkely (OR) thought the House would pass a much better bill, and then negotiate with the Senate gop for better terms. To me, this is differnet type of corruption and that is moral corruption (and incompetent management).
A lot of the kids on ToP don't want MFA anymore
I kid you not. Many a pie fight over there about Bernie's health care plan and ByeDone's build on the public option. People repeat Chelsea Clinton's trope that Bernie's plan will see millions of people kicked off their insurance plans right in the middle of their cancer treatments. I was just flabbergasted by reading how many people made excuses to stay on the hideously flawed ACA. Hey..weren't we told that it was a stepping stone towards single payer which Bernie's offering?
Oh yeah and there are people there who say that they like Bernie's plans better, but they are supporting someone else this time because of his supporters being so Bernie bro-ish. "I want single payer, but joe blow was mean to me so I'm supporting Harris this time."
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Amazing but not surprising anymore.
I think there is a group somewhere in the DNC or close organization that monitors TOP and then comes out to enforce DNC neoliberal orthodoxy in the comments section. I remember a few postings stating that Nader in 2000 did not cause the defeat of Gore. Within literally a minute or two, there were members who did no like me writing it--and I barely get responses unless they violated neoliberal orthodoxy come to think of it. When Booker voted against Bernie's resolution on drug importation, there was a hue and cry. Within a day came some substantial push back came in defense of Booker. That seems to be a general pattern--progressive ideas quickly get a bunch of boo-birds.
Did you see my comment to you a week or so ago
about how you had been a secret Russian troll since you joined DK? On long term member there brought one of your Russian comments up and even linked to it. I think that was when you got banned? I don't remember how old your comment was, but just the fact that he bookmarked it so he could refer to it again is kinda weird don't you think?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Wow, I am honored.
I know that after one Russia related comment some member replied that he had looked into me as a Russian troll. I think I may have left off an article or two which gave me away.
Welcome, Comrade!
I knew there was something I liked about you.
Your critical faculties.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Thanks Tovarisch.
I 'think' that it's just an excuse that Kossacks
give.
Read this week that only 8.5 million people are enrolled in an ACA Plan for 2019.
Supposedly, there are approximately 330 million US residents/Americans.
If my math if correct, isn't that roughly 3 percent, rounded up?
(Unless I figured it wrong--Mr M wasn't here, when I did it, and my math is lousy. But, it's close.
)
IOW, how likely is it that more than a handful of Kossacks would be enrolled, considering the stats?
I'd throw the figure at them, next time they start that song and dance.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Pages