Nov 12, 2022·edited Nov 12, 2022

Greg Palast reported 1M mail-in ballots deep-sixed by GA Republicans... more than the W v W margin.

Democrats passed single-payer *twice* in CA, knowing that Swarzenegger would veto it. It hasn't come up since, under Brown or Newsom.

Expand full comment

The Dems do the same thing as in AZ; clear voter suppressions. Also the crypto fund that blew up was a Dem slush fund.

Expand full comment

The Dems are spineless and cowardly here in CT; no public meetings for constituents, deaf to concerns from citizens. They deserved much worse.

Also look at AZ and how the Dems engaged in fierce voter suppression.

Expand full comment

Great list of things the Republikillers do not support, but you are wrong that Deathocrats do support those things. Deathocrats only pretend to support those things as part of a good cop/bad cop show they put on to prevent any real opposition to the Republikillers from gaining any traction.

No matter what politicians say when they are campaigning they are not being genuine or honest if they take big money to run their campaigns unless they believe the lies. And then they are being genuine or honest but not being intelligent enough to hold office.

This is why you should use the pejorative terms Republikillers and Deathocrats.

When are we going to say it's the voters responsibility is a great question.

I have been trying to get you to do just that since 2015 as I posted many times in the comments that disappeared with the switch to Substack that if we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.

It is on a bumper sticker on my car for One Demand that includes the the slogan "Take Big Money- Lose our Votes".

So the answer to your question of when are we going to say it's the voters responsibility is when you finally have me on the Radio Hour to discuss One Demand and begin to advocate for citizens to demand small donor candidates and enforce that demand with our votes.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2022·edited Nov 13, 2022

Ralph, you are the one who taught us the term “duopoly”. I campaigned for you as Independent in the 90’s. When did you drink the Democrat koolaid? You fail in this podcast to acknowledge - I assume you do recognise it - the Democrat dislike of minorities, abandonment of the working class, receipt of just as much or more corporate funding for war and fossil fuels … the list goes on Yet your guest defends Biden’’s history? Disappointing. That’s all I can say. Oh, please run for President. I guess you might as well join the Dems this time, if you like them. Just know that they still don’t like you.

Expand full comment

Listen to last week's show. Ralph gives his rationale.

Expand full comment

I find the conversation with Mr. Early to be especially enlightening. I agree with the thought that the VA system could, and perhaps should, serve as the model for single provider healthcare reform for all in the US. As was pointed out in the show, this is similar to how the UK does things with their National Health Service (NHS). A counter argument could be made for a federally funded healthcare system that is operated by the states. While this might fit the American tradition better, and I suppose it could benefit things such as rural healthcare, there are certainly benefits to a ‘VA for all’ type system.

Whatever the case is, the key to all of this, as well to fighting off the privatization of the VA, is to understand how healthcare and veteran benefits can be funded. Even with the constraints of the US-led Bretton Woods system at the time, the UK was able to establish and fund the NHS. In the post-Nixon shock world, funding healthcare reform has never been easier, but most people don’t know about these economic factors so instead the prevailing thought, a wrong one, is that there is only limited funding for healthcare reform.

With that in mind, and this relates to Prof. Westen’s point about FDR being very open about how he planned to fund social programs, I am curious if Steve Skrovan has engaged with the resources I sent over in the comments for the show last week. The importance of being able to fund social programs becomes clearer and clearer with each guest on the RNRH, but yet progressives continuously fail to understand how funding exists for progressive causes. I don’t just mean ‘privatized bandages over internal injury’ type fixes which we are presented with by the likes of the Biden administration, but substantive progressive policy such as the British NHS and policy implemented by FDR.

If progressives can accurately show how the funding exists without getting into senseless monetarist taxation dialog pitfalls, it would go a long way in achieving what FDR accomplished even with FDR having far, far fewer economic tools at his disposal that we have post-Nixon shock. Corporate interests understand this and use it to their advantage in obtaining ‘corporate welfare’ while pushing the monetarist message to limit social spending. Progressives should understand the mechanics of this and not fall for that corporatism.

Regarding Steve’s point about veterans and the Dodgers: I don’t know about the Dodgers and baseball since I have not watched baseball in years, but I know that there were some media reports in 2020 and earlier when the Colin Kaepernick kneeling issue came up that the NFL and the Department of Defense had marketing deals where NFL teams were more or less paid to promote the military in a not-so-obvious way. I’m not sure if you remember these reports, but if not, it might be worth searching for something like ‘NFL’s relationship with the military’ or some similar keywords. I believe there is some interesting information out there and it might relate to what the Dodgers are doing. Even if the Dodgers/baseball aren’t being paid to promote military recruitment, they might feel compelled to follow what the NFL is doing in order to seem aligned with the modern sense of ‘patriotism’ as discussed by Mr. Nader and Mr. Early.

Expand full comment