Media - I hope you're chasing down the money Putin paid to the Green Party ( Jill Steins ) Election

[NotMyFuhrer]

Lets not ignore the OTHER Possible High Impact Russian Meddling!

It is a well know fact that Putin has funded many “opposition” parties all across Europe!

Please have your network of contacts look into the good chance, that he also gave support to Jill Stein (the Green Party) here in the US!

*** Her running has certainly hurt Clinton! ****

She went to Russia and praised Putin a lot!!

Ever since what Nader did in Florida, it is clear that the Green Party has been very interested in getting FUNDING! Focused on not its effect on the political process, but in getting enough signatures to be considered eligible for Federal Campaign funds!!

SO . . . a KEY question is . . . while Jill Stein was in Russia . . . did she (or her campaign) also collude with them, and did she get financial (or other dis-information Web Trolling support) from them !!??

It seems to a casual observer that they helped her a lot! For she played into their objectives!

[That Guy 888]

1. The Greens didn't hurt Clinton as much as the Libertarians hurt Trump

Last edited Sat May 20, 2017, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Nader didn't cost Gore the 2000 election - he didn't design the butterfly ballot, he didn't pick the "Connecticut for Lieberman" candidate to be Gore's running mate, Nader didn't certify election fraud in Florida as perfectly ok with him.


I think Henry Kissinger cost Hillary Clinton more votes than Jill Stein. I think the DNC backing Heritage Foundation plans costs the Democratic Party more votes than the Green Party.



Edit: If I haven't responded to your reply it's because either: 1.)I'm astounded by your political acumen and stunned by your brilliance, 2.) I haven't changed my ignore list from 2016, or 3.) I wasn't online when you posted and figure you aren't looking at "old" posts.

Pick whichever makes you feel best.

[JHan]

2. "heritage foundation plans"...

you mean the ACA which Americans warmed up to and got them believing that health care is a right? And which has become something of a third rail for Republicans?

[That Guy 888]

8. There's also welfare reform, and the moderate GOP idea of being socially liberal and

...fiscally conservative. Even though austerity economic theory is based on flawed math, some people in our party still see it as sensible and pragmatic.

Incremental change is great if you have the time to wait, and you can prevent the GOP from cutting it to ribbons. Senators Rubio and Cruz have destroyed the risk corridor provision of the ACA, and haven't been made to pay a political price for it. The GOP also fought to have more profits for the insurance companies in return for their bipartisan support - which they reneged on.

The ACA is better than nothing, but it is based on a plan designed to rescue insurance companies first, and provide access to health care second. If I wanted to have moderate Republican market-based solutions, I'd be a Republican.

[JHan]

10. That's a false equivocation..

and yes incrementalism is a good thing, steady progress - I'd rather that than risk losing everything. Both the far left and the right shat on the ACA. OF COURSE Republicans didn't suffer for that strategy because anti-government narratives work for republicans. The Republicans feared the ACA's success because they understood there was no way to veer right on the ACA because it became an "entitlement" - The only way to fix the ACA would be to veer left. Unfortunately many didn't get this memo and joined in the chorus criticizing the ACA, yes marvellous strategy that..

I too want universal health care, but I also know it won't happen overnight. And I have never confused compromise by a sincere Democrat with the betrayal of a Republican understanding that reform is a plodding exercise, with fuss made over the arcane details of thousands of pages of policy, the drudge of court battles, the building of coalitions, and navigating the terrain knowing who your real enemies are, who you can find common ground with, all the while engaged in the theatre of party politics. Considering that the Overton Window has been dragged to the right, equivocating Republican and Democratic approach to governance over the last couple of years is absurd.

[brer cat]

19. Well said, JHan!

With Democrats in charge, the ACA was the first, and a major, step toward universal health care. The attacks from the left were very short-sighted if not downright naive.

[That Guy 888]

22. How is it a "false equivocation"? Has the gop stopped blocking/pushing back incrementalism?

In a negotiation, if you start with reasonable goals and your opposition isn't in any way shape or form interested in being reasonable, your opposition is going to get more of what they want and you will get less.

"the far left" = Democratic voters. Triangulation means failure, especially when you treat your voters like landmarks on a political map. Playing the "reasonable" party isn't working out too well.

"The only way to fix the ACA would be to veer left. Unfortunately many didn't get this memo and joined in the chorus criticizing the ACA, yes marvellous strategy that.."

If you listen to the beltway press and sound bite polls sure, but that is actual "false equivocation". We're supposed to be the party that "gets" nuance, not the binary gop party. The Heritage Foundation plan was two-fold, 1.) block the Democratic Party plan for universal health care, and 2.) save the insurance companies. Why start so far behind the starting line that you can barely see it?

" And I have never confused compromise by a sincere Democrat with the betrayal of a Republican understanding that reform is a plodding exercise"

It depends on how much of a rear-guard action Republicans put up. Are things being advanced, or is it just going through the motions knowing that the Republicans will never allow it. If your compromise is something that Republicans wanted anyways, how much work did you actually do?

"...and navigating the terrain knowing who your real enemies are"

Well aren't we unwashed masses lucky to have that pointed out for us. I tend to think my "real enemies" are the ones that my party is constantly reaching across the aisle to in a desperate attempt to have bipartisan legislation... no matter how many times that hand is slapped away. No matter how many times legislation is compromised for support that never arrives (there were 0-zero-0 Republican votes in favor of the ACA despite the concessions they insisted upon right?)

"...who you can find common ground with"

In my life that's mostly meant Democratic politicians sucking up to Republicans with little return for those compromises. Oh and corporations, can't forget "the donor class" wouldn't want to get in a spork fight without a soup spoon. Water safety is a big concern out here in fly-over country, despite what the frack lords in DC tell you.

"all the while engaged in the theatre of party politics"

Is that the Kabuki theater that we hear so much about beyond the Beltway? My audience request is more heroines/heroes less victims and comic relief.

"the Overton Window has been dragged to the right"

Well, when the left/liberal/progressive (whichever term is the least offensive to the Republicans by all means) party is too frightened to step away from perceived safety of political centrism, that's what happens.

"equivocating Republican and Democratic approach to governance over the last couple of years is absurd."

The former is too incompetent to be trusted with power the latter is apparently to frightened to wield power.

[JHan]

23. Yes, breaking news: Politics is messy.

Obstinacy fails, it fails in governance and it fails the prospects of our politicians when we deride their efforts, regardless of what they're facing. Partisan gridlock is the result of obstinacy and why nothing gets accomplished. Horse trading is also a fact of politics, if you dislike it try running for something and see how well you manage not ever having to reach out to people who have sincere disagreements with you or who can block any good you actually want to be done.. speaking of which..

In your post, You've made perfect the enemy of good. The problem with that approach is that you end up jeopardizing whatever good you could have gotten if you only you understood game theory.

"the far left" = Democratic voters? Uhm no. The far left consists of "democratic voters" but Democratic voters cover a wide spectrum from far left to the middle, and putting people in neat categories is folly. There are some issues where I am very much to the left and others where I lean to the center. And that would be reflected in politics.

You can fuss from now till whenever about "compromise" - it is a fact of governance.

[That Guy 888]

24. Breaking news to some: Condecension is counterproductive

"Obstinacy fails..."

Hmmm... the Republicans seem to have quite a bit of success with it.



"You've made perfect the enemy of good."

Nope, actually I said that the ACA was "better than nothing". I think a better compromise would have been reached by starting with what the majority of Democratic voters wanted: single payer. Would Republicans want/vote for single payer? No. That's where you start negotiations. Not three-quarters of the way to what Republicans will settle for.



"...if you only you understood game theory."

I understand if you let your opponent decide the rules and give them a starting advantage, it's harder to "win".



""the far left" = Democratic voters? Uhm no."

The majority of Democratic voters wanted to start from single payer/medicare for all, our party "leadership" decided the best way to start negotiations was to preemptively surrender that for non-existent GOP cooperation. So I didn't say "the far left" is the Democratic Party, you did.



"You can fuss from now till whenever about "compromise" - it is a fact of governance."

Wow. "Fussing" like a baby? I imagine you don't talk to your good friends in the GOP like that. Read my post instead of blathering talking points. I never said NO COMPROMISE EVER!!!111!!! what I said was don't start weak - like beginning with a right-wing plan from the Heritage Foundation.




>>>>Once again: Did preemptively surrendering single payer result in the promised GOP votes in favor of the ACA?<<<<




Here's what is apparently some more breaking news: the Republicans aren't interested in compromise. Giving them the majority of what they want doesn't make them more cooperative, it makes them think you're weak, and leads the GOP to demand more. Somewhere along the way, it seems that sensible incrementalist Democrats became more interested in fighting leftists then fighting Republicans. It's been easier, and they get good boy/girl cookies from the Beltway media for being "sensible".

[JHan]

25. And now whatever progress we could have made towards better healthcare coverage has been stymied.

you made perfect the enemy of the good - Yes, Obama's warning which no one heeded. If you think the problem is incrementalism, be prepared to lose even more.. but I won't go along with you.

I'm young and I've already had enough of the hissy fits on the left which sees us losing even more ground whenever it flares up.

[That Guy 888]

28. Did the GOP vote for the ACA like they promised in return for taking single-payer off the table?

Compromise and horse-trading ARE part of governing. Why are you frightened of answering that simple question? Didn't the compromise in removing single payer from negotiations result in GOP cooperation? How many Republicans followed through on their pledge to vote for the ACA and make it a bipartisan bill?


If I recall correctly, in return for removing single payer and other things that Democratic VOTERS wanted from the healthcare plan framing the sensible incrementalist got... nothing. Not one GOP member in the House and Senate voted for the ACA. So sensible incrementalism or going for the brass ring, both would have ended up with the same bipartisan support. Zero. Why are you mad at "the left" for pointing this out?


The GOP is not our friend. They DON'T negotiate in good faith. Trying to get our party to understand this is dismissed as "hissy fits on the left".

[JHan]

29. And I know exactly where to heap most of my blame on and who to devote my anger towards..

Not Hillary, not Obama, ,, but the GOP. You have to use the system to get what you want, sometimes you don't get 100% of what you want immediately but that is the drudge of reform. It's not nice, it's not pretty and there's no adrenaline rush, which is why people calling themselves "revolutionaries" lose interest and worse, engage in politically destructive behavior which only ends up sabotaging their own cause. I would NEVER confuse the compromises of sincere Democrats with the betrayals of Republicans which you, on the other hand, do in post after post after post.

And if you want a Democratic president to do wonders while he or she is in office, you better give them the majorities they need. Obama made blunders in his first term, due to his inexperience, but his approach to governance -especially by the second term - was ideal. The cravenness of his opponents should not be conflated with his intent to make the system work. If your anger is mainly towards Politicians who aim to govern through consensus ( which is what ideally should happen) instead of those causing friction, mayhem and gridlock, your anger is misplaced.

EDIT: And one more thing, this is why conversations like this are so frustrating. The idea that the problem are the personalities - whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever else you want to blame, rather CAUSES and OUTCOMES. How did the Tea Party frame the narrative in 2009? What ideas did they push to make people doubt that their government can make their lives happier? We (democrats who want universal healthcare) are already converted to the idea, but at that time many Americans were NOT. Instead of blaming Obama for finding something he thought Republicans could get on board with, blame those who have invested billions in getting people to view government in such a twisted fashion, they reject ideas that would improve their own lives out of resentment or puerile reasons. But the "left" spent inordinate time falsely equivocating Democrats with Republicans, not understanding that the focus has to be on countering anti government narratives NOT FEEDING THEM.

[That Guy 888]

30. If you keep faith with people who have no intention of keeping theirs...

are you a good negotiator?

[JHan]

31. I just edited my post.

I read enough about politics to understand that the scenarios people conjure in their minds about legislative politics are a far cry from what actually happens.

In fact, recently the legislative successes of Governor Brown in California demonstrated just how much horse trading was required to just get a gas tax passed aimed at infrastructure investment. So I've heard it all from the reactionaries and "revolutionaries" - "Oh you gotta go in hard and don't budge" - says people who have no idea what the business of reform is like.

[That Guy 888]

32. Yes, no one is as knowledgeable as you.

"Oh you gotta go in hard and don't budge" - says people who have no idea what the business of reform is like.

Once again, I said negotiate by starting at your preferred position, not three quarters towards the GOP's preferred position. Hello, tap, tap, is this thing on?

[JHan]

33. I try to be wise about these things..so no I am not a font of all knowledge.

A wise person knows what they don't know - so I would never assume that not having single payer right now means Democrats don't give fucks, so I have a very broad view of what the challenges were at the time even though they were not ideal - see how that works?

[That Guy 888]

36. You seem to "know" a lot of things I'm not saying.

For example:

" The idea that the problem are the personalities - whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever else you want to blame"

The Democratic Party leadership is convinced that it's the 80's and the GOP are interested in negotiating. They are not unless they absolutely have to. I think Obama was a great President, but I disagreed with his idea that he could win Republicans over. I also disagree with being fiscally conservative especially where it concerns the erroneous "austerity" economic theory. Obama floated austerity in seeking (unasked for apparently) a "Grand Bargain" on Social Security with Republicans - somehow judging by the Party's negotiating skills at the time it seems like it would have involved swapping our cow for some "magic" beans. Bill Clinton was going to sell out Social Security in the same way he "reformed" welfare but was stopped by the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

"the focus has to be on countering anti government narratives NOT FEEDING THEM."

Saying that ACA isn't as good as single payer isn't feeding a false narrative, pretending that people who want single payer are tea-baggers is. I really don't see our party "countering anti government narratives" I wish they did. Our party has surrendered framing to Republicans, it's one of the reasons that "hippie-punching" won't get you kicked out of the Party.

[JHan]

37. You are conflating a preference for incremental changes to healthcare..

with resistance against universal health care. I WANT incrementalism where Healthcare is concerned because it will be a massive change in the economy and the tax burden will increase for all - there are several hurdles to cross before we even get there.

Absent in any of your analysis is context and any kind of pressure former democratic presidents face, but it's easy to just dismiss all their efforts out of hand as failures. I am not the one here who thinks they know everything.

[That Guy 888]

41. Try responding to what I post. I'm talking about bad negotiations AND bad policy.

Once again, when you start from a place of comfort for Republicans, you get less of what Democratic voters want. Austerity is still an accepted reality to the Democratic leadership - or their donors. This is despite the fact that the paper that laid the groundwork for Austerity Economics is based on math errors. In the 2016 election, chasing Republican votes was seen as more important than re-framing the debate away from conservative tropes.

"Absent in any of your analysis is context and any kind of pressure former democratic presidents face"

Republicans are bad faith negotiators, corporate donors want a return on investment. As beneficial as the ACA might be, more would have been accomplished by fighting election fraud first. That would help get more Democrats into the House and Senate. We're at a crisis point and all our leadership wants to do is blame liberals and voters. Easy targets.

[Cha]

3. 3rd party stein is a FUCKING LIAR.. and so is

that LYING idiot sarandon.

That's just 3rd party BULLSHIT.

[arthritisR_US]

4. Nailed it!👏

[dalton99a]

20. +1

[Cha]

7. The fact remains that Nader was a gd LIAR just like

stein and Sarandon and he SUCKERED all those Voters, just like stein did, into voting for him. By telling the poor little SUCKERS that there's NO difference between bush and Gore.. tweedle dum and tweedle dee.. fucking suckers got SUCKED.

Just like that Pawn for Putin ASSHOLE, stein LIED.. "Hillary's worse than trump".. yeah right as she and Sarandon sit on their MILLION BUCKS while those way less fortunate get FUCKED by trump.

Oh Michael Flynn was there, too.. Tools for putin..

[pnwmom]

9. What does Nader have to do with this? If the progressives who voted for the Greens in 2016

had voted for the ONLY progressive who had a chance of winning -- Hillary -- then Hillary would have won the election. There were enough Jill Stein votes in all three states to flip the election.

[Demsrule86]

11. Yes he did cost Gore the election...had he not been on the ticket, Gore would have won.

The same is true with Russian princess Jillie, she cost us victory in key states...Nader gave us two rotten court picks, two wars,United and thousands dead after Katrina etc...wonder what Jill the spoiler will have provided before we are done with Trump... Gorsuch is the first awful thing of course. She may actually kill more people than Nader if they get their shitty health care bill through the Senate. The worst thing they will cause both in 2000 and 2016 by helping elect Republicans is the severe damage to the environment; which will be very difficult to repair after we show the Trumpian, Green supported GOP asshats out of the White House and Congress...the Greens should change their party's name...nothing 'green' about them; they are a disaster for the environment and for this country...call themselves... oh maybe wrecking ball...it is who they are.

[Progressive dog]

15. "Russian princess Jillie"

I liked that so much, I had to repeat it. Thanks

[Demsrule86]

17. Thanks...I truly despise her...she also took money from Democrats with her cynical 'recount'.

[LisaM]

27. Nader's lie about Gore and Bush being similar ("not a dime's worth of difference") did great harm.

Moreover, he lied when he said he wouldn't campaign in states where it was close.

I note the OP's point about the Greens and funding. They do not seem to focus on getting their 3% threshold (or whatever it is) to be on the ballot. At this point, they should have been able to build a solid grassroots coalition, be running for local office where they can actually make a difference, and becoming a viable minority party that would be large enough to demand some attention from potential allies like the Democrats. Yet they don't, and they also don't seem to focus on what I thought was their main issue, the environment. Stein was all over the TPP and healthcare, IIRC. And Ralph Nader wasn't even a member of the party.

[Demsrule86]

39. Nader basically caused United as well as other shit...and when I hear green types

complaining about money in politics...I just want to say well you caused it all...and now you have no right to complain about a system you created.

[arthritisR_US]

5. I hope Rachel Maddow does an investigative expos on this. nt

[still_one]

6. That might actually show up in the independent counsel's investigation

[Demsrule86]

12. I would love to see Jill Stein in an orange jumpsuit...and if she took money without

registering...like Flynn...she is guilty of a felony.

[still_one]

14. Who knows? but that she broke bread at the same table with Flynn and

Putin, and the efforts she went to raising money for the failed recount effort, and where the unused money from that went, I sure wouldn't be surprised if she had unreported payments from Russia

[Demsrule86]

18. She did...and I doubt anyone who is not useful to Putin in some way sat at

that table.

[Foamfollower]

13. I want to kow if the paid any OTHER campaigns, too.

I suspect Stein and Trump were not the only recipients of campaign cash from the Russians.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Pumping up the third party splitters is politics as usual. Nothing new.

Except that in this case, Russia did it. But Citizens United gives even foreign corporations free speech rights. So, blame the SCOTUS.

[L. Coyote]

21. Far more fruitful to look into Republican funding of the greens, as well as covert operatives

involved in the Green Party and well paid to further Republican agendas.

[HopeAgain]

26. I would have NEVER voted for Stein, I think she is an idiot, but...

I wonder why so many Democrats think they are entitled to third party votes? If you want somebody's vote, you have to convince them that you are the right candidate.

If the best the Democratic party can do to garner a greater constituency is say "you have to vote for our candidate because the Republican candidate is so bad," the Party is in serious trouble. We need to woo more voters - why is that such a hard concept?

[R B Garr]

34. Can she go to jail, too?? She seems fond of the oligarchs after all,

especially the money-laundering global mafia group she pals around with. Let's see what she got from her mafia pals. Great idea!

[MichMan]

35. I hope all the people that sent money to her for the "recount" are ashamed

A lot of it ended up in her pocket to finance her activities.

[Bradical79]

38. I'd wouldn't worry about Stein and their part too much specifically

It's a much smaller less relevant group. I wouldn't rule out their role coming up naturally as the investigation progresses.

[jmg257]

40. She was mentioned in the dossier along with Flynn