3D Chess

I love the way so many people claim that candidates are playing 3D chess in their tactics. Meanwhile, that 3D chess is always some altruistic dedication to the believer, rather than obfuscation and deceit, construction of an illusion which strips you of your rights.

It’s also amusing how too often the claimants seemingly have no ability to grasp concepts any more complex than tic-tac-toe. Just try explaining why the Mueller report was a tragic comedy to them sometime. These are people who praise not the complexity of tactics being used by a candidate. Instead they praise the name (cultism) and then ascribe complexity beyond (their own) comprehension aligned with magical benevolence to the persona they so worship.

Because that works out so well.

Which brings me to my point. Election reform is anything but positive reform. Suggested reforms hold the potential to have very sharp edges which can cut numerous ways.

Too often, people see different parts of a puzzle and see them as separate images. I consider them more like chemical compounds. One alone may be benign or even beneficial. Yet when mixed together they become highly volatile.

Take for example the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Under this act which has been approved in 15 blue states so far, all electoral votes in the general election are meant to be cast in favor of the winner of the national popular vote. The intention is to overcome the effect of the Electoral College. Meaning no candidate could win the election via the EC vote when the popular vote is against them. What is actually does is force states to flip votes. Say you live in a state where candidate A won the popular vote. Yet candidate B wins the popular vote in the majority of states. The electoral votes for your state would automatically change to be in favor of candidate B, as though you never voted at all.

In addition, this virtually eliminates swing states. Under the NPVIC, a candidate would win the election with only a small handful of states. The most crucial would be CA, NY, FL and TX, which by themselves account for 30% of the US population. Toss in PA, OH and IL and there would be no need to campaign in any other states at all. This means candidate A could win 43 of 50 states yet candidate B would win the election.

It also happens that NY, FL, CA and TX account for over 90% of the 0.1% top earners in the US. They also comprise 100% of corporate media management, which controls at least 95% of all media in the country.

Next we have Democratic superdelegates. Note that there is no equivalent in the Republican party. Under new rules, the superdelegates no longer get to vote in the primary unless there is a second round of voting. The passage of this rule was followed immediately by roughly 20 candidates announcing campaigns for the DNC nomination, which pretty much guarantees there will be a second round of voting in the primary.

Then we have the DNC Loyalty Pledge. This declares that the DNC chairperson has the power to disqualify any candidate whom they subjectively claim is not “loyal enough” to the DNC. There are no written criteria to measure this opinion. The disqualification can occur even after a candidate wins the nomination by a landslide popular vote.

Next up we have censorship, brought to you by Russiagate. The proponents of Russiagate have been proposing nothing less than censorship of social media for some time now. To avoid claims of US state-sponsored censorship, that censorship is not being ordered by the government but corporate social media has been “encouraged” directly in front of Congress to engage in censorship. Thus handing control of all you see and hear to corporate interests. If anyone wants to talk about election interference, this is what should be discussed.

Distortion and distraction. For over 3 years we had Russiagate, now thoroughly debunked. Neither corporate media or the DNC have acknowledged that Mueller was defeated in US federal court by the Russian advertising agency which he, himself indicted. A federal judge determined there was insufficient evidence to claim that the Russian government was in any way tied to the advertising agency. The Mueller report itself stated there was no evidence of “collusion” (sic). Yet in the opening statements of the impeachment hearing, Adam Schiff claimed as evidence for impeachment that “Russia” interfered in the election. Nearly every Democratic candidate for president also propagates this fantasy. Once again, the only exception is Tulsi Gabbard.

Campaign finance reform farce. In all of the DNC campaign finance reform proposals, there is no suggestion for any limit to corporate donations to campaigns. Many people believe this to be the case because of the wording being used. In one case a proposal by Bernie Sanders suggests banning corporate donations for the DNC convention. That does not touch campaign contributions. In other cases, the Democrats have suggested matching federal dollars to equal small donor contributions. This costs taxpayer dollars and increases funding for campaigns but again places no limit on corporate donations. There is talk of funding elections federally. Elections, NOT campaigns. Elections are already funded through taxation, not donations of any kind.

There are many other factors which play into this. These are just examples. Yes, it is 3D chess and it is played against a public that pays little attention, distracted by tweets and impeachment, party loyalty and division, media sensationalism and cult mentalities.

When we put just the above factors together in one piece, we have corporate funded campaigns, government supported censorship by corporations, misleading reform proposals that nobody reads, claims of foreign interference which were proven false, party loyalty, voting compacts which nullify any third party victories in minority states, taxpayer money for campaigns with no limit to corporate funding, distractions and distortions by elected officials and MSM, consolidating the electoral power of 4 states and, most of all, avoidance of discussing the issues the people of this country want to talk about.

The problem is, most people just keep playing along. Still thinking their tic-tac-toe will win when they’re not even playing the right game.

No Political Ads? AWESOME Idea!!!

Twitter recently announced that they will not be hosting any political advertising for the 2020 election season.

Some claim this is an infringement of free speech or some claptrap. No, this does not affect freedom of speech. The candidates can still have their own pages, they just cannot pay to promote those pages.

Yes, Facebook and all media should be following the same policy. So should Google. This is the absolute best, most fair system possible at this time.

There is no question that we are not going to get corporate media to cover all candidates equally or objectively. We once had the Fairness Doctrine which enforced equal coverage. Now we have neoliberal media on one side and Conservative media on the other. Corporate media intentionally conducts blackouts of Progressive candidates when not directly attacking them.

What elimination of political advertising does is even the playing field slightly. It means that the campaign with the least money has more chance of visibility, while campaigns with the most money cannot shove their campaign down your throat.

No political advertising also means PACs (Political Action Committees) will not be able to promote their favored candidate or agenda on any media that adopts this policy.

It also basically eliminates any more discussion about “Russians” paying for political ads on Twitter. Or Ukraine or China or whomever else. There can be no accusation of indirect influence via NRA funding, Planned Parenthood or whomever you care to name.

Yes, we will deal with claims that some media coverage is “Russian influenced” but then that has to be quantified more thoroughly. It has been a constant claim for years that RT is Russian propaganda. Yet when challenged to present one specific example, the claimants consistently fail to even attempt to present proof. I have asked Russiagaters if they think Larry King, Chris Hedges, Ed Schultz, Jesse Ventura, Abby Martin or Lee Camp are Russian propaganda because each and every one is or has been a regular on RT at some point. Jimmy Dore has been a guest anchor on several occasions.

The ultimate effect of such a policy would be the reduction of influence of money over elections. It’s a far more difficult battle we face to completely eliminate corporate money from politics but if we demand that social media and all media in general refuse to carry political advertising, we make the entire issue a moot point. It also reduces the chances that corporations and corporate media sources will invest massive sums into campaigns. The sum total effect would be a huge reduction in the amount of corporate money spent on campaigns. So no more $1.2 billion campaigns.

The only real concern I have with this is whether they will consider posts or videos by candidates to be advertising. As long as that’s not the case, it lends more power to individuals who share posts among ourselves. However, remember Correct The Record (CTR)? Paid trolls who posted for Hillary and attacked other candidates in all venues of social media? That is absolutely something we will see happening again. The advantage we have with them is that we can block them. So get ready to do that. They’re easy to spot and I will be posting methods through 2020 on how to identify them easily.

Right now we all need to write, post and petition all corporate media to follow the example being set by Twitter. If a corporate media source insists on hosting political advertising, we can organize mass boycotts of that source.

This is a very strong step toward what truly needs to be our ultimate goal for campaign finance reform- Federally funded elections at all levels, bottom to top. Equal funding for the top 4 parties (at least). No ballot access fees. We have many other steps we should push for but they are separate from campaign finance and advertising.