Candy Gram

Don't Fall for It !!!

For the most part, the people I interact with online are strangers. An avi of some political affiliation is enough to start a conversation. But I do have the intellectual curiosity to consider what that person is saying and question their intent. To be certain, all people with Sanders avatars are not really interested in his campaign or his agenda. They have another agenda. The fact that more people don't question the message and the messenger is beyond disturbing. I'd like to think the left is smarter than that. I am naive. It's true. Some people just don't wonder about the things others are saying because they say they support Sanders, too. I am here to tell you ... Some of them are literally paid by the right to stir up shit on the left. Really. I researched and proved that the Bernie or Bust movement is a right wing distraction last year, READ HERE if you're interested.

Does radicalism need a political affiliation? Or does it exist merely to satisfy its own needs? I researched the Tea Party for a while last year and find amazing commonalities between that movement and the extremists now supporting Sanders. I am convinced that many of the participants are the same people whose ideologies were irrelevant. They need to be involved in drama. Or hate. I believe a lot of other people are just too weak to think for themselves and get caught up in the wake. But for the most part, the radicalism is led by personalities that thrive on hate and disorder.

It often occurs to me when drawn into arguments with these new sandbaggers that if they were not teabaggers at this time last year, they were not paying attention because some element of that message wasn't speaking to them. They do, however, toss out the same rhetoric. And it doesn't occur to them that we would pick up on it. I've read countless posts by 'progressives' about how stupid people of color are if they don't support Sanders. Similarly, all women and LGBTQ voters are disinterested in their own futures if they support Clinton. Not kidding, 'the blacks' and 'the gays' have been offered to me in narrative that was supposed to be thoughtful. Narrow-mindedness, I suppose, is not an attribute reserved to the right, but I don't think it will ever stop surprising me when confronted by someone who dismisses my progressive values.

The teabaggers were prone to violence and extremism in the face of not getting their elected leaders into office. The blatant disrespect and horror that the Sanders supporters project onto Clinton is just as bad. I recently wrote an article that proved many Facebook groups were shut down because they were talking about the need for Clinton's assassination and they started a petition (now has thousands of signatories) to have a violent overthrow of the Democratic Convention this summer where it concluded that they would 'lie down their lives, if necessary.' It also tossed around the word 'patriot' more than a few times. Remember Gabby Giffords? Enough Said.

The teabaggers had a term they used to demean the Republicans that didn't hold their extremist views: RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). You see, they were not true conservatives. Now the sandbaggers have picked up on the same narrative. Every day I am told dozens of times that I am not a true progressive because I support Clinton. Its petty. Its small. Its ridiculous. Ive proven my progressivism right here. Who the fuck are you? You're an avatar with a profile showing you have no friends, no family and no job. And I'm supposed to not question your intent and walk out of a conversation where you're literally pushing right wing narrative that those of us who have been paying attention since before Sanders found a following (and, more importantly, became a serious contender against Clinton) already managed to reason through the rhetoric? We grown ups know the TRUTH about Hillary Clinton. And more importantly, we've vetted the candidates and we know the lies, as well.

As a woman, there is little more disgusting than the entire teabagger narrative about women. Lately, however, sandbaggers have given me pause. I am repeatedly told that my support of Clinton proves that I vote with my vagina. Really? My vagina only gets a vote on who I sleep with. She's let me down a time or two, but my head and my heart never have. And my head and heart have made this choice. Thanks. Any woman who supports Clinton is condemned to hysteria because they support another woman. Should similar attributions be made to men supporting Sanders or Trump? Am I supposed to be ignoring the fact that she is profoundly more qualified than any other candidate this season? The sandbagger rhetoric now mirrors the shit coming out of Trump. We are meant to ignore her entire documented history of progressive fights, being the first FLOTUS who made it a job where making change was a sincere objective, having been a two term Senator and Secretary of State and deem her unqualified. THAT rhetoric is because she is a woman. Kindly fuck off.

Another favorite pastime of the teabaggers, and now the sandbaggers, is to rewrite history. Its a good time, apparently. The talking points are different, but the manipulation of facts to make points that would otherwise be moot are played with the same zeal. I haven't had a single day go by since I announced my support for Clinton that someone hasn't told me about her support for Goldwater. It is not news to anyone (again, anyone who bothers to vet their candidates) that she supported him when she was in high school. She wrote about it in her book Living History. What of the ideals of youth supporting the most radical candidate of a generation? He accepted the Republican nomination saying, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Well, shit. That sounds as if it could be Sanders' mantra. Kind of funny when a young kid is drawn in by a radical demagogue, huh? May history leave them with similar legacies.

The fact that people are allowing such narrative to flood their social media and don't question its source is astounding. Often they literally forward memes or links with right wing attribution. Regardless of which campaign you support, when you see someone condemn another for their progressivism, pause. Consider their intent. Question the user id (that's all it is - a stranger with an avatar) that is trying to dismiss another person's ideological leanings. Why would anyone behave like a teabagger? Do you want to associate with people who condemn women, people of color and LGBTQ to idiocy because they don't support the same left-leaning campaign that you do?

Quietly reflect on yourself a year ago. Were you were pissed off about POC being murdered by police officers? Were you were pissed off about white trash demanding that they shouldn't have to make wedding cakes for gay weddings? Were you were pissed off that Planned Parenthood was under a daily barrage of bullshit? Were you pissed off that states demanded the right to project racism on statehouse grounds? Were you pissed off that the media refused to cover the Republican candidates for the soul-sucking parasites that their platforms and stump speeches defined?

Really? Guess what ... POC are still being murdered by the police. States are now fighting the federal government to be allowed to discriminate against transgender citizens using the fucking bathroom. Planned Parenthood has lost funding in more places. States are still promoting racism on flags and in whatever other means they can come up with. And Donald Trump is now the Republican nominee and is being covered as an actual candidate. The only difference is that the left is so hyper-focused on divisions among ourselves created and perpetuated by the right, that many fewer people are paying attention. Of course, that means the right is winning. Again.

We should ALL be together on the left fighting to make sure that we get a down-ticket win in November. It is a sick kind of ignorant privilege that allows anyone to take the next 4-8 years for granted. What kind of life must one live to not need to reflect on upcoming SCOTUS decisions protecting every single demand of a true Progressive platform? How could anyone scoff at the dismissal of important women's rights, possibly finally ensuring the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment? Who in their right mind would ignore our desperate need for a Congress focused on sensible gun reforms, the Affordable Care Act, voting rights, actually contending with Citizens United and humane immigration reform? I don't ever want to understand the mindset of a person who can join a movement meant to dismantle the left and allow Trump to enter the White House to prove a point and start a 'revolution.' I don't think I have the prerequisites to be that person, though. I imagine you have to be a straight, white male with all privileges attributed to that sector of the population.

For all people who, 24/7, spend their time trying to cut down the Democratic Party and their candidates, your objectives and motives are clear. And my progressivism trumps yours. Period. For all who read those posts and don't pause to consider the intentions of such toxic rhetoric, please ask more of yourself from now on. True Progressives need your thoughtful participation.


Kiss Kiss ... Mean Progressive

Deadline Schmeadline

In A Perfect World, SOMEONE Would Vet Sanders

Yep. That email went out from the Sanders campaign this morning. He wants all of his supporters to send him some more money in light of the FEC deadline tonight. My question ... WHY? They've already told the FEC they would not be filing any additional information until after the campaign is over.

Thoughtfully ask yourself ... What does Sanders' busy schedule have to do with a paid treasurers time constraints? Does the treasurer have to go to all of the events? Shouldn't the job of treasurer limit one's time on the campaign trail so as to ensure their ability to maintain the finances of this 'revolutionary' fundraising apparatus? Apparently not.

The campaign has blatantly ingonred FEC guidelines, thus far. When asked for answers to quite pertinent questions, his treasurer, Susan Jackson, has replied with absolute NONSENSE. For instance, they have been asked every filing for correction on their filings of 'unitemized individual contributions.' Here they have disclosed $116,917,592. That amount has yet to be explained.

FEC Link Here

These questions of unitemized individual contributions began in June 2015, the same month Hillary Clinton kicked off her campaign. On filings every combined personal contribution above $200 has to show the name/address of the donor. The Sanders campaign, instead, offered this:

They have had similar entries every filing since. And that is how they have over $116M in donations they have not had to answer to. Keep in mind that the FEC has specific fines for each violation and their calculations are based on repeated offenses. How many donors are merely contributing to a pot that will be used to pay off the myriad violations and refusal to submit proper documentation to prove where their donations came from? I have seen many people write about this (not any MSM, of course) so I will leave it there and go into the things I found questionable in a single morning of looking through his FEC filing.

#1 February 29 was the day before Super Tuesday. He sent out emails and was all over Twitter and Facebook with pleas for donations with a really great video that got a lot of attention on social media. Sanders, however, has reported to the FEC that on that day, the day before Super Tuesday - the day all of his supporters had been waiting for, he managed to raise $650.50 in donations. If that isn't questionable enough, refer to every other day.

FEC Link Here

#2 All campaigns must disclose where their money is coming from. Some have reported on the fact that he was caught having a lot of donations from outside the US and he was supposed to have refunded that money. As of the last time they bothered to reply to the FEC, some of those had been refunded and they promised to have the rest completed for the April filing. (Yes, the filing they just extended til after the campaign is over). (See formal reply here from Sanders campaign).What I found interesting was the zip codes. As soon as I opened the link, something struck me. Those zip codes are not real. Lest anyone doubt my intentions ... this is the link to the USPS.com to search zip codes.

FEC Link Here

#3 In the summary of expenditures the campaign showed two that were questionable to me because they are the names of Superdelegates that have vowed to support him at the convention. First Keelan Sanders received $5,265.25. This is a superdelegate from Mississippi. If Sanders were sincere about his contention that Superdelegates should support the nominees their states voted for, his 18% should probably not warrant him the support. The second notable name on the list of payees is Troy Jackson who received $4,849.89. This is the name of a Superdelegate pledged to Sanders from Maine, but as this is a more common name, I will have to do more research before I make a full assessment. THIS LINK will take you to the payees. If you hit ctrl+f and type the names you can find them and do research beyond my own. (I swear to Christ if anyone decides to harrass either of these people after reading this I will do my best to shame and embarrass you online - let Sanders supporters be the assholes)

#4 Finally last week I had had enough of how questionable his campaign was in regard to their finances (refusing to release 8 years of tax returns, not correcting/explaining FEC violations, not addressing the $116M unitemized donations) and I wanted to do a little research myself. Knowing that my bank would never let a $5000 charge go through, I tried to donate to his campaign from his website. When you donate more than $2700, the system should stop you and tell you that you are exceeding the legal limit for donation. It did not. It sent it to my bank. My bank said, 'Yeah. Right.' And it STILL did not tell me I was exceeding a limit, it just suggested I try another credit card.

As if his campaign hasn't been toxic enough lately, he has had Sainte Jane all over MSM this week explaining that they were going to release their 2015 tax returns soon. She, of course, then changed the subject whenever anyone reminded her that they were supposed to be releasing many more than 2 years to the fact that Secretary Clinton had not released transcripts of speeches given while being a private citizen. So they're under fraud investigations from 2011 and America is supposed to take a pinkie promise on their finances and, instead, reflect on a demand made of no candidate in history?

America, really. Its time to be done with this bullshit candidacy. Its time to get back to reminding the country who are really jeopardizing our futures. Its time to tell Sanders and his embarrassing campaign to step aside and behave like adults. And I think its really time that Sanders be held accountable for his shady (at best) fund raising.

Kiss Kiss ... Mean Progressive

Wonder about that $889M they promised?