The Alternative Factor

The Alternative Factor,

Or,

The Bifurcation Fallacy and Liberation,

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

A spectre is haunting the oligarchy -- the spectre of a third party.  All the powers of the oligarchy have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this spectre:  main stream media and government, Hillary and Donald, Democratic liberals and Republican reactionaries.

They tell us that we are weak, that we are few, that we cannot win.  They tell us that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.  They characterize our decision as merely a protest vote.  They claim that by voting for the candidate we want, we are actually voting for an entirely different candidate.  They warn us that our vote will allow a victory by "the other."

They may call it "a protest vote" all they like, the fact is that there has never been a better time for it.  Masses of people are fed up with the establishment and the two establishment parties.  A greater chance to elect a Green Party candidate exists this year than ever before, a greater chance to deal a mortal wound to the hateful two-party system (or at least one of the two parties therein, which would open the door to dealing with that system itself).  They can call it "a protest vote," and in fact, it is a protest vote, but only in part.

The reason for such a vote is not only because the people do not want Hillary, nor only because she and the DNC stole the nomination from a candidate whom the people wanted;  the reason to vote for the third party candidate Doctor Jill Stein is not only because the two-party system is the product of a simplistic, limited and limiting Bifurcation Fallacy and the constant rehashing of Argumentum ad Metum.  Those things are certainly factors;  the author will not deny that and no reason exists why she should deny it.  But those are not the only factors.

The Progressive Left-libertarians, those who want progress, who reject the insane greed of the oligarchy, who affirm liberty over authoritarianism, really do support Doctor Jill Stein's plan and the platform of the Green Party.  They are tired of voting for an alleged "lesser evil."  They are tired of voting for this person whom they do not like in order to vote against this other person whom they dislike even more (nor is it clear in this year's election which of the two is the more unlikable or untrustworthy).  They want to vote for someone they like, for someone who stands for the same values they hold dear (and that damned sure isn't Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump).

The little DNC who cried "Wolf!" has proven itself to be false.  While they point their fingers at the big orange blowhard and yell "Fascist" and "bigot" and "sexist" and "racist" and "Neo-Nazi," the DNC has blatantly violated every principle of democracy.  While howling about "Russian hackers," the DNC has not been able to deny the facts revealed by those persons, whomever they may be and whatever their nationality may be.  That they were hacked is irrelevant in light of what has come to light as a result.  The DNC is a gang of thugs with their own bigotry and sexism and racism, and their own species of Fascism.

The DNC has threatened the people with Trump if they don't vote for Hillary.  This has been merely the latest in a long line of appeals to fear.  Is Trump a desirable President?  By no means.  However, that does not mean that Hillary is any more desirable as President.  During the primary election, they considered smear tactics against Bernie Sanders on the grounds that he may be an Atheist, as if his religion or lack thereof were anything worthy of consideration.  Trump has railed against Muslims, but Muslims have been in America since before the American Revolution.  This is America;  the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of and from religion to her citizens, in the First Amendment.  The Constitution itself rejects any sort of religious litmus test for public office in Article VI, Clause 3.

When the public has opposed Hillary, they have been accused of being "sexists" and "misogynists."  How can a person who supports Jill Stein against Hillary Clinton be sexist or misogynistic?  All throughout her campaigns, Hillary's team have attempted to muddy the waters by accusing her opponents of sexism, but now that some of her opponents are supporting another woman instead of her, that avenue of attack is closed to her supporters.  Instead, they have attacked a medical doctor who studied and later taught medicine at Harvard University, accusing her of being an anti-vaxxer or pandering to anti-vaxxers or being anti-scientific in general.  Doctor Stein has answered all of these lies several times.  The DNC, while pointing to racist speech by Trump, referred to Hispanic voters as "taco bowl voters."  Little difference is apparent between Trump and Hillary on questions of bigotry, racism, and sexism.  Voters should reject Emily's List because someone's chromosomal sex or gender identity is irrelevant to a decision to vote for or against that person, but Hillary's team seems to think that she should be President because she's a woman.  Indeed, a woman President would be nice, but Hillary Clinton is not the right woman for that job.  Jill Stein is, but if there were a better candidate who were male, the people should vote for that candidate.  Neither Hillary nor Jill should be President simply because they are women, but by the same token, the fact of their being women should not be a disqualification in any voter's mind.  Matriarchy is not an improvement on patriarchy.  Both should be rejected in favor of equality.

A Bifurcation Fallacy is the presentation of two and only two options, when additional options exist.  The two-party system, ensconced in the corridors of political power, leads to many claiming that only two choices exist.  They claim that no third party can win.  Such a claim is pure propaganda.  A third party will win, when the voters stop believing this lie and start supporting and voting for third party candidates.  A company's stock value falls when stockholders panic and unload their stock on the market.  A third party loses when voters are terrorized into the belief that the third party has no chance, and presented with a "lesser evil" narrative.  However, a "lesser evil" is still evil.  And the two establishment parties will continue to put forth undesirable candidates, as long as the people continue to elect one or the other of those parties.

There are those who fear that a third party candidate cannot win.  They see the biased polls which exclude millennials, which are conducted via telephone (landlines only, at a time when more and more people are getting rid of their landlines in preference for mobile communication).  But what are the numbers?  Add 26 (the percentage of registered Republicans) to 17 (the percentage of registered Democrats who supported Hillary during the primaries).  If the reader should come up with a number different from 43, the reader must do it again.  Now add another 6 to account for the percentage of registered voters who supported Bernie in the primaries and fell in line to vote for Hillary.  The reader will get 49, right?  Right.  Now then, add 8 (the percentage of registered voters who supported Bernie in the primaries and have continued the political revolution by switching their support to Jill Stein) to 43 (the percentage of registered voters who are registered independent, no party preference, or as members of one or another "third" party).  The sum is 51.  51 is greater than 26, greater than 17 (or 23), and even greater than 49. Those are numbers.

Now, of course, that 51% are not all going to vote for Doctor Stein, but neither are all of those 26% going to vote for Trump, nor all of those 23% going to vote for Hillary.  Be afraid, drones of the Queen (wanna)Bee.  Be very afraid.  Your old order is crumbling, precisely because of this same Bifurcation Fallacy and Argumentum ad Metum which the two-party duopoly has trotted out every four years for decades, and of which the majority of voters in the nation are more than tired.

Trump talks crap;  it's a common thing in NYC.  Hillary has already done things far worse than anything Trump has done, and has done things he has only talked about.  Hillary has no comprehension of the life of the average person, she has no empathy, she can't even accept responsibility for her own acts when caught red-handed, but instead tries to shift the blame onto someone else.  If you cave to the politics of fear, you will only perpetuate the broken system that got us to this point in the first place.  Stop being afraid.  We have the power, because we have the numbers; now let us realize that we have the numbers and use our power to end this corrupt two-party system once and for all.

The only way to stop this is to step out of line, stop listening to the appeal to fear, realize that other choices exist, and select one of those other choices.  This year is that time, time to reject the inane and fallacious lie that only two choices exist, when either of those choices will only perpetuate the oligarchy and the entire establishment which is poisoning sea, land, and sky, allowing the already insanely and obscenely wealthy to steal more and more wealth while others struggle or starve, ignoring the crumbling infrastructure of our nation, enacting policies which do little or nothing to bring jobs to the people, forcing young people into lives of indentured servitude to bankers in exchange for an education, locking people up in for-profit prisons where they become part of forced labor (slavery) for non-violent crimes, allowing insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to further enrich themselves at the expense of the ill who go into debt and lose what little they had, killing competition in favor of monopolies, disenfranchising labor unions, allowing the oligarchy to buy elections, ... the list goes on.  This year it is time at last to step out of line and reject the "lesser" evil and choose the greater good.  It's in our hands.  Only we can save ourselves.

The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 27;  episode 27 overall;  production code 20.


Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

Remember What We Fight Against, and What We Fight For

Remember What We Fight Against,

And What We Fight For,

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty? (Part 7),

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

Remember what we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

"Brothers and sisters, this is the nation we can create when we stand together, and not let people divide us.  They have unlimited sums of money.  They own much of this country.  They control much of the media.  They are very powerful.  But we have something they do not have.  We have a united people."
~ Senator Bernie Sanders, telling us what we are fighting against

The Hillary Clinton campaign is opening a new initiative to attempt to discourage us from supporting Dr. Jill Stein, as reported in this article in The New York Times yesterday.  As before, with their "Correct the Record" effort (which most of us recognize as "Corrupt the Record"), this will be another legion of paid trolls offering harassment and illogical talking points, with what the Hillary campaign hopes will be a heavy dose of "Public Relations" rhetoric (propaganda), but which will more likely be the same sort of intellectually challenged thuggery as we saw last time, with pornography and outrageous conspiracy theories presented on sites and social networks which support Doctor Jill Stein.  They will likely repeat the same old smears about Dr Stein which the Hillary campaign has tried in the past.  They will be pushing the narrative of "the big bad Trump" heavily.  They will be promoting the debunked bullshit about how Nader supposedly caused the election of Dubya.  They will highlight the positive record of Hillary, while ignoring all the negatives, because the Hillary campaign believes we're all just poor, stupid, uninformed kids who don't know who she is.  They will plead and beg and threaten and cajole and promise, but they are LIARS working for a LIAR.

Ralph Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore in 2000.  Al Gore lost the election for Al Gore in 2000.  He had the personality of a dead fish, he did not inspire, he did not make his case.  Everything the Democrats said about 2000, then and now, hinged on the general election in Florida.  They will tell you that 1% of Democrats in Florida voted for Ralph Nader, and that if that 1% had voted for Gore, Gore would have won.  What the Democrats do not tell you is that 13% of Democrats in Florida voted for George W. Bush in 2000.  Nader did not lose the election for Gore.  Gore did not inspire Florida Democrats to vote for him.  Gore lost the election all by himself.  Ron Chusid, in the Liberal Values blog, took on the discredited bullshit about Nader in the post, "Debunking the Ralph Nader Scare Tactics For Supporting The Lesser Evil."  Tony Schinella, in the Politizine blog, took on the actual numbers and showed the lie for what it is, in his post, "DEBUNKING THE MYTH:  Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000."  You can also read Jim Hightower's analysis of the nationwide election results at Salon, here.  No, Ralph Nader is not to blame.  Establishment Democrats have no-one to blame but themselves, but like their beloved Hillary blaming Russia for leaking emails which expose negatives in Hillary's past (as well as collusion between her campaign and the DNC), they cannot bring themselves to admit fault, and have tried to blame others for their own mistakes and wrongdoing.

Now, in 2016, vast swathes of the electorate are sick to death of the establishment and the two establishment parties.  Record numbers of voters do not want Hillary Clinton OR Donald Trump to win.  Those voting for Hillary are mostly voting against Trump, and those voting for Trump are mostly voting against Hillary.  The exceptions, those who genuinely support the candidate, are the dyed-in-the-wool, unthinking partisan types, who vote party as a matter of course, without much analysis of the candidates or what they stand for, nor their records.
26% of Americans registered to vote are registered as Republicans.
17% of Americans registered to vote are registered as Democrats and support Hillary Clinton.
14% of Americans registered to vote supported Bernie Sanders during the primary election.  Of those, more than half have switched their support to Jill Stein following the Democratic National Convention.
43% of Americans registered to vote are registered as independent, no party preference, or as a member of a third party.

We have the numbers.  We just need to get the information about the Green Party platform and Dr Jill Stein's plan out, and we need to stand firm, reject the scare tactics and the Bifurcation fallacy.

But let's talk about that 2000 election again, or rather, the result thereof.  George W. Bush became President.  I need not remind you all of the disaster that was, but something which is not so well known is that much of what happened while "Dubya" was President was planned, over a year before the fact.  If you're not familiar with the Project for the New American Century, you can read up on it at Wikipedia, at SourceWatch, and at Information Clearing House.  Many PNAC personnel were given appointments in Dubya's cabinet.  What you should really know, however, is that, in September of 2000, the PNAC published a paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in which plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were laid out, almost a year before the events of 11 September 2001, the covert insertion of the CIA's Special Activities Division into Afghanistan on 26 September 2001 as a precursor to a larger invasion, and the passage of the "USA PATRIOT Act" on 26 October 2001.  On 20 March 2003, based on what are now described as "intelligence failures," the US invaded Iraq.  The results of all of these actions include the spread of "al-Qaeda" to other Islamic nations.  You can read or download (and then read) "Rebuilding America's Defences" from this archive.

It doesn't end there.  On 21 March 2011, with the full support (and urging) of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton, the US under Obama's leadership, and the UK under Cameron's leadership, together with other NATO forces, invaded Libya and killed Muammar Gaddafi.  According to a UK parliamentary foreign-affairs committee report, the UK's involvement in this was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding” of the situation there, as reported in an article published by The Wall Street Journal.  One of the results of this was the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012.  Among other results of this destabilization of Libya was the establishment of al-Qaeda in Libya and the rise of Daesh (which is more commonly known as "ISIS," "ISIL," "IS," or "the Islamic State," but "Daesh" is a much more accurate name for them, its meaning in Arabic being "a group of bigots who impose their will on others," as discussed by Alice Guthrie in this post).

In 2012, an article discussing the PNAC was published in Global Research, speculating that the next US invasion would be an invasion of Syria.

Established in February of 2007, the CNAS, or Center for a New American Security, includes several former members of the PNAC (which ceased function in 2006).  The CNAS is closely associated with Hillary Clinton.  In May of 2016, the CNAS published a paper called "Extending American Power," which you can read, or download (and then read), here.  Among other things, this paper points fingers at Russia, engages in revisionist history concerning the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and demands régime change in Syria.  Mrs Clinton has been rattling a saber at Russia for a while now, and has been pushing for a "no fly" zone over Syria, as well as the CNAS goal of régime change in Syria.  The CNAS also strongly supports the TPP and the TPIP.  You may draw your own conclusions from this information.  I'm sure you've guessed that my conclusions, based on her Neoconservative tendencies to support Israel and promote wars for oil, is that she intends to invade Syria if she's elected President.  This conclusion is also upheld by the revelation of a Clinton email (thanks to WikiLeaks), in which it is said that "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."  You can view the email here.

I could go on talking about Hillary's record, her numerous claims to have made "a mistake," or that she "misspoke," and her rampant twisting of the truth.  The conclusion is either 1. she's telling the truth and is terribly incompetent, 2. she's lying, 3. the Transverse Sinus Thrombosis from which she suffers has caused brain damage and she honestly does not remember what she did or said, or 4. some combination of the first three conclusions.  Regardless of which of those conclusions correct, she is not qualified for or worthy of the office of President of the United States of America.

She will lead the US into more of the "endless war" which began under George W. Bush.  That much is a given, assuming she will live long enough to do so (but we'll come back to her health momentarily).  Her perspective on imperialism/interventionism or non-interventionism is identical to that of any other Neoconservative.

On questions of Economics, she has demonstrated a firm commitment to continuing the Neoliberalism which her husband embraced, which has in fact characterized every US President since Ronald Reagan took office.  She supports the TPP, in spite of her more recent rhetoric to which she was pushed by Bernie Sanders and Berners to whom she had intended to appeal.  However, her selection of Tim Kaine as her Vice Presidential running mate indicates that she has only changed the tune, but not the substance, of her message.  She will push the TPP if she be elected and take office.  And that's not all.  Her campaign contributions came from the "too big to fail" banking industry, Wall Street, the petroleum industry, the for-profit prison industry, and other representatives of the establishment corporatocracy.  These contributions are well documented.  She will not rein in Wall Street or high-risk lending or the oil companies.  She will not impose regulations, but relax them.  She exported fracking around the world and won't be doing anything to stop it if elected.  She will not, in short, do a damned thing to combat global warming or economic injustice, but will instead continue the status quo of business as usual.  In short, Hillary Clinton is a Republican, regardless of her running as a Democrat.

Now, about Mrs Clinton's health, a lot of her supporters have howled that all this concern is nothing but "right wing conspiracy theory."  Yet, following the events of 11 September 2016, when she "passed out" or "fainted" leaving the 9/11 Memorial service in NYC, even the main stream media, which has heretofore been all in for Hillary, yes, even they began to ask questions (including no less a Hillary propaganda outlet than The Washington Post itself, which has previously fallen over itself to lick Mrs Clinton's boot).  About the same time, more Clinton emails were leaked by the hacker "Guccifer 2.0," and included therein was this email, originally sent on 4 January 2013, from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton, in which Ms Abedin quotes an article by Doctor Marc Siegel, discussing Hillary's condition, "Right Transverse Sinus Thrombosis," and urging that the media practice respect for Mrs Clinton's privacy and restraint in their reporting.  Now, the source being a hacker, some of the Hillary supporters are likely to reject it as a forgery or some kind of conspiracy theory, but the fact is that it was a response to a piece done by ABC News on 31 December 2012, which CONFIRMED this diagnosis and which you can read (and watch an accompanying video for) here.  Since that ABC News piece and the subsequent article by Dr Siegel, we've heard little or nothing from the main stream media about "Transverse Sinus Thrombosis," especially in connection with Hillary Clinton.

So what exactly is this condition, "Transverse Sinus Thrombosis"?  Let's see what the American Heart Association has to say.  In an article published on 12 July 2012 in one of their journals, the journal named Stroke, Volume 43, Number 7, we find some explanation.  The article, titled "Differentiation of Transverse Sinus Thrombosis From Congenitally Atretic Cerebral Transverse Sinus With CT," explains as follows:

Thrombosis of the cerebral dural venous sinuses is an uncommon but potentially devastating cause of stroke, which has a predilection for women and the young.

Now you say, "Well, that's great, Giovanna, but what difference does that make?  What does it mean?  What are the symptoms and possible complications?"

I'm glad you asked.  Johns Hopkins tells us the symptoms and possible complications, in this article:

Symptoms of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis may vary, depending on the location of the thrombus. Responding quickly to these symptoms makes it more possible to recover.
These are the physical symptoms that may occur:
Headache
Blurred vision
Fainting or loss of consciousness
Loss of control over movement in part of the body
Seizures
Coma
...
Complications of venous sinus thrombosis include:
Impaired speech
Difficulty moving parts of the body
Problems with vision
Headache
Increased fluid pressure inside the skull
Pressure on nerves
Brain injury
Developmental delay
Death

"Okay, okay," you say, "that does sound pretty bad, but the same article points out that she can live just fine under proper medical supervision."  Yes, yes it does.  Under proper medical supervision.

"Well, what difference does it make anyway!?" you demand.  Indeed, what difference does it make?  Well, let's consider what would happen if Mrs Clinton died in office.  We all know the answer.  Her Vice President would take over.  Do you know much about Tim Kaine?  An article published on 14 September 2016 in The Huffington Post suggests that we ought to be very concerned with Hillary's health, precisely because of who Tim Kaine is.  The article, linked here, says, among other things:

...

As Kaine stated repeatedly in campaign ads when running for Governor – which used the catchphrase “these are my values and that’s what I believe” – “I’m conservative.” ...

He is a man who stood with George W. Bush on Iraq, professing to “share the President’s view,” and continued as a champion for neoconservative imperialism as a Senator. Kaine led the effort to get Congressional approval for the use of military force against ISIS, which to that point had been ongoing illegally, mocking opponents as “afraid.” He has advocated for the enactment of a “safe zone” in Syria which would “need US military assets to protect it,” – put another way, ‘ground troops’ – and in a time of ostensible non-proliferation supports strengthening America’s nuclear capability.

As a pro-coal Governor, and the Senator who co-sponsored legislation to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Kaine has been an environmental antagonist, often drawing criticism from activists and related organizations.

... For Tim Kaine, trade deals continuing the labor (not to mention sovereignty)-crushing legacy of NAFTA are “something I feel really passionate about.” As Governor he sent letters of support for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and others, voted to fast-track the TPP as a Senator, and was passionate enough to critique the “loser’s mentality” of those who opposed this agenda.

And while Donald Trump throws around “loser” as an insult from a man who told people they were fired on television, Tim Kaine does so as a politician who oversaw the execution of 11 people as Governor. ... Tim Kaine has definitively been a ‘tough on crime’ politician.

Well, certain types of crime, at least. As a Senator, Kaine has been a great crusader for bank deregulation. He voted for a bill which would roll back the already modest Dodd-Frank regulations, standing in opposition to colleagues such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and earlier this year, according to Politico, was “part of a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations to prevent banks from destroying our economy.”

...

Yeah, I would have to say her health is an important consideration.  Unless, you know, you want to vote for someone who has absolutely no reservations about describing himself as a "conservative," a word much misused these days, when what it describes should be more accurately named "social reactionary" or "would-be theocrat" or "Far Right Wing Extremist."

"But, but, but ... TRUMP!!!"  So fucking what?  Did you not pay attention to those numbers up there?  Hillary cannot win in a fair and honest election against Trump, and that is what really ought to scare you, instead of the Hillary campfire host's dark fairy tale of the big bad wolf (or the big orange blowhard).  This is the same dark fairy tale the Democrats have been spinning for decades already, "Vote for our candidate or you'll get this horrible fascist evil, even though our candidate is not really that inspiring."  It's the same shit every four years, the "Lesser Evil" narrative.  The Argumentum ad Metum.  Always always always, present the candidate of the Republicans as Hitler or Mussolini, in order to terrorize the people into voting for the Democratic candidate, and totally ignore any other possible choices.  Didn't work so well in 2000, did it?  Or 2004, for that matter.  The only reasons Obama won in 2008 and 2012 were the historical precedent of electing our first Black President and the fact of his charisma.  I hate to break it to ya, but Hillary ain't got no charisma.  She's so obviously a fake that most people not only refuse to trust her, they actively dislike her.

"But, but, but, ... A WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!"  Yeah, that would be nice, if it were the right woman.  Hillary isn't the right woman.

"Oh, I see, so you're just a sexist and a misogynist!"  No, toots, I'm a woman myself, and no, I don't have any "internalized misogyny."  I just think Hillary Clinton is a tremendously shitty choice for President, and her uterus, her chromosomes, and her gender identity have nothing to do with it.  But, you know, I am supporting a woman for President.  So that "sexist and misogynist" line isn't remotely realistic, and you know it.  You're just making yourselves look like bigoted idiots with that.  It's past time to stop shrieking that line, which was tried back in 2008, too, and it didn't work then, either.  It also cheapens the terms when you apply them to anyone who disagrees with you on any given issue, which is part of the reason so many people have in recent years rejected the label "Feminist," because the loudest voices in Feminism these days are the "safe space" snowflakes who accuse any dissenters of being "sexist" and "misogynistic" and "homophobic" and "transphobic" and "transmisogynistic."  For the record, I'm Bisexual, and I used to be a Moderator in an LGBTI support group, till it was shut down by the host, who shut down all groups at their site at the same time, for reasons I have not been told.  Bear false witness against someone else.  I don't buy your Third Wave Authoritarianism which you think is "Feminism."  I'm old enough to remember Second Wave Feminism, and when I listen to Feminists (and I do), the ones I listen to are Second Wave Feminists, not self-righteous and ill-informed busybodies like bell hooks and Anita Sarkeesian.  I'm not a supporter of Emily's List.  I vote for a person because of what they stand for, not because of their chromosomal sex or gender identity.

And so let me make it plain to you, that we are not merely fighting against both Trump and Hillary and the Establishment which they both represent, but we are fighting for something, too.

"The unique thing about the Green Party is that we are the one national party that is not corrupted by corporate money, by lobbyist money, or by super PACs, so we have the unique ability to actually stand up for what it is that the American people want, what everyday people want, that is, we have a jobs emergency, and we call for an emergency jobs program that will actually solve the emergency climate change that we are seeing in the floods and the fires and the heatwaves across this country that are so painful to watch right now.  This is what the future looks like, if we don't stand up and start doing something about it.  We're the one party that is actually calling for cancellation of student debt and bailing out a generation of young people ... make higher education free, and healthcare as a human right, and create a welcoming path to citizenship, end police violence, and a foreign policy that's based on international law, human rights, and economic justice."
~ Doctor Jill Stein, telling us what we are fighting for



Stand firm, Berners.  Keep that Fire BERNing Green.  Stand for what is right.  Stop being afraid.  Reject the politics of fear.  Reject the Bifurcation Fallacy.  If there were ever a year in which a third party candidate has a real chance to win the presidency, it is 2016.  THIS is our moment.  THIS is our chance.  THIS is what we MUST do.  WE are the revolution.  WE are "The Bern."  Hillary hopes to unleash a storm upon us, but WE are the storm which will wash away the corrupt establishment.

Proud of you? Yes, Sir.

The following are excerpts from a letter which I sent to Senator Bernie Sanders this afternoon.



Dear Senator,

This missive is in response to your Facebook post from yesterday.  ...

As you may know (and can verify from your list of campaign contributors), I have supported you in your bid for the presidency since last year.  In two separate quarters, I contributed enough to be on the list which you were required to turn over to the FEC.  ... the money I sent you was not money I could simply dole out willy-nilly, but I believed in your message and your ideals.  I still believe in those ideals.

Many of your former supporters, since you endorsed Mrs Clinton, and more since you spoke on her behalf at the convention asking us to vote for her, have disparaged and vilified you, accused you of selling out or betrayal or both.  I am sure this is not news to you.  I have NOT been one of those.  Search my posts on Google Plus ...  You'll find nothing of the sort.  I have tremendous respect for you.

I was raised in a conservative Republican family.  When I first registered to vote in 1983, in spite of this state not requiring party registration, I insisted on having "Republican" on my registration form.  I was Chair of College Republicans in the '84-'85 academic year at my university.  During the summer terms of 1985, I took "Western Thought and Culture" (a general education version of Western Civ) and "20th Century Europe" (a senior-level course in the HIST department).  The next year, I took two semesters of Logic.  My eyes were opened to the direction in which the "conservative" movement of the time, and the Republican Party, were moving, and so I joined the Young Democrats at my university that year ('85-'86).  I thereafter campaigned and voted for Democratic candidates for various offices, local, state, and federal.  ...  The Republican Party ... painted Mr Clinton as a "liberal" and a "socialist."  I bought into their rhetoric and campaigned and voted for him when he ran for President in 1992.  After he took office, however, I was dismayed and disappointed to see him cave on almost every lukewarm attempt he made to put forth any "liberal" or leftist policies at the first whiff of resistance from the opposition.  I had not joined/registered Democrat, and I was pleased that I had not.  I began looking into "third" parties.  Since then, I have vacillated between supporting "third" party candidates ... and Democratic candidates, at the local, state, and federal levels.  I did not vote in 2000;  I was living out of state and still registered here, and my absentee ballot did not arrive in time for me to return it.  Had it arrived in time, I would have voted for Nader, as I had done four years previously.  I cannot say if I would have regretted it or not as a result of George Bush the Lesser being "elected," so I will not attempt to analyze that hypothetical situation to find an answer.  I have, however, since then, voted for Democrats for President with a single exception, that being Obama's first run, when I felt I could support nobody running.  I was generally favorable toward Obama, but resented the insinuations I kept seeing that people who did not vote for him were racist.  I resent the blatant allegations in this year's primary season as well that anyone who voted for you over Hillary was sexist, but I supported you before that crap started.

When you declared your candidacy, I looked into your record, your stances, your platform.  I liked what I saw.  I thought to myself, "Gigi, this is the guy you thought you were voting for back in 1992."  I therefore enthusiastically supported your candidacy.  I campaigned for you on social media and contributed financially to your campaign.  I joined various communities on Google Plus which were explicitly formed to support your candidacy, and some which were "Progressive" and/or "Leftist."  I was eventually made a Moderator of one such community, the "American Progressives" community on Google Plus.  I even acted against my better judgment and paid dues in December to become a member of the Democratic National Committee for this year, solely because of your candidacy.

I do not know your motivation(s) for endorsing Mrs Clinton and speaking at the convention on her behalf, asking your supporters to vote for her.  I have seen various claims, including one that you were required to agree to do so when you declared your candidacy as a Democrat.  If that be the case, it only serves to confirm that you are the man of integrity whom I believe you to be.  But I do not know your motivation(s) for this choice.  I can therefore not judge you for it.  In spite of this choice on your part, in response to your Facebook post of yesterday, yes, Sir, I respect you, immensely.

That said, I will not be supporting or voting for Hillary Clinton as you have asked.  To do so would be to violate everything both you and I stand for.  I will instead vote for the greater good, not the "lesser" evil (and there is room for doubt as to which of the two main parties' candidates is the lesser evil anyway).  The little DNC has cried "Wolf!" far too many times in an effort to prop up the limited and limiting, simplistic and harmful bifurcation fallacy on which the two-party system is based.  This monopolistic dualism has been a plague on Western societies for some 1500 years with its eternal false dilemma which offers two and only two choices, ignoring the reality that more than two options exist.  We've seen the bifurcation fallacy expressed in religion (Jesus or Satan and no other options), in economics (Unbridled Capitalism or Collectivist Dictatorship and no other options), and in partisan politics (Democrat or Republican and no other options), as well as in other situations (Coke vs Pepsi?).  It is time for an end to the two-party system.  It is time to vote for what we want, and stop voting against what we are afraid of.

I have listened to and read your various speeches and comments about Donald Trump, and your view that we must stop him from becoming President.  While I certainly do not want him to win, I'm not afraid of the big bad Trump and I refuse to submit my intellect to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Metum.  I will not be terrorized into voting for a corrupt, lying, incompetent, neoconservative masquerading as a liberal.  I will not cooperate in the efforts to prostitute me to the Neoliberalism to which the Democratic candidate wishes to pimp us all out.

I will remind you, Sir, that you stated, at an MSNBC "town hall," on 25 April 2016 (see this video starting at 12:38), the following:
"I think it is, you know, we are not a movement where I can snap my fingers and say to you or anybody else what you should do, because you won't listen to me. You shouldn't. You'll make these decisions yourself."

I will remind you also, Sir, of your rejection of messiah-ship during one of your rallies, when you exclaimed:
"No!  No, no! ... The truth is you, not me. If there is any person here, any person here that thinks I’m coming to you as some kind of savior, that I’m going to do it all — all myself, you’re wrong. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We don’t need a savior. We need a political movement."

Senator, you are a man of honor, worthy of honor and respect, but you are indeed not our savior.  We must save ourselves.  You told us this movement was not about you, but about us.  Sir, WE are the revolution;  WE are "The Bern."  Dr Stein says "It's in OUR hands."  She is correct.  The time has come to end the two-party system, to deflate the ego of Donald Trump, and to dash the narcissistic ambitions of Hillary Clinton.  She cannot win in November, barring some completely idiotic act or statement by Trump (not that I would put it past him, but I simply don't believe that those who plan to vote for him will ever shift their support to Mrs Clinton;  she is a widely despised and deeply flawed candidate, and the Democratic Party, which could have ensured a win by nominating you, has instead shot themselves in the foot and screwed the pooch by nominating her).

I am no novice in political activism or partisan politics, Senator.  I do not imagine for one second that it will be easy, but I am also aware of the numbers;  if we were to add all the registered Republicans and all the registered Democrats together, they would still be less than half of all registered voters.  While that does not mean that the majority are Greens, it does mean that the majority are potential Green voters (because, even in a state like this which does not require party registration, the most decidedly partisan will insist on it).  I will be working against Trump, but also against Hillary.  I will be working for Jill.  I am by no means alone in this.  More of your supporters share this perspective than the mainstream media are admitting.  Hillary was already an unlikely winner before the rigged elections, voter suppression, and collusion of the DNC with her campaign, and the insults and disrespect to you and us who have been your supporters.  Now she has no chance.  You are backing a losing horse, Sir.  It is, perhaps, too late now that Dr Stein has named her VP running mate for you to give ear to her overtures and become her running mate, and indeed, it would be a shit move on her part to replace the running mate she has already selected with you.  But I do hope you will stop pleading so heartily with us to come back and support the very system which we can no longer stomach, the system which made it plain that it has no use for us other than to rubber stamp its chosen candidate no matter what we would prefer.  The Democratic Party is too far gone to be reformed.  It must (if you will excuse me for using this spelling) Bern, Sir, and be replaced with a party which does stand for progressive and leftist ideals.  I am sure you know this, but cannot admit it publicly, for whatever reason(s).

My Heroes have always fought for the Republic, and against empire.  Proud of you?  Yes, Sir, I am.  However, I will be voting for Jill Stein for President, and I will urge all progressive leftists, and all thinking people, to free themselves from the fallacies upon which the two-party system relies.  My voice does not reach as far as yours, Senator, but I do have my own audience.  Many of them will hear my call.  Most of them have already made up their minds without my influence.  We Bern Green.

With great respect, Sir, I am

Yours sincerely,
[Name Redacted]

From the Ashes, WE BERN GREEN!

"Bernie Has a Plan"?

"Bernie Has a Plan"?

Maybe, but He's Not Our Messiah,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

I keep seeing other Berners insisting, even after Bernie has endorsed Hillary, that "Bernie has a plan."  I've seen excuses made for his endorsement, but no citations for those excuses.  They range from "he had to in order to stay in the convention" to "he had to in order to stay relevant in the Senate" to "he hasn't suspended his campaign and there's still a chance he'll get the nomination."  Any or all of these could be true;  I grant that.  I sincerely hope that he does wind up with the nomination.  If the Democratic National Committee were rational, I wouldn't even be writing this.  He would have won, hands down, had they not hamstrung his campaign and stolen the election by voter suppression and election fraud, had they faced the reality that he is the best candidate they have and that he has a much better chance of defeating Trump in the general election than the widely distrusted and disliked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But can we attribute rationality to the DNC?  Can we attribute rationality to their superdelegates?  Recent history, over the past 20+ years, has painted a very different picture from rationality, and I suspect that the neoliberal perspective is now so entrenched in the party machine that it cannot be rooted out.  Progressive candidates, leftist candidates, candidates in favor of civil libertarian ideals, have not fared well in the primaries.  Michael Dukakis was likely the last of the progressive leftists to win a Democratic primary, and even he was more of an authoritarian than I would have preferred.  Dennis Kucinich hardly got any press at all, outside the debates, and was mostly overlooked by the media even in their reporting on the debates.  John Wolfe, Jr. was almost completely ignored by the media.  I recall only a single mention of him on CBS News, and nothing from any other news source.

The DNC is not rational;  they've been out of touch with reality for over two decades, and only lucked into a win and a reelection because of Obama's charisma.

Well, Hillary has no charisma.  She's more reminiscent of Joni Ernst with her wicked gloating laugh when she won her Senate seat in 2014.  *shivers*  Wicked stepmother vibes all over the place.

"Bernie has a plan," though, I keep seeing.  It's possible.  I grant that it's possible that he still has something up his sleeve;  I cannot imagine him endorsing Hillary honestly unless he received some sort of threat (which is also not something I would put past the Democratic Party machine).  "Bernie has a plan."  It's possible.  But will it succeed?  Rabbie Burns wrote "The best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee."  Will the Democratic National Convention deliver the nomination to Bernie?  Possible.  Improbable, but possible.

"Bernie has a plan."  It sounds almost religious.  "God has a plan."  I've heard that before.  "Don't despair;  God has a plan."  A vestige of hyper-Calvinism's doctrine of "the Sovereignty of God."  But they are telling me that "Bernie has a plan."  This attempt at consolation and reassurance is too much like that vestigial hyper-Calvinism in certain quasi-Calvinistic sects of Christianity for my tastes.

"Bernie has a plan."  /  "God has a plan."

Bernie himself told us in no uncertain terms "No!  No, no! ... The truth is you, not me. If there is any person here, any person here that thinks I’m coming to you as some kind of savior, that I’m going to do it all — all myself, you’re wrong. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We don’t need a savior. We need a political movement."  He also said "Not me;  us."  The movement was never about Bernie, and he made that clear himself.

The Green Party has had a history of Progressive Left-libertarian views, much like what Bernie campaigned on.  Jill Stein goes even further than Bernie in some particulars, like full erasure of all student loan debt, rather than simply easing the interest.  You can see her plan at her campaign website.  Is it any wonder than those of us who were "StillSanders" and "NeverHillary" would now be supporting Jill?  Did the Democratic National Committee think we were bluffing and would fall in line with the party?  Most of us weren't Democrats to begin with!  Why would we go for the vapid "Blue no matter who" schtick, especially when the "who" is someone most of us revile?

"Bernie has a plan."  Maybe so.  But he's not our messiah;  we have to save ourselves.  It's in our hands.

Go Green in Two-Thousand-Sixteen.  Jill Stein for President.

Edit:
The video link above is no longer active;  I believe I have a copy of the video, but it being under a copyright, my copy is of course for personal use and cannot be shared here.  I will see if I can find another source for the video still available, but in the meantime, here are some text-based sources for the statement I quoted from Bernie (and archived versions):

"No!  No, no! ... The truth is you, not me. If there is any person here, any person here that thinks I’m coming to you as some kind of savior, that I’m going to do it all — all myself, you’re wrong. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We don’t need a savior. We need a political movement."
~ Senator Bernard Sanders, Bernie for President Rally, Fargo, North Dakota, 13 May 2016

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-north-dakota-rally-kind-savior/story?id=39111163

http://web.archive.org/web/20160515100410/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-north-dakota-rally-kind-savior/story?id=39111163

https://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/we_dont_need_a_savior_what_bernie_sanders_understands_about_change_in_america_that_everyone_needs_to_remember/

https://archive.fo/ato5U