Over the course of the midterm election cycle, I noticed some stories from Arizona Democrats grumbling that Krysten Synema was doing no campaigning on behalf of Arizona Democrats, their implication being something like — she’s in it for herself, and is getting the corporate money and running. The question I had was — given her poll numbers amongst her party, did the various Democratic candidates want her? I suppose there was some theoretical room for some theoretical candidate who needed a mass of Republican leaning votes, but it would have to be a damper on any “get out the base” vote on her surrogacy.
She knows the poll numbers. She won’t win a Democratic primary, so she bolts. Just as Arlen Specter did. For rhetorical positioning she can’t step in as a Republican, but I guess the party may just clear the way for her. I don’t know the politics enough to know if her path in a Republican primary is done — we have multiple conservative Democrat switchers who got tagged as socialists and dragged for party line votes in Republican primaries — but then on the other gand… Who is Trump?
What is fascinating is that she did not do this before the Georgia run-off. The “senate in the balance” may be a winning line to sway the electorate — voting as they did for all statewide Republicans not named Walker. But then, I am not entirely certain at the end Herschel Walker was in it — and if asked for such help from Sinema would have just as soon asked for a delay so he could quietly exit on election day (as against the Trump — Lake line of thinking any election that goes against them is invalid). But that is just conjecture.
Update: I initially saw a mistaken report that she was going to caucus with the Republicans. But I guess not. She is Lieberman. She did a Joe Manchhin before Joe Manchin had a chance to — and with less theoretical benefit for the Democrats on the premise — he who said if it’ll help I’ll drop the name Democrat so I can continue to oppose where I do.
… By any reasonable reading of platforms, the Green Party sits opposed to Larouche inc with a greener newer deal than anything any Democrat has, but — Hey! They oppose Ukraine aid so why not?
A curious question on the common phrase, this applied to Sam Sedar who apparently keeps a watch on Jimmy Dore. Is the user trying to make their case for Jimmy Dore’s insignificance?
Nick Brana at next Schiller Institute meet:Awesome, now Dore’s “People’s Party” is herding people into LaRouche recruitment sessions … … … Hilarious how all these dorks hopped onto the LaRouche payroll almost overnight, really want to know where their cash infusion came from
Another thing a Diane Sare campaign gets her, even with non-existent votes, is an in with ex RT America host now podcaster Lee Camp. Looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears just a tad in his describing his show as not getting Russian censorship government or direction — or at the least it is just his personal choice in shutting down guest comments on the Russian government.
And Sputnik of Russian state media does not appear to know the insignificance of the title “ex Senate Candidate“.
Anyways, Louis on the sidewalk had “Lyndon Larouche was right!” and “Bring Back Trump!” and seemed very agitated, and so very very very out of place in the perma-bougie nouveau-riche Premium Mediocre oasis that is Los Gatos, where middle aged and boomer folks with too much disposable income waste it on very milquetoast fashion choices and bland conversations about bond markets and where to get a good eyebrow threading by someone who speaks English good. […]
To see this gaudy-ass fringe protest dullard do an intense 1000 inch stare between a Thai Restaurant and a Charles Schwab office was bizarre, but seemed like a strange distillation of the id of so many citizens right now:
Conspiratorially transfixed, paranoid, willfully daft AF, but mostly looking dangerously like the political equivalent to a septugenarian incel with a coupon for Paul’s Gun and Grenade Emporium he’s waiting to use.
A little bit like the dilemma with The Onion, where nothing much existed beyond the headline. The lactose intolerance plot story is flat. This proclamation against Pokemon has the problem of being within Larouche literature history. The British Spanking Controversy gives the author away as being interested off of Larouche adjacent partial purveyors of the messages. I guess the highlight is THE SEXUAL IMPOTENCE OF BOB THE BUILDER — showing a knowledge of the history.
The one thing about Kari Lake and Donald Trump as against the Larouchies on this matter — see Trump here — Lake and Trump at least won over 40 percent of the vote.
Question: what other cults “infiltrated” the Democratic Party? And seeing that I myself wouldn’t consider the handful of nominations of Larouchies over the years does not count as infiltration, what is your threshold for “infiltration”?
On this question: How the heck did a crazy LaRoucheite get 34.9% ?
Space Larouche and Geoff Young conciliatory enough to debate the great issues of the day — Trump v Desantis.
XIV. New Mexico
Trump fan, multiple criminal, Larouchite by way of Trump — the lpac linker … Trump just announced for 2024. I stand with him. I never conceded my HD 14 race. Now researching my options. Election results: 73.6 to 36.4
Why is he campaigning for a New Mexico seat in Michigan?
The story behind Caleb Maupin’s relationship with the Larouche movement. I have zero idea where Dore is going. So Caleb first joined with the LaRouche Movement during Occupy Wall street, and this is according to his then roommate or classmate, can’t remember the woman’s name. […]. if you notice Haz, Fox Green ect all claim to not know anything about LaRouche before joining the movement 2 weeks later. Waiting on Jimmy Dore to out himself.
Sigh. Mumia and Saab suck. i never have gotten enough on Peltier’s case to have a judgement, other than his cause always gets lumped in with Mumia’s so I automatically view it as suspect even if it might not be. Gawd, I hate this strain of the Left.
Australian Citizens Party , formerly the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia, is a minor political party in Australia affiliated with the LaRouche Movement which was led by American political activist and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Australian Citizens Party.
XIX. Couple Points from multiple directions
This is a mid-tier use of conspiracy theory. Not good, but there are damned worse. Have it in for Jim Jatras, and find him next to various others you have it in for, and spot A notion he takes a tad more seriously I myself may muse over from time to time.
The #NachDenkSeiten ask me why I write that the once left-wing blog is “going to the right” and “conspiracy ideology”. Serious? But of course I’m very happy to comply with this request. #Thread
I summarized a few points for the
@Volksverpetzer in October. It’s not just about praise for AfD positions on the war against Ukraine, but also about the anti-democratic #Forum in #Plauen :
The #NachDenkSeiten had acknowledged the work of the forum in Plauen in several articles, but they did not go into the alliances with Reich citizens, conspiracy ideologues and lateral thinkers.
Forum leader David Thiele mentioned just a few days ago in a video “our work in connection with reflection pages”, incidentally in the same breath as a reference to a cooperation with the “Schiller Institute” of the political sectarian Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
There are a number of more things to say about #Forum in #Plauen . The editor-in-chief of #NachDenkSeiten , Jens Berger, left my question – like all other questions – unanswered. So once again: Why does the blog make propaganda for right-wing extremists?
The thing is that the discussion on vampires versus werewolves would be a mildly amusing divergence if there were any substance to the candidate otherwise. I suppose there might be something to the fact that no movie appears to match Walker’s spiel, indicating he is blurring some lazily recalled media together — but that happens. Obama once mismatched Star Wars and Star Trek. But then that is one point — Obama did so when explaining how he nor nobody could get all that they want through a congressional system — Walker … Did he have a point?
In defense against automatic chiding of Jeffries’s brand of partisanship.:
So, to review, he called Donald Trump—the undisputed originator (let that slide, but note its inaccuracy) and propagator (better) of the birther lie, and a man who JUST THIS WEEK had an intimate dinner with a public antisemite and a holocaust denier—”The Grand Wizard of Pennsylvania Avenue.” Wow. He was way off, wasn’t he Tra?
And cometh from this, this canard.
Really…Biden, Obama and Clinton spoke at Sen Byrds funeral…they socialized and worked with him for years. Al Sharpton ran for President and went to the White House and advised Obama. If Jeffries call them Grand Wizard I’d give him a pass…one fking dinner with someone no one knows…really f-ing really
Both Obama and Clinton addressed Byrd’s early career history as a Klansman. Clinton’s speaking on it was actually, if you bother with its merit, in its kind of politically incorrect and apologetic nature, controversial — and could be adapted to use for someone like Storm Thurmond — probably to stunted effect short of where a partisan wishes to go with it, but nonetheless Thurmond is a better analogy for Byrd than … (Looking down in this comments section)… “some guy no one’s heard of.” — A decade and a half out, Byrd — now most famous as the master of federal fund procurement into his state — is receding into memory and the latest generation “Zoomer” knows jack about him.
Wasn’t Biden friends with an actual KKK Grand Wizard? Short answer: no. Didn’t he go to his funeral and give a eulogy? Trump is an idiot and plays footsy with white nationalist, Biden was actual friends with the leadership of the KKK. Again: no. Byrd. Minor low level Klan member. Dumped when he got into electoral politics. Not a high level member, let alone Chief Honcho.
Oh goody! The 2016 election denier.
An attempt of equivalence. There is an element within the narrative which is false or off — sure, Russia or the Kremlinhas “colluded” and attempted polin every election— as is the basics of special ops — but we drain at the election mechanics that has Trump as of now touching for Kari Lake’s stolen election.
The guy states that he is non-binary. Nobody believes him. And they are undoubtedly or most likely right. We can now clip through various denials of this claim by transgender and non-binary activists, making a point on why would such a person do so for such after attacking such a safe space — set up for them — even if I can imagine that such scenario for a theoretical sane (and at least not homicidal) person coming in that does not feel welcome as a self-id ed “non binary” person because… He (they) comes across as too masculine. And, from what I have heard… Gathered… Seen… That plays out.
But then, there is no definition of “safe” in “space”. Bubble it up as much you can in a sea of people looking for a fight macro-ing the micro of aggressions.
The denial of the possibility right off the gate marks this off as an admission that their definitions are in large part cultural and not biological. At least at this point. Setting the actual fraction of percentages who biologically count on this score — after that, the keepers of a gate look for the accoutrements of hair colorIng and cut and how comfortable they are in a dress.
I am told that the young man who made a crack in a damnable college setting of “tell us your pronouns” by claiming “My King” (or was it “My God” — I don’t recall) was a horrible transphobic jackass. I am told that the woman who said “My pronouns are Queen and Empress” in a pile of socially conscious stage presentation was funny and insightful. The same damned joke, but never mind.
It occurs to me, though, that the common belief — that he is trying to evade a hate crime charge, could be wrong. Instead it some new Twinkie defense — going for the conservatives anti-woke jurors who want to make a sneering comment here, or perhaps it is a sideline insanity defense for those who view “gender nonconforming” as insanity.
In partial defense of Clarence Thomas. In partial defense of Mitch McConnell. The editorial for Thomas followed roughly about the lines for McConnell on this:
I look over and see the headline, emanating out of, I believe, the Huffington Post, and which I can see reaching into cutesy comments.
Mitch Mcconnell. Voted against interracial marriage. The hypocrisy of a man married to a Taiwanese immigrant!
What is the point of this bullshit? I know, you know, everyone knows that he voted against codifying same sex marriage into law. And from there we have an add on language, basically just for the help of it, for a pointless and tribalist “dunking” on McConnell, a “neener neener” which largely serves as a liberal epistemological closure in that from they will know what the hell they are talking about with McConnell’s vote against interracial marriage. These things kind of go on where things are conflated and the original sourcing gets lost.
In defense, or maybe just a due nod toward a much maligned figure out in liberal -left land, Kyrsten Sinema. She is credited with shoring up bi-partisan, which is to say Republican, support. Call her a Republican if you must, but here she brings in this dozen for the vote against closure.
And the dozen Republicans. I am slightly annoyed that Ben Sasse of Nebraska is not on this list.
Susan Collins of Maine
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Rob Portman of Ohio
Mitt Romney of Utah
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Roy Blunt of Missouri
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
Dan Sullivan of Alaska
Joni Ernst of Iowa
Todd Young of Indiana
Sure, we would probably drop a few of them with a bill that actually kept same sex marriage in all the states should Obergefell get overturned. Hell, maybe even most of them.
There we come into the curious spell. We just left a midterm election where the Democrats were saved off of Abortion rights, and where various statewide abortion initiatives carried the day. But the fact is that the laws — and then on to what the restrictions of restrictions were — varied, measured against the prevailing opinions on different constituencies — so the claim that the “pro-choice” side carried the day is diluted. A new initiative and laws will come back in for future election cycles, hoping to push the boundaries further. And, more importantly, hoping to drag Democratic voters into the polls… What of the isdue, really? We are in the oughts with gradations of “civil unions” getting fought over and swinging politicians’ elections.
While 28 percent of the country overall said a GOP House investigation into whether Biden should be impeached was a “top priority,” that number nearly doubled to 55 percent among GOP respondents. Just 6 percent of Democrats agreed. Notably, GOP support for investigating Hunter Biden’s finances — a major source of conservative ire and conspiratorial theorizing — is slightly lower than their interest in an impeachment investigation, with 52 percent of GOP respondents calling it a priority for the incoming Congress. Meanwhile, 7 percent of Democrats agreed.
(1) The country never really got to the bottom of Billy Carter either. (The Carter Family Crime Ring?)
(2). Now, the shifting and sorting in political make-up creates interesting results. Back in 2000 and 2004, you had Nader crowing that Democrats should be blaming Gore for all those Democrats in Florida who voted Bush — zoom in and you see that out in North Florida it is a plethora of registered Democrats who have long since started voting Republican. This effect continues with conspiracy theories in Ohio in 2004 and yammering of “Who are these Democrats?”
Comedy ensues with Obama’s 2012 primaries. West Virginia takes center stage. The funny thing is that continued with the question of Bernie’s vote against Hillary in 2016.
But if I can answer that “who are these Democrats?” in those cases — left overs from a previous era — I actually don’t know in this case.
Seven percent. Who are these Democrats? Are they coming in from the Left? Maybe a permanent “throw the bums out” attitude pervades?
Saturday’s protests outside the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Centre in Phoenix included a reenactment of the biblical Battle of Jericho by supporters of Ms Lake, who etc.
That time where something called “Christian nationalism” gets a broad definition to include your friendly churchy neighbor. But I guess whatever that thing is, it includes they. All dozen of them taking to the courthouse.
Reverend Nathan Empsall, the executive director of Faithful America, was quoted as saying to Newsweek that “re-enacting the Battle of Jericho is particularly troubling, given that it is a subtle threat of political violence”.
They nab a phrase, “kids in cages”, and project themselves and their grand narrative into their grievances to be redressed.
A major Democratic super PAC is launching a “tip line” for those attending former President Donald Trump’s expected 2024 campaign launch to provide potentially damaging information. […] “If you’re in South Florida and want to join American Bridge in the fight to hold Trump accountable, you should grab your phone and go down to Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday,” Goodinch added.
I do not exactly know how useful videos of dumbasses can be. Everyone already knows there are dumb assets there. For that matter, you will be able to find dumbasses at a political event you agree with — perhaps fewer, but enough to create a comprable montage out of which to giggle.
Ronny Elliott "Mr. Edison's Electric Chair"
Bobby Short "Don't Bring Lulu"
TV On the Radio "Dreams"
Archers of Loaf "White Trash Heroes"
Murray Attaway "Fear of God"
Fountains of Wayne "I Want an Alien for Christmas"
The Divorce "Yes"
The Bluetones "Mudslide"
Black Box Recorder "Brutality"
Meat Puppets "Leaves"
Gorillaz "Clint Eastwood"
Neil Young "Keep on Rocking in the Free World"
The Louvin Brothers "The Great Atomic Power"