Hi David,

I agree with much of what you say here. However, these times are 
indeed different than the past few decades, in terms of racist and 
misogynist "hit" squads now being overtly and publicly endorsed by 
the President. So in that sense, times are indeed different.

Which does not mean that the way to deal with that is to vote for the 
Democratic Party candidate for President, whoever he or she may be.

It probably would move this conersation forward if people on this 
list, recognizing the differences in strategic approach among us, 
would stop twisting arms (metaphorically) of those of us who don't 
think that voting for the Democratic party candidate for President is 
the way to go. It would be far better to recognize the differences 
and propose other ways, outside of the "elect-a-Democrat" model, to 
challenge the fascism coming down -- just as we (the Greens and 
independents) do all the time.


At 10:47 AM 7/7/2019, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:
>>...Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound 
>>friendlier.  Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.
>I will be so advised. To my mind I was being critical rather than 
>"nasty," which implies personal attacks. But we're not always the 
>best judges of how we're perceived.
>In any case, I hope this doesn't preclude analysis if that analysis 
>does not look good for the presenters of the text being analyzed. 
>For example, consider this sentence from Carol's original email:
>>We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
>Certain terms are loaded. The term "purity" is often used 
>electorally in the USA as a pejorative directed at those who refuse 
>to succumb to the corporate duopoly stranglehold on power, and who 
>vote for alternatives, which in the 2016 presidential election was 
>about 6% of voters. It would have been much higher had not the 
>perception of futility inhibited many from going that route, 
>although untold numbers would likely have preferred to.
>The subtext is that the only logical or practical behavior is to 
>vote for what you know is corrupt and self-dealing -- to capitulate 
>to it. It's a monstrous self-fulfilling prophecy (if you don't vote 
>for alternatives, then yeah, they can't win!) and that the 6% of the 
>population that won't go along with it are the ones criticized with 
>overused phrases like "wasting your vote," "above the fray," 
>whatever. Another subtext is that "we all know" how others are going 
>to vote, so what's the point of not following along. The message is 
>that the choice is not really yours to make.
>We may know probabilities, but we don't "know" how others will 
>behave. Few predicted that Trump could beat out all those mainstream 
>Repugs to win the nomination (let alone the election itself)? What 
>that showed me is how sick of mainstream politicians most Americans 
>are. Bernie Sanders was also perceived as not one of "them." Many of 
>those who voted for Trump had voted (or so it's reported) for the 
>back-stabbing hypocrite Obama -- who had also been perceived as 
>something different. (I use "back-stabbing" advisedly; the stunt he 
>pulled on the people of Flint is a good example; they were filled 
>with hope when he showed up. He spent his time chiding them for 
>being afraid of the water. Then he asked for a drink of water, 
>refused a bottled water, and took a glass of tap water to his lips. 
>That water barely touched his lips, he was so afraid to have even a 
>drop of it get into his mouth!)
>And of course there's the decisive influence of media attention, 
>which has always bought into the two-party status quo. But thanks to 
>the near unanimous vote of the two corporate parties (and signed by 
>Democrat Bill Clinton) for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all 
>the many independent media companies got bought up and merged into 
>six giant media conglomerates, and now by design give no attention 
>to alternatives. Even Ralph Nader, in 2000 when he still had his 
>iconic status, got almost no attention. And that's because the 
>duopoly parties serve the corporate media's interests. It's a closed 
>loop, and they've got (as of now) about 94% of the electorate under 
>their control, with no choice outside the range decided for them.
>So it's always the same story. "We must vote for the Democrats this 
>time. This time it's too important not to." It was the same story in 
>2000 with Bush and Gore. But one can imagine how different it all 
>could have been if Ralph Nader had become president. And contrary to 
>what Carol has said, these times are typical of at least the last 40 
>or so years, characterized by ever-increasing American official 
>cruelty and military aggression, through both Democratic and 
>Republican administrations and congressional majorities.
>David Barouh
>On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
>>Thanks again Chandler.
>>Oh boy.
>>I have recently found that engaging with my Republican 
>>brother-in-law has been more encouraging than a lot of what I'm 
>>hearing from you folks at SftP. And I generally do not engage with 
>>people who are far from me politically, but maybe it's nostalgia, 
>>or maybe it's that I stubbornly want so badly to touch the rest of 
>>the members of this list, many of whom I deeply believe agree with 
>>me but are not speaking up.
>>I even know for sure that some of them agree. And I wonder about 
>>some of the folks from the old days - where are you on this 
>>Jonathan King, Al Weinrub, Sara Miller, Frank Mirer, Bob Park, Mina 
>>Otmishi, Ross Feldberg, Milt Kotelchuck, Ginny Pierce, Mike Teel 
>>and others whose names I can't dredge up from old hard drive 
>>between my ears. And what about all the others on this listserve 
>>who have not weighed in on this conversation. I bet there are many 
>>who are just as furious, terrified, desperate as I am, and many who 
>>have no idea how to best support candidates and causes that have a 
>>good chance of defeating that monster in the White House. And who 
>>may understand that now is not the time to hold out for making revolution.
>>Do those of you that I have heard from know for sure that you 
>>represent the rest of the group?
>><>Force Multiplier does not get 
>>involved with the issues at all. All we care about is identifying 
>>the elected representatives who are most vulnerable but who can 
>>really use financial support to hold onto their seats in the House. 
>>And soon we'll probably identify some Senate candidates who our 
>>research tells us would have a chance to flip their seat to Blue.
>>We do the work so that people who understand the necessity of 
>>electing Democrats THIS TIME can know where to donate most 
>>effectively. Additionally, we list grassroots organizations in 
>>swing states that are working effectively against voter suppression 
>>because we know that the Republicans' primary strategy is to make 
>>sure that the disenfranchised stay that way.
>>I have never been involved in electoral politics. I have never 
>>campaigned for a Democrat and that includes Barak Obama (who was 
>>far from what his worshippers think he was), or Hillary. And if, 
>>dog willing, Trump is defeated I don't think I'll ever get involved 
>>with the Democrats again.
>>But these are NOT normal times. This time is different, can't you 
>>see that? If you anti-Democrats join with Republican anti-Trumpers 
>>and all of you refuse to vote, that would be a sure fire way of 
>>keeping the monster in the White House. But it takes more than just 
>>voting, which I do believe most of you will do. It takes MONEY. And 
>>regardless of which party ends up in the White House it is 
>>ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratically controlled Congress. That's 
>>why this small group of 12 core members + our "multipliers" are 
>>using our networks to raise money for Democrats in the House and Senate.
>>Ok. I don't have time for any more of this. I'm not asking SftP to 
>>become a forum for party politics. All I'm asking is that you allow 
>>me to continue to inform your group about what we're doing at Force 
>>Multiplier in case there are some members who would welcome that 
>>information. FM gives people a way to separate the wheat from the 
>>chaff so they can just donate through us and ignore all those 
>>appeals they keep getting from the other Democrats.
>>Thanks for listening. I hope there's room for this sort of dialogue 
>>in Science for the People because if not, where is there?
>>On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Chandler Davis 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Carol has earned our respect, and this is no whit diminished if it 
>>saddens her to see some of the rest of us going (in her view) 
>>haywire.  I don't know you and have no background leading me to 
>>trust you as I do Carol and Kamran and Claudia, but if you consider 
>>yourself a member of our group YOU DESERVE MY RESPECT TOO and have 
>>a right to demand it.  It might be diminished if you lay on the 
>>nastiness; but I am not a moderator of the list.  For you to point 
>>out bellicose positions of Hillary Clinton's, or murderous drone 
>>tactics by Barack Obama, is appropriate and welcome, also relevant 
>>to the question of big-party electoral politics.  Seeing you're 
>>among friends, you may want to sound friendlier.  Even among the 
>>old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.
>>On 2019-07-05 2:12 p.m., David Barouh wrote:
>>>I should point out that my "bad-mouthing," as you call it, was 
>>>directed at HRC -- and not even at HRC so much as at her, IMO, 
>>>unhinged promise to institute a no-fly zone over Syrian air space. 
>>>Secondly, I suspect you missed the sub-text of Carol's comments 
>>>about how "sad" my HRC comment made her (but nothing about HRC's 
>>>Syria position). And the one about my possibly voting for Trump 
>>>(I'd thought I'd suggested just the opposite) "breaking her 
>>>heart." It seems ironic that on "Science for the People," instead 
>>>of some rational discourse and exchange of positions we get little 
>>>more than emotional blackmail justified based on veteran status.
>>>BTW, does my relative newcomer status make me suspect? Is more 
>>>than my name required to be a member of this list? I don't know 
>>>anything about any of you all other than your names. And I'm still 
>>>shaky on the list's protocols.
>>>David Barouh
>>>On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:
>>>>Kamran is right, and your point is also valid, Claudia: we're not 
>>>>about electoral politics in any one country, even in quite a 
>>>>large one.  But Carol Axelrod is a long-time staunch activist in 
>>>>SftP, and if I find myself disagreeing with her about Hillary 
>>>>Clinton, as it seems I may, I will make it the occasion for 
>>>>comradely debate, not scornful bad-mouthing such as she  is 
>>>>getting from Barouh (whoever he may be).
>>>>On 2019-07-05 2:23 a.m., Claudia Pine wrote:
>>>>>Carol:  As Kamran says, SftP list is not a place for political 
>>>>>party postings.
>>>>>In addition, you may not realize that the SftP list is 
>>>>>international, and as such USian politics are not what many 
>>>>>non-USian members want or expect.
>>>>>Suggesting that people can just delete is inappropriate: it is 
>>>>>for posters to consider the appropriateness of what they post, 
>>>>>before they post.
>>>>>I appreciate your sincerity and sense of urgency, Carol - in 
>>>>>many ways I share it! - but I would strongly urge you not post 
>>>>>"Force Mutiplier" or other partisan political material to the 
>>>>>Science for the People list-serv.
>>>>>Thank you,
>>>>>Claudia Pine
>>>>>a list moderator
>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Kamran Nayeri 
>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>Have you joined this list recently? How has the 
>>>>>Multiplier been allowed to post to this list?
>>>>>May be an officer of SftP can address this question.
>>>>>At any rate, in my half doze years of being on this list it is 
>>>>>the first time I see a political party brings its campaign to 
>>>>>this list.  If this be accepted how would SftP limit other 
>>>>>political parties to join in--including Republicans without 
>>>>>being drawn into partisan politics. If that happens, it would be 
>>>>>the end of SftP because so far it has been an anti-capitalist, 
>>>>>socialist voice with various tendencies reflected in its 
>>>>>deliberation but never a partisan group especially in the electoral arena.
>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM Carol Axelrod 
>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>Trump is a lot worse than obnoxious. If most people on this list 
>>>>>don't want to hear from Force Multiplier any more I'd hope 
>>>>>they'd let me know. It sounds like you two don't.
>>>>>It's very easy to delete my emails if you'd prefer.
>>>>>But it makes me sad that you really believe HRC would have been 
>>>>>as bad as Trump. You almost sound like you'd vote for him which 
>>>>>breaks my heart.
>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM David Barouh 
>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>It's always the same BS. One candidate is always better than the 
>>>>>other. Trouble is sometimes the "better" choice surprises you. 
>>>>>Clinton spent his entire eight years bombing and starving Iraq. 
>>>>>Obama bombed and invaded how many countries? And it was the same 
>>>>>with Bush Jr. People now say that if Gore had been president, 
>>>>>"there wouldn't have been Iraq!" Yet more bullshit. This article 
>>>>>makes a definitive case that Gore indeed would have invaded 
>>>>>Had HRC won the election instead of Trump, we may already have 
>>>>>had American jets trying to enforce her insane "no fly zone" 
>>>>>over Syria and confronting Russian planes, and maybe even have 
>>>>>had a nuclear war.
>>>>>The Dimwit Democrats are the ones currently talking up war. 
>>>>>Trump is obnoxious, but we're not currently in a full-fledged 
>>>>>war. We're refueling Saudi planes in their bombing runs, but 
>>>>>that started under Obama, not Trump. This is what voting for the 
>>>>>two-party system always brings us.
>>>>>You're dreaming if you think there's a significant change to be 
>>>>>had with one or the other of the two corporate parties.
>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
>>>>>>I'm hoping that those that are that disillusioned may 
>>>>>>understand that this time if we don't understand the difference 
>>>>>>between Republicans and Democrats we're all toast. I think 
>>>>>>there are many thoughtful folks who agree that our system is 
>>>>>>not working but who know that we are not in a position to 
>>>>>>change it now and our very lives depend on turning Washington 
>>>>>>blue. And that applies not only to those of us educated, 
>>>>>>privileged types, but mainly the rest of the country and the 
>>>>>>world. We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
>>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM Kamran Nayeri 
>>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>But what if some of us think the problem with the U.S. politics 
>>>>>>is the two-party system and that the Democratic Party is as 
>>>>>>much an imperialist party as the Republican party? Should this 
>>>>>>list be turned into one supporting Democrats in the coming elections?
>>>>>>On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM Carol Axelrod 
>>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>...the maniac in Washington is spending our money to display 
>>>>>>the size of his weapons. And he's plotting to circumvent the 
>>>>>>SUPREME COURT so that the census questionnaire can be another 
>>>>>>instrument of voter suppression. And the immigrants at the 
>>>>>>border are jammed into what amounts to stationary cattle cars. 
>>>>>>And, and, and...
>>>>>>So I'm not taking this week off. Trump and his gang must be 
>>>>>>removed from office in November 2020.  The best way we can do 
>>>>>>that is to empower voters of color, young people, women, LBGTQ 
>>>>>>communities, and the rest of us who are most vulnerable.
>>>>>>Multiplier is identifying grassroots organizations that are 
>>>>>>working to fight voter suppression in
>>>>>>  key states. As usual, we've done the research so you don't have to.
>>>>>>  When turnout is high, Democrats win!
>>>>>>No one knows that as well as the Republicans.
>>>>>><>here for 
>>>>>>lots of information about the seven organizations on our slate 
>>>>>>-- in North Carolina, Florida and Michigan -- all key states in 
>>>>>>the 2020 elections.
>>>>>>So please, in honor of the 4th of July, 
>>>>>>ate to save our country and the rest of the world.
>>>>>>Donate, and then go out and enjoy your 4th. My chicken wings 
>>>>>>are marinating as we speak.
>>>>>>With love,
>>>>>>Kamran Nayeri

Fight Against Monsanto's Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides 
(SkyHorse, 2019), authored by Mitchel Cohen, is now available at 
bookstores everywhere! Please click on link to learn more.