This article is intended to highlight - through contrast with Cortez - why it is so critically important that the entire US - not only Floridians - throw the full weight of their support behind Canova's campaign in these last few weeks leading up to the November election.
"Canova’s campaign accepts no corporate funds whatsoever despite the fact that it faces one of the most overtly corrupt and powerful political figures in the country." Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is the former DNC Chairwoman at the heart of rigging the 2016 primary against Sanders"
".. Not to mention the illegal destruction of ballots in her previous race against Canova."
"Wasserman-Schultz was also centrally involved with the infamous #Awanscandal, which #Trump’s Department of Justice has since refused to prosecute, conveniently making the issue disappear just in time for the upcoming midterms."
In NYC recently, we saw a repeat of 2016 in the allegations of voter interference and suppression in the Dem primary between incumbent Andrew Cuomo and progressive Cynthia Nixon. Not only do we see renewed roll purging: Cuomo's win closely parallels Clinton's in 2016.
What does that tell us? It shows that "progressives" who remain inside the bounds of the neoliberal DNC will endorse those who cheat voters, just as Sanders endorsed Clinton after she cheated him.
Instead of endorsing such establishment-backed figures and corrupt actors like Cortez and Sanders have, Tim Canova took legal action regarding the destruction of ballots - and WON. Here lies the gulf between word and action.
"Cuomo was reported to have called the (so-called) insurgent progressive wave in his party ‘not even a ripple.’ Cuomo’s sentiments – perhaps unintentionally – echo the reality that a genuine progressive insurgency cannot exist within the current Democratic Party matrix."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"How can we view the ongoing silence from within the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy as anything other than a political, enforced disappearance in the middle of a so-called free, liberal society?"
Although #Assange is isolated by the Ecuadorian government, it is overwhelmingly clear that as per the definition, #Ecuador is "acquiescing" to the desire of the US & UK governments.
"In view of the more recent work published by the #Forensicator regarding potential media collusion with #Guccifer2.0, we are inclined to revisit an interview given by #WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief #JulianAssange in August of 2016.."
"The significance of revisiting #Assange’s statements is the degree to which his most significant claim is corroborated or paralleled by the #Forensicator’s analysis."
.@TwitterSafety posted a hypocritical statement on the ban, alluding to ‘past violations’ of Twitter rules, even though @Jack Dorsey was previously forced to defend Twitter not having banned Jones by stating outright that Jones had not violated Twitter policy.
Essentially, in suspending #Jones, Twitter is attempting to have its cake and eat it too – but in doing so, the company exposes the enforcement of its rules as both arbitrary and political. This must raise the alarm among those who value free speech in the dawn of a digital age.