Republi-cons Are Coming For Your Social Security

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont

There it is! My Republican friend from Pennsylvania finally admitted it last night. After the tax bill passes, they are going to come back to cut your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They must be defeated.

Republicans Coming For Your Social Security

There it is! My Republican friend from Pennsylvania finally admitted it last night. After the tax bill passes, they are going to come back to cut your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They must be defeated.

Posted by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Friday, December 1, 2017

Trump Supporters Are As Dumb As You Think!

Occupy Democrats

From September 21, 2017. Trump voters knew the facts before the election. It didn’t make any difference. Facts will just not sway them from their myopic biases. This video has to be seen to be believed!

Video from The Daily Show.
Shared by Occupy Democrats, LIKE our page for more!

Trump supporters are as DUMB as you think!

This has to be seen to be believed!Video from The Daily Show.Shared by Occupy Democrats, LIKE our page for more!

Posted by Occupy Democrats on Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Protecting Working Families Against Trumps Tax Scam

Occupy Democrats

Note to self: Do not mess with this EPIC woman! Do you hear that, Trump, Ryan, and McConnell??
There’s still time to kill this bill. Call 877-650-0039 for more info!

Shared by Occupy Democrats; like our page for more!

The MOST Epic Destruction of Trump's Tax Scam from an Appalach…

Note to self: Do not mess with this EPIC woman! Do you hear that, Trump, Ryan, and McConnell??There's still time to kill this bill. Call 877-650-0039 for more info!Shared by Occupy Democrats; like our page for more!

Posted by Occupy Democrats on Thursday, December 7, 2017

This young women just got her first Job.

This young woman just got the BEST news — and her reaction is priceless. 😭 (via Country Living Magazine)

More stories that will make you smile: http://ghkp.us/KK5AFCU

This Young Woman Just Got Her First Job

This young woman just got the BEST news — and her reaction is priceless. 😭 (via Country Living Magazine)More stories that will make you smile: http://ghkp.us/KK5AFCU

Posted by Good Housekeeping on Friday, December 8, 2017

Chicago Bears; Bear Down!

Chicago Bears
Chicago Bears, Bear Down!

“I just remember telling the doc, “Save my leg, please.”

Zach Miller shares his emotional story, daily motivation and inspirational outlook.

Jeff Joniak sits down with Zach Miller for the first time sinc…

"I just remember telling the doc, "Save my leg, please."Zach Miller shares his emotional story, daily motivation and inspirational outlook.

Posted by Chicago Bears on Friday, December 8, 2017

I study liars. I’ve never seen one like Donald Trump.

Chicago Tribune

Commentary: I study liars. I’ve never seen one like Donald Trump.

I spent the first two decades of my career as a social scientist studying liars and their lies. I thought I had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came President Donald Trump. His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people’s.

In research beginning in the mid-1990s, when I was a professor at the University of Virginia, my colleagues and I asked 77 college students and 70 people from the nearby community to keep diaries of all the lies they told every day for a week. They handed them in to us with no names attached. We calculated participants’ rates of lying and categorized each lie as either self-serving (told to advantage the liar or protect the liar from embarrassment, blame or other undesired outcomes) or kind (told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else).

At The Washington Post, the Fact Checker feature has been tracking every false and misleading claim and flip-flop made by Trump this year. The inclusion of misleading statements and flip-flops is consistent with the definition of lying my colleagues and I gave to our participants: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” In the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president’s intentions were.

I categorized the most recent 400 lies that The Post had documented through mid-November in the same way my colleagues and I had categorized the lies of the participants in our study.

Manteno, IL: Residents Who Drive A CHEVROLET EQUINOX Should Check This Out

The college students in our research told an average of two lies a day, and the community members told one. (A more recent study of the lies 1,000 U. S. adults told in the previous 24 hours found that people told an average of 1.65 lies per day; the authors noted that 60 percent of the participants said they told no lies at all, while the top 5 percent of liars told nearly half of all the falsehoods in the study.) The most prolific liar among the students told an average of 6.6 lies a day. The biggest liar in the community sample told 4.3 lies in an average day.

In Trump’s first 298 days in office, however, he made 1,628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops, by The Post’s tally. That’s about six per day, far higher than the average rate in our studies. And of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump’s false statements — the ones he makes publicly — so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher.

That rate has been accelerating. Starting in early October, The Post’s tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.

But the flood of deceit isn’t the most surprising finding about Trump.

Both the college students and the community members in our study served their own interests with their lies more often than other people’s interests. They told lies to try to advantage themselves in the workplace, the marketplace, their personal relationships and just about every other domain of everyday life. For example, a salesperson told a customer that the jeans she was trying on were not too tight, so she could make the sale. The participants also lied to protect themselves psychologically: One college student told a classmate that he wasn’t worried about his grades, so the classmate wouldn’t think he was stupid.

Less often, the participants lied in kind ways, to help other people get what they wanted, look or feel better, or to spare them from embarrassment or blame. For example, a son told his mother he didn’t mind taking her shopping, and a woman took sides with a friend who was divorcing, even though she thought her friend was at fault, too.

About half the lies the participants told were self-serving (46 percent for the college students, 57 percent for the community members), compared with about a quarter that were kind (26 percent for the students, 24 percent for the community members). Other lies did not fit either category; they included, for instance, lies told to entertain or to keep conversations running smoothly.

One category of lies was so small that when we reported the results, we just tucked them into a footnote. Those were cruel lies, told to hurt or disparage others. For example, one person told a co-worker that the boss wanted to see him when he really didn’t, “so he’d look like a fool.” Just 0.8 percent of the lies told by the college students and 2.4 percent of the lies told by the community members were mean-spirited.

My colleagues and I found it easy to code each of our participants’ lies into just one category. This was not the case for Trump. Close to a quarter of his false statements (24 percent) served several purposes simultaneously.

Nearly two-thirds of Trump’s lies (65 percent) were self-serving. Examples included: “They’re big tax cuts — the biggest cuts in the history of our country, actually” and, about the people who came to see him on a presidential visit to Vietnam last month: “They were really lined up in the streets by the tens of thousands.”

Slightly less than 10 percent of Trump’s lies were kind ones, told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else. An example was his statement on Twitter that “it is a ‘miracle’ how fast the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were able to find the demented shooter and stop him from even more killing!” In the broadest sense, it is possible to interpret every lie as ultimately self-serving, but I tried to stick to how statements appeared on the surface.

Trump told 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind ones. That’s a much higher ratio than we found for our study participants, who told about double the number of self-centered lies compared with kind ones.

The most stunning way Trump’s lies differed from our participants’, though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump’s lies were hurtful or disparaging. For example, he proclaimed that John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey, all career intelligence or law enforcement officials, were “political hacks.” He said that “the Sloppy Michael Moore Show on Broadway was a TOTAL BOMB and was forced to close.” He insisted that other “countries, they don’t put their finest in the lottery system. They put people probably in many cases that they don’t want.” And he claimed that “Ralph Northam, who is running for Governor of Virginia, is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities.”

The Trump lies that could not be coded into just one category were typically told both to belittle others and enhance himself. For example: “Senator Bob Corker ‘begged’ me to endorse him for reelection in Tennessee. I said ‘NO’ and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement).”

The sheer frequency of Trump’s lies appears to be having an effect, and it may not be the one he is going for. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from late October showed that only 35 percent of voters believed that Trump was honest, while 51 percent said he was not honest. (The others said they didn’t know or had no opinion.) Results of a Quinnipiac University poll from November were similar: Thirty-seven percent of voters thought Trump was honest, compared with 58 percent who thought he was not.

For fewer than 40 percent of American voters to see the president as honest is truly remarkable. Most humans, most of the time, believe other people. That’s our default setting. Usually, we need a reason to disbelieve.

Research on the detection of deception consistently documents this “truth bias.” In the typical study, participants observe people making statements and are asked to indicate, each time, whether they think the person is lying or telling the truth. Measuring whether people believe others should be difficult to do accurately, because simply asking the question disrupts the tendency to assume that other people are telling the truth. It gives participants a reason to wonder. And yet, in our statistical summary of more than 200 studies, Charles F. Bond Jr. and I found that participants still believed other people more often than they should have — 58 percent of the time in studies in which only half of the statements were truthful. People are biased toward believing others, even in studies in which they are told explicitly that only half of the statements they will be judging are truths.

By telling so many lies, and so many that are mean-spirited, Trump is violating some of the most fundamental norms of human social interaction and human decency. Many of the rest of us, in turn, have abandoned a norm of our own — we no longer give Trump the benefit of the doubt that we usually give so readily.

Washington Post

Bella DePaulo is the author of “How We Live Now: Redefining Home and Family in the 21st Century” and “Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.”

This Church Banner Perfectly Captures How Progressive Christians Feel Right Now

HuffPost

This Church Banner Perfectly Captures How Progressive Christians Feel Right Now

Carol Kuruvilla, HuffPost      December 7, 2017

An Episcopal church is causing a stir in Washington, D.C., after putting up banners that attempt to capture the mood of many progressive Christians in the nation’s capital.

The signs from St. Thomas’ Parish express frustration over some of the political positions taken by conservative Christians on topics such as gun rights and science. The banners feature an image of Jesus holding a hand to his face, a gesture that some are calling “faithpalming.”

One sign, which went viral on Twitter last week, illustrates the congregation’s feelings about President Donald Trump. Trump is a Presbyterian (though faith doesn’t appear to play a large role in his life), and has continued to enjoy the support of many conservative Christians in the country.

The Rev. Alex Dyer, the priest in charge of the 126-year-old parish, is the one who designed the banner campaign. He told HuffPost that his congregation saw the signs as an “opportunity to give voice to a side of Christianity that many people may not associate with Christianity.”

“There are many people who think Christians are close-minded, judgmental, and oppose science,” he said. “This is not the people in the congregation or many congregations around the country.”

He believes the signs capture the feelings of a lot of people in D.C. about the state of American politics.

“We are a very progressive church in a very progressive city,” he said. (The District of Columbia has voted Democratic in every presidential election it’s participated in, and went overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.)

The signs were placed around the construction site of St. Thomas’ Parish new church building in the city’s Dupont Circle neighborhood.

Dyer said his congregation has been troubled by what he called a “constant attack” on their core Christian values.

He described his church as a spiritual home for people who’ve had bad experiences with other churches, or have been discriminated against based on gender, sexuality or race. The church has a long history of welcoming queer Christians. In the past, it’s also expressed support for refugees and immigrants.

“Jesus reached out to those on the margins of society,” Dyer said. “He did not build walls. Rather, he broke down the walls that divide us as people.”

In response to the president’s policies targeting marginalized groups, Dyer said his congregation has participated in marches, protests and vigils.

Avoiding politics is not really an option for a progressive Christian church in Washington, D.C., he said.

“The hope is that people will walk by and think about things a little differently,” Dyer said of his banners. “It will remind people of a God who loves them and feels their frustration.”

A union body blow in what was once an organized-labor bastion

The Seattle Times

A union body blow in what was once an organized-labor bastion

Cho Tak Wong, chairman of the Fuyao Group, speaks during the grand opening of the Fuyao Glass America plant, Friday, Oct. 7, 2016, in Moraine, Ohio. The Chinese company’s completed automotive glass-making plant serves as its North American hub for recycled glass manufacturing. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)Cho Tak Wong, chairman of the Fuyao Group, speaks during the grand opening of the Fuyao Glass America plant, Friday, Oct. 7, 2016, in Moraine, Ohio. The Chinese company’s completed automotive glass-making plant serves as its North American hub for recycled glass manufacturing. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

A critical loss for organized labor shows the economic angst of the Heartland is more complicated.

By Jon Talton, Special to The Seatle Times     December 7, 2017

One of the tropes of the 2016 election was that the white working class felt slighted by globalization and voted heavily for the “populism” of Donald Trump. And perhaps that — instead of white-identity and culture-war issues — drove at least some. But in the Heartland, where Trumpism gained heavily, the messages are mixed.

Last month, employees at Fuyao Glass America in suburban Dayton, Ohio, voted by a wide margin to reject joining the United Auto Workers. The factory, which makes auto glass, is located in the shell of the former General Motors Moraine Assembly (and the reader should know I was the business editor at the Dayton Daily News from 1986-1990). The “no” vote represents a stunning turnaround for organized labor.

From 1951 to 1979, this factory made appliances for Frigidaire, a GM subsidiary. When the appliance manufacturing operation was shut down, the plant was saved by a collaboration among state and local government, GM, and the union. With big tax breaks and an adaptable local union, it was transformed into an auto assembly plant, turning out the popular small S-10 Blazer SUV. It was the only GM assembly represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a holdover from Frigidaire days.

This is part of the Rust Belt story that’s rarely told: How the region reinvented itself after catastrophic losses in the late 1970s and early 1980. Dayton was no stranger to this: When NCR ended manufacturing of mechanical cash registers, it cost some 30,000 good local jobs and left a swath south of downtown empty as former factories were torn down. But often places were able to adapt, even with the headwinds of ’80s-style vulture capitalism.

Moraine was one of the success stories. And the union was essential. Often its members had the best ideas to improve productivity and innovation — the bottleneck was then-CEO Roger Smith’s bureaucracy. Unions were still popular — people understood that, even with their flaws, they had been essential to building the middle class and spreading benefits across workplaces everywhere. In 1989, more than 21 percent of Ohio workers were union members. By 2016, it was 12.4 percent. Nationally, only 6.4 percent of the private-sector workforce was unionized last year, compared to more than one-third in the 1950s.

The Moraine Assembly was shut down by GM in 2008. Automation, moves to non-union plants in the South, and China’s rise in the world economy have cost Ohio 376,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990. Fuyao, paradoxically, is a Chinese company, one of a small number that have opened factories in the United States. In the New York Times, Cao Dewang, the company’s founder, blamed “excessive union power for American industrial decline” and said, “To be brutally honest, up to this moment, my investment in the U.S. has brought no good to Fuyao.”

Don’t be a sore winner.

In reality, the decline of unions goes far beyond their sometime corruption or overreaching (and that never happens with businesses, right?). Blame the savaging of key industries by decades of “rip, strip and flip” capitalism, weak antitrust enforcement, deregulation and anti-worker bias on the National Labor Relations Board and elsewhere in the federal government. Globalization played a role, but unions are strong in Germany. America’s story is more complicated.

One of the chapters is about workers voting against their self-interest. How many at Fuyao voted for Trump? They got the wealthiest cabinet in history, more deregulation and hostility to workers, and soon tax legislation that will cause lasting damage to the middle class. “Great Again,” in the minds of Trump voters, was the Nifty Fifties. But apparently without the strong unions.

Will tax cuts spur the American economy? Maybe with a time machine.

Yahoo News

Will tax cuts spur the American economy? Maybe with a time machine.

Matt Bai, National Political Columnist         December 7, 2017

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Getty Images (2), AP

Matt Bai’s Political World

Finally, Americans are going to get that massive corporate tax cut they’ve been clamoring for.

OK, not really — voters don’t put taxes high on the list of issues that keep them up at night, and the bill now careening through Congress is even less popular than the president, which is saying something. But Republicans are finally going to get the elusive legislative victory they can talk about in their districts over the winter break, and that’s why they’re hurrying to pass a bill they’ve barely had time to read.

A lot’s been said about this tax bill and the motives that underlay it. Critics charge that it’s really just payback for the corporations and contributors who have invested so heavily in Republican campaigns. They say Republicans who voted for the plan know full well that their economic program won’t magically pay for itself, and that the bill is a political weapon, designed to punish urban states.

My experience, though, has been that most politicians who espouse an economic philosophy actually believe in it, or think they do. So let’s just dispense for the moment with all the talk about Republican corruption and subterfuge, and let’s instead take the bill — and its backers — at face value.

Because it seems to me that if you’re looking to understand where we are as a country right now, the substantive theory behind this bill may tell you more than the political chicanery surrounding it.

For the last four decades or so, going back to Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been guided by a single tenet when it comes to growth: the alluring conceit of “supply-side” economics. What this means, essentially, is that lowering taxes puts more money into the hands of businesses and affluent consumers, which leads to more capital investment and spending, which leads to accelerated growth and ultimately higher revenues.

And, the theory holds, since businesses are the ones who hire working-class Americans and pay their wages, and since wealthy consumers are the ones who buy the most stuff, the additional wealth created by tax cuts inevitably “trickles down” to everyone else.

Liberals have always derided this entire theory (as did no less a Republican than George H.W. Bush, who called it “voodoo economics” when he ran for president in 1980). But all these many years and multiple tax cuts later, we should at least put Reagan’s program into some kind of larger context.

When Reagan came into office, at the height of a brutal recession, the top marginal tax rate was a whopping 70 percent; he immediately cut it to 50 percent. In 1986, Reagan and the Democratic majorities in Congress agreed to slash those taxes again, but they also raised the rate on capital gains. (That’s what actual tax reform looks like, by the way — some rates go down while others go up.)

You can certainly argue about how much of the economic recovery during the 1980s (and the recession that followed) can be attributed to Reagan’s policies. But it’s reasonable to assume that Reagan’s supply-side program had both positive and negative effects.

Putting all that money back into the pockets of business and the affluent probably did help spur some investment and hiring. But the tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves with added revenues, and even as Reagan agreed to raise other taxes a few dozen times during his presidency, the federal debt continued to grow.

A few decades after Reagan first cut taxes, George W. Bush pursued his own version of the same program, pushing through two huge tax cuts totaling about $1.5 trillion — or about as much as the Republicans’ current proposal. Again, those cuts (like all tax cuts, by definition) mostly accrued to the wealthy, on the theory that more money for job creators would ultimately trickle down, as Reagan promised.

But here’s the thing: A lot had begun to change in the structure of the economy — and in the structure of the entire society, really — in the years between Reagan and the second Bush. And that change has accelerated rapidly in the last decade or so, to the point where a theory that seemed at least plausible in 1980 should now be viewed as recklessly out of date.

Corporations today, as you might have heard, are doing business in a global marketplace that barely existed in 1980. They’re judged almost entirely by their stock prices from one quarter to the next, which means their imperative is to cut costs today, rather than invest for the next decade.

American capital drifts overseas, where labor is cheap. And manufacturers who do invest here are taking full advantage of a revolution in automation; go to any auto or steel plant, and what you will see are acres of robots, with a fraction of the workers who would have been needed in Reagan’s day.

That trend is about to remake the job landscape again. According to a nice roundup of the current research in last week’s New York Times, artificial intelligence will likely displace tens of millions of jobs in the next few decades, although new career paths may arise, too. The imminent takeover by automated cars could, by itself, overturn entire industries.

What this means, practically speaking, is that however hopeful the “trickle-down” idea may have been in the 1980s, it’s just specious now. The critical link between the fortunes of big employers and the American workforce has been all but severed; what’s good for the stock price (and stocks have been soaring these last few weeks) is no longer an especially useful indicator of what’s good for you.

And, yes, the additional trillion bucks in federal debt that will pile up as a result of this bill will add even more pressure, inevitably, to cut social programs that primarily benefit lower-income Americans. In effect, they’ll lose twice: once when the tax cut fails to create all kinds of new jobs or thriving communities, and again when the programs on which they rely turn out to be unsustainable.

All of which may add to a feeling of moral superiority among the president’s critics — but it shouldn’t, really, and this gets to my larger point about the generational failure that pervades Washington.

The populist left’s alternative answer to the transforming economy — to create all kinds of new federal giveaways while punishing the rich with pre-Reagan tax rates — seems just as nostalgic and futile as the one we’re about to see enacted. Neither approach gets to the core challenge we face, which is how to reconnect the fortunes of businesses and workers, so that the success of one doesn’t have to come at the expense of the other.

There are some promising ideas along these lines, though you probably haven’t heard much about them. Mark Warner, the Virginia senator and a tech millionaire himself, has been pushing, among other things, tax incentives that would reward corporate investment and a series of metrics to judge companies on their commitment to workers.

The think tank Third Way, which occupies the lonely center in the Democratic Party, has a couple of intriguing proposals. These include a guaranteed private retirement account for every worker on top of their Social Security, funded in part by employers, and the elimination of all payroll taxes for the poorest workers, which ought to have bipartisan appeal.

But there’s no real constituency in Washington for modernizing government. There are only constituencies for going back and doing what we did in one or another golden age when the economy looked completely different.

The main failing of this tax bill isn’t the crazy, one-sided process, or the little provisions dropped in for contributors, or the contempt for blue state voters — although all of these are flat-out disgraceful. The main failing is that the entire policy is based on a played-out intellectual theory, aimed squarely at the problems of an America we hold in our memories.

The supply of outdated ideas is endless, but our moment demands something better.

The Russians risking all to oppose Vladimir Putin.

Trump voters must ask themselves: is this the “Great America” they had in mind, when they elected a Putin wannabe bent on dismantling America’s democratic institutions and installing an autocratic kleptocracy, run by oligarchs parading as crony capitalists? I hope not!       John Hanno

The Guardian

Navalny’s army: The Russians risking all to oppose Vladimir Putin.

Opposition politician’s campaign gathers steam ahead of 2018 election, but his supporters face threats and intimidation.

Alexei Navalny holds a rally in Izhevsk. His supporters are mainly young Russians who have known only a Putin presidency. Photograph: Yegor Aleyev/TASS 

Shaun Walker in Kemerovo     December 7, 2017

It has been a rough couple of months for Ksenia Pakhomova, a bright-eyed, garrulous 23-year-old from the Siberian mining town of Kemerovo. Her boyfriend was kicked out of university, her mother was fired from her teaching job at an arts school, and her grandmother was threatened with dismissal from her job at a gallery.

To top it off, someone plastered notices with her photograph in public places near her home, complete with her mobile number and an offer of sexual services.

All of this appears to be linked to Pakhomova’s job: she is the regional coordinator for the presidential campaign of Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician who wants to challenge Vladimir Putin for the Russian presidency in elections next March.

Putin finally declared his candidacy on Wednesday in a long-expected announcement, and is likely to win comfortably. Standing against him are a familiar cast of political has-beens and a few spoiler candidates whom few Russians are taking seriously.

Navalny will most likely be barred from standing due to a criminal conviction in a case that was widely seen as politically motivated, but the 41-year-old anti-corruption campaigner is ignoring this. Instead, he has chosen to engage in the kind of enthusiastic, grassroots campaigning that has been absent from Russia in recent years: real politics, in short. He has embarked on a marathon of trips across the country’s vast expanse, holding rallies and setting up campaign headquarters.

The liberal opposition has traditionally made few inroads in places like Kemerovo, a tough, working-class region four hours by plane from Moscow. Here, Navalny is attracting the support of a different kind of Russian from the chattering, Moscow intellectual class that many see as the natural supporters of the democratic opposition.

Navalny’s supporters are mainly young Russians who have known little in their lifetimes except a Putin presidency.

Pakhomova, who studied law at university, said she was not particularly political until earlier this year, when she started watching Navalny’s videos. She was particularly horrified by a video alleging staggering corruption on the part of the prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, which led to major protests in Moscow and other cities earlier this year. In Kemerovo, she began volunteering for the local Navalny campaign, and in time, she was appointed head of the local office.

“Everyone in Russia knows that officials are corrupt, but when you see the details, how openly they think they can do it, it’s shocking,” she said.

Ksenia Pakhomova, head of the Navalny campaign in Kemerovo. Photograph: Shaun Walker

Ksenia’s mother, 46-year-old Natalia Pakhomova, said she was warned in September that she should prevent her daughter from working for Navalny, but refused. At the end of October, she was removed from her job, on the pretext that anonymous parents had called the local administration and complained that teachers at her school were soliciting bribes. She had worked at the school for 26 years, and in April had received a medal from the local governor for her service.

Natalia’s 67-year-old mother, who works as a gallery attendant in the local art museum, was asked by her boss to talk her granddaughter out of working for Navalny and was also threatened with dismissal. She is on sick leave, which Natalia said was due to frayed nerves from the incident. Ksenia’s boyfriend was kicked out of university, though he has since been reinstated after an online campaign.

Navalny has said if he is not allowed on to the ballot, he will call for an “active boycott” of the elections.

“No other candidate has opened regional offices, no other candidate is properly campaigning,” he said in an interview in Moscow. “How can you have real elections without the only candidate who is campaigning?”

Navalny said that since the beginning of the year campaign staff had between them spent more than 2,000 days in jail and been fined more than 10m roubles (£129,000).

“What’s happening in Kemerovo is extreme, but it’s a pattern across Russia and it’s clearly directed from the top,” he said.

In almost every region, activists have found it hard to rent office space from which to run the campaign. In Kemerovo, Pakhomova’s team is looking to move office after its landlord said the local administration called him and warned him not to rent to the Navalny campaign.

Whenever Navalny travels, authorities also create problems, and he has been jailed or assaulted on numerous occasions this year. When he visited Kemerovo earlier this autumn, local authorities cancelled public transport to the area on the outskirts of town where they had given Navalny permission to speak.

Despite all this, more than 2,000 people attended the rally, making it one of the biggest demonstrations in Kemerovo since the miners’ strikes in the late 1980s and early 90s that heralded the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Views on how much damage Navalny can cause with his message that Putin’s inner circle are “crooks and thieves” vary. In Kemerovo, many people have still not heard of Navalny, and among those who have, views are mixed.

Boris Pavlov, the deputy head of the Kemerovo Navalny campaign, holds frequent one-man pickets (gatherings of more than one person require permission) with a Navalny sign in the centre of Kemerovo. “Sometimes people come to shake my hand, but other times I’ve had people spit at me and call me a traitor,” he said.

State television has long denied Navalny access to the airwaves, and claimed the opposition is working to promote foreign interests in Russia. Kremlin insiders portray him as a marginal figure who poses no serious electoral threat.

“His limit would be 5-10% in big cities and 2-3% overall,” said one source close to the Kremlin, who added that the only reason to keep him off the ballot was to prevent “negative vibes” around the election. “He’d have three months of telling everyone that the government is lying and corrupt, and nobody wants to listen to that.”

Russian police officers take into custody a protester during an unauthorized opposition rally in Moscow in June last year. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

But there are signs that Navalny’s message could potentially resonate among a new audience, in a country where up to now Putin has managed to remain above widespread anger at corruption.

Natalia, Ksenia’s mother, was always a Putin fan. She voted for him at the last election in 2012, and even bought Ksenia a Putin-themed calendar as a present that year, because her daughter was too young to vote, with the election falling a few days before her eighteenth birthday. But recent events have led to a recalibration of her views.

“Ksenia made me listen to the Navalny videos, and I’ll be honest, I’ve realised he’s really saying the right things. It has completely changed my views on politics,” she said.

Hers is not the only case of children changing the minds of their parents. At a training session run by Ksenia on how to deal with police last week, all but one of the eight attendees was under 18.

Dima, 14, was initially scolded by his mother for attending Navalny-backed protests in Kemerovo earlier this year, after the child support agency showed up at his house to complain. However, she is now helping to collect signatures for the campaign, and proudly took a selfie with Navalny when he came to Kemerovo.

“My mother had some problems with her politics,” said Dima, with the tone of a parent indulging an errant child, rather than vice-versa. “But afterwards she started watching Navalny’s videos and her political understanding is now more developed.”

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.Thomasine F-R.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Support the Guardian