Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:47 PM Dec 2013

The imminent backlash of the Democratic Left.

It's coming.

The Democratic Party had a chance to keep them in the fold but they blew it.

No amount of threats of Republican takeover will change the direction the Left is going. If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it. The alarm bells no longer work. The fear-mongering from the centrists will fall on deaf ears.

They have not left their Party - their Party has left them.

Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen. After all, anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't .

It is worse to be deserted by your own Party. It is worse to have your ideals destroyed and replaced by Republican ideals. Winning the next election is no longer the most important thing for these beaten-down supporters of the Democratic Party.

If you think this is only a lone voice expressing dissatisfaction with the Party and , in the end, we will all unite behind Hillary to keep the White House, I think you are tragically mistaken.

The Democratic Left will either take back the Democratic Party or they will start their own Party. They will suffer no more under the illusion of being represented by the Democratic politicians in Washington.

I'm sorry I feel compelled to say this.

749 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The imminent backlash of the Democratic Left. (Original Post) kentuck Dec 2013 OP
du rec. xchrom Dec 2013 #1
I Agree 100%...and I like the rainbow flag. billhicks76 Dec 2013 #251
A very good point LiberalLovinLug Dec 2013 #371
I wrote an essay on this subject that might be of interest to you. Laelth Dec 2013 #579
thanks Laelth LiberalLovinLug Dec 2013 #688
Well, to be accurate, Obama "campaigned" as a Left Leaning Populist. bvar22 Jan 2014 #716
That is exactly what happened. He gave soaring speeches with no content. Now his supporters say Vincardog Jan 2014 #727
+ 1000000 woo me with science Jan 2014 #728
I remember "specific" promises to Organized Labor and the Working Class: bvar22 Jan 2014 #729
Thank you. woo me with science Jan 2014 #731
I think that's exactly what the Tea Party is doing to the right at the moment. Xipe Totec Dec 2013 #2
And for much the same reason. It isn't a matter of philosophy, it is the result of Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #5
Interesting thing though is that the Tea Party started out as disaffected Repugs... bluesbassman Dec 2013 #65
We won't see that, the left has no support from the rich except insofar as their willingness Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #82
The left will be co-opted by the 99% demwing Dec 2013 #99
Don't hold your breath harun Dec 2013 #414
I think the Tea Party started as an astroturf operation Jackpine Radical Dec 2013 #109
Yep - AstroTurf for sure... See linked article klook Dec 2013 #134
Saboteurs have been disrupting liberal uprisings ever since Justice Powell wrote his manifesto in loudsue Dec 2013 #149
Will the 1% tolerate the people leaning left? No... Eleanors38 Dec 2013 #384
Exactly - they have these neat military tools to keep us in check bodily and mentally Hestia Dec 2013 #433
Good post! loudsue Dec 2013 #449
+1000 G_j Dec 2013 #548
Your "grass roots" coach awaits you! KansDem Dec 2013 #169
I believe that's correct. bluesbassman Dec 2013 #180
of course the 1% isn't going to co-opt a lefty purist group Sheepshank Dec 2013 #589
+1. Tea baggers are for the billionaires. left is the people. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #195
I just don't see that playing out with the Democratic Left. BobUp Dec 2013 #143
Many of us will not accept the Third Way version of the Democratic Party. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #161
Then prepare for lancer78 Dec 2013 #259
You could not be more wrong. The issues and the electorate are entirely different now. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #312
I disagree, respectfully.Bill Clinton rebranded himself a "new democrat" but was in lexington filly Dec 2013 #341
Well said. +1 Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #496
Your arguments have a certain logical resonance... Eleanors38 Dec 2013 #383
I've said this several thousand times but I'll say it again: tomp Dec 2013 #391
Agree with you about the Dems....... socialist_n_TN Dec 2013 #439
as you, I agree with your first paragraph only. tomp Dec 2013 #521
They don't serve the rich treestar Dec 2013 #489
bones must be thrown or the masses will revolt. tomp Dec 2013 #519
^^^^^^^Well said.^^^^^^^^ woo me with science Dec 2013 #613
Exactly. JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #6
It's actually scary Andy823 Dec 2013 #23
Yea ...let's keep the party moving right ...because that's where the money and votes are. L0oniX Dec 2013 #40
On the other hand Andy823 Dec 2013 #63
That's the battered spouse school of voting theory. Chan790 Dec 2013 #67
Marvelous analogy, Chan! Feral Child Dec 2013 #602
"If you want more left leaning candidates get them elected in the primaries" is a "battered spouse"? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #604
No. Chan790 Dec 2013 #608
That's nothing like what Andy823 said muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #609
0 for 2. That's exactly what he said. Chan790 Dec 2013 #612
Here's what you said: muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #622
By all means do NOT blame the right leaning Dem centrists. pffft L0oniX Dec 2013 #77
Who besides you is advocating for not voting? Please give a link to a post from A Simple Game Dec 2013 #138
"We shouldn't vote for...", "No more lesser of two evils"... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #191
that will be your choice AlbertCat Dec 2013 #226
Grow up? Enthusiast Dec 2013 #381
It means what it says, I will no longer vote for a candidate just because they A Simple Game Dec 2013 #260
Thanks for the clarification! I think that when you say... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #276
By the way... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #278
lesser of two evils is reality creeksneakers2 Dec 2013 #350
Wow, who knew it could be that simple? Why has no one thought of this before? n/t A Simple Game Dec 2013 #375
Who suggested that it would be simple... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #420
No, I am suggesting a radical idea, voting for the best candidate regardless of party. n/t A Simple Game Dec 2013 #434
No, I am suggesting a radical idea, voting for the best candidate regardless of party. n/t AlbertCat Dec 2013 #438
You mean Bernie Sanders? fadedrose Dec 2013 #465
The reason the far left never does it creeksneakers2 Dec 2013 #443
What far left? AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #581
How do you know they "don't have the votes"? AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #582
Dennis Kucinich creeksneakers2 Dec 2013 #600
+1 they keep repeating that as though it means something treestar Dec 2013 #488
"Lesser of two evils" is an admission that our candidate is evil. winter is coming Dec 2013 #498
"If you don't agree with Democrats, run some people in the primaries." !!! THIS!!! bvar22 Jan 2014 #715
"not voted for a Democrat in over 10 years" "the candidate I voted for was and is now the President" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #606
Nothing but the truth, think about it, I know you will be able to figure it out. n/t A Simple Game Dec 2013 #623
Playing 'A Simple Game' with you seems pointless muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #625
I believe you have to read what that person posted... Common Sense Party Dec 2013 #626
Third parties are not allowed where you vote? A Simple Game Dec 2013 #650
Obama is still a Democrat; you voted for a Democrat muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #656
Yes I voted for someone picked by a party, the party was Working Family instead of A Simple Game Dec 2013 #665
But Obama is not a member of the Working Families Party; he is a Democrat muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #666
quite easy, actually. there's a shit ton of parties on the ballots here. dionysus Jan 2014 #720
I didn't realize those parties didn't run their own candidates. Common Sense Party Jan 2014 #721
i don't think so.. they will run their own candidates for local stuff... but for national or dionysus Jan 2014 #725
No, I'm not saying President Obama isn't a Democrat, I'm saying he is more than a Democrat. A Simple Game Dec 2013 #647
"faced with a choice between a "Republican Republican" and a "Democratic Repulican""... jtuck004 Dec 2013 #377
Suggesting a write-in for "Edward Snowden" is another example... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #417
I am sure that is exactly the opinion any self-interested plantation owner would take jtuck004 Dec 2013 #461
Not really. I think the "self interested plantation owner" would... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #505
Well, then, he, or she, may get what he or she wishes <G> n/t jtuck004 Dec 2013 #507
Maybe because we have grown up over the past number of years, we have learned that the phrase sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #493
And if they win? (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #506
Ask the Party Leadership. The voters have no control over them winning. Voters will vote only for sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #510
RE So who to blame if Republicans win? reACTIONary Dec 2013 #547
Rahm Emmanuel was the one who told those who won the election, that 'minority' you just spoke of, sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #550
What is a 'hard core leftist'? I'm not sure... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #555
I know the word 'purist' is INTENDED to be an insult, that was clear when it first appeared on sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #564
I consider Emmanuel and Axelrod to be... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #588
The 'idea' that Emmanuel called 'retarded' was running ads against conservative Democrats in 2009 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #617
You mean ads against Third Wayers/Republican lite candidates which OF COURSE Rahm the Corporatist sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #630
Those who unnecessarily drive the Democratic party to the right are to blame AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #583
The key word is "unnecessarily"... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #584
Where is it written AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #641
Voters will vote for liberal, left wing candidates... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #655
Obama wasn't a 'liberal left wing candidate' AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #661
Obama wasn't a 'liberal left wing candidate'... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #664
They can't admit their responsibility in the loss of Congress in 2010. See the convulated excuses sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #631
Then they win Feral Child Dec 2013 #605
Excellent post, thank you. I wonder what it will take for the Party Leadership to realize that they sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #633
Agreed, Sabrina Feral Child Dec 2013 #669
Yes and if WE lose, the People that is, I know who I will be blaming and it won't be the voters. sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #705
The END is NIGH!1!! reACTIONary Dec 2013 #657
You're not being "flippant", Feral Child Dec 2013 #668
Sorry for being flippent... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #677
Your assumptions Feral Child Dec 2013 #687
Have a great New Year!!! And you are right... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #692
In the last 5 years Maedhros Dec 2013 #160
We want more left-leaning candidates. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #239
You can bet we will end up running against a Tea Party candidate in the Jamastiene Dec 2013 #250
You are so right. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #365
Yep. DUer RC created this graphic to describe the pols in Washington ... Scuba Dec 2013 #401
Add Publicly-funded elections to that list, and I think you have a winner.. Volaris Dec 2013 #360
Problem is, we've been holding our noses and voting for the lesser of evils... polichick Dec 2013 #327
Anyone that wouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils AAO Dec 2013 #342
You don't think we could get someone to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency JDPriestly Dec 2013 #356
Of course. I think there are many Dems that should be primaried. AAO Dec 2013 #358
Or they can vote for the good. polichick Dec 2013 #399
And look at the results. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #382
This message was self-deleted by its author polichick Dec 2013 #400
"They shipped our jobs out of the country" Dude if only that was all. L0oniX Dec 2013 #523
I agree. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #533
And it's worked so well for America to have to right wing parties Doctor_J Dec 2013 #192
Yes, right wingers collapsed everything in 2007 AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #574
Yea ...let's keep the party moving right AlbertCat Dec 2013 #224
+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #228
Last I heard, the chained CPI is still in the budget. I won't vote for anyone who votes JDPriestly Dec 2013 #240
Right. It seems pretty straight forward. AAO Dec 2013 #345
And in America winning is everything. raindaddy Dec 2013 #413
Where the votes are is kind of important. treestar Dec 2013 #486
Ok, now I'm confused- by "right wing plants"- do you mean plants from the Tea Party? Or "centrists"? LooseWilly Dec 2013 #62
Yeah ... I don't think it's intended to follow logically. DirkGently Dec 2013 #155
+1 a whole bunch.......nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #322
"'left' is presumptively radical and extreme." Yeah, even LBJ. Eleanors38 Dec 2013 #385
LOL! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #165
Another ridiculous assertion fadedrose Dec 2013 #392
That's exactly what I was thinking as I read the OP... Blanks Dec 2013 #93
I'd say the "weak willed" are those willing to accept any degradation of Liberal values Maedhros Dec 2013 #162
Give me some specific examples of this 'degradation of liberal values'... Blanks Dec 2013 #225
Chained CPI; supporting charter schools; giving breaks to Wall Street instead of JDPriestly Dec 2013 #243
There are a lot of people supporting charter schools... Blanks Dec 2013 #262
Democrats could have increased the minimum wage when they had both houses of JDPriestly Dec 2013 #285
Beautifully said, JDPriestly! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #326
^^^^this^^^^ L0oniX Dec 2013 #344
It might shock you to learn that not all democrats are laboring away... Blanks Dec 2013 #480
I would agree with you except for the fact that the wealth of the corporate managers, especially JDPriestly Dec 2013 #532
This thread has hundreds of recommendations. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #330
And what do you think a teabagger president will do? AAO Dec 2013 #346
Look. The right-wing of the Democratic Party has lost a lot of working people JDPriestly Dec 2013 #352
I guess you can't fix stupid. AAO Dec 2013 #357
This message was self-deleted by its author bvar22 Dec 2013 #492
And who will be responsible if that happens? Surely you are not blaming voters when the blame lies sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #660
Well, if everyone refuses to vote for the lesser evil AAO Dec 2013 #673
"royal you"? "you people"? reddread Jan 2014 #735
Why don't you tell me what you're really thinking - it's vague to me. AAO Jan 2014 #736
I'm a progressive... Blanks Dec 2013 #539
It's not the reality of politics in America. No matter what you say. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #324
FDR didn't replace Henry Wallace. The Democratic party leaders did at the Convention. octoberlib Dec 2013 #537
Obviously, I phrased that poorly... Blanks Dec 2013 #538
centrists have been holding the "my way or the highway crap" gun.. frylock Dec 2013 #107
I put it this way: Maedhros Dec 2013 #163
word up frylock Dec 2013 #170
+1 a whole bunch.......nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #329
A point by point response: Maedhros Dec 2013 #156
Nailed it. n/t DirkGently Dec 2013 #185
Double nailed it. L0oniX Dec 2013 #200
tripple nailed Douglas Carpenter Dec 2013 #216
Thank you. Well said. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #244
Where's Andy? Maybe Andy has something more important to do, I'll check back tomorrow. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #281
As long as progressives, liberals, socialists, reformists, and Democrats cheapdate Dec 2013 #282
Bullshit. Voting for corporate-friendly Democrats does NOT enable Progressive policies. Maedhros Dec 2013 #295
Bullshit. There's no way in hell that the progressive agenda is served in any way cheapdate Dec 2013 #313
I'm considering the long game. Maedhros Dec 2013 #364
We need effective ways to get attention mdbl Dec 2013 #416
Don't short-sell the Democrats - they also have manipulators that they pay to make bad policy Maedhros Dec 2013 #475
It's smart to consider the long game. cheapdate Dec 2013 #518
Quadruple nailed it. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #333
Nice post! polichick Dec 2013 #337
There is no "FAR LEFT". Enthusiast Dec 2013 #164
It only seems "FAR LEFT" to them when they are FAR RIGHT and think they are centre. L0oniX Dec 2013 #310
+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #184
Actually, it is the center and right wing of the Democratic Party that has Jamastiene Dec 2013 #248
So you like to disparage the left do you? To what aim? Are you trying to split the party? rhett o rick Dec 2013 #315
You are EXACTLY right. The TeaLEFT is almost as bad as the TeaRIGHT. Both are awash in radical RBInMaine Dec 2013 #380
you can't even get dems elected in your own state.. frylock Dec 2013 #454
You are completely WRONG about my state, and I am not disparaging actual liberals. Read on: RBInMaine Dec 2013 #540
Name the "many fronts" on which Obama has been "very progressive." Maedhros Dec 2013 #509
You only think of one because you see the world through a non-realist purist lens. Read on: RBInMaine Dec 2013 #541
Little progressive steps forward, Maedhros Dec 2013 #565
Obama's "successes" remind me of Jack & The Beanstalk. bvar22 Jan 2014 #719
that is sooooo delusional G_j Dec 2013 #549
Post removed Post removed Dec 2013 #575
+a stone cold billion Julie. Astonishing to see people who claim to be so smart Number23 Dec 2013 #136
Project much? L0oniX Dec 2013 #202
I'm sure that made perfect sense in your head. Here, this is for you and your pals Number23 Dec 2013 #232
Still projecting huh? No one is talking about your 3rd term candidate. L0oniX Dec 2013 #273
I'm not the one starting an OP trying to pretend that me and my nine other friends hold Number23 Dec 2013 #283
Again more projection about someone we are "rooting" for. Keep trying. L0oniX Dec 2013 #284
When you find a point, why don't you bring it along with you into this thread? Up until now Number23 Dec 2013 #289
First you project that "claim to be so smart" was said then project an Obama poll has anything to do L0oniX Dec 2013 #294
Between the typos and lack of point, I don't get what you're saying at all Number23 Dec 2013 #299
So now you resort to complaining about how many times a person posts??? What a joke! L0oniX Dec 2013 #303
Yes, throwing "ProjecTION!1" out with so obviously no idea what that means is a better strategy Number23 Dec 2013 #308
What was that about "typos and lack of point"? Heh ...wow ...hey you aren't pissed off are ya bro? L0oniX Dec 2013 #316
You don't need my help to look bad, do you?? Number23 Dec 2013 #319
LMAO "posts in this thread that say fuck all" Ok whatever. L0oniX Dec 2013 #323
You're putting me on ignore???! Oh joy!! And lucky for you, there's no spelling involved! Number23 Dec 2013 #328
Now I'm putting you on ignore? and "??!" Punctuation problem? L0oniX Dec 2013 #334
Red X, dude!! RED X!!!! Happy New Year to me Number23 Dec 2013 #338
Please don't beg. It's dehumanizing. L0oniX Dec 2013 #339
Your understanding of "begging" is as good as your understanding of "projection" Number23 Dec 2013 #347
LMAO "recs=power" Does the rec count tell you something you don't like? L0oniX Dec 2013 #349
Authoritarians always have a sadz over the truth. Rex Dec 2013 #567
Wow, how does 9 friends almost equal 300 recs? Rex Dec 2013 #566
Just what I was going to ask...except that it was 309 recs last time I checked. Raksha Dec 2013 #646
I love it when 10% of the Party call the other 90% "purists". Hilarious. Scuba Dec 2013 #402
A very good point - it would be funny if it hadn't worked for so long. Raksha Dec 2013 #648
So why would a Democrat want to disparage the left? What issues do you disagree with? rhett o rick Dec 2013 #318
Every single time you have tried to come after me, the conversation ends with you running Number23 Dec 2013 #325
Why is he "trying to waste" your time? Are you letting him control your time? L0oniX Dec 2013 #335
Dont flatter yourself. You arent that good at bullying. You just seem to like to rhett o rick Dec 2013 #353
I'm not that good at bullying?? Was I trying to be?? Particularly as YOU are the one that has Number23 Dec 2013 #376
your act is stale. Union Scribe Dec 2013 #386
What's even more stale is your "pile on 'cause I've got nothing ever" act Number23 Dec 2013 #478
My "1st grade attempts?" Again that's a very weak attempt. Your post is pure projection. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #422
Oh Praise the Lord! Can you make your little friend live up to his promise to put Number23 Dec 2013 #481
You still don't seem to understand ignore. Union Scribe Dec 2013 #487
It's how I work it. And thanks for reminding me Number23 Dec 2013 #490
And that post right there Union Scribe Dec 2013 #497
No, the problem is entirely YOURS as you have shown REPEATEDLY in this thread Number23 Dec 2013 #500
"needless net nannying as if anyone asked you to involve yourself" OMG the irony. L0oniX Dec 2013 #508
Edit Number23 Dec 2013 #520
I promised to put you on ignore? You are seeing shit that aint there now too? L0oniX Dec 2013 #524
"no interest in what you have to say about anything" ...and yet you keep responding. L0oniX Dec 2013 #425
!! Bobbie Jo Dec 2013 #410
"What a fucking whinefest" I give it a 3 on a Crying Infant scale of 1-10 Number23 Dec 2013 #477
Yea ...what is it with that? Does the left make them feel uncomfortable or something ... L0oniX Dec 2013 #331
I am guessing that those that disparage the left do so because they covet conservative ideologies. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #355
Of course it does, it goes directly against their agenda. Rex Dec 2013 #569
There's always this marsis Dec 2013 #22
This is an example of why the OP is correct. Fearmongering instead of discussing what went wrong sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #34
I think what you' re saying is important. truedelphi Dec 2013 #83
no..... sendero Dec 2013 #111
We are talking about two different processes inside the reality of politics. truedelphi Dec 2013 #302
It sounds great when you speak in vague terms... Blanks Dec 2013 #152
'We have to compromise'. Sorry, we've been doing that. THEY have to compromise. sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #183
I'm not talking about compromising with the republicans... Blanks Dec 2013 #222
Or is it a question of compromising with Republicans who claim to be Democrats? JDPriestly Dec 2013 #252
Let's see. The marginal tax rate is OK. Charter schools are OK. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #249
The only advice I was giving was to vote. That's how... Blanks Dec 2013 #255
People who have always voted WILL vote, but as we saw in 2010, they will vote for Progressive sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #266
I found this telling: Maedhros Dec 2013 #511
Amen. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #177
I think the tea party MynameisBlarney Dec 2013 #37
...and the Dem party "it seems" is catering to the defectors and embracing them while discarding... L0oniX Dec 2013 #44
Exactly, sulphurdunn Dec 2013 #85
I am not at all surprised that you cant see the difference. The left are holding onto principles rhett o rick Dec 2013 #173
Me too! +1 a whole bunch! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #336
The difference is that teabagging policies are for the 1%. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #363
Except the Democratic "left" is actually in line with the majority of Americans Ash_F Dec 2013 #366
That is why dotymed Dec 2013 #442
My point is about the tactics, not the philosophy nt Xipe Totec Dec 2013 #463
Amen. As i read the OP, I'm thinking "Switch Dem with GOP and left with tea party" 7962 Dec 2013 #396
Yeah, just fuck all those folks who will die. JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #3
Let us know when the rich who make money from the MIC will contribute to the anti war... L0oniX Dec 2013 #8
Nice sidestep. JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #9
You mean people who vote Aerows Dec 2013 #14
The sidestep is all yours. L0oniX Dec 2013 #17
you're turning the definition on its head. It's those who insist on voting for the lesser of 2 evils yodermon Dec 2013 #52
What you see as "lesser of 2 evils", Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #474
So voting your conscience.... DeSwiss Dec 2013 #64
Oh come one now ...get with the program. If it has a (D) by its name ...vote for it. L0oniX Dec 2013 #84
This somehow seems appropos..... DeSwiss Dec 2013 #95
Epic Kitteh insight. L0oniX Dec 2013 #97
Wow! Liberals are now sociopaths? Um-hmmm. loudsue Dec 2013 #176
Sometimes you end up in bizzarro land when your not planning to go there. L0oniX Dec 2013 #196
Damn dude, sociopathy. You'd think you were defending a drone program that regularly kills innocents JoeyT Dec 2013 #110
Wow ...how did you read that? ...I needed a sarc tag? L0oniX Dec 2013 #120
There still patting themselves on the back for the Clinton-era sanctions against Iraq Maedhros Dec 2013 #168
I was referring to the JoeyT Dec 2013 #287
Vote or be blamed for Death fascisthunter Dec 2013 #39
Makes ya wonder what party yer in don't it. L0oniX Dec 2013 #47
I don't consider them as dems fascisthunter Dec 2013 #517
You wonder what we thought when Bush launched his criminal war? You mean you don't remember? sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #43
Your capacity for selective reasoning is quite impressive. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #72
What about Obama EXPANDING the Afghan war that Bush started, Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2013 #261
I think you may very well be right. Autumn Dec 2013 #4
The Democratic Party is going to have to appeal to the left if it wants the Left's votes. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #7
Oh they will appeal to us ...and then throw us under the scenic cruiser again. L0oniX Dec 2013 #11
They'll appeal to us with cries of "not as bad" and the "lesser of two evils". Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #15
Look at post 3 ...it's already started. L0oniX Dec 2013 #18
Yep. And, they will claim the Left gave the seats to the Republicans after the election. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #41
It should be made clear right now. IF Democrats lose the next election, the ONLY people to blame sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #49
+1. "We suck less!" is not a viable platform. n/t winter is coming Dec 2013 #55
Imagine ^^ that ^^ on a bumper sticker, LOL!!! n/t X_Digger Dec 2013 #70
LOL! 2banon Dec 2013 #267
Or "We Suck Less?" SomeGuyInEagan Dec 2013 #280
Leadership is the problem Aerows Dec 2013 #60
Recently there has been one happy exception to the truedelphi Dec 2013 #94
Yes, I supported DeBlasio due to his long history on progressive issues. I would not have supported sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #104
Yet ProSense Dec 2013 #121
If he continues that trend, he will lose the next election and if he had told people he intended to sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #129
So that's it? ProSense Dec 2013 #150
De Blasio Appoints Goldman Sachs Exec To Deputy Mayor Post For 'Fighting Inequality' Phlem Dec 2013 #208
So you approve? ProSense Dec 2013 #209
Yep. Phlem Dec 2013 #212
What? ProSense Dec 2013 #215
Right, as expected. Phlem Dec 2013 #217
And we all know how that worked out BlueToTheBone Dec 2013 #125
They will also LIE, blatantly and shamelessly. woo me with science Dec 2013 #166
+1 a shit load............nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #340
As always.. 99Forever Dec 2013 #418
They are selling brand identity. Maedhros Dec 2013 #512
This is the same argument used by Ralph Nader Gothmog Dec 2013 #652
If the candidate wants the votes of the left, then he must appeal to left wing voters. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #654
Thank you MissDeeds Dec 2013 #20
I think the TPP Aerows Dec 2013 #10
I hope so, but.. X_Digger Dec 2013 #78
You'd hope Aerows Dec 2013 #103
Well, to be fair, some dumb redneck said something stupid on TV. Maedhros Dec 2013 #171
Exactly...............nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #343
you apparently don't know how it works here. Phlem Dec 2013 #607
That's the red line, right there Autumn Dec 2013 #672
Just say no to Hillary? ProSense Dec 2013 #12
To win, she will have to attract the Indepents who came out in 2008 to get rid of Bush policies sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #59
Wait, ProSense Dec 2013 #75
I was clear in what I said I believe. No candidate can win with just their base. sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #91
Let me ProSense Dec 2013 #100
Funny, From Where I'm Sitting It Looked Like They Came Out To Insure Bush's 3rd Term Upward Dec 2013 #190
You can thank Liberas for that, again. But since that's not likely to happen, we are where we are sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #264
Odd isn't it? dflprincess Dec 2013 #297
Yes, very odd. We need to keep reminding them of their constant claim that Liberals aren't needed sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #362
I don’t think that there are that many of these self-destructors... busterbrown Dec 2013 #69
If the Party steps up to defend and expand the safety net, we'll win in 2014 and 2016. winter is coming Dec 2013 #354
I do. hootinholler Dec 2013 #293
They'll lose if the left is necessary to win. polichick Dec 2013 #304
I think the point is, that the People will lose. The Party may win, but the victors will be Big Corp 2banon Dec 2013 #307
I'm here to say I guarantee she will lose. Le Taz Hot Dec 2013 #361
I wish you were right but I fear you are wrong tularetom Dec 2013 #13
The tiny number of people crazy enough to desert can be done without. gulliver Dec 2013 #16
Hmmm "Deserter Democratic Left" or the "Corporatist Democratic Right" ...decisions ...decisions L0oniX Dec 2013 #19
+++ You nailed it.... fadedrose Dec 2013 #467
To all those that dismiss Aerows Dec 2013 #21
That would be it. Autumn Dec 2013 #28
I would not be one of those who dismiss the voices... gulliver Dec 2013 #33
Excuse me? Aerows Dec 2013 #45
In all these cases where people lose out... gulliver Dec 2013 #80
"The best Democrats can do". You make the OP's case. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #87
No, here's the problem Aerows Dec 2013 #92
Good ole Patty Murray Phlem Dec 2013 #123
Oh? And what do you imagine the "Democrats" will accomplish without "the dead weight"? winter is coming Dec 2013 #24
Hey Aerows Dec 2013 #27
Likely much better results for 99%. gulliver Dec 2013 #42
Except the ones who might leave the Party are the ones who actually oppose winter is coming Dec 2013 #50
But they oppose it incompetently. gulliver Dec 2013 #96
You don't get effective donkeys Aerows Dec 2013 #102
Rather ironic for you to be accusing anyone of "beating the donkey". n/t winter is coming Dec 2013 #106
More donkeys pulling to the Right is not helpful. Maedhros Dec 2013 #174
You end up with a Donkephant or an Elephonky when they merge. L0oniX Dec 2013 #206
very good... KoKo Dec 2013 #421
Oh look. Another lecture from a grown-up centrist. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #269
consider the fact that most people don't even vote now fascisthunter Dec 2013 #48
But when that "tiny number" does sit out, they are blamed for Dem losses. progressoid Dec 2013 #53
Well they do more than sit. gulliver Dec 2013 #89
They kill the Democratic buzz? backwoodsbob Dec 2013 #119
Then that's EXACTLY what you'll have to do. :-| n/t DeSwiss Dec 2013 #71
You're not aware of the huge Coalition formed before the last election by various organizations sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #74
^^^^this^^^^ L0oniX Dec 2013 #88
and you'll be front and center blaming the "Deserter Democratic Left" when the dems lose frylock Dec 2013 #133
Dem support for President Obama has SLIPPED to a whopping 77%, liberal Dem is at 79% Number23 Dec 2013 #153
Like in 2010? Doctor_J Dec 2013 #159
Withdrawing into fantasy again, I see. It's like there is some switch that lets you Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #265
I'd be overjoyed by Aerows Dec 2013 #25
+1. If we're going to indulge in corporate welfare, couldn't it be for businesses that are winter is coming Dec 2013 #29
Absolutely Aerows Dec 2013 #76
Having just found the site MO_Moderate Dec 2013 #26
Helping others who need it without casting judgement. uppityperson Dec 2013 #30
Dems used to stand for things the people needed, not what big business needed. madfloridian Dec 2013 #118
As a Democrat, i'm presuming here, you surely don't have to ask that question? sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #122
Welcome to DU wryter2000 Dec 2013 #148
the very fact that we are fighting desperately to save 'Obamacare" or the ACA to use its Douglas Carpenter Dec 2013 #203
Here you go. And this is a very abbreviated list. woo me with science Dec 2013 #214
I need more links... nikto Dec 2013 #236
Awesome. nt hay rick Dec 2013 #258
Aw, come on. Is that all you've got? uppityperson Dec 2013 #272
Great list, bookmarking it for future reference. madfloridian Dec 2013 #388
And it's a list of things that the President alone is not able to change. Check out who voted for kelliekat44 Dec 2013 #406
Well done! raindaddy Dec 2013 #415
I love ProSense Dec 2013 #419
Bookmarked! KoKo Dec 2013 #423
+1 ^^^THIS^^^ ...copied and saved. L0oniX Dec 2013 #451
wait...this is another symptom of DU...this list is ok, but the "other" list is scorned? Sheepshank Dec 2013 #601
Feel free to counter the points on this list as well. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #670
of course. the third party people wouldn't have it any other way. dionysus Jan 2014 #726
When I officially joined the Democratic Party in 1966, bvar22 Dec 2013 #649
Bottom line for most is ...who's going to pay for Dem political campaigns. L0oniX Dec 2013 #31
You describe the reason we need to fight in primaries. jeff47 Dec 2013 #32
Historically, that's happened only after the Hamiltonian party has collapsed Warpy Dec 2013 #35
Time for REAL Change !!! blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #36
Yep-- and self-described "centrists" have already proven themselves too fickle to be relied upon. Marr Dec 2013 #38
The Lieberman-ization of the Dem party. L0oniX Dec 2013 #58
It's the "Reagan Democrats" showing up again. Maedhros Dec 2013 #513
Christie Democrats. How 'bout those blue dogs! octoberlib Dec 2013 #522
I concur especially about Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2013 #46
I have been saying this for a long time. Let us hope this is the moment in time. nt silvershadow Dec 2013 #51
I don't think a democrat "left" will prevail and take over the party meadowlark5 Dec 2013 #54
I don't think the left is trying to take over the party. That's already happened by the right. L0oniX Dec 2013 #68
If we could get more representation like Elizabeth Warren meadowlark5 Dec 2013 #101
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Mike Gravel, Alan Greyson, Wendy Davis, Carl Sciortino... L0oniX Dec 2013 #470
.... DeSwiss Dec 2013 #79
We must take back our Party. Support progressive organizations outside the Party rhett o rick Dec 2013 #56
K&R DeSwiss Dec 2013 #57
Fuck Yea! Phlem Dec 2013 #61
Recommended. H2O Man Dec 2013 #66
Nice! Phlem Dec 2013 #73
OMG LMFAO L0oniX Dec 2013 #90
I can be contemptuously scoffed at and NOT represented by Republicans without lifting a finger. GoneFishin Dec 2013 #81
+1. n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #614
2014 FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #86
You mean the imminent election of Jeb Bush? XRubicon Dec 2013 #98
Tired, overused excuse. Phlem Dec 2013 #112
ok let's do the Ted Cruise Tea party strategy XRubicon Dec 2013 #124
Wow Phlem Dec 2013 #127
Thank you for your interest in the Democratic Party XRubicon Dec 2013 #154
ooooh! Phlem Dec 2013 #197
This message was self-deleted by its author Phlem Dec 2013 #199
kentuck is going to elect Jeb Bush all by himself? U4ikLefty Dec 2013 #126
You should take a quick look at the DU terms of service XRubicon Dec 2013 #367
Threaten with the TOS? How quaint. U4ikLefty Dec 2013 #369
Thanks to the Dem right ...who will vote for him in secret. L0oniX Dec 2013 #128
We are also focusing on the primaries... Chan790 Dec 2013 #130
Hell yes bud! Phlem Dec 2013 #132
I'll vote for whoever you want, if they win the primary... XRubicon Dec 2013 #158
Is that's the best ''scary'' you can do? Jeb? Really? DeSwiss Dec 2013 #141
Yes - two wars and the collapse of the economy with his brother was nothing to be afraid of XRubicon Dec 2013 #178
What I want...... DeSwiss Dec 2013 #181
The Jeb Bush whose education plan Obama is trying to implement? Doctor_J Dec 2013 #187
So you see no difference in President Obama and Jeb Bush? XRubicon Dec 2013 #193
LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS!!!! H2O Man Dec 2013 #292
Yeah, whats so bad about having a republican president anyway! XRubicon Dec 2013 #301
Agree Completely - Kick And Recommend cantbeserious Dec 2013 #105
The fact is that the status quo sulphurdunn Dec 2013 #108
Well said - k&r polichick Dec 2013 #113
I think the Party is coming to us. DirkGently Dec 2013 #114
Everyone is thinking about this all wrong! It is not about Republican and Democrat any longer. Dustlawyer Dec 2013 #115
It always was about Plutocrats, their minions, and the brainwashed. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #186
Okay, I think I have been here before. They killed my president and his brother and MLK. What the jwirr Dec 2013 #116
Again! whistler162 Dec 2013 #117
I'm compelled to say that you'd enable Republicans because of selfish reasons. great white snark Dec 2013 #131
Thank you wryter2000 Dec 2013 #151
The Democratic Party has always been HoosierCowboy Dec 2013 #135
So you're saying..We'd be better off to have a Republican President than a Dem like Bill Clinton? Auntie Bush Dec 2013 #137
President Nader agrees. Everybody else is a bit more pragmatic. mikekohr Dec 2013 #139
I'm trying to reform the Democratic Party locally but... hay rick Dec 2013 #140
Once again, some prefer fighting Dems to fighting the GOP. JoePhilly Dec 2013 #142
"If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it." chieftain Dec 2013 #144
This is what bothers me too Flatpicker Dec 2013 #223
+1,000,000 recs. The rich don't fear that we hate them, they fear that we don't hate each other." mikekohr Dec 2013 #234
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA woo me with science Dec 2013 #275
Obama took that quote from the Hopi and didn't credit them... polichick Dec 2013 #311
Abso fucking lutely. At lease a few folks have OPENLY said in this thread and others that they want Number23 Dec 2013 #235
+1. Shrugging off the result of another 8 years of GOP rule, with the death and discrimination, is a freshwest Dec 2013 #263
I think 'temper tantrum' describes this type of thing perfectly. Number23 Dec 2013 #291
I wish they'd have the courage of their convictions... SidDithers Dec 2013 #271
"I guess they value their posting privileges more than their principles." And you nailed it, Sid Number23 Dec 2013 #286
This message was self-deleted by its author whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #440
The repukes HAVE been controlling things without having a majority. L0oniX Dec 2013 #290
"If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it." Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #644
Possibly. davidthegnome Dec 2013 #145
President Rand Paul? wryter2000 Dec 2013 #146
I disagree with your assessment of the Democratic Party. One thing about polical parties is madinmaryland Dec 2013 #147
As a lifelong Democrat, I'll keep trying to push my party left mountain grammy Dec 2013 #157
Hear! Hear! Titonwan Dec 2013 #167
Not even three hours, and 120 recs. woo me with science Dec 2013 #172
the democratic party left me..no truer words xiamiam Dec 2013 #175
I logged in for the sole swilton Dec 2013 #179
At least I'm not the only one saying it at this point. nt LWolf Dec 2013 #182
When did I hear this before... oh yes in 2010 when we lost big OKNancy Dec 2013 #188
So why don't the DC Dems try to attract some liberal voters then? Doctor_J Dec 2013 #194
We lost cuz Dems stayed at home when they saw the neocon agenda being furthered by our own party. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #198
We won in 2012. n/t ProSense Dec 2013 #205
We won it for ya. You know what we need to do. Stop the hoarding class. C'mon, it will be fun!!! grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #241
You sold out? n/t ProSense Dec 2013 #247
Some were trying to get out from under the bus at the time. L0oniX Dec 2013 #211
.... Phlem Dec 2013 #201
We lost because Nite Owl Dec 2013 #210
Shhh. Phlem Dec 2013 #254
k/r 840high Dec 2013 #189
I will say that this is a very enlightening post. Phlem Dec 2013 #204
You'll let us know when that happens, right? brooklynite Dec 2013 #207
Do they have to be real progressives or is it good enough to imagine that they are? L0oniX Dec 2013 #213
Dude. That NEVER happens! Phlem Dec 2013 #218
LOL L0oniX Dec 2013 #220
I don't know what the right anwser is. Flatpicker Dec 2013 #219
I here ya and agree. Your vote is yours and you deserve to have a say in how things work. Phlem Dec 2013 #227
anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't . AlbertCat Dec 2013 #221
You and...ahem...what army? tritsofme Dec 2013 #229
Yet at the same time there is an entire corporate brigade woo me with science Dec 2013 #430
+1 L0oniX Dec 2013 #436
It would be pretty silly to blame 2010 on a disaffected left. tritsofme Dec 2013 #447
A number of Republicans have moved to the Democratic Party complaining that their party left them. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2013 #230
I prefer to have Republicans in office who have an R after their name rather than a D. GoneFishin Dec 2013 #231
Really? Sheepshank Dec 2013 #597
Americans will persist in their addiction to right-leaning Government... nikto Dec 2013 #233
Well said, kentuck! City Lights Dec 2013 #237
Your vote is the only power you have. Make them EARN it. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #238
If I kill myself, then they'll be sorry!!!! JoePhilly Dec 2013 #242
perfect analogy treestar Dec 2013 #245
ROFL. eom Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #482
LMAO Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #514
Nice. Union Scribe Dec 2013 #515
Na, mocking whiners. JoePhilly Dec 2013 #543
This uponit7771 Dec 2013 #536
Good Democrats would never sell out we the people by supporting the narrow interests of those with indepat Dec 2013 #246
#21 You Threaten To Form Your Own Party If You Don't Get 100% of What You Want ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #253
And who are you to tell him to leave??? fadedrose Dec 2013 #279
I'm glad you acknowledge that President Obama is a Democrat ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #288
You see, that's a problem for me too fadedrose Dec 2013 #314
Then maybe you should leave the D.U. as well ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #374
If Jeb Bush ran as a Dem, would you vote for him? NorthCarolina Dec 2013 #429
Only if he won the nomination... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #459
Yea ...we 3rd way centrists don't need or want their stinking votes. L0oniX Dec 2013 #437
+1 Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #483
k&r... spanone Dec 2013 #256
I largely agree Babel_17 Dec 2013 #257
That's some prime FUD right there... SidDithers Dec 2013 #268
Most Democrats cannot bring themselves to talk about it anymore. kentuck Dec 2013 #270
They do ProSense Dec 2013 #298
yep! Phlem Dec 2013 #306
Does that ProSense Dec 2013 #309
Yeah, he makes a speech like that while at the very same time... polichick Dec 2013 #317
Actually, ProSense Dec 2013 #320
The TPP isn't even out of draft form yet. Phlem Dec 2013 #321
That Republican healthcare plan should've been a Democratic plan. polichick Dec 2013 #332
"That Republican healthcare plan " ProSense Dec 2013 #348
The joke's on you - that plan was hatched by the Heritage Foundation... polichick Dec 2013 #397
No, ProSense Dec 2013 #404
The important part to remember is what a real Dem plan would look like... polichick Dec 2013 #444
Some pathetic, diluted, sold out group of empty minds voting without principles and conscience??? L0oniX Dec 2013 #300
I suspect we might see the GOP vanish nationally because of the Tea Party. Gore1FL Dec 2013 #274
agreed. Can see this happening. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2013 #427
It's the nature of the system to destroy such ideals... countryjake Dec 2013 #277
199 recs and counting. woo me with science Dec 2013 #296
Me think's some of them are their own enablers. Phlem Dec 2013 #305
This post deserves hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #351
It's coming indeed - After years of slavish devotion all I can say is whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #359
We need to get our local elections back, then states back. fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #368
I think gerrymandering has to be ended, also cprise Dec 2013 #462
We, as a nation, then are screwed. donheld Dec 2013 #370
. donheld Dec 2013 #372
. L0oniX Dec 2013 #450
Anyone who knows the difference between the two parties and wants equality for all and cares Sparky 1 Dec 2013 #373
These people are the reason the Democratic Party nearly went extinct in the 70s and 80s... Drunken Irishman Dec 2013 #378
You guys really need to update your bullshit talking points Union Scribe Dec 2013 #479
LOL so your point isn't even consistent then... Drunken Irishman Dec 2013 #484
Interesting you lump moderates and conservatives together. Union Scribe Dec 2013 #485
You didn't 'turn out as always'. Drunken Irishman Dec 2013 #501
Here's the ACTUAL story Union Scribe Dec 2013 #503
You proved my point - liberals don't turnout. Drunken Irishman Dec 2013 #525
BS. bvar22 Jan 2014 #707
I showed you proof... Drunken Irishman Jan 2014 #711
You haven't "shown" anybody anything. bvar22 Jan 2014 #717
You lose. Drunken Irishman Jan 2014 #718
Oh here we go again with TeaLeft extremism. Good. Stay home and BITCH again. Then when the ReSCUM RBInMaine Dec 2013 #379
moderates lost Dems 2010 Union Scribe Dec 2013 #387
Progressives are the Tparty's worst nightmare fadedrose Dec 2013 #389
Voting for a third Party is throwing away your vote. another_liberal Dec 2013 #390
What else is there? fadedrose Dec 2013 #394
You will only be helping a Republican win the White House. another_liberal Dec 2013 #398
That's my hunch too.... fadedrose Dec 2013 #405
The "3rd Way" is the old DLC. bvar22 Dec 2013 #591
"sorry" is the right word... fadedrose Dec 2013 #393
I think the only difference between the third way and Republicans is Phlem Dec 2013 #455
Well done! another_liberal Dec 2013 #545
years mtasselin Dec 2013 #395
Happy to kick this great OP and wonderful thread. DUer RC created this graphic to describe ... Scuba Dec 2013 #403
+ a few million. A perfect graphic! solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #424
+1 Nailed it. ^^^THIS^^^ L0oniX Dec 2013 #426
So Spot on! Phlem Dec 2013 #457
"Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen" Progressive dog Dec 2013 #407
Why be anti left Dem? What is it that causes Dems to move right instead of left? L0oniX Dec 2013 #432
Because the third way trolls will berate you on DU. Phlem Dec 2013 #458
"What is it that causes Dems to move right instead of left?" winter is coming Dec 2013 #471
death by a thousand cuts. Phlem Dec 2013 #516
A democracy is based on majority rule, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #556
Now that's funny. majority rule? Phlem Dec 2013 #558
As we've had for over two hundred years, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #571
... Phlem Dec 2013 #599
Most inteligent people know that the majority is not always correct. L0oniX Dec 2013 #562
Democracy allows even the most ignorant to vote, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #570
"Democracy allows even the most ignorant to vote" L0oniX Dec 2013 #572
Absolutely, and you have a problem Progressive dog Dec 2013 #573
Why bother discussing anything with a 3rd way corporate centrist. L0oniX Dec 2013 #576
I don't know, When you learn to discuss anything with anyone, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #578
If democracy enables the 1% control our government and ignorant minds then it has failed... L0oniX Dec 2013 #580
I just wanted you to admit your dislike of democracy, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #585
I'm sure you know that this political message board is for progressives and not just democrats... L0oniX Dec 2013 #587
US progressives believe in our form of government, Progressive dog Dec 2013 #590
Project much? L0oniX Dec 2013 #592
"Project much?" Progressive dog Dec 2013 #594
I'll stop with this... you can go on ...but I'm done with responding to you. Not worth my free time. L0oniX Dec 2013 #596
If argument is measured by volume, you win Progressive dog Dec 2013 #603
They also know that enough money can convince the minority that they're the majority. winter is coming Dec 2013 #695
It's time, beacuse the 3rd way is the wrong way. raindaddy Dec 2013 #408
Run progresive candidates and I'll vote for them. 99Forever Dec 2013 #409
Don't try to convince me that I should take one for the team by voting for politicians GoneFishin Dec 2013 #411
Thank you for saying this Kentuck. dotymed Dec 2013 #412
Sounds like libdude Dec 2013 #428
it has long been inevitable stupidicus Dec 2013 #431
Just an observation, reading through these responses. woo me with science Dec 2013 #435
Mike Gravel said it: "Follow the Money!" L0oniX Dec 2013 #441
I love Mike Gravel. Blue_In_AK Dec 2013 #464
We need him in office. L0oniX Dec 2013 #469
Always about money. Always. woo me with science Dec 2013 #618
Great post, as usual - I would just suggest one thing... polichick Dec 2013 #445
Message was hidden by jury decision. L0oniX Dec 2013 #448
I think you are right about needing to do an end run. woo me with science Dec 2013 #616
I think that it is perhaps more fundamentally about corporations than money Agony Dec 2013 #452
I agree it's a worthwhile effort. woo me with science Dec 2013 #619
The League of Women Voters "Nailed It" back in 1988... bvar22 Dec 2013 #472
+1 This should be its own op. L0oniX Dec 2013 #586
Excellent post. woo me with science Dec 2013 #615
Excellent reminder....and it was a loss when we look at the way the debates KoKo Dec 2013 #690
"It's About The Money!" Shhhh..... KoKo Dec 2013 #689
There is no way that Dems escape their RW "corporate phase" without a paying a price Teamster Jeff Dec 2013 #446
Jeff, the Teamsters are paying a price for their "corporate phase" c'est pas. n/t saidsimplesimon Dec 2013 #456
We don't provide most of the money to the Party, but we are essential to its electability. leveymg Dec 2013 #453
Thank you kentuck, speaking for myself, saidsimplesimon Dec 2013 #460
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #466
nothing PatrynXX Dec 2013 #468
Wish I could give this another Rec. bvar22 Dec 2013 #473
Yes. fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #476
Were tired of these threats. Just leave and join the Green Party treestar Dec 2013 #491
Judging by your active participation in this thread Union Scribe Dec 2013 #495
I'm not threatening to leave the party for the nine millionth time treestar Dec 2013 #502
OMG Phlem Dec 2013 #561
We ARE the Party! Who is this 'we' you are talking about? You don't seem comfortable here among sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #706
(snicker) BKH70041 Dec 2013 #494
Crass bobduca Dec 2013 #684
So you are saying this because of the Tea Party? Rex Dec 2013 #499
K & R democrank Dec 2013 #504
Seems a long time coming. nt Deep13 Dec 2013 #526
Do whatever you damn well please and form another party. Beacool Dec 2013 #527
It's ours. We're taking back the keys. MannyGoldstein Dec 2013 #528
No, it isn't. Beacool Dec 2013 #529
It's our turn. MannyGoldstein Dec 2013 #530
No, it belongs to the people. Not the groups that pull out Koch money... woo me with science Dec 2013 #546
Ha! Phlem Dec 2013 #559
That’s the illusion of any real difference speaking, backed up by no real change. fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #534
That's all you have? Fear? Nothing about how your candidate... polichick Dec 2013 #551
"My candidate" hasn't even announced that she's running. Beacool Dec 2013 #553
If she does run and become prez, will she put the people ahead of corporations? polichick Dec 2013 #554
Crickets. Phlem Dec 2013 #560
Yeah, even her supporters know who would come first in an HRC admin. polichick Dec 2013 #563
No it isn't. sagat Dec 2013 #531
Agreed. As many Democrats say they support Hillary as supported any Democratic Presidential stevenleser Dec 2013 #535
Well then IMO we have something in common with the 1% and the corporations. L0oniX Dec 2013 #598
If corporate Hillary wins don't blame me. I won't vote for her under any circumstances. GoneFishin Dec 2013 #542
That's what the Tea Party said about Romney, and look how well it turned out for them. Beacool Dec 2013 #552
GOTV is now the problem, since the 'beaten downs' know the rich and their two parties don't need ancianita Dec 2013 #544
lord have mercy arely staircase Dec 2013 #557
K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people! Rex Dec 2013 #568
k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #577
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #593
The OP and this whole thread is pretty sickening Sheepshank Dec 2013 #595
Post any kind of divisive %$&* stirring and the usual folks get in line to lick the spoon. great white snark Dec 2013 #620
What's funny is watching the numbskulls call those NOT in favor of burning Number23 Dec 2013 #627
I KNOW!!! bvar22 Dec 2013 #632
May your 2014 be better than your 2013. Number23 Dec 2013 #634
What do you expect from people that believe 5 people trump 300? Rex Dec 2013 #638
This thread is a perfect showcase. bvar22 Dec 2013 #651
Extremely important statement. Feral Child Dec 2013 #610
Great job Kentuck! Phlem Dec 2013 #611
This message was self-deleted by its author Phlem Dec 2013 #662
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers: "Real Change Is Closer Than You Think" proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #621
Good to see this OP still going strong. Autumn Dec 2013 #624
Who is on or 'not on' the REC list is an interesting read. I'm in. eom Purveyor Dec 2013 #628
Waaaa waaaaaa!! Mommy, daddy! The bad thread won't stop! Rex Dec 2013 #629
LOL... bvar22 Jan 2014 #714
We should keep this thread kicked all of 2014! Rex Jan 2014 #724
You guys rock DU. The Democratic Party? Not so much. Looks like you marshalled all the forces.... Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #635
Oh my God, that graphic sums up this thread so perfectly Number23 Dec 2013 #637
300 recs = an "illusion" of grandeur. Hell, you could pick up 300 recs from the tree place, y'know? Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #639
ROFLLL at that pic!!! Girl, your graphics hit HOME every single time. Number23 Dec 2013 #640
Another kick so the RIGHT people don't miss this thread! Rex Dec 2013 #636
K & R. n/t GoneFishin Dec 2013 #642
I'm sorry, as a minority lgbt female, I do not have any choice but to vote for Democrats. If Zorra Dec 2013 #643
That is exactly what they are "banking" you will think. bvar22 Dec 2013 #645
I'm sure you're aware that I know that. My hope is that we can Zorra Dec 2013 #653
That's a powerful visual - disgusting, but powerful. polichick Jan 2014 #713
K&R Crewleader Dec 2013 #658
Happy New Year, Old Friend! kentuck Dec 2013 #659
You speak the truth my friend Crewleader Dec 2013 #674
another kick so minority gets it. Phlem Dec 2013 #663
I think that's a load of horse shit Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #667
You're a "moderate". You're part of the problem. Bradical79 Dec 2013 #694
moderates pay the bills Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #699
I think most of us realized TBF Dec 2013 #671
Could you provide a list of approved Democrats XRubicon Dec 2013 #675
This implies that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats, and I reject that lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #676
This message was self-deleted by its author kentuck Dec 2013 #678
Sensitive aren't you. I did NOT imply you should or should not leave, YOU DID in your OP. lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #679
I'm just sick of people that cannot or will not fight back. kentuck Dec 2013 #680
I agree. Bill Clinton, I believe, set the foundation for where the Democratic party is today, lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #681
So Bill Clinton Democrats "left" the Democratic Party? kentuck Dec 2013 #682
He definitely moved it to the right, and his policies of deregulation were right out of lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #683
l hope Warren runs too XRubicon Dec 2013 #685
I think so too. At the very least her candidacy would force an honesty on the other candidates lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #686
I believed the same about Kucinich's candidacy. bvar22 Dec 2013 #691
You have a point, but I think it might be different with Warren, maybe wishful thinking lostincalifornia Jan 2014 #704
You have a point too. bvar22 Jan 2014 #708
Kentuck, dear one... fadedrose Dec 2013 #693
I think some folks will realize... kentuck Dec 2013 #696
How bout that list? XRubicon Dec 2013 #697
If you don't know, I can't help you. kentuck Dec 2013 #698
I thought you knew who the good Democrats are??? XRubicon Dec 2013 #700
If they have a "D" by their name...? kentuck Dec 2013 #701
Thanks, Happy New Year XRubicon Dec 2013 #702
Who are the good Democrats? bvar22 Jan 2014 #733
Now we are getting somewhere XRubicon Jan 2014 #738
Funny post kentuck messiah Dec 2013 #703
This is worth kicking into the New Year. bvar22 Jan 2014 #709
MUHAHAHAHA YOU FOOLS! TPTB ARE TAKING OVER WITH THE CENTRIST PARTY! L0oniX Jan 2014 #710
K&R - This thread has been around for days now... Jasana Jan 2014 #712
THere is no Backlash from the Left , most are working within the party or on their own JI7 Jan 2014 #722
What a thread! nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #723
EJ Dionne has a good editorial on the reemergence of a Democratic left Gothmog Jan 2014 #730
Excellent points YoungDemCA Jan 2014 #734
Morning kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #732
Afternoon kick. Autumn Jan 2014 #737
Evening kick. Phlem Jan 2014 #739
See post 738 XRubicon Jan 2014 #740
Who ever replied to this, your on IGNORE. Phlem Jan 2014 #741
I knew that you had me on ignore, you are afraid of ideas... XRubicon Jan 2014 #742
kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #743
kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #744
kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #745
Wanted to KICK this important thread. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #746
kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #747
kick woo me with science Jan 2014 #748
Happy to see this inspiring thread again! polichick Jan 2014 #749
 

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)
251. I Agree 100%...and I like the rainbow flag.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:54 PM
Dec 2013

The time for centrist, do-nothing, capitulating is over...it shouldve been over in 2008 but we fell for the same old garbage. I love how people try and pretend they are the "real" Democratic party when they are just playing the us versus them. goodcop vs badcop, our team versus their team corporate sponsored dog and pony show. The Democrats that gave us the way of life we had until the 90s would be ashamed. The center has been moved but we don't have to be. Time to stand up and be counted. Nothing has changed in this country for the better except maybe some health care discounts...wow...are we that easily pacified? Get real...this country has changed into one big prison camp and the fact that we have a friendlier warden that offers us a few more perks if we are well behaved is frankly a sick joke. I am excited to see Hillary wave her ego wand above us and not pull a rabbit out of the hat as I am supporting whoever behaves like Elizabeth Warren and Mr Grayson...if they have the courage...remember Obama got elected in a racist country twice so the tired, old argument that a real liberal can't win is simply false advertising...if the personality resonates as having integrity and the policies (not cultural wedges) appeal to people then it will be an automatic win as long as we can keep Republican cheating in check. The Presidential race isn't gerrymandered.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,154 posts)
371. A very good point
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:05 AM
Dec 2013

"remember Obama got elected in a racist country twice so the tired, old argument that a real liberal can't win is simply false advertising"

Obama, for all intents and purposes, WAS a left-leaning progressive when he was elected in a landslide. That's how he presented himself in the primaries. And then Fox News and Rush Limpballs took that ball and threw it even further into left field in the lead up to that 2008 election. EVERYONE knew (or thought they knew) what kind of "hope and change" we had coming. And Americans welcomed it in droves, especially after the disaster of the Bush administration giving everyone an example of what unfettered right wing neo-conservatism will get you.

After he won, the GOP, Fox News and Rush went into blistering overdrive to fight against the blizzard they thought was coming their way. I think they were just as shocked as the rest of us when instead Obama knocked on their door with a box of cookies.

It was perhaps the biggest opportunity for implementation of progressive economic policies and election finance reform in modern history....and it was frittered away

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
716. Well, to be accurate, Obama "campaigned" as a Left Leaning Populist.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 01:24 PM
Jan 2014

That all went in the trashcan on Day One
when he did this:
[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply
[/font]

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

That was a slap in the face to "Left Leaning Liberals" and the entire Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party.
Anybody who watched this knew that Hope & Change was just another campaign marketing scam.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
727. That is exactly what happened. He gave soaring speeches with no content. Now his supporters say
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 07:40 PM
Jan 2014

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"He never said he would…(insert whatever progressive populist policy or action here)".

The next candidate who wants my vote has to say EXACTLY how they are going to rid this country of the poison that Money in politics has become.
If they have a clear progressive populist message they will have long coat tails and usher in a fantastic new age of Government OF BY and FOR US the People.

I vow never again to stand and cheer another democrat selling out to the repugnant corporatist agenda.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
729. I remember "specific" promises to Organized Labor and the Working Class:
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 09:24 PM
Jan 2014

*to immediately renegotiate NAFTA to help save American Jobs and protect UNIONS

*To "immediately" make EFCA (Card Check) "The LAW of the Land".

*To "put on comfortable shoes and walk the line" wherever Workers are prevented from forming Unions.

*To NOT sign any Health Care Reform Bill that does not contain a Public Option

*To force producers to label foods with Genetically Modified notices and country of origin labels

*To Raise-the-CAP on FICA deductions

This is not a case of we heard what we wanted to hear,
or a misinterpretation of vague Campaign Rhetoric.
This IS Candidate Obama running as a Left of Center, Pro-LABOR Populist.

Which goes to PROVE that Liberal, Populist, Pro-LABOR Candidates CAN Win...and WIN BIG in the US TODAY!
The myth that America is a Center or Center/Right nation,
and ONLY Centrists can WIN was forever put to rest with the Obama Victory.
Hillary "Centrists" would LOVE to resurrect and empower that myth,
but THAT is OVER.

[font size=5]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
731. Thank you.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 10:22 PM
Jan 2014

There were very specific promises about the surveillance state, too.

That picture angers me, every time I see it. We cannot let them do this to us again.

Xipe Totec

(43,872 posts)
2. I think that's exactly what the Tea Party is doing to the right at the moment.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:50 PM
Dec 2013

Something to think about.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
5. And for much the same reason. It isn't a matter of philosophy, it is the result of
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:54 PM
Dec 2013

the powerful believing that they are beyond consequences and behaving appropriately.

These powerful people forget that they utterly depend on us for their survival and we don't need them at all.

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
65. Interesting thing though is that the Tea Party started out as disaffected Repugs...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:47 PM
Dec 2013

who were looking to "purify" the Republican party, but were soon co-opted by the very powerful people they were railing against. In the end they crushed under their own weight.

I just don't see that playing out with the Democratic Left.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
82. We won't see that, the left has no support from the rich except insofar as their willingness
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:57 PM
Dec 2013

to pretend that keeping the powerful in power is the sensible thing to do.

All the left has ever had is numbers and the only time progress is made is when we have used those numbers to overwhelm the forces of parasitism.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
99. The left will be co-opted by the 99%
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:08 PM
Dec 2013

Fucking Cool. About damned time that the people had their own party.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
109. I think the Tea Party started as an astroturf operation
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:18 PM
Dec 2013

meant to activate & excite the "purists," but it got out of hand.

The Progressive movement, on the other hand, is much more of a true grassroots uprising, fueled by events and entities like the Wisconsin Rebellion (which the official state and national Party Organizations despised and ultimately sabotaged), and the Occupy movement, which was likewise trashed by the Professionals.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
149. Saboteurs have been disrupting liberal uprisings ever since Justice Powell wrote his manifesto in
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:52 PM
Dec 2013

1970, and brought the corporate heads and the US Chamber of Commerce to heal. The 1% were determined to use every tool of infiltration in their tool box to dismantle any liberal thought, and destroy any rebellion from the left.

Now, rebellion from the right is always going to be tolerated by the 1%. But not from the left. Hell. The US has destroyed entire countries for leaning left. Does anyone think they're going to tolerate their own people leaning left?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
384. Will the 1% tolerate the people leaning left? No...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:15 AM
Dec 2013

That's why, to paraphrase Orwell, I keep a rifle hanging above the hearth. He, too, knew intolerance.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
433. Exactly - they have these neat military tools to keep us in check bodily and mentally
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:51 PM
Dec 2013

but I think our side is very clever and will find work arounds against the tools, especially cell phone towers.

We need to quit being so polite. A lot of us (not the majority mind you) were raised with manners and being told that the good *always* win but we are seeing that is not true. I am not saying to become like the anarchists (they are a problem too in that they are too disruptive) but to stand up and say something, like, oh I don't know, STFU & NO! in public more. These types of discourses will have to start at the local level which will be easier for those in large cities. We, who live in smaller areas, need to start standing up more. We are more apt to know people but we are also the breeding ground for these parasites who then rise to state and federal levels.

It is easier when you are older to say no and to have the wherewithal to not care. It is the children who are/were taught to always care about others feelings instead of their own and allowing the bullies to take over because they weren't taught how to non-violently take them down. Today, kids are learning how to stand up to bullies through crowds, but we also have a whole generation of 20-30 y/o's who weren't taught those skills and they need to learn desperately for the good of us all.

Our side doesn't come up with memo's to suppress entire segments of society; our side doesn't come up with funding to shut down dissent; our side doesn't come up tools to quell the masses; used to be might made right and we need to start mighting and saying something in public when it should be said is a good start.

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
169. Your "grass roots" coach awaits you!
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:15 PM
Dec 2013


Just the vehicle to transport "real Americans" to those "rage in the heartland" rallies!

bluesbassman

(19,310 posts)
180. I believe that's correct.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:33 PM
Dec 2013

And that's the truth. No 1% is going to co-opt The Progressive movement. There is now short term monetary advantage for them to do so. The only power "powerful" people who will align themselves will be those that understand the long term benefit. Until that happens it will be up to true grassroot action.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
589. of course the 1% isn't going to co-opt a lefty purist group
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:46 PM
Dec 2013

what they will do is buy out (buying/creating corruption is easier than you think), undermine and mishandle...eventually discrediting and using that voter base as a plus for the Reps. It's not that difficult to extrapolate.

BobUp

(347 posts)
143. I just don't see that playing out with the Democratic Left.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:48 PM
Dec 2013

I don't either. At least we don't fight amongst ourselves like the GOP and teabaggers do, we're smarter than that. We usually dissent on opinions or have differences, but we stick together, which is much more than we could ever say of the R party.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
161. Many of us will not accept the Third Way version of the Democratic Party.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:05 PM
Dec 2013

A Republican is a Republican regardless of what they call themselves. Sorry.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
259. Then prepare for
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:19 PM
Dec 2013

a 21st century version of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. You might hate the third way, but the third way resuscitated the democratic party from the electoral hinterlands.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
312. You could not be more wrong. The issues and the electorate are entirely different now.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:20 AM
Dec 2013

Third Way did not resuscitate the Democratic Party from the electoral hinterlands. That is PURE propaganda and inaccurate.

Third Way tells us we absolutely must accept cuts to social security and medicare. And they insist we accept destructive trade deals.

Why would they take such a position when it is a ruinous electoral strategy?

By a huge margin, the entire electorate favors preserving the safety net. Private pension plans are DOA. This is clear. So there is no alternative to social security.

The truth is, Third Way only wants their pet issue, austerity, to win. Third Way has zero principles. They essentially advocate MORE corporate rule. I can tell you taking such a position is against the direction of the electorate.

Look at the popularity of the pope with American Catholics if you don't believe me. You can't continue to beat down the people while favoring everything corporate, which is what Third Way advocates.

lexington filly

(239 posts)
341. I disagree, respectfully.Bill Clinton rebranded himself a "new democrat" but was in
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:10 AM
Dec 2013

in substance actually a hybrid Republican-Democrat. Now, with Hillary, they're trying it again and calling it the "third way."
This flim-flam talked up some social issues but talk was about all. The real story is in following the money---the fiscal policies. The third way was a big ol' on-going Santa Claus for the big banks, corporations, Silicon Valley, fossil energy, insurance companies, etc.

The combination of Clinton's charm, personality, political gifts and the spectacle of the Republican attack machine against the Clintons, distracted most of us while he was giving the middle class and poor people the shaft.

That will not fly this time. Not with me and I hope, not others.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
383. Your arguments have a certain logical resonance...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:06 AM
Dec 2013

when I used them myself some 30-40 years ago. No more.

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
391. I've said this several thousand times but I'll say it again:
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:17 AM
Dec 2013

the primary purpose of the democratic party is to serve the rich while APPEARING to serve the people. and they do this EXCEPTIONALLY WELL (see Obama, e.g.). of course it is better to win elections, but they would rather lose elections than actually serve the people. once one understands this fact of american politics, all becomes clear. all of american politics is a talking game to serve the rich, aided by a totally complicit media.

there are limited ways forward and the road will be exceedingly difficulty whichever way is chosen. an actual progressive party is a good place to start. one whose primary purpose will be to educate the people to the truth of our condition. this will require staunch and charismatic leadership. the primary focus will be against the right wing of the democratic party. it will also require expert use/manipulation of available media.

the only other option i see....well, let's not discuss this at this time, because nobody really wants to go there.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
439. Agree with you about the Dems.......
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:18 PM
Dec 2013

and their purpose. Even when the Democrats were at their most radical (FDR administration), they were only as radical as they HAD to be to save capitalism and serve the wealthy. In the 30s there were MUCH more left wing elements at work in the country than FDR. Even Roosevelt was a "moderate" Dem during the 30s, Long was the left wing one.

One small quibble in your second paragraph. I would propose a progressive WORKER'S party as a start and as an alternative.

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
521. as you, I agree with your first paragraph only.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:19 AM
Dec 2013

as for a "worker's" party. define worker. frankly, been there done that. i'd much rather concern myself with uniting people of common progressive interests and ideas and I don't really care from which class they originate. and again, frankly, i've met quite a few "workers" who do not exactly inspire trust and under whose leadership i would not want to find myself. i want progressive ideas from the smartest people in the world, leading to progressive policies as a platform of a progressive party. if billionaires want to get behind it, that's ok with me, as long as they understand they're going to have to give up most of their wealth.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
489. They don't serve the rich
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:41 PM
Dec 2013

Will just appearing to help the poor. If it weren't for Democrats, very real programs would not exist. And the state of the nation today is they have to fight to keep it.

They may recognize that the rich are part of the economic structure, and they want to save jobs. The Democrats are not a Marxist party (in spite of right wing idiocy) and there is no political will in this country to dismantle all industry.

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
519. bones must be thrown or the masses will revolt.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:06 AM
Dec 2013

the powers that be know exactly what they can get away with, so far.

At the very least, the democrats have been utterly incapable of solving the major problems of our society and balancing wealth distribution to some reasonable standard.

who said anything about dismantling industry?

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
6. Exactly.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:55 PM
Dec 2013

And they seem to be doubling down on the self-righteous. Is't it funny how supposed "opposites" have so very much in common?

Julie

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
23. It's actually scary
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:18 PM
Dec 2013

I sometimes wonder how much of the BS we hear from the so called "left" wing of the party has been scripted by right wing plants who only have one goal in mind, convincing the more "gullible" democrats that it's a wast of time to vote, so just sit home and bitch all daylong while the republicans take back the power, and we end up in an even worse scenario down the road than the one Bush left us in!

The my way or the highway crap isn't going to work for either the teabaggers, nor whatever the far left wants to call themselves. The majority of americans want the two parties to work together, not hold the country hostage until the radicals get everything they want with no compromise at all!

Day after day the same crowd is complaining about how our president has done "nothing" but cater to the rich. They seem t forget all that has been accomplished since he took office, and they can only see the negative in everything he does. They continue to attack anyone who actually supports the president and think that the only way things will change is if everyone comes around to "their" way of thinking.

I seldom post these days, but crap like this OP really get me and I can't help myself.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
40. Yea ...let's keep the party moving right ...because that's where the money and votes are.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:31 PM
Dec 2013

Yep ...you can't move left anyway because you won't get enough $ for political campaigns if you do.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
63. On the other hand
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:45 PM
Dec 2013

Let's just not vote and let republicans take control again, because we all know just how well that went with George W. Bush!

Sorry, but letting republicans back in control of things is simply insane, and not voting because you don't get you candidate to vote for is nothing more than giving your vote to the republican running. I would rather hold my nose and vote for someone I might not completely agree with than let one republican win because I am going to teach the party some kind of a lesson for not doing everything the way I wanted them to! I hope that those who keep trying to get democrats to NOT VOTE enjoy the total disaster we while be in when republicans take us into a worse mess that Bush left us in.

If you want more left leaning candidates get them elected in the primaries, but don't complain about things if you don't vote in the general election and things to to hell!

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
67. That's the battered spouse school of voting theory.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:50 PM
Dec 2013

"If I keep voting to placate my abuser, maybe things will get better...or at least not get worse."

You do understand how fucked up that is...right?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
604. "If you want more left leaning candidates get them elected in the primaries" is a "battered spouse"?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:44 PM
Dec 2013

That's ridiculous. That is actually extremely good advice for anyone who wants to get American politics further to the left. Use the established party to place people that you agree with in elections they will then have a chance of winning. Split off into a separate party and you'll sink without trace (though temporarily taking the Democrats with you). The American electoral system does not lend itself to new parties further from the centre than the established two, and American political advertising helps those who use the 2 known brands.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
608. No.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:03 PM
Dec 2013

Advocating that we must continue to vote for Democrats as they become more and more RW, abusing their base to court moderates because it's better than GOP control.

It's not better than GOP control...it's the same as GOP control. It's fucked-up and abusive to even think that's an appropriate position.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
609. That's nothing like what Andy823 said
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:06 PM
Dec 2013

You are attacking a complete strawman. You're inventing things that weren't written. It's a pointless exercise for you, and for us. If you ignore what people here write, then your arguments are meaningless.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
612. 0 for 2. That's exactly what he said.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:13 PM
Dec 2013

I'll even quote him here so you don't have to scroll too hard.

Sorry, but letting republicans back in control of things is simply insane, and not voting because you don't get you candidate to vote for is nothing more than giving your vote to the republican running. I would rather hold my nose and vote for someone I might not completely agree with than let one republican win because I am going to teach the party some kind of a lesson for not doing everything the way I wanted them to! I hope that those who keep trying to get democrats to NOT VOTE enjoy the total disaster we while be in when republicans take us into a worse mess that Bush left us in.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
622. Here's what you said:
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:32 PM
Dec 2013
Advocating that we must continue to vote for Democrats as they become more and more RW

He did not say "as they become more and more RW". You made that up. At no point did he suggest that. He specifically said 'run left wing candidates'.

It's not better than GOP control...it's the same as GOP control

That is extremely fucking stupid. Look at what Republicans do. They pass misogynistic laws about abortion in states. They wage war on unions. They shut down the federal government. They decimate the food stamp program. They try to ruin healthcare. You seem to be ignoring just how extreme the GOP is, as if Nelson Rockefeller were the typical Republican of today.

You completely ignore his point about running left wing candidates in primaries. I think so many Americans don't realise how spoilt they are with the primary system. It makes it far easier for ordinary people to change the direction of a party that can actually win power than in just about every other country. Heck, you've got an example right in front of you - the Tea Party types have taken the Republicans to the far right by running nutters in the primaries and getting many of them elected. They didn't do that from outside the Republican party - they did it from inside. They may be nutters, but at least they understand the basics of American elections.


A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
138. Who besides you is advocating for not voting? Please give a link to a post from
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:43 PM
Dec 2013

a liberal saying we shouldn't vote.

But you are right, we shouldn't vote for Republicans, even if they have a (D) after their name.

No more lesser of two evils for me, where has it gotten us so far? What's worse, going over the cliff at 10 mph or at 100 mph? Either way you go over the cliff.

I'm sure you can see the real problem, if you reflect upon it.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
191. "We shouldn't vote for...", "No more lesser of two evils"...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:52 PM
Dec 2013

... so, when faced with a choice between a "Republican Republican" and a "Democratic Repulican" who are you going to vote for? If you are not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, and neither candidate is "pure", who are you going to vote for?

In all likelihood, that will be your choice - and you are saying "we shouldn't vote for" and "no more", which means what? If that doesn't mean you aren't going to vote, what does it mean?

So who is it who is advocating for not voting?

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
226. that will be your choice
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:04 PM
Dec 2013

Thank you!

Every vote ever cast has been for the BEST candidate.... not the perfect candidate. Grow up.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
260. It means what it says, I will no longer vote for a candidate just because they
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:19 PM
Dec 2013

have a (D) or any other letter after their name. I have not missed a local, state, or national election in over 40 years. I have not voted for a Republican in over 20 years. I have not voted for a Democrat in over 10 years. I am now too old to waste my vote in the hopes that things will be better next time. It is probably too late to make a difference for me but hopefully I can make things better for my children and grandchildren. I truly do fear for their future quality of life.

That said, in 2008 and 2012 I held my nose and the candidate I voted for was and is now the President of the United States. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2008 and sadly saw no alternative worth voting for in 2012. Do you think President Obama would govern differently if he had gotten 20 million votes on the Working Family party line, the line on which I voted for him?

You have choices if you don't learn them you or anyone are a poor voter. There are many good candidates out there, they will only win if we vote for them. Will we have to suffer for a few years? We already have been and still are, what is there to lose?

And thanks, it does bear repeating: No more lesser of two evils!

Oh, and I do remember just what a reactionary was and still is, capital letters or not. But thanks for being honest.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
276. Thanks for the clarification! I think that when you say...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:00 PM
Dec 2013

"No more lesser of two evils!" some folks hear you say... "No more voting!" which is why they believe that there are liberals who are advocating "not voting".

This may not be what you mean, but it is not an unreasonable interpretation, since there is very rarely, if at all, a race that does not involve a choice between less than perfect candidates.

In a further extrapolation, some folks regard voting for a non-viable "third party" or "protest" candidate to be the practical or moral equivalent of not voting since they view it as "wasting a vote".

All-in-all, I can see how many people get the impression that there are liberals who are recommending "not voting".

creeksneakers2

(7,468 posts)
350. lesser of two evils is reality
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:32 AM
Dec 2013

So is greater of two evils. If you don't agree with Democrats, run some people in the primaries.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
420. Who suggested that it would be simple...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:18 AM
Dec 2013

... and if I understand what are you suggesting... voting for a third party candidate? ... how is that any simpler or more effective?

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
438. No, I am suggesting a radical idea, voting for the best candidate regardless of party. n/t
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:14 PM
Dec 2013

That's what I used to do... until the GOP STOLE an election or two and completely lost their collective mind.

So, at this point in time, voting straight Dem IS voting for the best candidate regardless of party.

creeksneakers2

(7,468 posts)
443. The reason the far left never does it
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:27 PM
Dec 2013

is because they quietly know that they don't have the votes. Yet they want to run things.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
582. How do you know they "don't have the votes"?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:02 PM
Dec 2013

Where do you get this information? From "the peoples view?"

treestar

(82,383 posts)
488. +1 they keep repeating that as though it means something
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:38 PM
Dec 2013

As though it wins some argument or is some kind of gotcha. All it shows is negativity.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
498. "Lesser of two evils" is an admission that our candidate is evil.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:39 PM
Dec 2013

Seriously? We can't do better than "evil"??

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
715. "If you don't agree with Democrats, run some people in the primaries." !!! THIS!!!
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 01:18 PM
Jan 2014

The Arkansas Democratic Primary was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain, and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

Guess what happened.
The BIGGEST enemy to bringing "change" to The Senate was NOT The "Obstructionist" Republicans.
NO!
The BIGGEST obstruction to bringing "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/


When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the answer was ridicule and insults to Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

After the Arkansas Democratic Primary, many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

Of course, as EVERYBODY predicted, Lincoln lost badly in the General Election, giving that Senate Seat to The Republicans.
So what did the White House gain by Stomping Down Labor and the Grass Roots?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults and more ridicule.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
606. "not voted for a Democrat in over 10 years" "the candidate I voted for was and is now the President"
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:01 PM
Dec 2013

These 2 statements contradict each other. We now have absolutely no idea how you actually vote. Can you restate your voting record and position?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
625. Playing 'A Simple Game' with you seems pointless
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:11 PM
Dec 2013

You seem to be saying that Obama isn't a Democrat, since you claim you voted for him, but not a Democrat.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
626. I believe you have to read what that person posted...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:24 PM
Dec 2013
Do you think President Obama would govern differently if he had gotten 20 million votes on the Working Family party line, the line on which I voted for him?


Apparently, this person voted for Barack Obama, but NOT as part of the Democratic ticket. ???

I'm not sure how one does that.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
650. Third parties are not allowed where you vote?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:52 PM
Dec 2013

It's very simple, I voted for President Obama on the Working Family line not the Democratic line. I may not be able to swear off the candidates completely but at least where I live you can swear off the two major parties.

President Obama was the Working Family candidate, he may have also been the Liberal party candidate among others though I'm not sure about the parties other than Working Family. There must have been at least 10 party lines for President. McCain and Romney were probably also on multiple lines, the Conservative and Right To Life lines and probably others.

So as long as we are having a conversation, do you think President Obama would govern differently if he had gotten 20 million votes on the Working Family party line?

The major parties will not follow through on promises to party constituents because they know that registered Democrats will vote 95% for the Democratic candidate and registered Republicans will vote 95% for the Republican candidate They campaign mainly for the independent vote. You can still get the same candidate but shake them up and make them realize they have to earn the votes by voting for them on a third party line.

Don't believe this crap about a vote for a third party is a vote for the Republicans, the people that say that are very short sighted.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
656. Obama is still a Democrat; you voted for a Democrat
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:21 PM
Dec 2013

That you decided to vote for the candidates picked by someone else (a 'party line') doesn't mean you voted 'third party'. You voted for the recommendations of the 'Working Families Party'. For president and senator in New York, I see these were the Democrats; you presumably can say whether they were Democrats at other levels, or Independents or another party - or even an actual Working Families Party candidate (if you're in New York - as far as I can tell, only a few states use this system on ballots, and NY is the biggest).

As I expect you know, when people talk about voting 'third party', they don't mean voting for Democrats recommended by someone outside the Democratic Party; they mean voting for someone who is neither a Democrat nor Republican, such as a Green. I suspect no-one ever bothers telling Obama how many votes came via a non-Democratic party line; whether anyone in the Democratic Party pays attention to it probably depends on how often the WFP withholds a recommendation from the Democrats (do they recommend someone else instead, or just have no recommendation?)

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
665. Yes I voted for someone picked by a party, the party was Working Family instead of
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 05:58 AM
Dec 2013

the Democratic party. I see a difference and if he got more votes on a third party line than the Democratic party line, so would President Obama. No one wants to answer that question. Different parties have different platforms meaning different expectations for the candidate they endorse. If President Obama got seven figure votes on a third party line you can bet someone would let him know. Someone would let the whole world know. And if more votes were cast on that line, at least in New York, it would replace the Democratic party on the top of the ballot.

I do know that when most are speaking about third party they don't normally mean someone also running as a Democrat, I just like pointing out that, at least in many places, often there are options even for the same candidate.

You only vote for two or three candidates on the national level in any given year, it doesn't take long to educate yourself on the candidates from all parties. Sadly I saw no one better, that I could tell, than President Obama in both Presidential elections. We as a country do not encourage our best to run for political office.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
666. But Obama is not a member of the Working Families Party; he is a Democrat
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 06:35 AM
Dec 2013

He regularly meets other Democrats to discuss policy and strategy; he takes part (that's not a pun; this goes to the heart of what 'party' means) in Democratic conventions. He coordinates with the Democratic party election organisations.

Unless it is running its own candidate for an office, the Working Families Party is just another entity, like a union or a newspaper, that makes recommendations about whom to vote for. Obama, Gillibrand and other Democrats don't do any Party activities with the Working Families Party. The policies of the WFP are incidental.

You say "no one wants to answer that question", but I can't see what question you mean. I will, however, re-ask you a question: how often does the WFP not recommend a Democrat in an election, and how often does it recommend an opponent to a Democrat or run its own candidates against Democrats in a general election (rather than in a primary)?

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
720. quite easy, actually. there's a shit ton of parties on the ballots here.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 03:38 PM
Jan 2014

for example, you've got the Working Families Party, who endorses the Dem candidate 99% of the time.

then you've got the Conservative Party, which usually endorses the repuke, but they've been known to buck the trend and endorse people crazier than the repuke candidate (ie,some nutbag teabagger...).

I vote WFP if they have the same candidate as the Dem, because if they get a certain amount of votes, they get federal funding.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
721. I didn't realize those parties didn't run their own candidates.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 04:26 PM
Jan 2014

Do these parties have to pay to get on all these ballots?

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
725. i don't think so.. they will run their own candidates for local stuff... but for national or
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 07:15 PM
Jan 2014

statewide stuff they usually always pick dems.

parties like the conservative party are more likely to run a batshit insane guy than the rethug at times.
I voted for dean (primary) Kerry, and Obama on WFP tickets.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
647. No, I'm not saying President Obama isn't a Democrat, I'm saying he is more than a Democrat.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:34 PM
Dec 2013

Get out of the box.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
377. "faced with a choice between a "Republican Republican" and a "Democratic Repulican""...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:51 AM
Dec 2013

write in Edward Snowden.

Because it's not my way any longer to be one of those who worries more about saving his Master's house from a fire than his own...

This guy can 'splain it to you better than I.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
417. Suggesting a write-in for "Edward Snowden" is another example...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:14 AM
Dec 2013

... of a liberal saying we shouldn't vote.

I think Andy823 is right when he said that there are those who keep trying to get democrats to NOT VOTE and that not voting because you don't get you candidate to vote for is nothing more than giving your vote to the republican running.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
461. I am sure that is exactly the opinion any self-interested plantation owner would take
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:06 PM
Dec 2013

when suggesting that theirs is the only true way...but, then, I am quite sure they are only concerned for themselves.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
505. Not really. I think the "self interested plantation owner" would...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:33 PM
Dec 2013

...prefer to see folks writing in Edward Snowden instead of actually voting.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
493. Maybe because we have grown up over the past number of years, we have learned that the phrase
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:46 PM
Dec 2013

'lesser of two evils' doesn't really apply when you are given a choice between Republican and Republican Lite. In fact many have concluded that Repub Lite is the greater evil because they have deceived Democratic voters by placing a 'd' after their names.

I prefer the actual Repubican who makes no attempt to deceive me so I would never stumble into voting for one. But the other kind, the one with the 'D' after his/her name HAS deceived us into voting for Republican policies.

We took a long time to 'grow up' as you say, but better late than never. The answer to your question of course is, 'neither the Repub Lite nor the actual Repub'.

And no we don't have to accept this situation. Hopefully now OUR party will realize the game is up and it is up to them to provide the voters with an actual choice. IF they don't, they are getting fair warning and IF they lose, there will be NO QUESTION anymore as to who will be responsibe for that.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
510. Ask the Party Leadership. The voters have no control over them winning. Voters will vote only for
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:01 PM
Dec 2013

those they believe represent their interests and from the past several years of holding their noses hoping that maybe by doing so, they would get some representation only to be told their 'ideas are retarded' and that they are a minority in the party and the party doesn't need their votes, well, finally they are awake and will vote who for individual politicians but not for any the party chooses who do not represent them.

So who to blame if Republicans win? The leadership of the Dem Party. They have time to start listening to the voters right now and not attempt to push candidates we know do not represent us and expect us to continue to repeat what has failed for millions of Americans once more time.

Why don't you ask the Party Leadership that question? 'What if we lose because you keep pushing DLC/Third Way/Republican Lite candidates on the voters?' See what THEY, who are responsible for the losses and the victories, have to say. We have nothing to do with the end result.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
547. RE So who to blame if Republicans win?
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:23 PM
Dec 2013

By "If they win?" I meant the hypothetical centrist Democratic candidate who is a so-called "Republican Lite" - the one you aren't going to vote for anymore. What if the "Republican Lite" Democrat wins?

The premise seems to be that these centrist Democrats can't win without tricking or cajoling more left-leaning voters to vote for them - inevitably disappointing their more left-leaning supporters. Maybe, however, they just have to move a slight bit more to the right and they can pick up more than enough votes to make up for the ones that decide to vote for the "best" candidate, however that might be. While the prospect is not comforting, it may be that the hard-core leftist positions actually are a minority in the party and in the country as a whole, and that those votes really don't make much of a difference one way or another.

As far as being told that their "ideas are retarded" goes, doing so would be wrong on many levels. Hopefully that doesn't happen on DU. On the other hand, those that disagree with a policy position or an ideological principle do have a right, even a responsibility, to disagree publicly and to explain why we disagree. Disagreement is not denigration.

My own strategy is to vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning. And since that often is the best candidate over all anyway, I'm pretty comfortable with it.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
550. Rahm Emmanuel was the one who told those who won the election, that 'minority' you just spoke of,
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:44 PM
Dec 2013

for Democrats in 2008 that their 'ideas are retarded'. And no one in a leadership position in the party asked him to apologize for that. He was forced to apologize for his ignorant use of the word 'retarded' but not for the content of his remark. He was fighting hard for the Third Way candidates he was pushing at the time.

He was not the only one, Axelrod apparently shares his opinion of the 'minority' who won that election for them. Among others.

But if you are correct and the party doesn't need Liberal votes, but are, as you pointed out, going to attract Republican votes by running Third Way candidates, why do they care what Liberals do? That juist proves my point. The Party has left the voters and will be completely responsible if they lose.

Attracting Republican votes is exactly the problem. We HAVE a Republican Party. In order to attract Republican votes, the Democratic Party has to change doesn't it? Drive out Progressives, which appears to be happening, and bring in Republicans.

So what party represents the MAJORITY, because despite your supposition, it WAS a majority of Americans who elected Democrats in 2008 most of whom ran on a Democratic, not a Republican platform. That would seem to contradict your assumption that 'left' policies are only popular with a minority.

What is a 'hard core leftist'?

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
555. What is a 'hard core leftist'? I'm not sure...
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:15 PM
Dec 2013

... I used the term because I didn't want to say "purist" ... mainly because I've heard some folks complain that "purist" is a pejorative or an insult. Since I consider Obama, Emmanuel, and Axelrod to be liberals and progressives, I wanted to use a term that meant "much further left than Obama, Emmanuel and Axelrod". Let me know what you think that term should be.

In my view, calling someone's ideas "retarded" is unacceptable, for many reasons. His use of the word was, at the least, ignorant. I'm glad he was forced to apologize, even if it wasn't a complete apology.

Because of the economic meltdown in 2008 I think any Democratic candidate would have won, regardless of the level of support from the further left leaning activists. Simply the fact of the wars and the economic conditions guaranteed a strong democratic showing.

As a liberal democrat and as a progressive, I want to see liberal and progressive policies prevail. (Of course, I have my own opinion as to what liberal/progressive policies should be.) That requires electoral success. So I support the most liberal, most progressive candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning. I think that's a sound strategy.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
564. I know the word 'purist' is INTENDED to be an insult, that was clear when it first appeared on
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:58 AM
Dec 2013

Democratic Forums around 2004, which was when it became apparent that the Dem Party was veering to the right and the problem they were having was Democrats who insisted that Bush policies were not Democratic policies, wars, torture, deregulation of the media, trickle down economics etc. So they set out to try to demean Democrats.

Emmanuel and Axelrod are NOT liberals or progressives, they are Corporatists. They are the Third Way. And if you don't know what that means, they have website a where they explain it. They are liberal, or say they are, on only a few issues although I've never much from them in the way of actual support for those issues, Gays and Abortion. They USE those issues which they certainly have never been known to champion in the way that actual supporters and activists have, to get their 'liberal creds'. Many moderate Republicans support those issues btw or don't care about them one way or the other.

Other than that it's hard to tell the difference between the Third Way and the Far Right on economic issues, on foreign policy etc.

As a woman, I am particularly angry at the use women's issues for political purposes. I am not fooled by a politician who claims to support women's issues, but supports War which has the most devastating effect on women, and support predatory capitalism, which destroys women economically.

Some are fooled when a Republican or Third Wayer claims to support these issues, but we know that to try to get the 'women's vote' eg, they will SAY anyting, but words are meaningless to intelligent women, we watch what the DO.

I support Democratic candidates who adhere to the Dem Party's platform on labor, on REAL women's issues and who have a record of NOT supporting Right Wing policies that adversely affect women no matter what they SAY.

The Dem Party has told women/liberals they do not need their votes. Fine, we don't need a Party that doesn't need us.

From now on they will have to EARN, not take for granted, women's votes. Unions have told them the same thing. They can no longer take Union votes for granted, they will have to earn them.

How can they earn them? It's simple, do not give us any more Third Way/Republican lite candidates, we simply won't vote for them. See if you can attract enough Republicans to help you win.

And yes, 2008 rejected Republican/Third Way politics. I'm not sure what point you were making there. A majority who helped win that election were Progressive Dems and Left Leaning Independents. By 2010 Third Way Candidates LOST because the majority who we are told was a minority refused to vote for them again.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
588. I consider Emmanuel and Axelrod to be...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:44 PM
Dec 2013

... liberals and progressive. Not, of course, as far left as someone is who would claim there isn't any difference between their positions and those of a "moderate republican". Those who are far from the center often don't distinguish between positions that range around the center, but those distinctions do exist and are important for advancing and implementing liberal / progressive policy.

So, you have your opinion and strategy, I have my opinion and strategy.

My point about 2008 is that it didn't represent a repudiation of what you characterize as "Third Way Politics". It was fatigue with the various wars, especially Iraq, and a reaction against the sudden financial crisis right before the election. In point of fact, the winning candidate (two times now!) was the candidate supported by Emmanuel and Axelrod. Axelrod is credited with crafting Obama's winning strategy.

I looked up Emmanuel's "retarded" comment. This was an exceptionally stupid remark on his part, and apparently he lets loose with this kind of verbiage quite frequently. The remark seems to have been directed against a particular strategy that was proposed by a liberal activist group. They wanted to run attack ads against more conservative democrats who were not supporting a public option. The point was that these democrats would be needed to pass the final bill, whatever it might be, and running attack ads would have killed the ACA. He was not disparaging liberals, or liberal activists in general - he was reacting against a particular tactic that he thought would be a fail. My guess is that he was probably right.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,160 posts)
617. The 'idea' that Emmanuel called 'retarded' was running ads against conservative Democrats in 2009
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:20 PM
Dec 2013
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

because he thought that was bad tactics - pushing them into the arms of the right. Perhaps a huge internal Democratic fight, spending millions to split the party, would have eventually left a more left-wing party standing. But it would be a big risk, and would surely have allowed the Republicans to make further gains, letting them, for instance, do even more gerrymandering after bigger wins in 2010.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
630. You mean ads against Third Wayers/Republican lite candidates which OF COURSE Rahm the Corporatist
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:56 PM
Dec 2013

supported and was so frightened of the support and popularity of the Progressive candidates, he competely lost his cool. And he lost, didn't he? The voters rejected the Third Way candidates in 2010, thankfully. But the Progressives all, except for a couple, retained their seats.

Maybe the party has learned finally that the voters have had enough of the 'wisdom' of Rahm the Corportist and Axelrod et al and this time will start looking at the reality that if they continue to run 'conservatives' they will lose.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
583. Those who unnecessarily drive the Democratic party to the right are to blame
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:05 PM
Dec 2013

“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time” - Harry S Truman

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
584. The key word is "unnecessarily"...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:09 PM
Dec 2013

... and the fact that electoral victory is necessary in politics. At least in a democracy!

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
641. Where is it written
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:09 PM
Dec 2013

That voters will only vote for right wing candidates? Where do you get this nonsense?

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
655. Voters will vote for liberal, left wing candidates...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:14 PM
Dec 2013

... they voted for Obama. And did so twice. The senate is controlled by liberal, left wing Democrats. The house isn't, but that is basically due to gerrymandering, and in the aggregate the majority of votes go to Democratic / left leaning / liberal candidates.

So over all I think that voters will, do and are voting for liberal, Democratic candidates. Those candidates are winning and they are making a difference. Furthermore, this situation will get better over time as demographics increasingly marginalize the Republican base.

When did I say voters will only vote for right wing candidates? What I maintain is that a good strategy for liberals and progressives would be to vote for the best candidate (the most liberal, progressive candidate) that has a realistic chance of winning. That's my personal strategy. What's wrong with that?

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
661. Obama wasn't a 'liberal left wing candidate'
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 11:51 PM
Dec 2013

He did run as one, though, his first go round. Obama won the second time because the alternative was unthinkable.

This: 'The key word is "unnecessarily"' Implies that it is necessary to run to the right. Running to the right isn't 'realistic'. It is tragic. Right wing ideology has all but destroyed this country. The Democratic party has no balls.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
631. They can't admit their responsibility in the loss of Congress in 2010. See the convulated excuses
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:00 PM
Dec 2013

for that and the arrogant demands that the voters have no right to vote for what they believe is best for their country. They ARE driving people away. And if they don't listen now and make the same horrific errors again, they will lose again and no way will they get to blame the voters.

I think because it worked for so long, talking voters into voting against their better judgement, they think it will continue to work. But we have the results of that now and no way will their threats etc work and they can't understand it I suppose.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
605. Then they win
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:00 PM
Dec 2013

and the empire crumbles even more rapidly. Faster or slower, it's all the same in the end.

Unless there is real change and the left quits allowing itself to be duped. Unless we lose some elections and our quisling party leaders begin to realize that we see through the chicanery.

Have you seen our country change in your lifetime? For every token advance in civil rights that have been allowed, I've seen more stripped from the general public.

This is a very real trend, and if we're only prepared to think in terms of the next 4 or 8 years, it WILL continue. If we keep cheering on Our Team like politics is the Super Bowl instead of forcing our party to represent us, we'll all look up some day and ask how we let this happen.

The OP has already reached that moment of clarity and so have I.

Time to grease the wheels of the tumbrels...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
633. Excellent post, thank you. I wonder what it will take for the Party Leadership to realize that they
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:04 PM
Dec 2013

can no longer count on progressives and/or take their votes for granted. They can't bully voters or threaten with the 'greater evil' because we've has wasted years trying out their 'formula' and we have made no advancements at all on issues that drove voters to the polls after the end of the Bush era.

They don't 'need us' anyhow, as we have been told so often so I don't understand why they are so upset about this 'minority which doesn't matter' refusing to play the game anymore.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
669. Agreed, Sabrina
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:31 AM
Dec 2013

They've given us two unacceptable choices, and we can be tricked into voting for Ultra-Conservatives or Mostly-Conservatives.

Or we can demand real progressive candidates.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
657. The END is NIGH!1!!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:27 PM
Dec 2013

Sorry for being a bit flippant, but the whole idea of the "empire crumbling" reminds me of the fundamentalists who are always warning of the apocalypse and even want to help it along a bit.

As to whether or not I've seen our country change within my lifetime, the answer is most defiantly yes. And the world as a whole has changed. And though its been a bit bumpy, it has been changing for the better. I've been happy to have had a part in encouraging that change (a small part, of course) and I hope to have some small part in keep it going.

Because I'm a progressive.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
668. You're not being "flippant",
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:10 AM
Dec 2013

you're being dismissive and condescending. It's a tactic, and a trite one, at that.

So, you're a "half-full" kinda guy, yes? I'm not.

What, exactly, has changed for the better?

Homosexuals can now be legally married, in some states. The rest of the country still treats gay people as repressed pariahs.

Gay people can serve in the military. Well, actually, they always could, they just had to deny their identity. Now, they can serve openly (if they dare). Do you really believe they have the same opportunities for assignment and advancement?

The military that allows them to serve is used more frequently and more openly for conquest and repression, rather than for defense.

Two states have legalized cannabis. Two. 48 others still maintain the repressive and racist stance that feeds an ever-burgeoning prison system that systematically enslaves our people under the guise of "morality". There's no denying that the overwhelming majority of those unjustly incarcerated are non-whites. Thus, the 13th Amendment has been nullified by forcing the punishment-for-crime provision to become the norm rather than the exception.

The 4th Amendment has virtually ceased to exist, and the unconstitutional Patriot Act and illegal surveillance by our intelligence apparatus has been approved by the current "Democratic" administration. Our law enforcement establishment is so increasingly militarized and trigger happy that we feel more threatened than protected. Firearm proliferation has become so grossly engorged that I feel the need to carry a firearm myself, not to protect myself from drug-fiends and brigands, but to defend myself from the very real possibility that a zimmerman seeking a reputation might gun me down under the perjured excuse of standing his ground.

Abortion rights have been systematically rolled back and are under continuous attack. The private agencies that should be providing the required education and medical assistance need to devote more resources to litigating the atrocities than they can for assistance.

My father, a master-machinist and dedicated union-man had an actual retirement plan that allowed him to retire at 65 and buy a nice little 55 acre farm in the late 1970s. How many working-class people can look forward to that today? I'm 64 now and draw Social Security benefits, but can I count on that, or will the money I paid into the system be raided to finance some new military adventure?

In my 20s, I had the reasonable expectation that by now my glass would be full, not half-emptied by robber barons who denigrate me for not having pulled myself up by my "bootstraps"?

We now have ACA (if we're allowed to keep it) but in most other civilized countries my health would not be a prize in a private-insurance pyramid scheme.

You're a self-professed progressive, but you've been flim-flammed into accepting a marketed "advancement" by a cynical and bought confidence game of conservative-lite.

Yes, the Empire is failing, not in the silly apocalyptic vision of a fevered fanatic, but in the very real sense that we do not live in a democracy at all, but rather are the property of a corporate oligarchy that will use up our resources and, once we've been stripped, will move on to the next profitable population ready for harvest.

People are always responsible for the government they endure, all governments rule with the consent of the people.

I am a progressive, and I demand actual and real progress.





reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
677. Sorry for being flippent...
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 12:20 PM
Dec 2013

... or dismissive. On the other hand, your exaggerated, overwrought, histrionic rant isn't going to help our cause. While it may not be, it certainly comes across as the "silly apocalyptic vision of a fevered fanatic". It seems detached from reality, and I think that's basically how it will be received.

Since we live in a free country it is your right to rant and rave and make demands. Whether anyone will pay any attention is another matter. They just might be dismissive.

So, good luck with your demands. See you after the harvest!

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
687. Your assumptions
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 03:23 PM
Dec 2013

are entirely subjective. You dismiss my prose, yet you provide no alternate discussion of any of the points I posited.

Your second post moves from being dismissive to derision. I'm not offended by that, but I am disappointed. I posted thoughtfully, in the hopes of discussion. Actually, I'd like to be dissuaded from my stance, but you offer nothing.

As to "after the harvest", I don't expect to be alive for the climax to this drama. As I mentioned, I'm 65. The dismantling of our rights has been tectonic rather than glacial during my lifetime. I don't believe that the American Empire will collapse nearly as quickly as the Russian version did. That was accelerated by a one-party system. Our dissolution is mediated by a two-party system but those parties are becoming indistinguishable and, unless progressives "rant and rave and make demands", the differences between the parties will become a complete illusion.

Just for the record, in the event someone decides to MIRT my butt for being insufficiently "patriotic", I do not suggest abandoning our party. I merely hope for an awareness to bloom and for our rank and file to require our party to become, once again, responsive to the people instead of the corporations that finance the "reality show" our elections have become.

I do not advocate voting for any republican candidate. Ever. I do suggest we begin with-holding our votes and donations of money and labor from candidates that neglect and deny us.

In my case that means little, as you say. Georgia is so brightly encarmined that it appears downright bloody. Denying my paltry support to a puppet candidate will make as much noise as a Limbaugh fart.

If the party fronts an actual progressive candidate, he or she will have my absolute support but I doubt that's a possibility at this point and I refuse to hold my nose and punch a chad for a slightly-less-conservative candidate.

I've put considerable thought and effort into these two posts and I'm pretty much done here, unless you care to back up your derision with some real discussion.

Again, I'm not offended nor do I wish to offend. Have a great New Year and I'll see you around the block.

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
692. Have a great New Year!!! And you are right...
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:36 PM
Dec 2013

... I did not provide any alternate discussion.

You stated a long list of verifiable facts - such as the fact that some states have adopted gay marriage and many haven't - and some strong opinions about what those facts mean: The 13th Amendment as been nullified, the 14th Amendment has virtually ceased to exist, etc. etc. The facts you cited aren't in doubt, so there isn't much to discuss there. The conclusions are largely a matter of opinion and judgment - I could give you mine but I'm not sure how receptive you would be and you probably could guess as to what they are anyway.

So I didn't think you or I would benefit by an alternative discussion. I did pass judgment on your prose, but I wanted to do so in something of a productive manner - that is to point out that such prose is not (imho) going to be rhetorically effective with the public at large. I think a more restrained, less dramatic tone would better serve the cause.

Once again, Happy New Year

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
160. In the last 5 years
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:04 PM
Dec 2013

we have seen a massive increase in the number of countries in which we are engaged militarily, a massive increase in the number of drone strikes (and resulting civilian casualties), continued militarization of our local police forces, intensifying surveillance of American citizens who are not suspects in a crime, greatly intensified secrecy in government, attacks on Social Security and every other social program, and even a war of choice waged over the express objection of Congress.

And you say these things are better when a Democrat does them?

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
239. We want more left-leaning candidates.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:30 PM
Dec 2013

We don't want right-leaning candidates like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer discouraging left-leaning candidates from running for office.

Fact is if you attend meetings of your local Democratic Club, a lot of very liberal people are just resigned to the fact that the candidates who have the money, i.e., those who have sold out to Wall Street and the well funded think tanks, are the only candidates who can win.

Let's try nominating someone who will run on a platform of strengthening Social Security. Let's try nominating someone who will run on a platform of putting more money into public schools. Let's try nominating someone who will run on a platform of more taxes, especially estate taxes on the 1%. Let's just try it.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
250. You can bet we will end up running against a Tea Party candidate in the
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:53 PM
Dec 2013

next presidential election. So, it seems the Democratic Party's response to that sharp move to the far right is to move even further to the right itself, instead of going back to at least the damn center. We really don't even have much of a center any more, because the Republicans keep moving the goalposts and the Democratic Party keeps readjusting to play by those "on the fly" rules the Republicans make up as they go along. No damn wonder we are slowly becoming an uncivilized nation compared to the rest of the western world.

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
360. Add Publicly-funded elections to that list, and I think you have a winner..
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:42 AM
Dec 2013

at least in the long-term. I think we would lose a lot of those elections (at first), but when the GOP governs things (and intentionally fucks them up, as they are prone to do) and the Dem's don't do anything about it except keep cashing Wall Street's campaign checks, EVENTUALLY, people will start to figure it out--even the self-professed "tea-baggers", who will only stay stupid as long as there isn't anything resembling a Progressive Republican (ala Teddy Roosevelt) running for national office.

When that happens, it's Game Over for the MegaCorps, and they know it (so don't think for one moment they won't use physical violence to keep that from happening).

polichick

(37,152 posts)
327. Problem is, we've been holding our noses and voting for the lesser of evils...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:41 AM
Dec 2013

for too long. A growing number of people just can't stomach it anymore.

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
342. Anyone that wouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:10 AM
Dec 2013

Will deserve to get the most evil to rule them.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
356. You don't think we could get someone to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:46 AM
Dec 2013

who would really dare to represent the people?

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
358. Of course. I think there are many Dems that should be primaried.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:55 AM
Dec 2013

But if the good guy doesn't win, I would vote for the corpodem in the general before I would vote for a republizard.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
382. And look at the results.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:04 AM
Dec 2013

They shipped our jobs out of the country.

We are supposed to say, "Well, at least they weren't Republicans."

Response to Enthusiast (Reply #382)

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
523. "They shipped our jobs out of the country" Dude if only that was all.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:29 AM
Dec 2013

I am alone here. I find it totally unacceptable to favour increasing the military budget while at the same time trying to reduce SS. What real Democrat can vote for that? That alone is enough to make any person with morals and integrity leave the Dem party. It's obscene how much is spent on the killing machine while our fellow citizens loose their jobs so the greedy can hand out jobs that don't even pay a living wage. It's sick and sociopathic.

Here's IMO a real good thing to think about. Why did they choose the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre to attack? They are symbols and the centres of world corporations and the world police. The 3rd way centrist wing of the Dem party is married to them. It's only the left that cares about jobs, taking care of our elderly, fair taxes, reducing the military, single payer health care, infrastructure, good public schools, open transparent government, legalizing weed, stopping privatization of natural resources and prisons, protecting the environment, reducing global climate change, keeping the gov and church out of our womens bodies, etc. Oh and how about we actually let the free market forces do what they should have done ...let the banksters fail and prosecute them like the greedy criminals they are. Clearly there is now laws for them and laws for the little people. We need corruption free justice.

So IMO the 3rd way centrists only point is that if you don't vote or don't vote (D) then the repukes will be worse. Sounds like an admission to being not as bad but bad none the less. Well in that case then why even bother to discuss it? Just vote (D). Gawd ...is that wrong or what. Speaking of Single Payer ...this whole ACA thing is an unholy prostitution of our government with insurance corporations. If only we did not spend a totally out of proportion amount of money on the military we would have enough for Single Payer without whoring out to more corporations.



Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
533. I agree.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:38 AM
Dec 2013

I think the same. There is no excuse for the path the nation is on. It amounts to pure destruction.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
224. Yea ...let's keep the party moving right
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:01 PM
Dec 2013

No, you can nudge the party back to the left.

But not if the Repugs are in charge. Or haven't you noticed, when Dems are in charge, more left stuff gets done than when the Right is in charge....DUH But Dems have to be voted in 1st.

The choice is getting some things, but not everything.... or getting nothing at all.


Letting Repugs win is NOT helping. Something you might see if you'd get your self righteous heads out of the clouds.


Vote Dem!

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
240. Last I heard, the chained CPI is still in the budget. I won't vote for anyone who votes
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:32 PM
Dec 2013

to cut the Social Security benefits. Absolutely not.

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
345. Right. It seems pretty straight forward.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:16 AM
Dec 2013

So they both spy and both drone, etc. But one of them wants to starve people and have them lose their home, their medical care, and any hope they once had for a better life. The other one doesn't want to do that. Duh!!

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
413. And in America winning is everything.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:42 AM
Dec 2013

Let's keep ignoring global warming, fracking, illicit wars, corrupt Wall Street, eroding civil liberties, secret trade bills, etc because there's nothing like the thrill of beating the Republicans.

I personally can't wait to hear them explain how Social Security is an economic burden while tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs because I know the result will be $$$ in the pocket of Democratic party candidates.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
486. Where the votes are is kind of important.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:37 PM
Dec 2013

Others voters have a say, too. The left acts like the power means the rest of the people can be ignored.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
62. Ok, now I'm confused- by "right wing plants"- do you mean plants from the Tea Party? Or "centrists"?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:45 PM
Dec 2013

Are you accusing those who call them selves "left" of being Tea Party plants?

(As a corrolary- are we plants meaning to weaken the Democratic Party in order to allow the Republican "mainstream" centrists to win elections?... but, that would be contrary to our "Tea Party plant" interests, wouldn't it? Or, are you accusing us of meaning to weaken the Democratic Party vote turnout so that... the Tea Party votes will turn the entire election?...)

(Are you sure you have thought out the plans of the conspiracy you're accusing us of? "Right Wing plants" within the Democratic Party isn't a very sensible use of resources, considering the aims you are so kind to ascribe to us.)

Or- are you accusing us of being Republican Mainstream plants? (Hmm, what would be the point?... The Democratic Party Mainstream and Republican Mainstream are converging quite nicely. Or, is that really your point? That you would like to discredit any voice of the "Left" so that Democratic Party Mainstream and Republican Party Mainstream can converge and govern without the interference either of the religious "nut jobs" or the interference of the union "thugs"?)

Who, semi-exactly at least, is the "they" of your reference "to 'their' way of thinking"?

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
155. Yeah ... I don't think it's intended to follow logically.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:55 PM
Dec 2013

Right-wing plants are ... pushing the party left?

Err. No. In fact, THAT sounds like something a right-wing plant would say.

The gigantic implicit fallacy is that anything to the left of what we've currently got is presumptively politically impossible.

Which is really weird, because we're waaaaaaaaaay right at the moment, and it's pretty clear the backlash is swinging back to the left.

The other whopper being suggested is that what currently qualifies a "left" is presumptively radical and extreme, I guess because in Republican vocabulary things like a living wage or basic banking regulation are "Marxism!"

It's such an incredible contortion of reality that I can only assume it's intended as desperate rhetoric, not as argument.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
392. Another ridiculous assertion
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:19 AM
Dec 2013

The TParty must be supporting the 3rd way candidates to get rid of the Progressives, whom they really fear.

Why would they fear the 3rd way when it is more to their liking.

Where can we find a list of 3rd way Supporters? A complete list, with the names of corporations, political groups and regular people?

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
93. That's exactly what I was thinking as I read the OP...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:05 PM
Dec 2013

Plants to discourage the weak willed among us to support democrats in the extremely important up-coming mid-terms.

There's a difference between the party moving to the right and finding the positions that a majority of democrats support and catering to those positions.

Interestingly, FDR replaced his Vice President with Truman because he was afraid he was going to die (FDR himself) and the Vice President that he had was too pro-labor.

The democrats have to win and if they swing too hard to the left too quickly - they will lose. It's just the reality of politics in America.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
162. I'd say the "weak willed" are those willing to accept any degradation of Liberal values
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:06 PM
Dec 2013

as long as their horse wins the race.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
225. Give me some specific examples of this 'degradation of liberal values'...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:01 PM
Dec 2013

If you're going to talk me out of voting for democrats, I want to know what it is that they're doing that's so awful.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
243. Chained CPI; supporting charter schools; giving breaks to Wall Street instead of
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:37 PM
Dec 2013

criminal charges; negotiating secret trade agreements and then requesting fast-track; starting small wars without the approval of the Senate; NSA surveillance. The list is too long to type in one post. Those are the things they are doing that I think are awful.

And, there has been a lot of talk of raising the minimum wage, but very little action. When it comes to liberal issues, that's the usual MO. Talk a lot, tantalize liberals, and then woops! no public option. That's how the "centrist" read right-wing Democrats work.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
262. There are a lot of people supporting charter schools...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:22 PM
Dec 2013

That's my point. When you start laying the list out there there are things that not everyone will agree with.

As far as the minimum wage - that's not something that can be accomplished by executive order. The house is gonna have to be in on that. I think there are a lot of people critical of democrats when their hands are tied.

Yeah, they need to do something with the Wall Street criminals, but we've a had a House of Representatives hell bent on repealing Obamacare. I believe if we gave the democrats an opportunity to run congress again, they'd pursue it more aggressively.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
285. Democrats could have increased the minimum wage when they had both houses of
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:42 PM
Dec 2013

Congress. For that matter, they could have impeached GWB for lying us into Iraq.

Too many of the Democrats in Congress lack real democratic values. They do not lack the ability to make up lame excuses for their lack of real democratic values.

Obama has been asking for a pre-school program. Has anyone in the Senate passed a bill in support of that? I don't think so. We have a Democratic majority in the Senate. Let's see whether it brings up and passes a hike in the minimum wage. They don't have much time to get voters behind them before the 2014 mid-terms. They are going to have to do something spectacular that voters want. I wish them luck. Sticking to the "we have to compromise" and vote for conservative measures will not get more Democrats elected. Of that I am certain.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
480. It might shock you to learn that not all democrats are laboring away...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:22 PM
Dec 2013

At minimum wage jobs and believe the only solution to improving their life would be to raise the minimum wage.

Even employers struggle to make ends meet and the prospect of having to increase their labor expenditures because of a mandatory increase in the minimum wage doesn't appeal to everyone.

Sure, the democrats could have increased minimum wage, but I don't believe that's the best way to increase wages for low income workers. More infrastructure spending would have created more higher paying jobs making employers increase what they pay in order to be competitive.

Raising the minimum wage during an economic downturn might increase unemployment.

I don't think it would have been a good move based on that possibility - it's not something I would have supported when the democrats controlled congress. There are other things that I think are more important, as I said we all have different priorities.

And as much as I hated George W Bush, the political backlash would have been bad just as it was for the republicans when they impeached Clinton. Again, we are not all in agreement on what they should make their priorities, that doesn't make me less of a democrat than you.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
532. I would agree with you except for the fact that the wealth of the corporate managers, especially
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:11 AM
Dec 2013

CEOs has increased so drastically while the minimum wage has remained the same and lost purchasing value.

Corporations can afford to pay employees more and should pay the top echelons of management a lot less.

That "raising the minimum wage during an economic downturn might increase unemployment" is a popular meme, but it makes not sense.

The money that goes to the salaries of the CEOs gets invested overseas and in luxuries made outside the US or in investment real estate. It does not go into infrastructure or back into our economy. When you raise the minimum wage, the lowest paid workers have more money to spend and they spend it in OUR ECONOMY. That is what will improve our economy and cause unemployment to decline.

CEOs "invest" a lot of their money in foreign enterprises. That does not help employment or lift the living standards in the US.

Infrastructure improvements have to be paid for -- out of taxes. If you increase national investment in infrastructure (a good idea at this time because our infrastructure is horrible), you have to raise taxes. That's the only way the Republicans will agree with it.

But the first priority is to get wages raised, especially the minimum wage. Americans working for minimum wage right now are in poverty. Anyone who has ever lived in poverty knows that needs to change. No American who works should have to live in poverty, unable to pay for health insurance, healthy food, transportation, even rent, much less a family. It's shameful. Our entire nation should be ashamed of the fact that our minimum wage is so low.

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
346. And what do you think a teabagger president will do?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:20 AM
Dec 2013

You people seem so shortsighted and don't seem to remember the last 20 years.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
352. Look. The right-wing of the Democratic Party has lost a lot of working people
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:42 AM
Dec 2013

to the Republican Party. Many of them feel their frustration and anger expressed better by the Teabaggers than by the Democratic Party.

Response to AAO (Reply #357)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
660. And who will be responsible if that happens? Surely you are not blaming voters when the blame lies
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 11:27 PM
Dec 2013

squarely with the Party Leadership. If they provide a true Democrat for voters to vote FOR, not a corporate war supporting Third Wayer, then you won't have to worry about a 'teabagger president' will you?

It's up to the party and I know that if we do get a teabagger president who to blame, and I will, and so will millions of other Democrats and the anger towards those responsible will be intense. Because this is about this country, and if they once more demonstrate that Wall St. is more important to them than their country, it is likely to create a huge in the political arena, perhaps the formation a new Democratic Party where 'big tent' doesn't mean Republicans.

They have some time to decide. When they do we will know for sure where they stand.

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
673. Well, if everyone refuses to vote for the lesser evil
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 10:35 AM
Dec 2013

I will know exactly who to blame. If you are not going to vote for the democrat over the republican, then you probably shouldn't be on this site (you - the royal you - not meaning you personnally).

It blows my mind that people would want a teabagger president just to be able to stand on principle. Sometimes you have to sacrifice principle for the sake of a greater good.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
539. I'm a progressive...
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:45 AM
Dec 2013

And while I support programs that take care of the less fortunate, I don't believe that we should necessarily revert to the liberal programs of the past. Some programs didn't work that well (CETA for example).

The conservatives took over under Reagan and have been in control of the White House and congress off and on since. If we really want to control the government (as we did almost exclusively between 1932 and 1981) we need to modify the programs to adjust with the times.

For example: kids don't go to school in the summer. It's based on an obsolete model where children were needed to help with the harvest. Hanging on to the existing model (which really only works for the employees of the education system) doesn't make sense.

We need to have programs so that elderly people are taken care of, and taken off the roads. Just because someone believes that the solution to their problems is to give them more money - that doesn't necessarily mean that's the best solution. If people need food, we should give them food, if people need shelter etc.

When social security was created there was a very high worker to retiree ratio. Soon (baby boomers are retiring) we will have a much higher retiree to worker ratio and the system is going to need to be modified. I recognize (as someone in my 50's) that we are going to piss off a lot of young people if they're going to be expected to carry us financially. We are going to have to come up with new programs and new solutions.

If we continue to believe that we are going to solve new problems with old solutions - that's the conservative approach. I believe one of the reasons we lost control of the government is because we weren't adjusting programs with the times. That's how Reagan was able to get his foot in the door, his anti-government message resonated with people.

FDR came up with new programs to address the issues of the time. That's what we need to do now, instead of coming up with old solutions to solve current problems.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
324. It's not the reality of politics in America. No matter what you say.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:37 AM
Dec 2013

It is a meme created by right wing think tanks. "Don't move to the left it would cause you to lose." What a complete load of horseshit!

Apparently you have not been reading polls on support for social security.

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)
537. FDR didn't replace Henry Wallace. The Democratic party leaders did at the Convention.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:42 AM
Dec 2013

How the nomination went to Harry S. Truman, who did not actively seek it, is, in the words of his biographer Robert H. Ferrell, "one of the great political stories of our century".[1] The fundamental issue was that Roosevelt's health was seriously declining, and everyone who saw Roosevelt, including the leaders of the Democratic Party, realized it. If he died during his next term, the Vice President would become President, making the vice presidential nomination very important. Truman's predecessor as Vice President, the incumbent Henry A. Wallace, was unpopular with some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who disliked his liberal politics and considered him unreliable and eccentric in general. Wallace was, however, the popular candidate, and favored by the Convention delegates. As the Convention began, Wallace had more than half the votes necessary to secure his re-nomination.[2] By contrast, the Gallup poll said that 2% of those surveyed wanted then-Senator Truman to become the Vice President.[3] To overcome this initial deficit, the leaders of the Democratic Party worked to influence the Convention delegates, such that Truman received the nomination.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_vice_presidential_nomination_of_1944

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
538. Obviously, I phrased that poorly...
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:07 AM
Dec 2013

The point is that the democrats (even then) realize that if you cater too much to a specific population - you can expect to lose elections.

A candidate for president has to appeal to 50% (or at least close to that) of the entire population. Having a candidate that appeals very much to labor and very little to the professionals in the party is not a winning strategy. It's a matter of balance, and nobody gets everything they want.

It isn't purely the banksters against the working poor, as many would have us believe, there are democrats from all walks of life and a lot of people would have trouble supporting a candidate that is only concerned about labor issues.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
107. centrists have been holding the "my way or the highway crap" gun..
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:16 PM
Dec 2013

to the heads of Democrats, leftists, or whatever the "far-left" is calling themselves these days, as you so fucking succinctly phrased it, for at least 20 years now. the funny thing is, the right-wing capitulators, or whatever the reality-based center is calling themselves these days, continue to think that their empty threats hold any sway. there's a populist uprising in the works, and you can either lead, follow, or get the fuck out. but this "we're not as bad as the republicans" platform is fucking dead.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
156. A point by point response:
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:58 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I sometimes wonder how much of the BS we hear from the so called "left" wing of the party has been scripted by right wing plants who only have one goal in mind, convincing the more "gullible" democrats that it's a wast of time to vote, so just sit home and bitch all daylong while the republicans take back the power, and we end up in an even worse scenario down the road than the one Bush left us in!


How many straw men can you erect in one post? Posters arguing against Social Security cuts, against rampant militarism, against Wall Street cronyism are right wing plants? I'd say the opposite: posters insisting these things are nothing to worry about more closely fit that description.

And, by the way, nobody is advocating that it is a "waste of time" to vote. It's only a waste of a vote if it's cast for a Democrat who will work against Liberal and Progressive goals.

The my way or the highway crap isn't going to work for either the teabaggers, nor whatever the far left wants to call themselves. The majority of americans want the two parties to work together, not hold the country hostage until the radicals get everything they want with no compromise at all!


Please. Enough with the "far left" nonsense. It only makes you appear out-of-touch and hopelessly unaware of American politics. Nobody is calling for nationalization of industries, confiscation of wealth or armed revolution. The "Far Left" exists in America only as a pejorative term to be applied to recalcitrant Liberals who fail to wisely nod their heads and agree that tax cuts for the wealthy should be paid for by cuts to Social Security, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

The fact that you consider defending civil rights, opposing military adventurism and protecting Social Security the goals of "radicals" reveals just how far Right you have drifted.

Day after day the same crowd is complaining about how our president has done "nothing" but cater to the rich. They seem t forget all that has been accomplished since he took office, and they can only see the negative in everything he does. They continue to attack anyone who actually supports the president and think that the only way things will change is if everyone comes around to "their" way of thinking.


There are some Americans who stand by their principles despite party politics. This is widely known as "having integrity", and is generally considered a positive character trait. Contrary to your assertion, principled Liberals are not attacking supporters of the President - they are attacking policies that undermine Liberal values.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
216. tripple nailed
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:41 PM
Dec 2013

If one were to believe what the Sunday morning "sensible center" pundits have to say then the old moderate Republicans - not even the liberal Republicans - would have been by that standard not just far left - but raving communist.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
282. As long as progressives, liberals, socialists, reformists, and Democrats
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:34 PM
Dec 2013

in Congress caucus with the Democratic party it's never a "waste of a vote" to send a Democrat to Washington. The progressive and left agenda is effectively dead when the GOP controls congress. Criticize the corporate, conservative Democrats all you want to -- they absolutely deserve it -- but the only way to support a progressive or left-wing agenda is to make sure they have the seats in congress to control the gavel, and that means sometimes supporting people you might not agree with.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
295. Bullshit. Voting for corporate-friendly Democrats does NOT enable Progressive policies.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:01 AM
Dec 2013

Corporate-friendly Democrats prevent Progressive policies from even being considered. Case in point: polls showed 70+% of Americans were in favor of single-payer health care. This idea was abandoned without even being brought to the table because of all those corporate-friendly Democrats that you insist we must put into Congress.

Meanwhile, when the Republicans trot out some obnoxious proposal it's the corporate-friendly Democrats that make the resulting obnoxious policy "a bipartisan effort."

There is one path to Progressive policies: reward Progressive politicians, punish regressive ones.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
313. Bullshit. There's no way in hell that the progressive agenda is served in any way
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:21 AM
Dec 2013

if the GOP controls the chamber. None. Zip. Game over. The minority party is almost entirely powerless to influence the agenda of the majority in the House or the Senate. The majority controls almost every aspect of the chamber's business. They set the chairpersons and hold the majority on every committee where legislative proposals are considered and voted on before going forward. They have complete control over the chamber's schedule. They have the complete power to decide which legislative proposals to stall and which proposals to move forward. The progressive agenda is irrelevant under GOP leadership. I'm not and will never be in the camp that thinks that letting the GOP screw things up so catastrophically that the American people will flock to the polls to elect progressives in the next election is a good idea. It's a horrible idea.

Progressive ideas need to win in the public sphere. They need to win in places where votes are counted.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
364. I'm considering the long game.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:40 AM
Dec 2013

In the short term, the Progressive Agenda has already been stopped cold. Perhaps long-term success will entail accepting some short-term setbacks.

You say the Progressive Agenda is irrelevant under GOP leadership? How is that different from RIGHT NOW, as the White House is pushing through the TPP? While the White House is criminalizing adversarial journalism, conducting overt military operations in ever-increasing numbers of countries, and paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with food stamps and unemployment benefits?

mdbl

(4,972 posts)
416. We need effective ways to get attention
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:14 AM
Dec 2013

The conversation in this thread is helpful to me. I agree with both sides of this issue. As I read all of your comments, I have been trying to figure out what else can be done to move a progressive agenda forward. Of course we need better candidates. If everyone here is involved in grass-roots agenda building in your local community and state elections, that is the most valuable thing we can do to see better candidates on the ballot. We need to continually write our reps in the state and in Washington - and get others to also. We can't afford the squawk box manipulators the right wing has at their disposal. What we need are ideas and action to counter these morons. DU is one way, Occupy was another, but they aren't enough. I can't fault those that want to vote the lesser of two evils. If you let the worst of them control the country, you end up with more long term regression. The policies we have now are a great example of that. The SCOTUS is another example of that. We need to push back against TPP and other destructive policies in other ways that get the attention of the normal minds that exist in America, if there are any left that aren't too brainwashed. It's going to be a lot of work for no monetary gain. That's the only thing the repuglicans have to their advantage - they can pay their manipulators handsomely - allowing them 24 hours a day to come up with ways to screw the people and making them like it. I, however, have to work 10-12 hours a day and find the most effective way to combat this lunacy. Any ideas are welcome, as I need the most bang for the few minutes and bucks I can afford.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
475. Don't short-sell the Democrats - they also have manipulators that they pay to make bad policy
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:59 PM
Dec 2013

palatable to the rank-and-file.

The bottom line is this: the only power that we, as Progressives, hold in this country is our vote. We don't have the means to buy the media to push our message, and the media ignores or subverts our message when we hit the streets to demonstrate. Traditional organizing institutions on the Left, such as trade unions, have been increasingly marginalized over the past 30 years. In addition the leadership in the Democratic Party views Progressives as a problem to solve, not a resource from which to draw, so they just don't listen - THEY tell US what to do, not the other way around.

Aside from throwing money at politicians, the only way to get their attention is to threaten their jobs. Vote for war in Iraq? No votes from Progressives. Vote to weaken Social Security? No votes from Progressives. Vote against civil liberties? No votes from Progressives. It's the only way to convince them NOT to continue drifting to the Right. Pleading with them to support Progressive policies, then rewarding them with our votes anyway when they do the exact opposite, is a losing proposition. Why should they support us when they know they can screw us over and still get our votes?

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
518. It's smart to consider the long game.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:45 PM
Dec 2013

The progressive movement has existed for more than a century. It's brought lasting change for the good; for a more just and humane society. I say "lasting change" rather than "permanent change" because what's been won can also be lost. The right is always there and always ready to take back what progressives have won. Right-wing populism fanned by the likes of Pat Buchannon or Tom Tancredo could easily sweep away hard won achievements of the progressive century.

FDR was our greatest progressive president and yet he stubbornly resisted expanding the civil rights of African Americans and he egregiously violated the rights of Japanese Americans in the name of national security. Lyndon Johnson probably did more to reduce poverty than any president before or since, and yet he fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to expand our deadly and brutal war in southeast Asia.

President Obama has presided over many controversial policies and initiatives. His stance on matters of national security and counter-terrorism raises serious moral and ethical questions that deserve to be debated with the utmost urgency. Many other policy areas raise similar serious questions and warrant the urgent attention of all concerned Americans.

President Obama has also presided over the greatest assault from the right against American's voting rights since the Jim Crow era. These attacks, fueled by the right and spearheaded by the anti-democratic ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), have exploded across the country in state after state. The administration and the Department of Justice have vigorously defended voting rights and have aggressively challenged these infringements. They have been successful in many of these cases. The Obama administration has stood firm in opposition to these many anti-democratic attempts by the right to restrict and dilute the ability of all Americans to exercise their right to vote. The issue went to the Supreme Court where unfortunately, the right wing Roberts court nullified important sections of the voting rights act. The administration and the Department of Justice continue to use every tool at their disposal to challenge this extremely troubling assault on the basic idea of government by the people.

The prominence of Elizabeth Warren is in part a direct result of the president's nominating her to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The fierceness with which the right opposes this president is due in no small part to the myriad unsung battles taking place in the federal bureaucracy as the administration wades through the long task of undoing the work that Bush administration spent eight long years of furious and deliberate effort accomplishing.

I won't go into any more long specifics. But, though you may disagree, I believe that history will remember the Obama presidency as the period when this country's unprecedented 30-year swing to the right finally began to reverse.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
248. Actually, it is the center and right wing of the Democratic Party that has
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:45 PM
Dec 2013

the "my way or the highway" mentality. All the left wants is a tiny tad bit more than just the crumbs tossed our way by accident. That is not too much to ask for.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
315. So you like to disparage the left do you? To what aim? Are you trying to split the party?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:23 AM
Dec 2013

If you arent "the left" then who the fuck are you? A conservative? A Reagan Democrat? And tell us if you will what issues the left supports that you dont. If you are a conservative, go back to the repukes, we dont want conservatives in the Democratic Party. Or maybe your just here to disrupt? Tell us what your agenda is.

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
380. You are EXACTLY right. The TeaLEFT is almost as bad as the TeaRIGHT. Both are awash in radical
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:32 AM
Dec 2013

purity with the my way or the highway attitude. Obama has been VERY progressive on many fronts, and that means PROGRESS. The TeaLEFTISTS need to wake up once and for all and get into REALITY.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
454. you can't even get dems elected in your own state..
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:44 PM
Dec 2013

why in hell would anyone listen to your strategy, particularly when you disparage actual liberals?

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
540. You are completely WRONG about my state, and I am not disparaging actual liberals. Read on:
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:51 AM
Dec 2013

Three out of four of our Congressional delegates are Democrats (one an indy but caucuses with the Dems and is much more a Dem than R), and our state legislature is controlled by the Democrats which we re-took in a big way last year after just two years of Republican control. Where in heck do you get your information?

Next, I am talking about the TeaLeft purist fringe, not the vast majority of liberals and Democrats. Political purity is miles outside the realms of [political reality and is entirely nonsensical.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
509. Name the "many fronts" on which Obama has been "very progressive."
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:53 PM
Dec 2013

I can think of one: repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
541. You only think of one because you see the world through a non-realist purist lens. Read on:
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:03 AM
Dec 2013

PROGRESS means exactly THAT. It doesn't mean purity. Here is PROGRESS which is the very root of what you call yourself. Please look up its definition if you have to. Dictionaries abound.

* The stimulus which saved millions of jobs and prevented the Great Recession was PROGRESS, as was the second stimulus targeted to public education.

* Raising taxes on the richest Americans was PROGRESS.

* Repealing Bush era restrictions on women's choice matters was PROGRESS.

* Signing the Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay act was PROGRESS.

* Supporting same sex marriage equality is PROGRESS.

* Hastening ending the Iraq War was PROGRESS.

* Saving the auto industry was PROGRESS.

* Supporting a minimum wage increase, common sense gun control, the Dream Act, and signing a budget agreement that did not allow cuts in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is PROGRESS.

* Fighting right now for extended unemployment benefits is PROGRESS.

* Our largest investments in alternative energy in US history is PROGRESS.

* Refusing to negotiate on the debt ceiling is PROGRESS.

* And yes, absolutely, the ACA is HUGE PROGRESS with many millions of people now getting cheaper and BETTER healthcare with many added benefits such as cheaper student loans as a rider, no more losing healthcare due to pre-existing conditions, and on and on and on.

**** The president is ONE branch of government, NOT all three. Do we wish Obama could be PERFECT? Sure. But in the REAL world, when you have divided government, you have to compromise to some extent. That is plain reality and not the pie in the sky world of political purists.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
565. Little progressive steps forward,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:11 AM
Dec 2013

huge regressive steps backward:

* Fast-track authority for Trans Pacific Partnership
* Government secrecy elevated to unparalleled levels
* Massive military build-up in Africa
* Due-process-free drone executions of American citizens
* Offering up Social Security on the bargaining table
* Criminalization of adversarial journalism
* Military interventions in defiance of Congress

and even more, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4237892

Yes, Obama has achieved a few marginal successes, but those are eclipsed by the fundamental assaults on core Democratic principles.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
719. Obama's "successes" remind me of Jack & The Beanstalk.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 02:48 PM
Jan 2014

Yes...He DID get some beans,
but he gave away the Whole Fucking Cow.

But, HEY. The beans might be MAGIC.

G_j

(40,366 posts)
549. that is sooooo delusional
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:31 PM
Dec 2013

clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response to Andy823 (Reply #23)

Number23

(24,544 posts)
136. +a stone cold billion Julie. Astonishing to see people who claim to be so smart
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:41 PM
Dec 2013

having so much in common with people who are utter fools.

And I have to love this sudden surge in "We are the LEft! We are RightEOUs!" posts going out of their way to start a war between the "left" and the Dem party. But I guess if we all noted how contrived this all seems, that would take away all of the fun, huh??

Number23

(24,544 posts)
283. I'm not the one starting an OP trying to pretend that me and my nine other friends hold
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:37 PM
Dec 2013

the keys to the kingdom. We don't know who the Dem frontrunners are for 2016, but what are the chances that their support from Dems will be ASTRONOMICALLY higher than whoever it is you and this crew are rooting for???

The fact that you keep trying to throw taunts of "projection" on someone who is actually laughing at the really obvious projection in this OP is precious and adorable.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
284. Again more projection about someone we are "rooting" for. Keep trying.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:40 PM
Dec 2013

So far you are the one "rooting" from your last link to Obama stats.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
289. When you find a point, why don't you bring it along with you into this thread? Up until now
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:49 PM
Dec 2013

you keep shouting a useless word that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is going on in this thread.

Z person starts a thread threatening the Dem party if he and his nine friends aren't listened to. I post a link that shows that this person is in the EXTREME minority in this opinion, that overwhelming numbers of Democrats disagree with his thesis, and L person pipes in with absolutely nothing but repeated use of the word "projection" as if that's supposed to absolve the facts I posted in contradiction to this OP as well as himself and his 60 posts kicking and recing this really ridiculous thread and accosting everyone who dares to disagree with it.

If by "projection" you mean deflating the overinflated foolishness in this OP, then yes, I guess that's exactly what is was.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
294. First you project that "claim to be so smart" was said then project an Obama poll has anything to do
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:01 AM
Dec 2013

with this and then you project that there are 9 people who think they are holding the keys. Wow ...I haven't seen this much IMO bull shit in a while. The op must have really hit a nerve.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
299. Between the typos and lack of point, I don't get what you're saying at all
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:09 AM
Dec 2013

Seems that this OP struck a nerve with YOU judging by your dozens of posts within it trying desperately to start shit with anyone that disagrees with it. You've posted more times in this thread than the damn OP has! If you and your nine friends were truly convinced that you do hold the keys to the kingdom, there would be absolutely no need for such desperation and hostility. Your frequent dashes up and down this thread harassing half the posters in it tell the tale more honestly and better than anything you could ever type.

And if my comment about people who claim to be so smart (the "left&quot having so much in common with utter fools (the Tea Party) gets your blood pressure this high that you have to squat in this thread and engage damn never everyone that disagrees with it, then take a piece of desperately needed advice. If the comparisons piss you off, then STOP ACTING LIKE THE TEA PARTY. So simple.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
316. What was that about "typos and lack of point"? Heh ...wow ...hey you aren't pissed off are ya bro?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:23 AM
Dec 2013
Yes, throwing "ProjecTION!1" out with so obviously no idea what that means is a better strategy

Number23

(24,544 posts)
319. You don't need my help to look bad, do you??
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:30 AM
Dec 2013

Threads like this one validate that if I'm on the opposite side of someone like you, I must be doing something A OK. Holy Hell...

you keep talking and posting, okay? Forget about that utter lack of point, numerous typos and harassing behavior! Forget your 40 posts in this thread that say fuck all!! You are a lion for your cause and the revolution will be glorious!! Yeah.

Looking forward to post 45 from you! that will be the one where you make that point you've just been teasing us all with! I can feel it coming!! I can just feel it

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
323. LMAO "posts in this thread that say fuck all" Ok whatever.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:36 AM
Dec 2013

On the other hand ...I see you post in the BOG so now it all makes sense. I don't know how I missed putting you on ignore. Nothing to be gained or learned from any of you in there. There will be no 3rd term ...get over it.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
328. You're putting me on ignore???! Oh joy!! And lucky for you, there's no spelling involved!
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:42 AM
Dec 2013

Just click the red X and that's it! That's really the best outcome that could have come out of this truly moronic conversation.

And don't let the fact that I've posted once in the BOG in the last three months and probably only a few times before that this year color your decision! I'm bad!! BAD!! Ignore will cure ya, buddy! It cures all!!!

Number23

(24,544 posts)
347. Your understanding of "begging" is as good as your understanding of "projection"
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:20 AM
Dec 2013

Hint: Usually the word "please" is involved in begging.

You are at this point being deliberately and pointlessly obnoxious. This is 3rd grade behavior here, and I've come to expect no less from you and your crew. You've had no point or legitimate argument during this entire exchange but it appears that you are not trying to SCORE points by chasing me around, even responding to me when I have responded to others. As I already stated, Lord knows you need NO help from me to make yourself look bad and the fact that you have taken this route just reiterates that if I'm on the other side from someone like you, I must be doing something right.

But do keep up the pitiful rolling on the floor guy as you all keep counting the recs this OP gets as if that somehow confers influence or power. If I could name one thing that sums up how demented the thinking is around here, the idea that recs=power would be it.

This stupid and pointless exchange is now done. Really hope you live up to your promise and put me on ignore. DAMN that would be fucking wonderful. 'Twould be like Christmas all year long...

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
566. Wow, how does 9 friends almost equal 300 recs?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:13 AM
Dec 2013

I love to watch the Usual Suspects squirm, it brings me great joy.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
646. Just what I was going to ask...except that it was 309 recs last time I checked.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:33 PM
Dec 2013

Including mine, of course. I'm another of those far lefty purists the Third Way loves to hate.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
648. A very good point - it would be funny if it hadn't worked for so long.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:39 PM
Dec 2013

Re I love it when 10% of the Party call the other 90% "purists".

Well, at least they can't keep calling us "fringe left" if we're 90% of the Party...if not 99%.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
318. So why would a Democrat want to disparage the left? What issues do you disagree with?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:28 AM
Dec 2013

And if you arent the left, are you the right? Did you come here to disrupt and cause trouble? You and the conservatives have for 30 years been killing the middle class. Our only hope is to kick the damn conservatives out of our Party back to Republicanville.

Maybe you are one that calls themselves a centrist. I guess that means you are ok with gay rights but love the Wall Street domination of our economy.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
325. Every single time you have tried to come after me, the conversation ends with you running
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:39 AM
Dec 2013

off like a two year old who dropped his ice cream, complete with cries of "bullying" tossed over your shoulder as you scurry away.

Posts like this are why I have absolutely NO interest in your opinions, your thoughts or your beliefs. Posts like this are why I NEVER respond to your posts. And why you keep chasing me around with these types of idiotic responses just so you can then pretend to be the victim when you are the instigator EVERY SINGLE TIME is one of the true mysteries of this web site.

If you cannot find the self-control to not respond to me, put me on ignore. You have proven to have no interest in or capacity for intelligent conversation and I wish you'd stop trying to waste my time.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
353. Dont flatter yourself. You arent that good at bullying. You just seem to like to
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:44 AM
Dec 2013

berate the Democratic Left. And why? Because conservatives hate what the left stands for. Go ahead and tell us which specific issues you dont agree with? Single payer? Expansion of SS and Medicare? Repeal of the Patriot Act? How about freedom from broad brush domestic spying? Maybe you dont like the left picking on the banksters and Wall Street.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
376. I'm not that good at bullying?? Was I trying to be?? Particularly as YOU are the one that has
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:25 AM
Dec 2013

initiated every single one of our unpleasant, uninteresting and incredibly moronic exchanges? "You aren't that good at bullying." Thanks for the compliment!

That is truly one of the most head scratching and unintentionally hilarious things I've ever seen you write. And coming from you, that is truly saying something. And I'll state once again for the record, your 1st grade attempts at goading don't do much good on someone who has absolutely no interest in what you have to say about anything.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
386. your act is stale.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:43 AM
Dec 2013

If you have "no interest" in other people's opinions stop reading them and replying to yell at them for having said opinions you insist you have no interest in. There is a way for someone to actually express disinterest in talking to someone: not doing so.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
478. What's even more stale is your "pile on 'cause I've got nothing ever" act
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:17 PM
Dec 2013

I didn't even know you still posted here. Sorry to see I was wrong.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
422. My "1st grade attempts?" Again that's a very weak attempt. Your post is pure projection.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:37 AM
Dec 2013

"And I'll state once again for the record, your 1st grade attempts at goading don't do much good on someone who has absolutely no interest in what you have to say about anything. "

Obviously your agenda here is something other than having meaningful discussions. You will be my second ignore.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
481. Oh Praise the Lord! Can you make your little friend live up to his promise to put
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:22 PM
Dec 2013

me on ignore too?? Forever being rid of two ankle biters is much better than just being rid of one.

One last thing I'll say to you and this is truly sincere... I really hope that you mean what you say about putting me on ignore. I have seen enough of your posts to know that you would be in my bottom three of all of the people people here I'd ever wish to converse with. And that's saying alot.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
487. You still don't seem to understand ignore.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:38 PM
Dec 2013

You keep telling people you don't like to put you on ignore. That isn't how it works.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
490. It's how I work it. And thanks for reminding me
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:44 PM
Dec 2013
You keep telling people you don't like to put you on ignore.

Since you're back, Red X it, babydoll! You definitely fall into that group that you mentioned. And to be honest, there are probably about 4-5 people I've asked to put me on ignore. A tiny group of know nothings as hateful as they are clueless. I've got no time for this bunch.

Since the interest is so completely one-sided and they are drawn to me like disease-ridden insects to sweet, sweet honey (see your REPEATED comments to me in this thread as well as that other person who said he was going to put me on ignore but instead keeps responding to me even though I've already dismissed him) there's no need for me not to see their idiocy. I'm always down for a good laugh.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
497. And that post right there
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:11 PM
Dec 2013

is why you should consider putting people on ignore. Because it isn't the rest of us who are so enraged by seeing other posters that we are reduced to hateful commentary calling them (and me) 'disease-ridden insects'. That's you. It's your problem, not ours.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
500. No, the problem is entirely YOURS as you have shown REPEATEDLY in this thread
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:49 PM
Dec 2013

And keep showing with every single post. The last few times I saw your name, I'd read your posts, laugh or weep for humanity and move on. The vast majority of the time, I don't even read your posts but regardless of whether I do or not I don't respond because yours is not an opinion I value here.

But here we are, in a 450+ post thread, and you have you zoomed in on me and responded REPEATEDLY though I have asked you several times now to leave me alone, in this thread as well as many, many others. And your comments are not even about anything. Just needless net nannying as if anyone asked you to involve yourself here or as if my having the right to ask people to leave me alone is just so egregious that you just have to pipe in. Thank you for so gloriously exhibiting exactly WHO has the problem and how it can be resolved.

Again I say to you -- RED X.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
520. Edit
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:17 AM
Dec 2013

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:49 AM - Edit history (2)

Post appears to have been read as there is a response to it. Insults have been read, point has been made. Moving on!

And to that person, I now understand why you had to post 59 replies to this OP and why so many of them went unreplied. Squatting appears to be the only way to get anyone to read what you have to say. It's all rather sad. So why am I laughing?

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
524. I promised to put you on ignore? You are seeing shit that aint there now too?
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:34 AM
Dec 2013

BTW my wife has been reading your bullshit and laughing at you. You go ahead an enjoy your corporate 3rd way party and you deserve everything it will bring you.

Oh and thanks for bumping the op.

Bobbie Jo

(14,341 posts)
410. !!
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:37 AM
Dec 2013


The mob is in rare form, no?

This thread reads like a 6th grade cafeteria food fight.

ETA: what a fucking whinefest.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
477. "What a fucking whinefest" I give it a 3 on a Crying Infant scale of 1-10
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:16 PM
Dec 2013

It's not original at all. This same "theme" of the "left" vs the Democrats churns up every few days around here now. Probably because of the 2-3 posters in this thread that are running round breathlessly counting the recs as if that means any damn thing. 300 recs on a little known web site vs. 77% approval rating from your base. Hmmmm... for those of us that don't dwell in LaLa Land, that's about as close to No Contest as you can possibly get.

My favorite bit was the "there would be no third term for Obama" from someone who thought that comment was obviously meaningful in some way. I loved that. Because we are still waiting for these guys to put forth someone for their FIRST term. Ever. Probably why they cling to FDR so passionately even though the criticisms he endured during his day was from a "left" every bit as uneducated and shrill as the one the current president also faces.

Edit: Whoops. I see this particular orgy of misery didn't even hit the 300 rec mark. Oh well, there's always Tuesday's version.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
331. Yea ...what is it with that? Does the left make them feel uncomfortable or something ...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:45 AM
Dec 2013

that they have to get defensive and attack? What are they defending? They project blame on the left ...that might not vote ...as the reason Dems will loose ...and yet they keep attacking the left like they don't need their votes. Are some corporatist nerves are being hit? Me thinks so.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
355. I am guessing that those that disparage the left do so because they covet conservative ideologies.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:46 AM
Dec 2013

They call themselves Democrats but are conservatives. They worship Clinton-Sachs.

 

marsis

(301 posts)
22. There's always this
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:16 PM
Dec 2013

just think about it for a second, our own Tea party. And maybe it would drive modern rightest Democrats back to where they need to be.


sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
34. This is an example of why the OP is correct. Fearmongering instead of discussing what went wrong
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:27 PM
Dec 2013

and why so many Democrats have had enough.

Republican appointees to a Democratic Cabinet.

Bush appointees left in powerful positions instead of being replaced by Democrats, see Clapper eg, former CEO of Booz Allen, who lied to Congress.

Liberals being told by top Democrats that their 'ideas are retarded'.

DLC/Third Way candidates being forced on voters added to the gall to tell them 'you have nowhere to go'.

Working to attract Republican votes and taking Liberal votes for granted.

The OP is correct. It's way past time to stop repeating over and over again,what has not worked for those who remained loyal to their party despite the insults etc.

The Party has a chance now to try to attract LIBERALS for a change. Their votes can no longer be taken for granted.

I will support any Democrat who represents, and has a record of, actually voting for and standing up for, the ideals this Party supposedly stands for.

Too many Democratically elected representatives voting along with Republicans on major issues. Either they start realizing they can no longer count on blind support, or they lose.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
83. I think what you' re saying is important.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:57 PM
Dec 2013

But what you' re saying rather DISPROVES the contention of the OP.

If the 18% of all American voters who are the Progressives (that is, FDR styled liberals) are fleeing the Democratic Party, but some 18% of all American voters who were tied to the GOP in days prior to this one, are now coming on board, the Democrats can still win.

Women voters approve of Democratic candidates in a high margin over the GOP candidates. And the younger the woman is, the more likely she will vote Democratic ticket.

And no one replying to this topic is mentioning gerrymandering, which is a very important situation. You have to have a candidate with over an eight per cent margin to win in many states, on account of how gerrymandering has rigged the game in the Republicans' favor. Great article here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

sendero

(28,552 posts)
111. no.....
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:19 PM
Dec 2013

..... poll after poll shows that Americans are way to the left of our government. All we have been getting from the Democratic establishment is PLACEBO left, where campaigns are infused with progressive rhetoric, but governing is done strictly from the center-right.

I've been tired of this for years and as I have said before, I would just as soon have Republicans in power than FAKE DEMOCRATS.

Why? Because their blatant failures will be on THEIR SHOULDERS and THEIR REPUTATION, unlike now where Republicans can right point at Democrats for actively enabling their plans. Obama talking about cutting SS for example. SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED PERIOD END OF STORY.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
302. We are talking about two different processes inside the reality of politics.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:10 AM
Dec 2013

You are talking about beliefs people have about the society that they want, and everything you say is something I would say also. I mean just on the marijuana issue alone, you can see how divided our society is in terms of RW oppressive tactics and the people themselves. Over 50% of all voters want some de-criminalizing or legalizing of marijuana. Some pollsters now insist that over 65% of the population wants this legalization! But only Three damn percent of our legislators want that to happen! they all want to look tough on the issue.

So I was more or less referring to what happens when people look at candidates. Since the One Percent has so much control over who the candidates happen to be, once at the polling place, the people have to forget about all the changes they want and all the liberal polices that they desire. (For instance, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were for endless wars, and for the banking cartel in charge of everything in this country, including whom it is that the President appoints to be in key spots at Treasury and The Fed, etc. with one of the few small differences being that Obama is still "in the closet" about "the need for austerity programs" while Mitt is openly for those austerity programs. Both are for GM foods, and subsidies for Monsanto, both are for almost identical insurance programs!)

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
152. It sounds great when you speak in vague terms...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:53 PM
Dec 2013

But when you break it down issue by issue - there is disagreement.

I think the number one issue is the top marginal tax rate. Does that mean that if I can't find a candidate that supports my position (which is return to the income tax rates of the 1950's) I shouldn't bother voting because the candidate is too right leaning?

It's the same thing with all of these issues. Once you get into the nitty gritty - who gets to decide what left is. I don't agree with everyone on the TPP, and I don't line up with the folks who want to eliminate the charter schools. By some definitions I would be too right leaning, but I'm a democrat and I don't have any realistic expectation that even if the democrats control both houses of congress after 2014 that they're gonna be as left leaning (on taxes like I mentioned above) as I think they should be. So should I not be encouraged to vote because I'm not gonna get my way.

We have to compromise, and a lot of things like LGBT issues and education issues and trade issues aren't the defining issues in my life. If I want more spending on infrastructure and someone else wants more money for schools; I will pick infrastructure because it creates more jobs in the industry that I work in (schools can fend for themselves).

We can't have it all. That doesn't make me against schools or against LGBT issues - it makes me a democrat with different priorities than some of the other democrats. I don't have a personal stake in LGBT issues, I don't support any kind of discrimination, but the amount of effort that I can put into supporting an issue that doesn't personally effect me is minimal. Sure I sign petitions supporting the folks who are being discriminated against, but you won't see me in any parades or picketing. That's human nature, that's reality.

The bottom line is that we need to elect candidates to office because they have some plan for what they're gonna do - we need to evaluate the specifics of those plans, how committed they are, and more importantly, how realistic it will be to make those plans become a reality.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
183. 'We have to compromise'. Sorry, we've been doing that. THEY have to compromise.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:39 PM
Dec 2013

This is one of the main reasons people are disillusioned. Democrats being told constantly 'WE have to compromise'.

Clearly the word has lost its meaning. Compromise means 'both sides get something'. No WE are the only ones who have cater to the bullies on the other side.

There is an old saying, 'aim for the sky and you may hit a tree'. We KNOW we can't reach the sky, but we also know if we aim low we will get lower.

Without any disrespect which I hope you understand, I believe you are aiming only for the tree. This and compromise are what we are told is 'pragmatism', one of the most overused words of the past decade. I guess it sounded it clever so was so overused it has come to mean 'you can't have anything you want, we serious people know what's good for you'.

I would prefer to aim as high as I can. Expecting only crumbs will get you crumbs. I expect at least half the pie, the crumbs we've been getting are no enough to live on for millions of people.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
222. I'm not talking about compromising with the republicans...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:58 PM
Dec 2013

What I'm talking about is democrats compromising with other democrats.

Once again you speak in vague terms about crumbs, pies and shooting for the stars. What issues are most important to you? Or should I just assume that the most important issue to you is the top marginal tax rate too?

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
252. Or is it a question of compromising with Republicans who claim to be Democrats?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:56 PM
Dec 2013

The DLC, third way branch of the Democratic Party espouses Republican ideas. They sell themselves as Democrats. They claim the name. But they do not support the traditional values of Democrats.

The so-called left wing of the Democratic Party supports traditional values that are true to the Democratic Party -- Social Security; economic justice; a strong middle class; great public schools; free or low-cost college educations for all who qualify and want them; access to public health facilities; limits on the excesses of Wall Street and the banks; healthy policies regarding the environment, medical regulations, pharmaceutical regulations, lending (no to usury), and many other stances that are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. These (and additional) issues are the issues that make us uniquely Democratic. Today, the hierarchy of the Democratic Party is not representing the interests or ideas or ideals of Democratic voters on these issues.

And that is why Democratic voters in many states are not excited about voting in 2014. (I am. My Congressman is a true progressive, and I will be sure to vote for him.(

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
249. Let's see. The marginal tax rate is OK. Charter schools are OK.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:46 PM
Dec 2013

The TPP is OK. LGBT, trade and charter school issues aren't important. Infrastructure spending deserves support. Discrimination of any kind is a negative but not all that important.

I suppose that Social Security, raising the minimum wage, Medicare, healthcare (moving up to single payer or at least a public option), ending or curtailing trade agreements -- those issues are not even worth mentioning.

How can anyone with those opinions call him- or herself a Democrat?

Infrastructure spending is the only issue on which Democrats deserve support??????

Amazing. Really.

I don't think I put much stock in advice about voting or for whom to vote from a constituency in the Democratic Party that thinks like that.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
255. The only advice I was giving was to vote. That's how...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:08 PM
Dec 2013

You misinterpreted my position on taxes (everything actually) and then assigned positions for me on things that I didn't even mention.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said before you respond. Everyone has THE issue that is most important to them (in my case its infrastructure).

We saw some movement on health care reform, bank oversight (consumer protection) and infrastructure the last time the democrats controlled congress. It is my belief that they work better for us than the republicans. In fact I think they did a pretty good job in the brief time they were in charge.

I'm not the one suggesting people give up on the democrats.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
266. People who have always voted WILL vote, but as we saw in 2010, they will vote for Progressive
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:43 PM
Dec 2013

Dems, but will no longer vote for Republican Lite with a 'D' after their names.

As for Dems and protections against Wall St. Excesses? If you are talking about after the collapse of the economy, it was DEMS who, instead of prosecuting the criminals, bailed them out with trillions of dollars. Imagine bailing out total failures some of the deliberate crooks?

And what protections are there that they won't do it again?? Those 'protections' were so weak they did not even include banning what was the most responsible for the corruption that caused the collapse.

And the reason for that is most of them are financed by Wall St.

'Working better than Republicans for us' is simply not enough. Better than the worst is not a goal we should be willing to accept.

A lot of Dems this time will vote their conscience and will be immune to the old play 'lesser of two evils' or whatever the usual threat is. Because we've done that, over and over again and for far too many people it simply isn't working.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
511. I found this telling:
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:05 PM
Dec 2013
If I want more spending on infrastructure and someone else wants more money for schools; I will pick infrastructure because it creates more jobs in the industry that I work in (schools can fend for themselves).


"I got mine, you go get yours." It's the new Democratic Party folks! Let's line up to join!
 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
177. Amen.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:26 PM
Dec 2013

It's an abusive, one-sided relationship we have now, where only one party gets their needs fulfilled. We're told to wait. They need just a few more seats to be bullet-proof. We're told to be content with the disaster we averted by electing them instead of these other terrible fellows.

Everyone's had a friend, a relative, someone they knew who found themselves in a self-defeating relationship that ultimately can only end in a break-up. You can see it. Everyone can see it. But the person you're trying to get to see it. You try to warn them of how destructive the relationship is. But they don't listen. You show them how they're no different than anyone else out there that they've gone with before. It only seems to make things worse. They become shrill and demanding: ''Love me damn you!!! ONLY ME!!!!''

And so we kept making excuses for the abuse. We kept telling ourselves how they'll bring about CHANGE into everyone's lives one day. Wonderful CHANGE. Beautiful CHANGE. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. Yet they continue to verbally and very publicly assault them, and humiliate them in the presence of your friends and relatives. Even in the presence of the very same Republicans that they'd help them defeat.

And on that day when that something happens. It could be anything. A bird singing outside your window. A sunset that made everything crystal clear. Of it could be the defeat of your favorite team. The death of the close buddy. Missing a multimillion dollar lottery by one digit. What ever it is, you wake up and see like for the first time. And then it hits you in the gut, ''We're not valued, just used.''

And you realize you can't stay now, but you've still got good friends there, and you'll miss their camaraderie, their smiling faces. Their concern and desire to help others. But still, you want it to end as amicably as possible. PC to the end. But end it must because what you saw was that the whole system is so evil and corrupt that no matter who you send there, they're poisoned almost immediately.

- Because that's its nature......

George breaks up with Marlene (A metaphor where George is us, and Marlene is the ''current'' rendition of the Democratic Party)



MynameisBlarney

(2,979 posts)
37. I think the tea party
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:28 PM
Dec 2013

has forced the schism in the GOP because there just weren't enough hardcore frightwingers for the tea parties liking. All the "moderate Republicans" are now fleeing to the Democratic party, and that is not a good thing.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
44. ...and the Dem party "it seems" is catering to the defectors and embracing them while discarding...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:34 PM
Dec 2013

the left. Good luck to them with that.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
85. Exactly,
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:57 PM
Dec 2013

in a two party political system the people (left and right) are finally demanding a return to at least a two party political system, not left and right wings of the same party.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
173. I am not at all surprised that you cant see the difference. The left are holding onto principles
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:18 PM
Dec 2013

that used to be Democratic principles. The "non-left", whatever they want to call themselves, the Lieberman Wing of the party are Nixon Conservatives that decided to call themselves Democrats. And of course they get the backing of the corporate fascists.

Those of you that for whatever reason choose to disparage the left, I dare you to explain how your principles different from the left. I have issued this challenge at least 20 times and they wont say a word. Some are just disruptors aiming at splitting the party.

 

WowSeriously

(343 posts)
363. The difference is that teabagging policies are for the 1%.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:29 AM
Dec 2013

Progressive policies are for the 99%.

That makes a diffence.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
366. Except the Democratic "left" is actually in line with the majority of Americans
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:44 AM
Dec 2013

On every issue. Big difference from teabaggers.

dotymed

(5,610 posts)
442. That is why
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:26 PM
Dec 2013

the majority of Americans deserve their own party. One that works for, instead of against our well being.
At some point, we the people, must realize that our once Democratic party has been corrupted beyond repair. It has become rotten to the core, bought by the elite.
Most Americans already realize that our two party system has actually become one party with the elite as their base. IMO, that is the reason for our low voter turnout... nothing major will change, we will still be subservient to the wealthy.
There are a very few exceptions, good politicians hoping to change this paradigm and joining what was once "the peoples party."
IMO, if we create a viable third party, based on progressive principles, those "people first" politicians will join.
I honestly do not want a violent revolution. I am convinced that unless American majorities are not truly represented soon, this will become our reality. All because of the greed of a small minority. They are one step ahead of us on this also...
Look at all of the RW "preppers."

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
396. Amen. As i read the OP, I'm thinking "Switch Dem with GOP and left with tea party"
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:45 AM
Dec 2013

Right now the GOP cant get out of their own way. I dont want to become that. Although it would be interesting to see a Cruz or Paul type run. Then the TP would have their "real" conservative. And then when he gets demolished in the election, I want to hear what their excuse would be. I've heard for years: we keep losing because we dont run true conservatives".

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
3. Yeah, just fuck all those folks who will die.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:54 PM
Dec 2013

I wonder what people who had such thoughts in 2000 felt when Bush launched wars that killed countless innocents.

My heart would like me to believe they felt remorse, my head knows better and guesses they doubled-down on the self-righteous.

If only our all powerful, all-knowing great warriors would get off the tubes and into party politics there could be such a difference. Sadly that won't happen anytime soon.

Julie

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
8. Let us know when the rich who make money from the MIC will contribute to the anti war...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:00 PM
Dec 2013

pro living wage ...increase SS ...tax the rich more ... progressive populist candidate!

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
9. Nice sidestep.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:04 PM
Dec 2013

A bit disappointing from you LOonix.

i really didn't' figure you to be one to subscribe to the sociopathic mindset of those I was referring to.

I guess you just never know.

Julie

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
14. You mean people who vote
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:08 PM
Dec 2013

to cut Veteran's benefits, food stamps and end unemployment benefits for those that have been unemployed long term?

Are you talking about those people? The same ones that voted for more money to go to the Pentagon, but never pressure the Pentagon for audits so that waste can be eliminated? Those people?

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
52. you're turning the definition on its head. It's those who insist on voting for the lesser of 2 evils
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:40 PM
Dec 2013

those who ignore their conscience, those who put party over principle, the 3rd-way corporate dem sellouts who have the "SOCIOPATHIC MINDSET."

just fucking listen to yourself. Voting your conscience == sociopathic behavior. just fucking wow.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
474. What you see as "lesser of 2 evils",
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:57 PM
Dec 2013

others see as a necessary good. For a supposed corporatesellout3rdway guy, Obama has done a ton for progressives in drawing down both wars, he has expanded health care, he helped spark the debate on gay marriage by being the 1st ever president to support it, he has pushed for higher top tax rates and gun control, and he has pushed for a higher minimum wage. Why else have the Koch Brothers and the rest of the GOP been opposing him so much? Even the Blue Dogs in Congress side with the Left about 70% of the time, at worst.
The Democrats are not perfect (no political party is), but getting some of what we want is better than nothing IMO, especially in a politically-mixed country like America, where liberals make up less than a quarter of the population.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
64. So voting your conscience....
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:46 PM
Dec 2013

...means you're a sociopath.

You can't get much more shrill than that.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
84. Oh come one now ...get with the program. If it has a (D) by its name ...vote for it.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:57 PM
Dec 2013

No conscience needed!

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
196. Sometimes you end up in bizzarro land when your not planning to go there.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:04 PM
Dec 2013

Others take you there.

...adding the sarc tag for protection from right leaning corporate DLC 3rd way centrist DU jurors.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
110. Damn dude, sociopathy. You'd think you were defending a drone program that regularly kills innocents
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:18 PM
Dec 2013

or something. I mean, we all know that isn't sociopathic. Defending the deaths of those innocent people because they aren't any use to us is pragmatism, not sociopathy.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
120. Wow ...how did you read that? ...I needed a sarc tag?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:25 PM
Dec 2013

On the other hand maybe the Dems who voted for the Iraq war should care about all the deaths of the innocent ...ya know ...the ones who didn't attack us.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
168. There still patting themselves on the back for the Clinton-era sanctions against Iraq
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:13 PM
Dec 2013

that killed 500,000 children.

See, it would have been so much worse if a Republican had done it.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
287. I was referring to the
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:45 PM
Dec 2013

comment that followed yours. Sorry I didn't make that particularly clear.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
43. You wonder what we thought when Bush launched his criminal war? You mean you don't remember?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:33 PM
Dec 2013

We BEGGED Democrats NOT TO VOTE for it.

We were shocked when so many of them did.

NOT ONE Democrat should have voted for that war.

Speaking of, NOT 'folks who WILL DIE', but the over one million who DID die.

No Democrat who cast that vote should ever be trusted in a position of power.

If only, over the past dozen years, we had more Dems like Kucinich who voted against funding that war.

Think how many lives might have been saved.

But it is what it is. We too are responsible for continuing to support them simply because they had a 'd' after their names.

If only those Great Online Warriors who were explaining the 'pragmatism' of it all had actually decided to let them know that they were WRONG, who knows what a different country this might be today.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
72. Your capacity for selective reasoning is quite impressive.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:53 PM
Dec 2013

Perhaps trying to win over voters would be a better strategy?

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
261. What about Obama EXPANDING the Afghan war that Bush started,
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:19 PM
Dec 2013

continually moving the goalposts, and taking his sweet time withdrawing from Iraq? What about the 15 Dem Senators who are all gung ho about "getting tough"on Iran?

More to the point, what about the cowardly Dems who voted for both of Bush's wars and a lot of his other bad policies on the grounds that "they were going to pass anyway?"

I had to listen to the appeasers say that for eight years during the Bush era. "It was going to pass anyway."

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
7. The Democratic Party is going to have to appeal to the left if it wants the Left's votes.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:59 PM
Dec 2013

Just shouting "Not as bad" has worn very thin as a reason to vote for them.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
15. They'll appeal to us with cries of "not as bad" and the "lesser of two evils".
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:08 PM
Dec 2013

And, get a "No Sale" from some of us.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
41. Yep. And, they will claim the Left gave the seats to the Republicans after the election.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:32 PM
Dec 2013

Same tune, same singers.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
49. It should be made clear right now. IF Democrats lose the next election, the ONLY people to blame
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:38 PM
Dec 2013

will be the Party Leadership, UNLESS they provide candidates finally, that the voters can actually vote FOR and not go out to vote AGAINST the greater evil.

The voters are not to blame, never were and never will be.

It goes like this. If you decide to run for office it is your job to attract the voters by clearly stating where you stand on issues that matter to the voters.

If you are a Democrat, you already know what those issues are.

If you have a record of mostly voting according to your campaign promises, you have nothing to worry about.

But if, AFTER you are elected, you forget your campaign promises.

It's really very simple.

SomeGuyInEagan

(1,515 posts)
280. Or "We Suck Less?"
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:22 PM
Dec 2013

Note the added question mark.

Because I fully expect to be screwed by R leadership, that's a given. But I still hold D leadership to a different standard, the standard it continues to move further away from year after year. Silly me, I know.

But I think that makes it an open question.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
60. Leadership is the problem
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:45 PM
Dec 2013

I'm not seeing much "leading". What I'm seeing is waiting for Republicans to demand something, half-heartedly oppose it, then vote for it in the name of striking a deal.

If you aren't a Leader, you are a follower and part of the problem.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
94. Recently there has been one happy exception to the
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:05 PM
Dec 2013

Travesty you are discussing.

DeBlasio's election in NYC, and with a whopping margin (as he received 72% of the vote or more!)

Unfortunately I imagine some Third Way Dems who are not happy about his election.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
104. Yes, I supported DeBlasio due to his long history on progressive issues. I would not have supported
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:12 PM
Dec 2013

a DLC/Third Way candidate at this point in time because I see no real difference on major issues between them and Republicans.

DeBlalsio won because finally the party got the message it seems. If you want to hold on to your formerly loyal voters, you better give them someone they can vote FOR.

Don't forget that Bloomberg won Dem votes until the base of the party in NYC finally woke up. He played the role of being 'liberal' on many issues, he switched parties three times at least. This is exactly what I'm talkiing about. Dems were not especially enamoured with Bloomberg but he was 'moderate' they were told.

Times have changed. I am certain that if the Dem Party had not provided a true Progerssive this time, they would have lost.

Let's hope it becomes a trend, that the party knows now that they have to provide and back real Progressives if they want to win.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
121. Yet
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:26 PM
Dec 2013

"Yes, I supported DeBlasio due to his long history on progressive issues. I would not have supported

a DLC/Third Way candidate at this point in time because I see no real difference on major issues between them and Republicans.

DeBlalsio won because finally the party got the message it seems. If you want to hold on to your formerly loyal voters, you better give them someone they can vote FOR."

...this:

De Blasio Appoints Goldman Sachs Exec To Deputy Mayor Post For 'Fighting Inequality'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/de-blasio-appoints-goldman-sachs-exec-to-deputy-mayor-post-for-fighting-inequality

Where is the disconnect?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
129. If he continues that trend, he will lose the next election and if he had told people he intended to
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:35 PM
Dec 2013

join the corporate world AFTER the election, he would have lost. But he didn't, did he, so how does the fact that AFTER the election he is showing small warning signs, change anything I said? It doesn't.

We will be watching him and letting him know that he won because he promised Progressive policies.

It will take time for the people to clear out the deceivers, they've gotten away with it for a long time and may still be under the impression they can continue to do so.

But these are different times and we KNOW we have to WATCH WHAT THEY DO, we have to trust what they say before the election and look at their background, which in his case WE DID. But if, once they are elected they change course, they will lose their next election. After a while they WILL learn, 'don't lie to the voters'.

I don't get attached to politicians on a personal level and neither do most people at this point. We have serious problems to worry about and politicians are going to have to deliver or lose no matter how charismatic, or thoroughly 'liberal' they claimed to be BEFORE the election, if they want to keep their jobs.

DeBlasio will be a good test considering what he ran on and how governs.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
150. So that's it?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:53 PM
Dec 2013

"If he continues that trend, he will lose the next election and if he had told people he intended to"

What about until the next election?

New Group Launches Fight Against de Blasio's Top Cop
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024237267

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
208. De Blasio Appoints Goldman Sachs Exec To Deputy Mayor Post For 'Fighting Inequality'
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:23 PM
Dec 2013

Cause Obama has never done anything like this.



-p

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
212. Yep.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:31 PM
Dec 2013

I lost it for all of us cause I want an actual left leaning candidate.

HELLO PEOPLE, IT"S ALL MY FAULT!



-p

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
215. What?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:33 PM
Dec 2013

"I lost it for all of us cause I want an actual left leaning candidate."

Aww! Go find one and support him or her.

BlueToTheBone

(3,747 posts)
125. And we all know how that worked out
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:32 PM
Dec 2013

We got the greater of all evils...*co and shock and awe and 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi dead and untold more wounded and maimed for life and over 4000 dead soldiers and untold more wounded and maimed and scarred for life. And that doesn't even touch the incompetence and thievery of the cronies of *.

If you don't like the way the Party is going, get in there and work to change things. I don't see Elizabeth Warren bemoaning our fate, she just got out and did something that resonated with her constituents. Don't forget she was just some kid from Oklahoma, land of idiots. You can do something too. We have little time. November 2014 is upon us.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
166. They will also LIE, blatantly and shamelessly.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:12 PM
Dec 2013
They will promise whatever they think they need to promise in order to win votes. Just like Obama promised to represent the 99 percent, to close Gitmo, to work for a public option, to stop the marijuana wars, to curb the obscene surveillance state...

They are corporatists. They are con artists, advertisers and pitchmen. They are not interested what the public wants, but in crafting the most effective and manipulative message to sell their product. The bag may have pretty pictures of a chicken in every pot, but inside it is all ground meal by-products and a cat food commission.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
418. As always..
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:14 AM
Dec 2013

... spot on. Washington DC (and many state governments) are filled with Grifters (R) and Grifters (D).

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
512. They are selling brand identity.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:13 PM
Dec 2013

I always chuckle when I see those stickers on the back of pickup trucks, with an ersatz-Calvin pissing on either a Ford or Chevy logo depending on the driver's loyalty. We're pretty much at the same place with politics. Obama stickers are essentially fashion accessories.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
652. This is the same argument used by Ralph Nader
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:01 PM
Dec 2013

Claiming that the Democratic Party is almost like the GOP and there is little difference is the claim that caused George W. Bush to win the 2000 election. I am sorry but I believe that there is a clear difference and we have seen the damage that the GOP can do if they are in control.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
654. If the candidate wants the votes of the left, then he must appeal to left wing voters.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:13 PM
Dec 2013

If he, or she, fails to do so then his/her supporters shouldn't whine about not getting elected because of their candidate's failure to do so.

Gore lost those votes because he failed to convince the voters to vote for him rather than Nader.

 

MissDeeds

(7,499 posts)
20. Thank you
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:12 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I had a conversation with a friend just last night who used the "well, at least it's better than them" nonsense. Unfortunately, "better than" the worst case scenario is not good enough. That crap could be used to pump up a pathetic choice instead of a horrific one. Setting the bar so low will ultimately sink us. It's not an option, nor should it be.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
10. I think the TPP
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:04 PM
Dec 2013

is going to send a lot of people in search of a new party that gives a damn about the USA and the populace instead of the Megacorporations that have bought and paid for both sides.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
78. I hope so, but..
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:55 PM
Dec 2013

Other than a few dedicated posters, the TPP seems to get little traction, even here at DU.

*sigh*

I've hit a brick wall talking to people in real life about the TPP- they get upset when I mention the ramifications of the leaked portions, but it only lasts for a moment.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
103. You'd hope
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:11 PM
Dec 2013

but the media is being very hush hush in discussing it because they are all owned by corporations and the corporations are the very ones cheering this on.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
171. Well, to be fair, some dumb redneck said something stupid on TV.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:16 PM
Dec 2013

How can international trade deals that undercut our sovereignty compare with THAT? Ridiculing rednecks makes for such an exquisite Two Minute Hate.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
607. you apparently don't know how it works here.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:01 PM
Dec 2013

you must wait till after it's implementation to see if we're screwed. You know cause it could be eleventy two dimensional chess and Obama/Hillary wouldn't ever do anything to hurt their constituents.



-p

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. Just say no to Hillary?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:06 PM
Dec 2013

"If you think this is only a lone voice expressing dissatisfaction with the Party and , in the end, we will all unite behind Hillary to keep the White House, I think you are tragically mistaken. "

Do you think if she's the nominee, Democrats will lose?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
59. To win, she will have to attract the Indepents who came out in 2008 to get rid of Bush policies
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:45 PM
Dec 2013

but who stayed home in 2010 because they were disappointed. Dems continued to vote despite THEIR disappointments, and despite that THEY were accused of being the ones who stayed home.

If the those who are in charge of elections were that ignorant of why they lost in 2010, I'm not hopeful of them being any less clueless this time.

We can only hope that some new people who actually know how to figure out why they lose and why they win.

And there is the additional problem of even Dems now being disenchanted especially if the Corporate Trade Agreement gets support from Democrats. I wonder if they have any clue as to how important an issue that is to Democrats and Independents?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
75. Wait,
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:53 PM
Dec 2013

"To win, she will have to attract the Indepents who came out in 2008 to get rid of Bush policies but who stayed home in 2010 because they were disappointed. Dems continued to vote despite THEIR disappointments, and despite that THEY were accused of being the ones who stayed home."

...you're implying that she could win without the left because when the independents "stayed home in 2010," Democrats lost.

"If the those who are in charge of elections were that ignorant of why they lost in 2010, I'm not hopeful of them being any less clueless this time."

Maybe there needs to be another 2010 for a wakeup call?

Why is Howard Dean supporting Hillary?

"And there is the additional problem of even Dems now being disenchanted especially if the Corporate Trade Agreement gets support from Democrats. I wonder if they have any clue as to how important an issue that is to Democrats and Independents? "

Frankly, I'm hoping Hillary doesn't run.

Still, I think it's curious that people are pushing that Dems are "disenchanted." I don't see any evidence of this being a successful tactic.

What needs to happen is for a candidate to run strong on these issues, and attract enough support.

Hoping that Hillary will be that person is fairly naive.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
91. I was clear in what I said I believe. No candidate can win with just their base.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:03 PM
Dec 2013

Dems won in 2008 at the end of the Bush era because Indepents went with them. In 2010 they were disappointed and stayed home and despite the fact that the base DID come out, Dems lost due to losing the Independent vote. And the young of course who are now a growing demographic shown in polls not to be attached to one party or the other, but mostly in favor of Progressive ideals.

Dems ARE disenchanted, no one has to push that. See the polls on Congress? It's not just Republicans who are in the single digits. As has been pointed out, Satan is more popular than Congress.

And with Dems voting WITH Republicans so often, see the Budget recently, it doesn't take a genius to know that Congress' ratingws are a result of huge disatisfaction in both parties.

'Maybe there needs to be another 2010'? Is THAT what you want?

No, there does not need to be another 2010, but if there is we know who will be to blame, won't we? We have the stats that explain why that happened. It's up the Dem Leadership to make sure it doesn't happen again. And if it does, who we will blame.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
100. Let me
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:09 PM
Dec 2013
<...>

Dems ARE disenchanted, no one has to push that. See the polls on Congress? It's not just Republicans who are in the single digits. As has been pointed out, Satan is more popular than Congress.

And with Dems voting WITH Republicans so often, see the Budget recently, it doesn't take a genius to know that Congress' ratingws are a result of huge disatisfaction in both parties.

'Maybe there needs to be another 2010'? Is THAT what you want?

No, there does not need to be another 2010, but if there is we know who will be to blame, won't we? We have the stats that explain why that happened. It's up the Dem Leadership to make sure it doesn't happen again. And if it does, who we will blame.

...make this point again: CNN and the rest of are pushing for another self-fulfilling prophecy.

Republicans More Optimistic than Democrats about Midterms...But Less GOP Optimism than in 2010



http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/13/republicans-more-optimistic-than-democrats-about-midterms/

Or maybe they're counting on another gerrymandering win for the GOP:

<...>

The 2010 elections, in which Republicans won the House majority and gained more than 700 state legislative seats across the nation, gave the party the upper-hand in the process of redistricting, the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional seats. The advantage helped them design safer partisan districts and maintain their House majority in 2012 -- even as they lost the presidential race by about 5 million votes. Also nationwide, Democratic House candidates combined to win about 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

It's always amazing that in the media Republicans can rebound despite the horrible shit they do. They're the one's blocking unemployment benefits (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024232195), but the public apparently loves them.
Democrats' momentum, no matter how significant, only last a news cycle, according to the MSM

Like I said, if the left wants to join the media is declaring themselves not energized, so be it.

Let's see where that strategy leads.



Upward

(115 posts)
190. Funny, From Where I'm Sitting It Looked Like They Came Out To Insure Bush's 3rd Term
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:51 PM
Dec 2013

or Reagan's 8th, I forget which.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
264. You can thank Liberas for that, again. But since that's not likely to happen, we are where we are
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:34 PM
Dec 2013

and as the Coalition of Unions, Advocacy Groups for SS and others, including most Liberal Orgs warned before the last election, they were going to vote against the Republicans this one last time, but they were forming this coaltion in order to view their options since the party they have supported and donated to for so long, has taken their votes for granted.

Yes, Liberals came out again, in 2012 and again, are told, see this thread 'their votes are not needed'. If that is the case then the party should be fine without them. We'll see. I sure hope that isn't the position of the Party Leadership, but if it is, as I said, we'll how little they need Liberals I guess.

dflprincess

(28,057 posts)
297. Odd isn't it?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:04 AM
Dec 2013

Before a candidate is nominated we're told that the liberals aren't needed - but if the nominee loses it's the liberals fault because we didn't show up.

They can't have it both ways.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
362. Yes, very odd. We need to keep reminding them of their constant claim that Liberals aren't needed
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:11 AM
Dec 2013

so that when Liberals take them at their word and they lose, there is plenty of evidence of the fact that they themselves are responsible.

You would think that at least they would acknowledge the FACT that without Liberals, they cannot win and knowing disenchanted Liberals are by now, that they would focus trying to win them back, instead of catering to the disenchanted Republicans. Unless that is the goal, to have one party, one slightly more moderate.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
69. I don’t think that there are that many of these self-destructors...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:52 PM
Dec 2013

Most of them hang around here and are probably younger with secure jobs..
If not, I’ll tell you this..If We let all three branches of govt. turn red in 2016. there is very good chance that we can say goodbye to S.S., Medicare, Medicaid and all Safety Net programs as we know them... And if they're good with that... To hell w/em... Let them start a left wing hoarder /doomsday reality show..


winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
354. If the Party steps up to defend and expand the safety net, we'll win in 2014 and 2016.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:44 AM
Dec 2013

And if it doesn't, it'll be shooting itself in the foot.

hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
293. I do.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:59 PM
Dec 2013

The Truman rule applies here, plus there are other things in play like it being perceived as a Bill third term.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
307. I think the point is, that the People will lose. The Party may win, but the victors will be Big Corp
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:18 AM
Dec 2013

not the rank and file.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
361. I'm here to say I guarantee she will lose.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:45 AM
Dec 2013

Hillary Clinton's support is a mile wide and inch deep. She WILL lose.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
13. I wish you were right but I fear you are wrong
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:07 PM
Dec 2013

A lot of us felt the same way just before the 2012 presidential election. But what did we do? We fell in line and voted for Obama, even if we weren't very enthusiastic about it.

Personally, even if I intended to vote for the lesser evil in 2016, at the moment I'm not entirely certain just who that lesser evil might be. I'm sure as hell not happy with the presumed Dmocratic nominee. But I'm afraid that a lot of Dems will hold their nose and once again vote for some fake Democrat just because they're worried that a republican might become president.

My advice to the Democratic party would be to talk to Howard Dean and listen to what the man tells you. Forget about 2016 and concentrate on taking over both houses of congress. And don't listen to any turd way DINO's whining about the direction of the party.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
16. The tiny number of people crazy enough to desert can be done without.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:09 PM
Dec 2013

I've mentioned this before. Some folks who call themselves the Democratic Left may decide to take a powder. But when they do, they are going to find out that the "Deserter Democratic Left" is miniscule and includes an undesirable assortment of Fawkes mask wearers, FTPers, and other problem children. It would be fun to go to their first meetings, but eye protection is advised.

Meanwhile, the true Left Democrats (also known as Democrats) could finally try to get things done without the dead weight.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
19. Hmmm "Deserter Democratic Left" or the "Corporatist Democratic Right" ...decisions ...decisions
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:11 PM
Dec 2013
 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
21. To all those that dismiss
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:14 PM
Dec 2013

the voices of those within the Democratic Party that we can do better than this, I say to you: Nominate people that can do better than we've been doing. People that cut veteran's benefits, food stamps and long term unemployment aren't exactly winners, nor are those pushing for the TPP, wholesale NSA surveillance and throwing more money at the Pentagon while letting people starve.

How is that for reality?

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
33. I would not be one of those who dismiss the voices...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:27 PM
Dec 2013

...within the Democratic Party who want the things you want. If you are worried about people starving, then weakening the Democratic Party is not for you. Strengthening it is.

We should be aiming for 100% GOTV in 2014. Eradicate all Republican power in every office up for election. Then take whatever short of that we are forced to take.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
45. Excuse me?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:34 PM
Dec 2013

Who voted for and signed a bill that cuts food stamps, cuts Veteran's benefits and ends unemployment for those that have been unemployed long term?

Is the President a Republican? Is the Senate run by Republicans? Are Patty Murray and those with (D)s behind their names that voted yes for those things, are they Republicans, too? Can you name a Democrat that has urged Congress to cut back on spending at the Pentagon and demanded an audit to determine where our money is being spent while we are busy letting our infrastructure crumble?

Whining that nothing can be done because Democrats don't have 100% of the seats in Washington is a cop out. The problem is that the Democrats that ARE in Washington don't stand up for any of those things, they just half-heartedly "oppose" them when it is convenient but then don't hesitate to vote for them.

Who is urging cuts in Pentagon spending, and fighting for an audit at the Pentagon? Oh wait, that would be a Senator's job. And Democrats don't have the Sen... oh wait.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
80. In all these cases where people lose out...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:56 PM
Dec 2013

...I always have to ask the obvious question: Would this have been the case if there had been far fewer Republicans in Congress?

The answer is obviously no. Once you have Republicans with any power over anything, you can assume that they will do something to hurt the helpless, defund basic civilization, channel tribute to the wealthy, etc. That is what they do. The best Democrats can do is try to do good and try to minimize damage. And I have no doubt that is what they always do. The fact that there was damage is squarely the result of Republicanism.

But we can take it a step farther and ask whether Democrats who constantly whine and suppress unity might not also bear a share of the blame. If true "deserters" are few, then they will do no damage to the Democratic Party when they leave and will actually help it. Bt the true "deserters" (wrongly I would say) think they can damage the Democratic Party by leaving it. So that would mean they want to weaken the damage control mechanism that keeps Republicans at least somewhat at bay. They would let Republican damage through to the innocent people you are talking about.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
92. No, here's the problem
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:03 PM
Dec 2013

Yes, when you have Republicans with power over anything, you can assume that they will do something to hurt the helpless.

The problem is that for the last 3 decades, we don't have Democrats expanding help for the helpless (and sometimes they go along to get along and harm them right along with Republicans). They don't extol the virtues of spending at home instead of throwing money at the Pentagon. Again, name a Democrat that has encouraged auditing the Pentagon. About the only two people in Washington that speak about the welfare of the people are Elizabeth Warren - and she wants bankers held accountable - and Bernie Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat.

Until we get actual Democratic LEADERS that say "we need to do this, this and this" instead of "we don't need to do this, this and this ... unless we absolutely have to", it's going to be this way.

That is exactly why there are some rifts developing in the Democratic Party - lack of leadership on things that Democrats care about.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
123. Good ole Patty Murray
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:29 PM
Dec 2013

What little respect I had for her is now gone. Although I believe Obama pushed her into a corner and told her a agreement must happen rather than do what's best for the citizens of the USA. Basically I'm not going to be responsible for another stand off, get it done.

Our newly minted Democratic Governor Jay Inslee did and about face on Medical Marijuana soon as he got his chair. I'm sure it has nothing to do with big business and Marijuana being legalized. Fuck the patients, everyone must pay, heh heh cause I'm the decider see.......



They're all populist when they're running, but upon winning turn into fucking scrooge when they take their seats.

-p

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
24. Oh? And what do you imagine the "Democrats" will accomplish without "the dead weight"?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:20 PM
Dec 2013

More tax breaks for corporations while the middle class sinks further into poverty?

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
27. Hey
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:22 PM
Dec 2013

didn't you know that party and personality trump policy and humanity? I mean my goodness, how do you expect anyone to win if they worry about those pesky people that aren't awash in lobbyist dollars?

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
42. Likely much better results for 99%.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:32 PM
Dec 2013

I don't call them "dead weight" because I think they are helping Democratic causes. I call them that because they are bad for morale and unity, thereby undermining Democratic causes.

We would have fewer people going hungry, better deals for teachers and education in general, better healthcare.

The dead weight, by pulling out, would be hoping for hunger I guess. But again, they are so few they would not get their wish.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
50. Except the ones who might leave the Party are the ones who actually oppose
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:38 PM
Dec 2013

education "reform", SS "reform", etc., so your reasoning is backwards.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
96. But they oppose it incompetently.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:06 PM
Dec 2013

They try to do it by "beating the donkey" instead of getting more donkeys.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
102. You don't get effective donkeys
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:09 PM
Dec 2013

if you don't feed the donkeys. Eventually the donkeys you have will quit working if you don't feed them, no matter how many of them you "have".

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
174. More donkeys pulling to the Right is not helpful.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:22 PM
Dec 2013

Beating more donkeys into turning Left gets the job done faster.

What the bedazzled personality cultists don't recognize is that rewarding Democrats with votes after they support conservative policies does nothing to encourage Democrats to support progressive policies.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
269. Oh look. Another lecture from a grown-up centrist.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:50 PM
Dec 2013

I just love getting advice from those in the party most closely aligned with Republicans. I can't wait to grow up and stand for nothing.

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
48. consider the fact that most people don't even vote now
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:36 PM
Dec 2013

and the reason? Because they think it doesn't matter. Why? Because they have seen too many times that those who get elected are just full of shit. Saying what you just did ignores a primary reason why most already don't vote, and acting as though more not voting is ok with you, is a major problem in and of itself. It is actually an attitude of the establishment itself and exactly why people don't think voting matters at all... the most ardent supporters who say what you did now, is proof that to them that their votes don't matter to the establishment you support.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
89. Well they do more than sit.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:01 PM
Dec 2013

They actively kill the Democratic buzz. 2010 is on them. But as I have said before, if the "house dividers" had gone to the Greens before 2010, Democrats would have done a lot better. The naysayers would have been ignored as Greens. That's why they never go...more's the pity. They hurt the very principles they claim to stand for.

 

backwoodsbob

(6,001 posts)
119. They kill the Democratic buzz?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:25 PM
Dec 2013

that's awesome. That is some serious spin there.
We on the left ARE the Democratic buzz

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
74. You're not aware of the huge Coalition formed before the last election by various organizations
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:53 PM
Dec 2013

who have given powerful support and donations to the Dem Party up, very reluctantly, the last election?

Unions, Liberal Organizations, Advocacy Orgs for SS etc?

They made it clear that they would vote Democratic in 2012 but with the warning that if things continued as they were, they could no longer be counted on in the future and were forming the Coalition in order to prepare for the future, a future where their issues were considered to be important by the Dem Party once again.

Your comment is one of the reasons why people are being driven away from the Dem Party. Maybe that is the intention?? Who knows, but you cannot use the fearmongering anymore, or telling long time Democrats that their votes don't matter, as you just did, it won't work at this point in time.

This is precisely why Dems are losing support. Sounds like Rahm and Axelrod rather the man who actually WON for Dems, Dean.

'We don't need you'. THANK YOU for clearly demonstrating that if this is how the party feels, then you won't 'get us' this time.

I sure hope you are not a reprresentative of the party because this kind of attitude will surely lose for Democrats.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
153. Dem support for President Obama has SLIPPED to a whopping 77%, liberal Dem is at 79%
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:53 PM
Dec 2013
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Overall liberal support is down to 65%. A poster just had a post in this forum where Catholics approve of the pope by about 88% and that was considered "revolutionary" and "cause for the Democrats to take notice" but somehow, 77-79% of Dems supporting this president means that he is in for a massive loss and needs to listen ONLY to that miniscule number that don't support him at the expense of the massive number that do.

These folks wishing, and hoping, and thinking, and praying (Sing it with me!) for this "Dem deserting" need to wake up. The only way they are going to get what they want is with a Third Party which knowing these folks, they'll probably turn on as soon as it gets any power as well.
 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
265. Withdrawing into fantasy again, I see. It's like there is some switch that lets you
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:41 PM
Dec 2013

forget or ignore history. Democrats without the support of the left lose, period.

That's why the republicans in blue are so adamant about abandoning the left, the thing they fear more than anything else is the possibility that an actually progressive policy is somehow wrangled through the process and put into place.

But hey, don't worry. There's almost no chance at all that will happen, so you can remain secure in the gatehouse for awhile longer.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
25. I'd be overjoyed by
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:20 PM
Dec 2013

someone that instead of compromising on cutting food stamps and Veteran's benefits instead started pushing very hard for some audits at the Pentagon so that the tremendous waste can be trimmed. We aren't getting very much for our money, what with buildings we build and don't use, equipment that is ordered and left to rot and Veteran's that don't get the treatment and care that they deserve.

If we can afford multi-million dollar buildings in the middle of Afghanistan that never get used, we can afford to keep our promises of pensions to those who fought, died and were injured in those conflicts.

While we are at it, if we can afford all of that, we can make sure that children in OUR country don't go hungry.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
29. +1. If we're going to indulge in corporate welfare, couldn't it be for businesses that are
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:22 PM
Dec 2013

rebuilding our infrastructure and helping the poor? Or can we only build multimillion dollar structures far away from the U.S., so the people don't find out how much of that money goes into someone's pocket instead of the structure?

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
76. Absolutely
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:54 PM
Dec 2013

Let's enrich corporations here that rebuild our infrastructure and hire American workers instead of pissing away money in bribes to people in other countries. That would stimulate the economy and lessen the need for food stamps.

 

MO_Moderate

(377 posts)
26. Having just found the site
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:20 PM
Dec 2013

I'm curious about what Democratic ideals have been destroyed and replaced by Republican ideals?


PS: I hope it is ok for newbs to ask questions.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
30. Helping others who need it without casting judgement.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:25 PM
Dec 2013

Funding and working on healthcare, jobs, schools, employment rather than throwing more money at those who have plenty and the war machine. For starters. Welcome to DU, may you learn while you are here.

madfloridian

(88,117 posts)
118. Dems used to stand for things the people needed, not what big business needed.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:24 PM
Dec 2013

Gradually that has changed.

I never thought the Democrats would go along with no taxes on the rich, yet advocating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment benefits. If not advocates, then refusing to take stands about these issues.

I never thought Democrats would take the Bush policies on public education and make them even more harsh. They have adopted the corporate reform policies that are destroying, defunding, and gradually dismantling public schools.

The disillusionment started for me when so many of our party refused to vote against the Iraq invasion. Of course they knew it was wrong-headed, and of course they knew that flat-out lies were leading into this destructive policy. It destabilized the Middle East, which was easy to foresee.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
203. the very fact that we are fighting desperately to save 'Obamacare" or the ACA to use its
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:16 PM
Dec 2013

proper name which is now being defined as leftwing - but is in fact a Heritage Foundation based conservative program first championed on the state level in Massachusetts by none other than Mitt Romney - a program way, way to the right of what Richard Nixon once proposed as a national healthcare plan shows how distorted political reality has become

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
214. Here you go. And this is a very abbreviated list.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:32 PM
Dec 2013

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360


...in every policy area important to the One Percent.

This list does not show the President trying to enact a more liberal agenda and being obstructed. It shows him working aggressively and proactively, over and over again, to install corporatists into his administration and to enact a corporate agenda.

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:
A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. Tim Geithner. And now Penny Pritzker.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legal immunity for telecoms/warrantless wiretapping
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executive to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's Office



Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

White House: No Subsidies for Union Health Plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014594512

Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html

The USDA’s Reckless Plan to Decrease Food Safety
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670859

This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095402

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Guess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the (Corporate) Dem "policy shop."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

...Obama explicitly campaigned on opposing Social Security cuts -- and he just endorsed them (AGAIN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019860

Obama's Promises on Social Security: His OWN WORDS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031544

Bernie Sanders: Chained CPI: An Economic and Moral Disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381690

wall street pulls the strings: social security under attack in february
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155427

Obama signs bill cutting 2.2 billion from food stamps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x309

Obama's New Treasury Secretary Pushes Austerity That Spreads Global Misery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022652850

Obama appointed Alan Simpson & Erskine Bowles to his goddamned catfood commission...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022633714

Why does President Obama keep Appointing Monsanto Shills to Key Gov. Positions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785

Penny Pritzker..The Subprime Queen...Obama's Pick for Dept. of Commerce
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665148

Obama's Betrayal of Public Education, Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

How can we NOT feel betrayed? These are just ONE day's headlines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

Obama Approves New Cross-Border Pipeline Benefiting Canadian Oil Sand Producers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758698

Pres. Obama: Why are you pushing the Koch Supported Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023563816

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Global Attack by the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101634573

TPP: A pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936342

The Obama administration's legal battle against whistleblowers, federal unions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672473

Obama’s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023312251

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024197266

Obama administration asserts that NSA spying cannot be challenged in court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296209

The Obama administration is aggressively growing private prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2670142

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

You do know how the DLC/Third Way was formed? (corporate money, corporate infiltration)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024150961

Third Way VP indicates they fear Elizabeth Warren's influence on the party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024168867

Majority of Third Way support from Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024164622

The Democratic Party's deceitful game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3928692



 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
406. And it's a list of things that the President alone is not able to change. Check out who voted for
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:15 AM
Dec 2013

what and you will find some of our most favored players vote for or against things we Dems in general would have done differently. But then, reality has a way of controlling even our most optimistic players. We don't really know until we are placed in their shoes walking their walk. This President hasn't had much help from either side. Not voting and not protesting is a way of not helping. The street pushed for civil rights. People voted even in hopeless situations. Too many among us love "unearned income" much more than
a good hard fight. We shun all inconvenient truths.

I highly recommend spending time viewing the "Untold History of the United States." (Oliver Stone) There is a mirror there.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
419. I love
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:17 AM
Dec 2013

lists:

<...>

What follows is a PARTIAL list of Obama’s accomplishments so far. Unlike many such lists, there is a link to a citation supporting every single one.

<...>

Wall Street Reforms and Consumer Protection

Ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money. http://huff.to/eAi9Qq

He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression. http://bit.ly/hWCPg0 http://bit.ly/geHpcD

Dodd-Frank also included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau http://1.usa.gov/j5onG

He made it so that banks could no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers’ interests. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He supported the concept of allowing stockholders to vote on executive compensation. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He wholly endorsed and supported the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 that would close offshore tax avoidance loopholes. http://bit.ly/esOdfB http://bit.ly/eG4DPM

He made a deal with Swiss banks that permits the US government to gain access to the records of criminals and tax evaders. http://bit.ly/htfDgw

He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses. http://bit.ly/fnTayj

He oversaw and then signed the most sweeping food safety legislation since the Great Depression. http://thedc.com/gxkCtP

Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination

He advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. http://bit.ly/gsMSJ7

He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. http://bit.ly/fdahuH http://bit.ly/mZV4Pz

He appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy. http://1.usa.gov/fi5IY0

Helped Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act. http://bit.ly/th0JC8

He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. http://1.usa.gov/g2RLCj

He’s appointed more openly gay officials than anyone in history. http://bit.ly/g1lA7D

He issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. http://1.usa.gov/aUueGT

He established a White House Council on Women and Girls http://1.usa.gov/rFfqMM

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill. http://bit.ly/fT3Cxg

Wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families. http://bit.ly/e1puTk

He expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act. http://1.usa.gov/dSbI0x

Under his watch, National Labor Relations Board has issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees’ rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011. http://1.usa.gov/qu2EhQ

- more -

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/15/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/


Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

U.S. orders mortgage servicer Ocwen to help borrowers with $2 billion

By Emily Stephenson

(Reuters) - U.S. officials on Thursday ordered the largest nonbank mortgage servicer to provide $2 billion in help to underwater borrowers to resolve allegations of misconduct that led to thousands of people losing their homes.

Ocwen Financial Corp must reduce loan balances for struggling homeowners and refund $125 million to foreclosed borrowers under an agreement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Ocwen failed to account for borrowers' payments, gave false reasons for denying loan modifications and robo-signed legal documents, the consumer bureau said.

In many cases, after Ocwen began servicing loans, it did not respect trial modifications that had already been agreed to by the lenders, consumer bureau Director Richard Cordray said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-financial-regulation-ocwen-idUSBRE9BI0ZT20131219


Elizabeth Warren:

<...>

When I worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. The crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there is a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages .

CFPB made some important steps in the right direction, and I think we’re a lot safer than we were .

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

Even so, the law is not perfect. And so it’s important to ask: Where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after Dodd-Frank?

<...>

Powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and subsidy they now enjoy. Even after exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big Wall Street banks are not chastened .

They have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way .

That’s the battlefield. That’s what we’re up against. But David beat Goliath with the establishment of CFPB and, just a few months ago, with the confirmation of Rich Cordray .

David beat Goliath with the passage of Dodd-Frank. We did that together – Americans for Financial Reform, the Roosevelt Institute, and so many of you in this room. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again .

Thank you .

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf


Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
601. wait...this is another symptom of DU...this list is ok, but the "other" list is scorned?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:12 PM
Dec 2013

fucking amazing.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
670. Feel free to counter the points on this list as well.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:34 AM
Dec 2013

The "other list" has been repeatedly exposed with each new iteration to contain a hefty percentage of exaggeration and debatable claims.

"Ignore what they say, watch what they do. "

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
649. When I officially joined the Democratic Party in 1966,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:42 PM
Dec 2013

THIS is what the Democratic Party stood for:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
FDR, SOTU, 1944


Please note that FDR specified the above as Fundamental Human Rights,
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

There was a time in my living memory when voting FOR the Democrat
was voting FOR the above Traditional Democratic Party Values
that built the largest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen.

Sadly, this is no longer true.
The "Reagan Democrats", DLC Koch Brothers Money, and Clinton "Centrists" have corrupted these Fundamental Human Rights all in the name of the 1% making MORE profits.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font]
[/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center]
[/font]
 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
31. Bottom line for most is ...who's going to pay for Dem political campaigns.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:25 PM
Dec 2013

They are forced to bow before the corporations ...and then they act like they are the better choice. It's the same water trof. What gets me is these same anti corporate rule dino centrist 3 way'rs are quick to choose the most electable person who of course has the financial backing. Why don't they just admit that they are dependant on corporate rich 1% political $ contributions. Blind when it suits them. They are the ones selling this country out ...and they have good company from the other side as well. Shame on them all.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
32. You describe the reason we need to fight in primaries.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:26 PM
Dec 2013

Want to change the party's course?

Show up on primary day.

What usually happens? Most of the "left" you describe stay home.

"There isn't a good enough candidate for us!!". Well then, why aren't you running one? If there is this mass of dissatisfaction, they should do quite well. After all, look at what the teabaggers have done to the Republicans - lots of "establishment" Republicans have gone down. And that "left" presidential candidate is going to need a resume that starts with you voting for them for city council.

You can't avoid politics and then complain politics is not serving you. You can't make politics serve you by holding up a sign and shouting "Occupy!!" then go home. You make politics serve you by getting involved in politics.

You know the fastest way to make the Democrats turn right? Have only the right vote for Democrats on general election day. They'll do the logical thing - go to where the voters are.

This problem can not be solved by demanding the Democrats serve you. It can only be solved by making the Democrats serve you. You don't do that with posts on a message board. You do that be getting neck-deep in all the ugly piles of shit that are politics.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
35. Historically, that's happened only after the Hamiltonian party has collapsed
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:28 PM
Dec 2013

and the only game in town is an overlarge, unwieldy Democratic Party that finds itself unable to make any changes at all.

A new party coalesces around one or two issues--like Abolition in the 1850s. After that issue has been resolved, apathy sets in and the Hamiltonians take over.

The next leftist party might coalesce around ending corporate dictatorship or instituting cradle to grave single payer health care separated from employment or any of a dozen other pressing issues.

If history repeats itself again, this is how it will happen.

The extreme discontent of the left right now is useful. The more it is frustrated by the bloated Third Way, the better. It's going to have to be a lot larger and angrier before it becomes effective enough to challenge herds of conservatives.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
38. Yep-- and self-described "centrists" have already proven themselves too fickle to be relied upon.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:30 PM
Dec 2013

They abandoned the party during the last elections, many going back to the Republican Party-- even though they'd been catered to in every conceivable way by the corporate Democrats.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
513. It's the "Reagan Democrats" showing up again.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:19 PM
Dec 2013

In 1980 they defected from the Democratic Party and elected the Gipper. The same people switched sides again in 2008 and jumped on the Obama bandwagon. The next apparently-reasonable Republican candidate will make them jump sides again.

And here they are, lecturing Progressives on what the Democratic platform should be.

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)
522. Christie Democrats. How 'bout those blue dogs!
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:28 AM
Dec 2013
Christie's the strongest candidate for President right now because he's viewed favorably across party lines. He's at 48/26 with Republicans, 46/28 with independents, and 38/36 with Democrats. Clinton would start out ahead of all the other potential GOP candidates we tested against her on this poll- she's up 5 on Jeb Bush and Rand Paul at 48/43, 6 on Mike Huckabee at 48/42, and 8 on Ted Cruz at 49/41.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/12/christie-leads-both-democratic-and-gop-fields.html

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,485 posts)
46. I concur especially about
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:36 PM
Dec 2013

Any and all dialogue relating to moving the party back towards we lefties! I used to think our country was better off with just two political parties. I know today that isn't so. It may jot happen however for another generation or two.....

meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
54. I don't think a democrat "left" will prevail and take over the party
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:40 PM
Dec 2013

There isn't enough infrastructure backing it. There can be a grass roots uprising, but it will never gain huge traction because there isn't 25,000 radio markets dedicated to the democrat "left" like there is for right wing agendas.

There isn't "news" stations on tv dedicated to the democrat "left".

There certainly isn't enough money backing a democrat "left".

A third party? It's been tried over and over again and it hasn't won much of anything.

The only reason the tea party was able to gain so much control was because they had all of those things supporting them. The "left" does not.

Until money is taken out of the political process, all of these ideas can be fought for, but I don't see any of it prevailing on a larger scale.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
68. I don't think the left is trying to take over the party. That's already happened by the right.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:51 PM
Dec 2013

We're asking the party to stop moving right and move back left where it used to be. We don't want or plan to leave the Dem party ...we don't want it to leave us ...as it has been doing.

meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
101. If we could get more representation like Elizabeth Warren
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:09 PM
Dec 2013

the apathetic masses out in the land might be motivated. She's a good champion of progressive causes and is very normal and likeable.

Just like the right wing fringe some of the left can seem a bit whacko too. Then you have Fox News, CNN and all the right wing radicals on the radio hammering away at the weirdness, and that person is toast advancing in the democratic party. For some reason, that hasn't seemed to work on Warren. She needs to be cloned.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
470. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Mike Gravel, Alan Greyson, Wendy Davis, Carl Sciortino...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:02 PM
Dec 2013

Kelly Westlund, Donna Edwards, Tammy Baldwin, Mark Takano, Raul Grijalva ...and we need many more.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
56. We must take back our Party. Support progressive organizations outside the Party
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:41 PM
Dec 2013

These organizations, unlike the DCCC, DNC, or DSCC, will promote PROGRESSIVE candidates. We need progressive candidates and not conservatives. Eight more years of conservative rule will kill the lower classes.

If you want a Republican President, support Clinton for the nomination.

Goldman Sachs, one of Clinton's early sponsors.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
61. Fuck Yea!
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:45 PM
Dec 2013

Excellent post Kentuck.

I especially like those who call us deserters ( I am still going to vote for those who have any fucking doubt). Rather than focus that energy towards politicians who have way more immediate control over the situation and create the environment we have to live in, it's the people's fault for not voting or not voting for the right gal/guy, for being critical and ask questions, it's all our fault.



That's some fucked up logic.

Seems our choices are:

Actual left leaning Democrats

Turdway corporate Republicans called Democrats that pull the party to the right with every election win

or Crazy Ass Republicans.


hmmm, One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same, one of these is not like the other..........

I don't see how the Thirdway is an option from Republicans. It's either a slow death by a thousand cuts or a dierct stab in the heart.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
81. I can be contemptuously scoffed at and NOT represented by Republicans without lifting a finger.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 05:56 PM
Dec 2013

Why would I donate money and campaign for a Democrat to get the same treatment.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
98. You mean the imminent election of Jeb Bush?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:08 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It's coming, thanks to your divisiveness.

I'm sorry I feel compelled to say this.


Why don't you focus on the primaries...

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
124. ok let's do the Ted Cruise Tea party strategy
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:30 PM
Dec 2013

It's clearly a way to win national elections.</sarcasm>

The difference between you and me is after our primary, I plan to vote for the Democrat. Not sure what party you belong to or plan to vote for...

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
154. Thank you for your interest in the Democratic Party
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:53 PM
Dec 2013

We regret that we have no opportunities for you at this time.

We will keep your post on record for one year, so please do not reply.

Response to XRubicon (Reply #154)

U4ikLefty

(4,012 posts)
126. kentuck is going to elect Jeb Bush all by himself?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:32 PM
Dec 2013

funny stuff.

When a corporate Democrat wins the primary (he/she has the $$$$), are we supposed to shut up & toe the line?

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
367. You should take a quick look at the DU terms of service
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:50 AM
Dec 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

"In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees"

That is only if you want to be a member... Good luck.
 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
130. We are also focusing on the primaries...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:35 PM
Dec 2013

though you may have missed a lot of these same people yelling to draft Warren for a 2016 run even if she does not desire to run and that we need to kill Hillary's candidacy before the 2014 elections even commence in earnest.

Short of armed insurrection, what more do you want us to do? We're not imbeciles, we're capable of doing more than one thing at a time. In the time I've been writing this post, I've also started dinner, applied for a job and did my part to make sure that the next Democratic Congressonal Caucus will be more liberal than the current one.

Fuck Yes! Destroy Clintonism, DLC, Third Way and the RW & moneyed takeover of the Democratic Party every day!

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
158. I'll vote for whoever you want, if they win the primary...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:01 PM
Dec 2013

I haven't decided who I want, but again, after the primary I am a Democrat.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
141. Is that's the best ''scary'' you can do? Jeb? Really?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:47 PM
Dec 2013
- You do remember that we've already been inoculated? Twice.


XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
178. Yes - two wars and the collapse of the economy with his brother was nothing to be afraid of
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:27 PM
Dec 2013

His dad had a little savings and loan situation too... but you are not afraid of a little more of the same are you.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
181. What I want......
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:35 PM
Dec 2013

...is for the whole damned thing to come crashing down. That's the ONLY way to ''fix'' this.


- I asked Santa for it, but he must have sent it via UPS or FedEx......

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
187. The Jeb Bush whose education plan Obama is trying to implement?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:46 PM
Dec 2013

exactly the point of the OP. If the Dems want to act like Repukes, they will have to depend on Repuke votes. Good luck with that

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
193. So you see no difference in President Obama and Jeb Bush?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:00 PM
Dec 2013

If you don't mind me asking, who did you vote for in the last two elections?

I have voted Democrat since my first vote for Mondale.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
301. Yeah, whats so bad about having a republican president anyway!
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:10 AM
Dec 2013

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

All Democrats and republicans are the same anyway right... except the ones you approve of right?



 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
108. The fact is that the status quo
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:16 PM
Dec 2013

is slowly killing the biosphere upon which our country and global civilization depend. All Republican politicians are status quo politicians as are all "centrist" Democrats. Voting for either is a crime against nature. That is all I need to know about our duopoly.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
114. I think the Party is coming to us.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:20 PM
Dec 2013

Leaving Hillary out of it for the moment, the Third-Way / Republican Lite movement is dead. Democrats will win on middle / working-class populism, or they will not win.

- No one is buying that SS /Medicare "must be 'reformed.'"

- No one is buying that Wall Street can remain unregulated

- No one is buying the New Surveillance State as reasonable.

- No one is buying that extended wars for control of the Middle East are necessary or useful.


Worker protections. Environmental protection. Banking regulation. Ending the war on women's health and reproductive freedom. Pushing back on voter suppression. Military cutbacks. A better, not worse, social safety net. No more micromanaging the Middle East by warfare that turns the blood of working people into cash for military contractors.

We can win on these ideas, or we can fall by the wayside. The grand experiment to turn the Democratic Party into a slightly more socially liberal version of the Big Money - bound Republican Party has officially FAILED.

But these ideas are strong in Democratic ranks, frantic attempts to marginalize the "fringe left" and the "professional left" notwithstanding.

New Deal Democrats are back, or Democrats are not back at all.

We shall see.

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
115. Everyone is thinking about this all wrong! It is not about Republican and Democrat any longer.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:21 PM
Dec 2013

It is about the Plutocrats, their minions, and the brainwashed vs. everyone else who is aware of what is happening and opposes it! Couldn't someone tell the the Koch brothers about the "Game of Life," but then, the "Game" doesn't have "Spoiled rich kids" as a career option!

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
186. It always was about Plutocrats, their minions, and the brainwashed.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:44 PM
Dec 2013

We've all been brainwashed.

For quite a while.

That's how we ended up where we are now.

Which is also exactly why this system can't be made to work.

It was never designed to work -- only to ''appear'' to work.

It is corrupt to the core and anyone who touches it or is touched by it becomes absorbed into it.

Or, poisoned by it.

- It is time for a new paradigm.


jwirr

(39,215 posts)
116. Okay, I think I have been here before. They killed my president and his brother and MLK. What the
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:22 PM
Dec 2013

hell difference did it make anymore. Stay home and show them how angry we are at Democracy in general. And we did and eventually we lost control to the government to raygun and his gang of thieves. We have never been in control since. But it has never been such a fight as it is now.

So you tell me that it cannot be worse if we hand this baby over to the rethugs. Oh, yes it can be. Their main goal is to get rid of the Big 3 -Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But it will not stop there. Veterans will lose their programs. Students will lose their benefits. The poor will be totally drowned in their bathtub. It can get worse with rethugs in control.

I want to get us back to a really liberal party but I don't think abandoning the one we have is necessarily the way to go. However I also do not know how to get us there without just waiting until the people are awake. I have seen every third party vote since Eisenhower and I have yet to see any success from any of them.

Having said that I would vote for Bernie Sanders or a true liberal IF they looked like the were going to win.



great white snark

(2,646 posts)
131. I'm compelled to say that you'd enable Republicans because of selfish reasons.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:36 PM
Dec 2013

A) I'm also the Democratic Left and you certainly do not speak for me.

B) Is Hillary even running? There's an election before any Hillary run and you choosing to focus on that highlights your selfishness even more.

HoosierCowboy

(561 posts)
135. The Democratic Party has always been
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:41 PM
Dec 2013

...a disorganized rabble, and I prefer it that way. Yet somehow this Party has always managed to achieve it's goals over time. Social Security, Medicare, and now ACA are its notable achievements and they all took a long time to enact in the face of overwhelming resistance.
The real problem is short memory, and who gets credit for it.
Quit believing in the left-right paradigm to start with. Can't see it for the smokescreen that it is?
There are no liberals (Maybe Jesus but He's non political)
There are no poor conservatives (..and the real rich don't give a darn about politics)
There is just a pile of Corporate Media BS that has been pounded into our heads from so long ago that we accept it as fact without proof. So as to divide the community of citizens against itself for the advantage of the Corporate Medias' own power.

Meyer Rothschild said: "Let me control the currency, and I don't care who is in charge"

Today, money is only an abstraction, but the power of thought control, as practiced today, its the ultimate worldly power that has everyone else under its control. Let someone control the Media and they won't care who is in power either.



Auntie Bush

(17,528 posts)
137. So you're saying..We'd be better off to have a Republican President than a Dem like Bill Clinton?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:42 PM
Dec 2013

I'd personally like a President to the left of Clinton but I'll be damned if I would vote for a Rethug or NOT vote in protest. What other choice do we have? Forget starting another party...ain't going to happen! If it does...the ReThugs will surely win...God help us if they do!
!

mikekohr

(2,312 posts)
139. President Nader agrees. Everybody else is a bit more pragmatic.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:43 PM
Dec 2013

Republican control crushes the economy, holds down upward mobility and increases suffering by the working and poor in this country.

Support progressives, support Democrats. In that order, but never wish for Republican takeover. There is too much at stake.

hay rick

(7,522 posts)
140. I'm trying to reform the Democratic Party locally but...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:44 PM
Dec 2013

I'm not going to pretend it has worked if it hasn't. Offering the better of two bad choices funded by the plutocracy is not a good long-term plan for the Democratic Party.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
142. Once again, some prefer fighting Dems to fighting the GOP.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:48 PM
Dec 2013

Here is the ironic part.

Your OP says that ...

A), the Democratic party has left YOU ... and then threatens,

B) We will leave the Democratic party.

Which is it?

BTW ... if the GOP takes over the entire government, your "so be it" will be very little to cling to.

The disgruntled left has shown time and time again that, for all the noise, it can't field an effective candidate at the National level.

And you prove that in your OP by not naming a single alternative to HIllary that appears to even remotely want the job.

I felt compelled to point that out.

chieftain

(3,222 posts)
144. "If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it."
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:49 PM
Dec 2013

There is an absolutely legitimate basis for being disenchanted with certain aspects of the Democratic Party but this attitude that Republican seizure of all the levers of government is acceptable is the height of irresponsibility. Dismissing as mere "fear-mongering" an accurate vision of what an unbridled Koch Brothers perversion of our politics is reprehensible.
We see the nihilists on the right hell-bent on destroying every shred of a social safety net. The nihilists on the left seem to be hell-bent on standing aside and letting it happen.
W's administration was a pluperfect disaster on every level. We should remember that the Tea party started largely as a rebellion against Bush for being too moderate. A Tea Party dominated GOP in control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government would pose an existential risk to our form of government and serious folks ought not dismiss this inevitability with a shrug and a "so be it".

Flatpicker

(894 posts)
223. This is what bothers me too
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:59 PM
Dec 2013

To sit back and let them take over would seem to be wrong.

In that vein of "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Wouldn't it be evil to stand back and do nothing rather than doing what you can within the allowable parameters?

mikekohr

(2,312 posts)
234. +1,000,000 recs. The rich don't fear that we hate them, they fear that we don't hate each other."
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:22 PM
Dec 2013

An intramural fight within the Democratic Party is the wet dream of Karl Rove, Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. We ought not oblige them.
We outnumber them, they outhustle us. We don't turnout to vote. They never miss an opportunity.

"We are the people we have been waiting for."
"I can't do this alone."
-President Barack Obama-

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
275. BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:57 PM
Dec 2013
...The rich don't fear that we hate them, they fear that we don't hate each other."

An intramural fight within the Democratic Party is the wet dream of Karl Rove, Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. We ought not oblige them.
We outnumber them, they outhustle us. We don't turnout to vote. They never miss an opportunity.

"We are the people we have been waiting for."
"I can't do this alone."
-President Barack Obama-


That's priceless. They are TERRIFIED that we will circle the wagons...again. And elect another corporatist Democrat...again. The thought of yet *another* corporate Democrat in office expanding *their* policies makes them just quake in their Ferragamos!



My friend, you got one thing right in that hilarious post. They *do* fear that we won't hate each other enough. They are terrified to the point of incontinence that Americans will stop falling for their contrived Red versus Blue con game of hating and blaming each other to the point of excusing any outrage committed by our "team," and instead target our anger together against the corporate thieves, liars, and warmongers that have purchased and infested BOTH parties.

And they are right.


--------------------------------------------------
*No, Obama hasn't done it ALL alone...but he has certainly put forth steady and aggressive individual effort as President. The very long (and woefully incomplete) list in the post below focuses on Obama's PROACTIVE efforts on behalf of banks, corporations, and the MIC, vastly independent of any Republican obstruction:

The record shows aggressive, PROACTIVE pursuit of a corporate agenda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4237892





polichick

(37,152 posts)
311. Obama took that quote from the Hopi and didn't credit them...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:19 AM
Dec 2013

And it's: "We are the ones we've been waiting for."

Number23

(24,544 posts)
235. Abso fucking lutely. At lease a few folks have OPENLY said in this thread and others that they want
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:24 PM
Dec 2013

the US to come crashing down. To fail. To be obliterated because that's the only way to "fix" the country.

We see the nihilists on the right hell-bent on destroying every shred of a social safety net. The nihilists on the left seem to be hell-bent on standing aside and letting it happen.

And this unholy alliance will be to the detriment of everyone. THIS is why these guys bray so loudly when they are compared to the Tea Party, because they see the similarities as well as everyone else.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
263. +1. Shrugging off the result of another 8 years of GOP rule, with the death and discrimination, is a
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:26 PM
Dec 2013
luxury many cannot afford.

We cannot join forces with nihilists whose nest is safe from harm and say, 'We who are about to die salute you.'

Such nihilist rants don't come from those in dire straits. They come from those who feel free to indulge in a temper tantrum with no regard for the lives of others. That includes my life and that of my family and friends.

JMHO.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
291. I think 'temper tantrum' describes this type of thing perfectly.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:55 PM
Dec 2013
They come from those who feel free to indulge in a temper tantrum with no regard for the lives of others. That includes my life and that of my family and friends.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
271. I wish they'd have the courage of their convictions...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:53 PM
Dec 2013

and come right out and say they're going to vote 3rd party. They'll get banned, but at least they'll be honest.

The use of weasel words, obfuscation and deception is pretty laughable. I guess they value their posting privileges more than their principles.

Sid

Number23

(24,544 posts)
286. "I guess they value their posting privileges more than their principles." And you nailed it, Sid
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:42 PM
Dec 2013

For all their roaring, they know that their influence is severely limited and mostly by their own antics and behavior.

Response to SidDithers (Reply #271)

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
290. The repukes HAVE been controlling things without having a majority.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:52 PM
Dec 2013

Now with 2+ more years to go they finally changed the filibuster rules so they can actually do something besides offer CPI and other shit that hurts a lot not so well to do people.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
644. "If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it."
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:10 PM
Dec 2013

Spoken like a true Naderite. The Democratic Party should know that there are these folks on the left working against them every bit as much as the GOP. They claim to be left of the party, but I have my doubts. Anyone espousing there's no difference between the parties should ask themselves if we would've been mired in two wars, if folks like the o.p. hadn't swallowed Nader's crapola.

It's a midterm election year, and these posts are becoming all too commonplace, and I think they run afoul of the stated TOS.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important —therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
145. Possibly.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:49 PM
Dec 2013

One thing that occurs to me, is that if there is indeed a splintering of the democratic party - if we do form our own more liberal, progressive group... it will likely remain a small group because there are many people who are very pragmatic and will work with the party that already exists. They will see this new thing as questionable, small, not likely to win elections or have true impact. Meanwhile, moderates and independents will most likely support the established democrats and republicans. The tea party has pushed some people left, but I feel that it has also pushed moderates into clinging fanatically to the party lines.

A new party would take years to grow, it would require leadership, it would require a great deal of money to be effective - and it would require an immense number of supportive voters to truly become a powerful thing in America. It is entirely likely that the creation of this new party would leave the door wide open for people as bad as the Koch brothers, prepared to fund the movement in order to pull it's strings and pursue their own political and financial agendas.

There are a great many obstacles that would have to be faced. Still... with that being said, I don't disagree with your post. Just keep in mind that for this sort of idea to work, it's going to take a whole heck of a lot of effort.

Me... I want a party that supports the poor. The democrats often cling strongly to the notion that they are there for the middle class Americans. The Republicans claim to support business, whether big or small. Neither party speaks very often of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless. Give me a party that does these things. Give me a party that focuses on the majority of us, the poor and working class.

If a party like this is created, I will eagerly become one of it's first members and apply any effort required.

At the end of the day though... I don't expect much to happen other than that many disappointed democrats and republicans will simply stop voting. More and more, it becomes a game for the rich and nearly rich.

wryter2000

(46,016 posts)
146. President Rand Paul?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:49 PM
Dec 2013

And a Republican Senate, House, and Supreme Court? "Being deserted by your own party" is worse than that? Tell that to people who lost their children in the Iraq war and people who lost homes and jobs in the economic collapse.

No thank you.

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
147. I disagree with your assessment of the Democratic Party. One thing about polical parties is
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:51 PM
Dec 2013

building consensus and bring groups with different, though at least close enough views together. When we move away from that, is when we face electoral failure.

We saw that in the 70's and 80's when we moved to the left, and have seen it again as the Repubs have moved further to the right.

I don't see the Democratic Left splitting off (which would be suicide). We may see a continuation of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party play more of a role in the party politics, and I hope we do.

mountain grammy

(26,573 posts)
157. As a lifelong Democrat, I'll keep trying to push my party left
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:59 PM
Dec 2013

but I'll not abandon it, because to do so would be abandoning America to the dark ages of Republican rule. No, there is nothing worse than Republicans gaining power.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
172. Not even three hours, and 120 recs.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:16 PM
Dec 2013

You have spoken the truth, Kentuck. The lying con artists are about to be shown the door.

To the Greatest Page.

xiamiam

(4,906 posts)
175. the democratic party left me..no truer words
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:23 PM
Dec 2013

after 4 decades of voting dem..and then being more shocked and disappointed with the ongoing and ramped up Bush policies, I'm voting for real change..real change thats not packaged and sold in a brand..eyes wide open and disgusted with almost all of them..so few exceptions that its embarrassing for all of us.
k and r

 

swilton

(5,069 posts)
179. I logged in for the sole
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:30 PM
Dec 2013

purpose of giving this post the 125th rec....

Thanks for saying what many of us feel!

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
188. When did I hear this before... oh yes in 2010 when we lost big
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:47 PM
Dec 2013

Winning the next election is THE most important thing. Glad DU does not represent the majority of Democrats.
Third party... yeah right. That's the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
194. So why don't the DC Dems try to attract some liberal voters then?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:00 PM
Dec 2013

they keep acting more and more like republicans. You would think THEY would learn something from 2010.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
198. We lost cuz Dems stayed at home when they saw the neocon agenda being furthered by our own party.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:07 PM
Dec 2013

Nite Owl

(11,303 posts)
210. We lost because
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:26 PM
Dec 2013

the dems were scared and ran to the right. Obama backed a center right Dem for reelection intstead of a populist unions candidate who could have won. He did the same in other places too.
Being called names by Rahm Emmanuel, 'f-----in liberal retards' I think it was.

Not exactly the way to get the liberal wing out to vote.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
254. Shhh.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:00 PM
Dec 2013

History is independent of reality. Their reality, you know like how Republicans makes shit up.

-p

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
204. I will say that this is a very enlightening post.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:18 PM
Dec 2013

The thread clearly shows the status quo and those who challenge them.

Eye fucking opening.

-p

brooklynite

(93,880 posts)
207. You'll let us know when that happens, right?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:23 PM
Dec 2013

In the meantime, I'll focus on the reality of supporting the most progressive people WHO CAN GET ELECTED.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
213. Do they have to be real progressives or is it good enough to imagine that they are?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:31 PM
Dec 2013

What if they only come across as being progressive on the campaign trail? ...and then ooops ...not what you thought you were voting for?

Flatpicker

(894 posts)
219. I don't know what the right anwser is.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:45 PM
Dec 2013

But I'd be more concerned with losing what little progress we have made by looking for ideological purity.

Seems that a few months ago we were cheering on the tea partiers in their efforts to primary their centrists and drive to the hard right.
I don't think I want to lose progress by trying for a slam dunk win and failing.

But, that's just me. I admit I have seen too many groups push for change too hard and too fast, only to lose it all.

The Republicans are still out there and they can take away what we have won in the last few years. Do we take a chance on losing it all just because small steps aren't steps enough?

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
227. I here ya and agree. Your vote is yours and you deserve to have a say in how things work.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:07 PM
Dec 2013

I completely support you.

I guess then the only other issue is how you define progress.

We have absolutely made progress and Obama has done an amazing job with what he was handed. That however doesn't qualify him for Sainthood. The one issue that has had absolutely 0 traction (even before Obama) is jobs. I see it as a national security risk. Without a sound healthy, vibrant middle class the country is ripe for perversion. The 1 % could easily push us into 3rd world status which makes it all that much harder to correct, ask anyone in the middle east. That's bad for all of us. I still have yet to see any significant correction in that area and am seeing quite the opposite, *cough* TPP.

But again to each his own and your view is as equally valid as mine.

I want us all to fix this thing together but it seems impossible right now. All of us absolutely know the right answer, right now and there's no room for discussion.

when things get to this point, you know there's a problem.



-p

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
221. anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't .
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:52 PM
Dec 2013

Um....YES IT IS.

tritsofme

(17,325 posts)
229. You and...ahem...what army?
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:08 PM
Dec 2013

The number of discontents are far too small to be of any electoral significance. Hillary has sky-high ratings among Democrats, this rump is irrelevant.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
430. Yet at the same time there is an entire corporate brigade
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:31 PM
Dec 2013

that throws a hissy fit and screams about alienating voters and blames us for 2010 and drags out the TOS every single time Democrats criticize the wolves in sheep clothing who have purchased this party.

Either we are petty and insignificant, or we are single-handedly responsible for the predatory train wreck the Democratic Party has become. The corporate talking point dispensers can't seem to make up their minds.

tritsofme

(17,325 posts)
447. It would be pretty silly to blame 2010 on a disaffected left.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:54 PM
Dec 2013

2010 was a wave election, there were a host of reasons it ended up like it did.

The typical low turnout midterm dynamic of marginal voters who only come out for presidential elections staying home increased the pain most, as these voters favor Democrats, these are the folks that matter. Along with this a highly motivated Republican base and independents that soured on Democrats made the 2010 wave possible, not a pout party on the anti-Obama left.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
230. A number of Republicans have moved to the Democratic Party complaining that their party left them.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:14 PM
Dec 2013

Hell, a lot of New England used to be a comfortable Republican Stronghold, the old Rockefeller Republicans (fiscal conservative social liberals), were of that group. Southern Democrats pretty much moved into the Republican Party making the South a Republican Stronghold. Changes in the make up of parties is not uncommon.

If the left leaves, the Democratic Party will cobble votes from more centrist and center right types, especially if the Republican Party fails to pull back from the Tea party extremists (who were a far right wing backlash on what they saw as a too liberal Republican Party.) and religious extremists who have become the core of their party.

Also, with the current make up of Congress there is nothing that the Democratic Party could do to appeal to the "left." As long as Republicans control the House of Representatives, they are not going to pass any legislation the left would find acceptable.

It isn't the party leadership that chooses the Presidential Candidate in a primary. I think it is close to 100% that Hillary will run for the nomination. Warren may or may not run against her. (Unless something happened over Christmas vacation, she maintains that she is not running.) Bernie Sanders might run for President, but he will not be in the Democratic Primary since he isn't a Democrat.

If the left were a muscular, coordinated force, they would be courted by the Democratic Party. But they do not act in a coordinated way. There was no mass Leftward movement to primary unacceptable centrist and center right Democrats. The tea party has had an enormous affect on the country in this century. The left has been AWOL.

If Clinton runs and wins the nomination, it certainly won't be with the help of the left. But the Democratic party leadership will not decide their candidate in smoke filled rooms. It will be decided by a majority of the Democratic Party that gets out and votes.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
231. I prefer to have Republicans in office who have an R after their name rather than a D.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:14 PM
Dec 2013

At least when the the Republicans in office have an R after their names we all agree that they are bad for the country.

But when the Republicans in office have a D after their names, half of us get real confused and begin defending the indefensible.

Obviously my first choice is to have true Democrats in office rather than DINOs.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
597. Really?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:31 PM
Dec 2013

it's better to have a Republican in Office because the R is a bright clear lline? Wow....I don't think I like your way of determining a political agenda.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
246. Good Democrats would never sell out we the people by supporting the narrow interests of those with
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:40 PM
Dec 2013

the money.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
253. #21 You Threaten To Form Your Own Party If You Don't Get 100% of What You Want
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:58 PM
Dec 2013
While all the time, you have no clue that you are speaking only for a few fringe wingnuts, not remotely for the majority of the Democratic Party.

Since you're decided to go off and form your own non-Democratic party, kentuck, please leave the Democratic Underground.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
279. And who are you to tell him to leave???
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:12 PM
Dec 2013

I'd like it very much if he stayed...makes me remember what a REAL democrat sounds like....


Some people here are guilty of theft - they think that by stealing the name "democrat" that makes them "democrats," but those of us around when FDR was still with us know the difference.

President Obama is a democrat, but doesn't get any help from Republicans, and is not supported by faux democrats, on their way to 3rd...

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
288. I'm glad you acknowledge that President Obama is a Democrat
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:48 PM
Dec 2013

...the OP does not. Not a "real" one.

And if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee in 2016, he is explicitly threatening to start a new party to try to damage the Democrats and get Republicans to take over the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Who "I am" in telling him to leave is someone who knows that while Democrats are welcome to disagree on the D.U. about various issues (and I'm well aware that my positions don't reflect the majority of views of the writers here), actually trying to get people to vote for people other than Democrats has always been against the rules of this site.

So if the OP wants to do that, he should leave.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
314. You see, that's a problem for me too
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:21 AM
Dec 2013

I do not consider Hillary Clinton to be a Democrat.

I mentioned people who are stealing the name "democrat," and I think she is one of them.

The 3rd way Dems should pick another name and not take the name away from FDR members, since we believe in what he believed....

But I don't think she thinks she is stealing, it hasn't even occurred to her that it's not her place to define a Democrat when so many of us disagree with her definition.

Many who do accept her definition don't go out of their way to help Obama because they're saving their strength for their new jobs promised them. I heard Rendell say he was expecting a White House job (on Crossfire), and other commentators have said as much about her supporters.

I think it't time for her to state her positions on SS, Medicare, Banking regulations, Wall Street regulations, Taxation for the wealthy, Trade agreements, cuts for the poor, stuff like that. Every time she comes out with a position, it's always after some other people have done it and she's sure it's the one favorable to the polls.


Semantics is what it's about.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
374. Then maybe you should leave the D.U. as well
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:09 AM
Dec 2013

The D.U. is not for people who openly advocate to vote for someone other than the Democrats in the general election. Period.

Nor are you "so many". President Obama has an 85% approval rating among regular Democratic voters, so you are in a very small minority. And those who would not vote for Democrats if Democratic voters choose Hillary are the true extremist anti-democratic fringe. Hillary is extremely popular among real Democrats - meaning those who actually vote Democratic, instead of just frustrated communist concern-trolls.

I also find it extremely ironic that extremist left wing haters have adopted FDR as their mascot. FDR was the classic pragmatist. The fellow was in bed with racists during his entire presidency. You whine that Obama has signal intelligence like every president before him?!? FDR sent Americans of Japanese decent to internment camps! And unlike most of the decisions you blame Obama for (which were really acts of Congress), that was entirely under the control of FDR. He could have stopped it if he'd wished.

No. It's not time for Hillary to do anything but wait until the time is right. You already stated you have no intention of voting for her, so why should she ever jump through hoops to appease the small handful of fringe screamers you represent?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
459. Only if he won the nomination...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:56 PM
Dec 2013

...which I imagine he could only do if he had a complete change of heart, enough to get millions of Democrats to vote for him in primaries.

You see, it's not about respect for any one politician. It's about respecting the will of the majority of Democratic Party voters. If you don't do that, you're not a Democrat. Period.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
483. +1
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:30 PM
Dec 2013

"Who "I am" in telling him to leave is someone who knows that while Democrats are welcome to disagree on the D.U. about various issues (and I'm well aware that my positions don't reflect the majority of views of the writers here), actually trying to get people to vote for people other than Democrats has always been against the rules of this site.

So if the OP wants to do that, he should leave."

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
257. I largely agree
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:12 PM
Dec 2013

I largely agree but I think we always needed to voice our reservations when we supported compromise candidates, and policies, and legislation.

The urge to constantly be putting a great big smiley face on everything our party touches has done us scant long term favor.

The numbers don't lie and the cold equations emanating from government have been benefiting the 1%, to the detriment of the rest of us, for a long time.

Our party's fingerprints, from its complicity, are all over that.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
270. Most Democrats cannot bring themselves to talk about it anymore.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:50 PM
Dec 2013

The inequality, the poverty, the lack of jobs, the addled-brained trade treaties, the low wages, Wall Street greed, taxes, homelessness, etc. It is all just beneath them. What does their "Party" stand for, anyway??

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
298. They do
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:07 AM
Dec 2013

"Most Democrats cannot bring themselves to talk about it anymore.

The inequality, the poverty, the lack of jobs, the addled-brained trade treaties, the low wages, Wall Street greed, taxes, homelessness, etc. It is all just beneath them. What does their "Party" stand for, anyway??"

...talk about it, but after decades of the decline, small progress is finally being made.

President Obama Praises Phoenix Efforts to End Veteran Chronic Homelessness
http://phoenix.gov/news/080613obamapraise.html

Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024217875

Did you catch Obama's recent speech?

Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history

by Ian Reifowitz

Barack Obama knows how to tell a story. One of his great strengths is his ability to craft a narrative of our history that resonates with Americans and advances a progressive understanding of who we are as a people. Obama's telling of that history always features both progress as well as our failure to live up to the ideals of equality we lay down at the country's founding. His American history narratives have long centered on two purposes.

The first is to encourage Americans across every possible group line to recognize one another as being part of a single community of Americans based on our shared membership in the civic nation. The President's placing of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall among the pantheon of the great events in our history is perhaps the best known example of this, among countless other occasions where he has done so throughout his career.

The second, one that featured prominently in yesterday's speech on economic inequality, is to emphasize the long-standing roots—as well as the moral superiority and greater effectiveness—of a common good-centered, progressive economic philosophy. I've never heard President Obama do this better than he did yesterday. He told the story of our country as one in which we moved closer and closer to being a society built around equal opportunity and a notion of the common good that provided a basic safety net for those of us who faced hard times.

Until, that is, we inaugurated President Ronald Reagan. Obama also rightly noted the impact of globalization on our economy, but then specifically highlighted the crucial role of right-wing economic thinking—calling out Reaganite "trickle-down ideology" on taxes and on the lack of commitment to invest in our country's resources—in moving us away from the path on which we'd been traveling for over a century thanks to progressives in both parties.

This is the kind of historical narrative that people can connect with. It is a story that has a clear good guy and a clear villain, the kind of story that, in raw political terms, helps frame the debate in a highly effective way. More broadly, the speech provided an exceptionally strong philosophical and factual underpinning for the progressive ideals we hold dear.

Below the fold is the excerpt of the speech in which the President lays out his narrative of our history.

Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.

It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described “poor man’s son,” who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man’s son could go learn something new.

When farms gave way to factories, a rich man’s son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low.

When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.

When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.

Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society. We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.

Now, we can’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The economy didn’t always work for everyone. Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- or out of opportunity. Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions. And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy.

Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past. And for some, that meant following in your old man’s footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. For others, it meant going to college -- in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college. And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.

Now, it’s true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest: The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income. But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone’s wages and incomes were growing. And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.

But starting in the late ‘70s, this social compact began to unravel. Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.

As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.

And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.

The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.

So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.

The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history


ProSense

(116,464 posts)
309. Does that
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:19 AM
Dec 2013

"as he tries to fast track the TPP. "

...mean this should be ignored?

President Obama Praises Phoenix Efforts to End Veteran Chronic Homelessness
http://phoenix.gov/news/080613obamapraise.html

Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024217875

polichick

(37,152 posts)
317. Yeah, he makes a speech like that while at the very same time...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:26 AM
Dec 2013

trying to ram through the TPP before people know what's in it.

On edit: Just noticed that this has been pointed out - oh well, it's worth a second.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
320. Actually,
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:31 AM
Dec 2013

"Yeah, he makes a speech like that while at the very same time...

trying to ram through the TPP before people know what's in it. "

...he made it a the "very same time" he providing access to health care for tens of millions of Americans: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227754

The TPP isn't even out of draft form yet.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
348. "That Republican healthcare plan "
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:22 AM
Dec 2013

will give tens of millions peace of mind and save tens of thousands of lives each year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227754

So call it whatever makes you feel better. Republicans prefer the Affordable Care Act to Obamacare.



polichick

(37,152 posts)
397. The joke's on you - that plan was hatched by the Heritage Foundation...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:52 AM
Dec 2013

A Democratic plan would be universal single payer.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
404. No,
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:11 AM
Dec 2013

"The joke's on you - that plan was hatched by the Heritage Foundation..."

...the "joke's on you," apparently. I mean, you apparently bought the Heritage Foundation's BS.

And here’s the thing: Republicans don’t want to help the unfortunate. They’ll propound health-care ideas that will, they claim, help those with preexisting conditions and so on — but those aren’t really proposals, they’re diversionary tactics designed to stall real health reform. Chait finds Newt Gingrich more or less explicitly admitting this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/a-health-care-mystery-explained

Republican proposals are hypothetical and theoretical BS. They have no intention of doing anything positive. They get credit for pushing things that they don't actually support and would never enact.

It's like Romney's veto of the most significant parts of the MA health care law.

Still, if you want to credit Heritage and Republicans for providing access to health care for tens of millions of Americans, go for it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227754

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
300. Some pathetic, diluted, sold out group of empty minds voting without principles and conscience???
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:09 AM
Dec 2013

You're talking about repukes ...aren't cha?

What does their "Party" stand for, anyway??

Gore1FL

(21,035 posts)
274. I suspect we might see the GOP vanish nationally because of the Tea Party.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:57 PM
Dec 2013

The Democrats will move to the right as they capture independents and lost Republicans. A party to the left will spring up to fill the vacuum created.

Some sort of realignment seems to be coming. I am not sure if 2016 is when it will come to a head. It may be sooner. It may be later.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
277. It's the nature of the system to destroy such ideals...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:00 PM
Dec 2013

wouldn't you say? I don't believe that I've ever voted in any election expecting some magical change to occur after my chosen Democratic candidate won and was sent to Washington (or a state capitol) to do his/her job. They have simply done the work required of a politician who represents this USA we live in, this capitalist system, and no vote we can cast is ever gonna change that reality, whether we stump and struggle to get progressives elected, or go out and shout to the rooftops that our "party" has abandoned us, lets start a new one, and then expect that political party to have any effect, whatsoever, except to further the cause of the Right Wing to keep the working class divided.

I just think that there really are no illusions. You either understand that there's a limit to what we should expect (and demand) when working within this system or you don't. Raising the conscientiousness of those we work with in our daily lives, to actually come to that realization, is the best we can do.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
296. 199 recs and counting.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:04 AM
Dec 2013

You Koch-bankrolled liars, thieves, and warmongers. Your pathetic con is exposed, and you are on your way out.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
305. Me think's some of them are their own enablers.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:13 AM
Dec 2013

Some things are so polar opposite yet they claim to be the voice of the majority. They contradict themselves and are overindulgent with their opinions. There are more claims than questions.

It's amazing to watch here.

-p

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
368. We need to get our local elections back, then states back.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:50 AM
Dec 2013

I have no illusions that the road away from the current form of state primaries will not be hard. But I think it’s logical.

Learning from California
RUSSELL SADLER

[link:http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/|
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/

“…The party primary was an Oregon innovation, passed by initiative in 1904, at a time when the two political parties were controlled by party “bosses” who determinedly ignored the problems of everyday life. The idea was to give rank and file voters in those parties the ability to nominate their own candidates. It worked as long as party candidates were attractive enough to win the crossover vote needed to win office.

That system has lost its utility as Republicans and Democrats represent smaller percentages of the whole electorate. The solution is not a third party. The election laws -- written by Republicans and Democrats -- are deliberately rigged against third parties and independents as Ben Westlund’s unsuccessful run demonstrates. The first step toward election reform is elimination of the primaries and one all-comers race in the fall where all voters have a real choice.”

donheld

(21,311 posts)
372. .
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:34 AM
Dec 2013

Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, John Kasich, Rick Snyder...

Sparky 1

(400 posts)
373. Anyone who knows the difference between the two parties and wants equality for all and cares
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:45 AM
Dec 2013

. . . about the less fortunate isn't going to go running away crying just because the Democrats didn't give them everything they wanted. No politician will ever give you everything you want. Ever. Even your spouse (if you have/when you get one), whom we hope you picked with the utmost care, won't do everything the exact way you want it.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
378. These people are the reason the Democratic Party nearly went extinct in the 70s and 80s...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:21 AM
Dec 2013

We've been down this path before. It's scary. Unfortunately, liberals don't learn their lesson. They'd much rather drive the party into the ground over purism than actually have a competitive, diverse party.

We're not going to nominate McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. They're loser candidates who nearly killed the party.

What's ironic is that these same dolts are the reason Russ Feingold and other liberals lost in 2010. It's not all or nothing, folks. When you sit out and bitch and complain, which DU is good at doing, liberals become fewer and fewer in Congress.

Guess what, guys! There are less liberals in congress today than in 2009. You're not going to just drive moderates out of Washington! You're going to drive out liberals too. That's how it works.

Hell, if Elizabeth Warren ran in 2010, she wouldn't win under the conditions that killed the party. Folks need to remember that. You're not just hurting DINOs - you're hurting liberals. Grayson, Feinhold and others learned that lesson in 2010 (and just might again in 2014).

You want a more liberal congress? Well sitting out and whining won't do that. It'll just kill the only liberal voices left and replace 'em with Republicans.

But I'm guessing most liberals don't care about that. I think they'd rather have Republicans win, gut everything and have something to bitch about than win, work for more change and realize that, overall, we've seen a great deal of progress the last five years.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
479. You guys really need to update your bullshit talking points
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:22 PM
Dec 2013

2010 was because moderates stayed home. Your buddies. Not ours. This "duh liberals cost us duh midterm" nonsense has been debunked dozens of times yet you continue to flog it because you don't seem to particularly care about the accuracy of your arguments.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
484. LOL so your point isn't even consistent then...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:35 PM
Dec 2013

More self-identifying moderates and conservatives voted in the 2010 midterm elections. Liberals only made up 20% of the voting electorate back then - while conservatives nearly HALF the votes.

Either there are hardly any liberals in America or they don't vote. Either way, it doesn't bolster your point.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
485. Interesting you lump moderates and conservatives together.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:35 PM
Dec 2013

So do I. The fact remains that blaming liberals for 2010 when we turned out as always, is a dirty damn lie.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
501. You didn't 'turn out as always'.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 08:09 PM
Dec 2013

That's actually a lie. 5% fewer liberals turned out in 2010 than 2008 and 2012. Moderates, who voted for the Democrats in 2010 - and made up 38% share of the vote - did only two-points worse than their 2012 share.

Liberals sat out the midterms in a higher number than moderates, who overwhelmingly supported Democrats (55 to 42) and it cost Democrats some key seats. If they had turned out 23% of the vote, therefore seeing only a two-point drop between election cycles, the difference would have been significant enough to probably keep a handful of Democratic seats.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
503. Here's the ACTUAL story
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 08:36 PM
Dec 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665204

Liberals voted the same in 2010 as they did in the previous midterm, and even moreso voted for Democrats. We showed up, as always. You think moderates deserve a cookie for not showing up and voting less for Democrats. Liberals are the baseload power of the Democratic party, so you can go ahead and stop shitting on us any time now.
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
525. You proved my point - liberals don't turnout.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:32 AM
Dec 2013

They might in presidential elections. They don't in midterms. If they did, Democrats would do solidly better. Even 2006's gains weren't because of liberal turnout - they were because of a higher number of moderate voters voting for Democrats.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
707. BS.
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:54 AM
Jan 2014

Your "point" is a debunked MYTH created by the "Centrists" and perpetuated by the Reagan Democrats to cover their own nauseating BS.

Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?

Wherein is this great liberal(/progressive) sulkfest in lieu of voting? Liberals voted. They voted for Democrats. I don't know how many held their noses while doing so, but they damn well did so, at least according to the most reliable evidence we have of such things.

<snip>

Still the claim that petulant liberals punished Obama to their own detriment is repeated so often with such certitude, I thought I would request to see the proof of it, because I don't see it, in the most obvious place it would appear if it were there, the proportion and voting of actual liberals in comparable elections. If you have some more complex explanation of how it really happened, I would like to see it, because all I see is the proportion of the voting population calling themselves "conservatives" grew tremendously at expense of those calling themselves "moderates." Either a bunch of moderates became conservatives, or moderates stayed home, or a lot of conservatives who usually stay home came out. Or some combination of those things. Yet any of those explanations would be tremendously at odds with the "blame the progressives" explanation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout#



Please provide some legitimate support for your BS that The Left did not Turn Out in 2010.
You guys are really invested in getting that falsehood accepted a common knowledge.

Fox News does the same thing,
Repeat a LIE enough,
and people will start to believe it.

I guess conservatives are the same wherever you find them,
DU or FOX News.

I have a problem with members knowingly posting FALSE information at DU.
I take this seriously,
and DU should take this seriously too.

So I challenge you:
[font size=3]Support your claim,
or stop spreading falsehoods at DU.
[/font]


You will know them by their WORKS.
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
711. I showed you proof...
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 03:08 AM
Jan 2014

Liberals saw a five-point decrease from their overall turnout in 2010 compared to 2012. Moderates only saw a two-point decrease. Therefore, yes, fewer liberals turned out than moderates.

Those are the facts. You can pretend they don't exist, but they do. Liberals will be there for presidential elections, but they don't have near the consistency of turning out for midterms as conservatives and moderates.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
717. You haven't "shown" anybody anything.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 01:49 PM
Jan 2014

You have made some unsupported claims.

I posted a link to specific data that exists in the REAL World,
and can be verified by anyone who cares to look.



I win.
You lose.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
718. You lose.
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 02:37 PM
Jan 2014

Sucks to be you.

2012 demographic breakdown:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

Vote by Ideology:

25% Liberal
41% Moderate
35% Conservative

2010:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1

Vote by Ideology

20% Liberal
38% Moderate
42% Conservative

Okay, so, I was wrong by one point. There was a three-point difference between moderates in 2010 and 2012. However, that doesn't change the fact there was a five-point difference between liberals in 2012 and 2010. Math is not hard. 5 > 3. Had liberals voted at the same rate they did in 2012 back in 2010 and the election is dramatically different - with Dems holding on to some close seats (including, potentially, Russ Feingold).

So, my point stands. Liberals show up in presidential elections at a higher rate than midterms.

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
379. Oh here we go again with TeaLeft extremism. Good. Stay home and BITCH again. Then when the ReSCUM
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:28 AM
Dec 2013

get in, you'll just bitch and whine and moan even louder. Remember 2010? How'd that work out for you? Please, get real.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
387. moderates lost Dems 2010
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:53 AM
Dec 2013

As the exit polls showed and has been posted here to counter that liberal-bashing bullshit many times. So the real question is...how'd that work out for YOU?

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
389. Progressives are the Tparty's worst nightmare
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:15 AM
Dec 2013

They are a parasitic group that is trying to steal the Republican party, just as the 3rd way is trying to steal the Democratic party.

What about the issues? Nobody says anything about how the 3rd way would govern...Tell us about Social Security, Medicare, Unions, Taxes for the wealthy, Business breaks - oil, gas, environment, wages, Wars that must be started on another country's whim - your answers would do more good if they are good for most Americans, I say "most," not telling people who have spent 75 years in the Dem party to leave "D.U."

I always refer to it as DU, another difference....

I never join a pro-Hillary thread, because I feel that her supporters have a right to post without aggravation. Why do these same people jump in and take over this thread just as their wing of the party is trying to take over the entire party who is not for her. The polls can serve anyone...didn't I read somewhere that a hot dog can win a poll if properly worded?

Twisting everyone's words is the only way you will get the nomination for her. There's an old saying the new "Dems" never heard of apparently - the one about the spoonful of sugar. You guys sound like you would give us a spoonful of something and it's ain't sugar....

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
390. Voting for a third Party is throwing away your vote.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:16 AM
Dec 2013

Voting for a Republican is premeditated suicide. Not voting is nothing but denial of reality.

I will vote the straight Democratic ticket every time. What else is there?

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
394. What else is there?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:32 AM
Dec 2013

It's funding candidates and ads that will tell the TRUTH about what the 3rd way intends to do should it win the presidency.

That's something that everyone in DU should be asking for as well...

A lot of people don't eat, sleep or watch politics like DU people do. And when those who don't finally start paying attention, she won't have a chance... otherwise, why would her supporters in DU be so desperate to get every chance they have to criticize US instead of educating us? Why is that?

Platform, names of money supporters, promised jobs, anybody know?

I'm sure any reply to this would be to blame me for the Dem loss and ask me to leave instead of answers...

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
398. You will only be helping a Republican win the White House.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:52 AM
Dec 2013

The "Third Way" has to be funded by the Koch brothers. They may be doing it through several levels of proxies, but I would bet anything they are behind the funding of that movement.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
591. The "3rd Way" is the old DLC.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:17 PM
Dec 2013

The DLC was funded by Koch Bros Money,
and the Koch Bros had representatives on the DLC Executive Council.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

One member of the DLC’s executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively–meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms–though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.



The following is very interesting,
and well worth the time:
The Right Wing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democrats.com/node/7789


Those who disseminate mis-information and protect the Koch Brothers will all cry,
"But the DLC is gone",
but they know, and those of us who watch these thing know that the DLC merely shed its old skin,
and re-emerged as the "3rd Way".

To get an idea of how entrenched the Koch Brothers funded DLC is in the Democratic Party,
and how infiltrated the Party Leadership is with Koch Brothers Money,
here is what newly elected President Obama chose as his cabinet:

[font size=5]
The (Koch Bros Funded) DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply
[/font]

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
393. "sorry" is the right word...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:26 AM
Dec 2013

The 3rd way is breaking most of our hearts I'm sorry to say as well.

It's more like a disease than a platform - which no one has yet described in better words than "Leave the D.U."

I am familiar with most of her supporters, nice people in most respects, who do not come out with "love it or leave it," so they must not have the same incentives as those holding the door open for us to leave.

Platform and names of supporters, please provide...and a list of perspective cabinet post and advisers, and other notables who have already been promised jobs with this impossible victory.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
455. I think the only difference between the third way and Republicans is
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:49 PM
Dec 2013

lipstick.

But hey if we vote any other way than the 3rd way the Republicans will win!!???!!!??!?

Voting 3rd way solidifies a right wing presidency.

Death by a thousand cuts.

-p

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
545. Well done!
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:53 AM
Dec 2013

One of the best jobs of quickly circling the wagons I've seen. That is a strong defense, indeed.

mtasselin

(666 posts)
395. years
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:38 AM
Dec 2013

If we don't retake our party from the wall street democrats then it is way to late, it would take 20 years to start a new party that could start winning elections. It is now or never and if the American people don't realize this then we have about 10 months to show them the way.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
403. Happy to kick this great OP and wonderful thread. DUer RC created this graphic to describe ...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:10 AM
Dec 2013

... the politicians in Washington and I think it's on the money.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
407. "Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen"
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:17 AM
Dec 2013

Count me among those who do not believe President Obama is a "Centrist", and who do believe (along with most rational people) that winning elections is important in a democracy. You get to vote in your party's primaries, but you don't get to dictate my Representative or Senator, just because you don't like that mine are not "your kind" of democrats. I voted for Hillary as Senator and even (horrors) voted for her in the 2008 NY primary.
Accepting the will of the majority is necessary in a democracy and those who would try to use temper tantrums and threats to get their way should drop out or form their own party.
Even the Libertarians and the Tea-party were smart enough to try taking over an existing party. The T-party may even have succeeded.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
432. Why be anti left Dem? What is it that causes Dems to move right instead of left?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:48 PM
Dec 2013

Did not the left push for equal rights and win? Didn't they push for womens rights and win? Didn't they help stop Vietnam? I just don't get it ...why are they so willing to attack the Dem left? The attacks are not going to bring the left over to the Dem right. Asking or telling them to leave the Dem party certainly will not get their votes. It's gotten so bad that even FDR is being thrown under the bus. What's next? War, low pay jobs, more money for big corps, making those on SS suffer, etc? Yea many of the GOP have moved away from the teabaggers ...so far away that they have somewhat joined with far right Dems. Who knows how many have actually re-registered as a Dem. What could go wrong? One big ass party ...and two little parties with no chance of success? Republidems, Lefties and Teabaggers. Is that really what the centrists and 3rd way want? Maybe they don't want that for the sake of keeping the good cop bad cop game going on. I'd rather have a Dem party that is very clearly identifiable and distinguished from the right ...by their actions. I want to know who I am voting for and be able to vote for them with a clear conscience and integrity. Is that being too left?

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
458. Because the third way trolls will berate you on DU.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:54 PM
Dec 2013

Seriously, for a left wing biased web site we sure have a lot of conservatives here muddying up the waters.



-p

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
471. "What is it that causes Dems to move right instead of left?"
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:09 PM
Dec 2013

Money and fear. The politicians shift right, chasing donors, and some of the rank-and-file go right because they're afraid of losing. They don't realize that they're still "losing", albeit at a slower pace.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
556. A democracy is based on majority rule,
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:26 PM
Dec 2013

and as a member of the party that did most of the things that you attribute to the "left", I find these threats against my party offensive.

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
570. Democracy allows even the most ignorant to vote,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:46 AM
Dec 2013

it wouldn't be democracy if it didn't.
Why am I not surprised that you think that your childish observation is intelligent?

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
573. Absolutely, and you have a problem
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:10 PM
Dec 2013

with democracy that you just made plain. Why even bother posting on a Democratic board, you know, the party that expanded the franchise?

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
578. I don't know, When you learn to discuss anything with anyone,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:27 PM
Dec 2013

let me know. In the meantime, continue with your childish rants and name calling.
You might want to also consider whether you are a Democrat, the few understandable things you have posted lead me to think that you don't even believe in democracy.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
580. If democracy enables the 1% control our government and ignorant minds then it has failed...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:33 PM
Dec 2013

so keep up with the condescending crap YOU started with ...because you really want to have an intelligent discussion?

Why am I not surprised that you think that your childish observation is intelligent?

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
585. I just wanted you to admit your dislike of democracy,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:24 PM
Dec 2013

but I still have to ask why you get so upset about how government offices are filled when you are posting on a political message board for the Democratic party?
You should continue to hide your hatred for the ignorant voters and just try to stop them from voting, kind of like the RW is doing.


 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
587. I'm sure you know that this political message board is for progressives and not just democrats...
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:31 PM
Dec 2013

but don't let that stop you. It won't stop me from criticizing flaws and failures in the democratic system.

I still have to ask why you get so upset about how government offices are filled

Jeeze

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
590. US progressives believe in our form of government,
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:53 PM
Dec 2013

and criticizing voters for being ignorant is NOT A FLAW OF GOVERNMENT, it is an attack on our system of government. It says that you do not really believe in the franchise, unless it instantly results in government doing what you want. It is no different than the attacks on voting from the T-party and Libertarians. You can keep telling yourself that your beliefs are progressive but they are actually to the right of most conservatives in the US.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
592. Project much?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:48 PM
Dec 2013

The 1% has taken over IMO. Are you ok with that? "franchise" wow ...from who? Some corporation? ...and your excerpt bellow is reading into what has not been said. I've seen enough repukes do that as well ...and trolls too.

you do not really believe in the franchise, unless it instantly results in government doing what you want

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
594. "Project much?"
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:56 PM
Dec 2013

Holy crap, you don't even know what the franchise means in relation to voting. Are you even from here, you don't "project" being America, Democrat, or even living in a democracy.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
596. I'll stop with this... you can go on ...but I'm done with responding to you. Not worth my free time.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:05 PM
Dec 2013

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360

...in every policy area important to the One Percent.

This list does not show the President trying to enact a more liberal agenda and being obstructed. It shows him working aggressively and proactively, over and over again, to install corporatists into his administration and to enact a corporate agenda.

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:
A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. Tim Geithner. And now Penny Pritzker.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legal immunity for telecoms/warrantless wiretapping
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executive to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's Office


Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

White House: No Subsidies for Union Health Plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014594512

Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html

The USDA’s Reckless Plan to Decrease Food Safety
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670859

This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095402

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Guess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the (Corporate) Dem "policy shop."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

...Obama explicitly campaigned on opposing Social Security cuts -- and he just endorsed them (AGAIN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019860

Obama's Promises on Social Security: His OWN WORDS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031544

Bernie Sanders: Chained CPI: An Economic and Moral Disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381690

wall street pulls the strings: social security under attack in february
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155427

Obama signs bill cutting 2.2 billion from food stamps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x309

Obama's New Treasury Secretary Pushes Austerity That Spreads Global Misery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022652850

Obama appointed Alan Simpson & Erskine Bowles to his goddamned catfood commission...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022633714

Why does President Obama keep Appointing Monsanto Shills to Key Gov. Positions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785

Penny Pritzker..The Subprime Queen...Obama's Pick for Dept. of Commerce
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665148

Obama's Betrayal of Public Education, Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

How can we NOT feel betrayed? These are just ONE day's headlines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

Obama Approves New Cross-Border Pipeline Benefiting Canadian Oil Sand Producers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758698

Pres. Obama: Why are you pushing the Koch Supported Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023563816

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Global Attack by the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101634573

TPP: A pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936342

The Obama administration's legal battle against whistleblowers, federal unions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672473

Obama’s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023312251

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024197266

Obama administration asserts that NSA spying cannot be challenged in court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296209

The Obama administration is aggressively growing private prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2670142

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

You do know how the DLC/Third Way was formed? (corporate money, corporate infiltration)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024150961

Third Way VP indicates they fear Elizabeth Warren's influence on the party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024168867

Majority of Third Way support from Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024164622

The Democratic Party's deceitful game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3928692

Progressive dog

(6,862 posts)
603. If argument is measured by volume, you win
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:39 PM
Dec 2013

I already got that you hate the US government, what I kept trying to find out was why you are on a US political web site.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
695. They also know that enough money can convince the minority that they're the majority.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:03 PM
Dec 2013

The things that progressives support, like a social safety net, poll well among all Americans, so why are progressives treated like violent anarchists? Why are their positions considered "extreme"?

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
408. It's time, beacuse the 3rd way is the wrong way.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:24 AM
Dec 2013

We can't afford not to return to traditional Democratic party values. Great post kentuck!

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
409. Run progresive candidates and I'll vote for them.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:30 AM
Dec 2013

Or I'll either write them in or vote third party. What WILL not do, ever again, is vote for some Corporatist, MIC ass-kissing, Turd Way, POS DINO simply because they put "D" behind their name.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
411. Don't try to convince me that I should take one for the team by voting for politicians
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:38 AM
Dec 2013

who do not act in my best interest. Been there, done that. That is the same con Republicans use on their base. I did not pledge allegiance to a team jersey.

If a politician really wants my vote, they'll earn it. If other people allow themselves to be conned out of their vote with deferred and vague promises that are never delivered on, that is up to them.

dotymed

(5,610 posts)
412. Thank you for saying this Kentuck.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:40 AM
Dec 2013

This has been at the forefront of my political thoughts. The democratic party politicians have defected to the corporate teat and no longer represent me.
That is why I have been so outspoken about the possibility of electing Bernie Sanders as POTUS. He is an Independent with the needs of average Americans as his agenda. He has proven this over the decades that he has been a populist politician. He has been unwavering in his representation and support of the common man/woman.
Yes I have been deserted by the democratic party which I have spent my life supporting. IMO, a third, major political party, made up of progressives is our only hope for a non-violent, inevitable revolution in America.
The "if you do not support the democratic candidate then a republican will rule" meme is lost on me.
If we can not have real representation for the majority, then the small corporate degrees of separation between the current two major political parties are insignificant. Possibly more GOP rule may be the impetus needed for the majority of Americans to revolt or at least realize the need for a true, powerful Progressive party.
I refuse to participate in the current Kabuki theater any longer....

libdude

(136 posts)
428. Sounds like
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:18 PM
Dec 2013

you either said what others are thinking or struck a nerve.
As a libertarian ( small l ) I have found more affinity with the Democratic Party in the last number of years. Did not vote for the President in 2008, did not think he had the experience, no did not vote for Clinton in the primary. I did vote for Obama in 2012, no regret, but did not expect to have voted for a " 80's " style Republican. Centrist Democrat, Third Way, being the current trend? No thanks.
As a Democratic Socialist with Libertarian- Socialist leanings, I find no future in supporting a centrist President or Party with primary interests being servant to the corporate funders that puts profits over people.
1.3 million long term unemployed kicked to the curb, retired and disabled Veterans COLA eliminated, etc. all agreed to by Republicans, some Democrats, and the President. No thanks to a Democratic Party that wont fight for the less fortunate when they have an opportunity, then run to the press to talk about their next fight. No thanks.

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
431. it has long been inevitable
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:32 PM
Dec 2013

and as I've been arguing to the "new Dems" here, it will likely be best seen and most acute in those who've been subjected to the divisive BS they've been spewing every time the policies or practices of BHO have been condemned or criticized.

Pretense has long been gone and the unwelcome mat unfurled long ago for us "extreme lefties" which only appear extreme due to the endless rightward drift of pols of both political stripes in DC, and the distance that has put between us. Their "sit down and shut up lest the rightwingnuts end" fear card was bound to inevitably lose it's value as a behavior/attitude modifying tool, just as those terror alerts under Bush did, and accelerated the evaporation of it. So their efforts have really been more of a self-fullfilling prophecy than anything else. I've long thought and argued that such tactics are more damaging to their efforts than the sharing of criticisms could ever be, considering that the critiques are really nothing more than common knowledge. They on the other hand, have personalized things in a way not unlike the recent effort of the COC putting up money to keep "the Tea Party tools" off of the ballot.

Obviously the only thing us old lefties are good for is our vote, and it no longer even buys tolerance for dissent.

It could well be that what we're witnessing and would be participating in, is one of those "sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better" situations.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
435. Just an observation, reading through these responses.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:02 PM
Dec 2013

You are heading toward 300 recs with this important OP, yet in all the discussion so far there is precious little mention of the real reason the Democratic Party in Washington is now inundated with thieves and liars.

Corporate money has corrupted the system. Corporatists have rewritten the rules for elections, balloting, debate access and "content," and campaign money. They created the slimy trails from K Street to Congress and the White House. They installed the revolving door to Wall Street through which so many of Obama's cronies are now exiting to become billionaires. They established the campaign system of corporate money that trashes any non-corporate candidate in the media. The DLC, and now the Third Way, are corporate manufactured, Koch-bankrolled corruption factories created for the sole purpose of replacing a government of, by and for the People with a government of, by, and for corporate interests. The system is rotten to the core because of money. Its STRUCTURE is corrupt to the core because of corporate money, corporate power, corporate rewards, and corporate restructuring of the rules of the game.

The corporate propaganda has done a marvelous, manipulative job of framing this debate constantly in terms of personalities and party loyalties. We are fed garbage about "pragmatism" and a "right-leaning electorate" and even pathological personal shyness or caution on the part of individual Democratic politicians...but it's all bullshit. This has nothing to do with personalities or individual politicians. It has to do with an entire system that is corrupted by corporate money, power, and purchased propaganda. The system SELECTS corporate sellouts and rewards them beyond their wildest dreams, and it destroys most alternatives before they even have a chance to get started.

The people are finally waking up to realize that our only power lies in our numbers, our unity, and our ability to refuse together to play by the rules of this rigged game.

We need to remember why we are in this place. When we jettison the wolves from our party, when we are able to grind the corrupt system to a halt in whatever form that takes, we need to focus first and foremost on STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND GETTING CORPORATE MONEY OUT OF ELECTIONS AND OUT OF WASHINGTON.

IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
441. Mike Gravel said it: "Follow the Money!"
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:21 PM
Dec 2013

Yep ...the guy that saw to it that Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers were made public. No doubt ...just another Snowden rat to some. He was another Bernie Sanders.

polichick

(37,152 posts)
445. Great post, as usual - I would just suggest one thing...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:39 PM
Dec 2013

There's another way to fix this system and that's for the people to draft leaders who are not about the money, who can't be bought and aren't willing to become whores - and then to run a people-driven campaign that goes around the current system, using the internet and social media for fundraising, organizing and disseminating information.

imo we have a better chance of changing things if we play the game our own way rather than try to change the way the pbt play.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
448. Message was hidden by jury decision.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:54 PM
Dec 2013

3rd way centrists are the prostitutes of the Dem party to which they are married to. They are adulterers as they sell themselves to corporations after the wedding. Dem candidates speak their marriage vows during their political campaigns and then turn their backs on those vows as they prostitute themselves for that next round of campaign funding ...and future lobby job that awaits them in Vegas where marriage and divorce is quick and easy.

who can't be bought and aren't willing to become whores

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
616. I think you are right about needing to do an end run.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:19 PM
Dec 2013

I also think that's one additional reason they are working so diligently on control of the internet.

Agony

(2,605 posts)
452. I think that it is perhaps more fundamentally about corporations than money
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:12 PM
Dec 2013

this is probably just semantics and we are in agreement but re-defining what corporations are and how they work for societal values would seem to be a "root cause". IOW it is not just about corporations/money/politics but corporations/society.

Richard Grossman speaks to this more than I am capable of...



Re-defining what a corporation is seems a worthwhile effort.

Cheers
Agony

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
619. I agree it's a worthwhile effort.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:23 PM
Dec 2013

It's always been about money. In the old monarchies, the elite were able to retain power and wealth through lines of succession. Corporations are the major vehicle through which the elite have figured out how to maintain power and wealth through generations even in ostensibly "democratic" governments that *claim* to hand off power every few years.

Interesting post. Thanks.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
472. The League of Women Voters "Nailed It" back in 1988...
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:22 PM
Dec 2013

...when they refused to host the Presidential debates.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.

In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. [font size=3]The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public".[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates


KoKo

(84,711 posts)
690. Excellent reminder....and it was a loss when we look at the way the debates
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 03:42 PM
Dec 2013

are run today on the personalities of both the Candidates and those "Selected" Media Personalities who ask the questions.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
689. "It's About The Money!" Shhhh.....
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 03:39 PM
Dec 2013

As you so well state. Problem is that our Dem Third Way doesn't want to talk about the money or deal with it...and so the issues pushed are to turn attention away from that glaring problem by throwing a blanket over it and pretending it isn't at the root of it all.

=======From your post:

The corporate propaganda has done a marvelous, manipulative job of framing this debate constantly in terms of personalities and party loyalties. We are fed garbage about "pragmatism" and a "right-leaning electorate" and even pathological personal shyness or caution on the part of individual Democratic politicians...but it's all bullshit. This has nothing to do with personalities or individual politicians. It has to do with an entire system that is corrupted by corporate money, power, and purchased propaganda. The system SELECTS corporate sellouts and rewards them beyond their wildest dreams, and it destroys most alternatives before they even have a chance to get started.

The people are finally waking up to realize that our only power lies in our numbers, our unity, and our ability to refuse together to play by the rules of this rigged game.

We need to remember why we are in this place. When we jettison the wolves from our party, when we are able to grind the corrupt system to a halt in whatever form that takes, we need to focus first and foremost on STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND GETTING CORPORATE MONEY OUT OF ELECTIONS AND OUT OF WASHINGTON.

IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY.

Teamster Jeff

(1,598 posts)
446. There is no way that Dems escape their RW "corporate phase" without a paying a price
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:40 PM
Dec 2013

This price will be Obama's legacy

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
453. We don't provide most of the money to the Party, but we are essential to its electability.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:41 PM
Dec 2013

Without us on the ground knocking doors and watching polls, party's over.

saidsimplesimon

(7,888 posts)
460. Thank you kentuck, speaking for myself,
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:01 PM
Dec 2013

I'm ready for a progressive/liberal candidate, for any office, willing to stand for human values.

Lacking the above, I will vote for the candidate that represents values worth saving. A Democratic Platform deserves more than lip service.

PatrynXX

(5,668 posts)
468. nothing
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 03:49 PM
Dec 2013

like having my dads mouth on the floor saying reason the country is a mess is the Dems have gone Conservative to which my dad has zero brains and now gone survivalist promised my mom 1/2 the year he wouldn't get the M400 well he did so last night because it's better to invest in guns than gold X_X well Gold really is silly but guns? since when? I invest in movie knowledge. its in me head.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
473. Wish I could give this another Rec.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:25 PM
Dec 2013

I'll settle for a KICK,
and an observation by Paul Wellstone:

[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font]
[/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center]
[/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
476. Yes.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 05:12 PM
Dec 2013

For some others who have posted interesting dogma of what a Democrat is;

Pardon any perceived wished Democrat party destruction from me, but please allow me my youthful indiscretion as I have only been a registered Democrat for 40 years. I’m happy that so many Democrats have properly learned neoliberal messages, history is exactly as you think it is, and that the Democratic party is only built for a narrow interpretation of how we should participate.

Unfortunately I have been afflicted with the “Chomsky” virus and view history, and government action differently from what was formally presented to me.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
491. Were tired of these threats. Just leave and join the Green Party
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:45 PM
Dec 2013

You've said the Democrats blew it and they aren't going to do things their way, so they should just leave.

They claim the party already left them.

Why are they still here when they need to find their candidates. I guess that takes work and isn't as fun as sniping.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
495. Judging by your active participation in this thread
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:02 PM
Dec 2013

you're not quite as "tired" or above "sniping" as you'd have people think with this post.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
502. I'm not threatening to leave the party for the nine millionth time
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 08:29 PM
Dec 2013

For five years it's been the party left me and the party does not stand for my values, blah, blah. The OP says the Democrats blew it. So if it's over, why aren't they doing something constructive like trying to run Green or Socialist or whatever candidates for state, local and federal offices? They are sniping at the Dems for no reason.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
706. We ARE the Party! Who is this 'we' you are talking about? You don't seem comfortable here among
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:33 AM
Jan 2014

democrats for some reason. WE will NOT be leaving the Party, much as the Third Way/Republican lite would love that. We intend to take it over, to remove the infiltrators AT THE BALLOT BOX. It may take a few election cycles, but that's fine. Anything worth while is going to take time and effort.

We're tired of those who have infitrated this party and betrayed the working class, the poor, minorities and whose allegience is to Corporate America. THEY HAVE A PARTY, let them go back to it.

If you don't like Democratic values then just leave but we are going NOWHERE. This party belongs to the people. It was hi-jacked for a while and because of events over the past decade we lost our focus, but NOT anymore.

The 'party' didn't leave us. It was hi-jacked and we are to blame because we participated by falling for the 'vote for the lesser evil' routine. But now people are finally awake and we are ready to fight for this Party and to kick out all the right leaning corporatists with a 'd' after their names and replace with REAL Democrats.

BKH70041

(961 posts)
494. (snicker)
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:49 PM
Dec 2013

You'll vote for the establishment Democratic candidate as vetted and chosen by the party leaders just like you've always done.

All of you.

I don't donate all the money I do for some subordinates, who should be thankful they're allowed to be a part of the party at all, to dictate how things are done.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
499. So you are saying this because of the Tea Party?
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:47 PM
Dec 2013

I can appreciate your belief in equilibrium. Sanders would make a good addition to any ticket.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
527. Do whatever you damn well please and form another party.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:53 AM
Dec 2013

Then say hello to the next Republican president. After which, all the purists can band together and spend the following 4 to 8 years bitching about the Bagger in the WH.





 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
528. It's ours. We're taking back the keys.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:01 AM
Dec 2013

Third Way's had it for 20 years, and it's gone very, very badly for the rest of us.

Ours now.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
530. It's our turn.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:19 AM
Dec 2013

The Third Way had it almost exclusively for 20 years, using its Wall Street allowance to exclude Liberals.

Wouldn't you agree that things have gotten much worse for us during that time?

Jus as Lincoln fired his losing generals, the 99% is firing the Third Way. We know its time to go back to the proven results of FDR Liberalism.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
546. No, it belongs to the people. Not the groups that pull out Koch money...
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:00 PM
Dec 2013


Not the groups that pull out Koch money and pay for despicable propaganda and purchased politicians who rig the system and buy the power and represent no one but the fat pigs who can't sell their message in honest ways.

The people have indicated clearly that we don't want a fascist surveillance state, or austerity, or more warmongering at the expense of our schools and our cities and our children. The predation coming out of Washington has not even remotely resembled what the people have asked for, for some time now.

The system is corrupt. The Third Way was NEVER a populist movement. Never. It is a deliberate infiltration paid for by corporate money, and it's time for it to end.

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
534. That’s the illusion of any real difference speaking, backed up by no real change.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:02 AM
Dec 2013

Realization is one thing, but t’s a hell of a time to actually accept it.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
553. "My candidate" hasn't even announced that she's running.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:18 PM
Dec 2013

Therefore, it's a tad too soon for her to have a platform.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
560. Crickets.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:56 PM
Dec 2013

no substance just mouth. I'm going to have to put him on ignore too.

The stoopid is strong in this thread Luke.

-p

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
535. Agreed. As many Democrats say they support Hillary as supported any Democratic Presidential
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:39 AM
Dec 2013

candidate. Hillary will win in a landslide. It wont be close.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
598. Well then IMO we have something in common with the 1% and the corporations.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:31 PM
Dec 2013

IMO they want her for POTUS too. The agenda is to vote for whoever can get the most votes for the party and win ..that's the bottom line I keep seeing and reading here. Must be nice to not have to think and just vote with the majority. So what is there to discuss? Nothing.

As far as the idea of going with a (voting or not) majority ...didn't a majority send us to Iraq? I don't trust the majority to do the right thing or vote for the right person. If the majority were to vote from a point of being informed with the truth then the system would work as it should. With the corporate media influencing people who do not have the time to investigate they can only go with what they think they know. Most people who are for Hillary IMO aren't worth discussing anything with. Their minds are made up IMO.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360

...in every policy area important to the One Percent.

This list does not show the President trying to enact a more liberal agenda and being obstructed. It shows him working aggressively and proactively, over and over again, to install corporatists into his administration and to enact a corporate agenda.

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:
A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. Tim Geithner. And now Penny Pritzker.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legal immunity for telecoms/warrantless wiretapping
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executive to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's Office


Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

White House: No Subsidies for Union Health Plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014594512

Wall Street Deregulation Garners Bipartisan Support Despite Devastating JPMorgan Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/wall-street-deregulation-_n_2910168.html

The USDA’s Reckless Plan to Decrease Food Safety
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670859

This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095402

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Guess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the (Corporate) Dem "policy shop."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

...Obama explicitly campaigned on opposing Social Security cuts -- and he just endorsed them (AGAIN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019860

Obama's Promises on Social Security: His OWN WORDS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031544

Bernie Sanders: Chained CPI: An Economic and Moral Disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381690

wall street pulls the strings: social security under attack in february
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155427

Obama signs bill cutting 2.2 billion from food stamps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x309

Obama's New Treasury Secretary Pushes Austerity That Spreads Global Misery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022652850

Obama appointed Alan Simpson & Erskine Bowles to his goddamned catfood commission...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022633714

Why does President Obama keep Appointing Monsanto Shills to Key Gov. Positions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785

Penny Pritzker..The Subprime Queen...Obama's Pick for Dept. of Commerce
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665148

Obama's Betrayal of Public Education, Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

How can we NOT feel betrayed? These are just ONE day's headlines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x366410

Obama Approves New Cross-Border Pipeline Benefiting Canadian Oil Sand Producers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758698

Pres. Obama: Why are you pushing the Koch Supported Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023563816

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Global Attack by the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101634573

TPP: A pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936342

The Obama administration's legal battle against whistleblowers, federal unions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672473

Obama’s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023312251

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024197266

Obama administration asserts that NSA spying cannot be challenged in court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296209

The Obama administration is aggressively growing private prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2670142

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

You do know how the DLC/Third Way was formed? (corporate money, corporate infiltration)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024150961

Third Way VP indicates they fear Elizabeth Warren's influence on the party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024168867

Majority of Third Way support from Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024164622

The Democratic Party's deceitful game
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3928692

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
542. If corporate Hillary wins don't blame me. I won't vote for her under any circumstances.
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:10 AM
Dec 2013

If I am going to have a politician NOT representing my interests I would prefer they just come out and admit it rather than whispering lies in my ear and deceiving me with veiled promises.

Run a candidate who represents the people instead of the corporations and I will donate both my money and my time whole heartedly.

ancianita

(35,816 posts)
544. GOTV is now the problem, since the 'beaten downs' know the rich and their two parties don't need
Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:24 AM
Dec 2013

their votes anymore. Even if progressive and pragmatists leave the party that left them, we know that fear doesn't move Democratic voters as much as it does Republicans, and the rich will carry on using the two party conflict 'sell.'

The 1% will run this country -- TPP and all -- with or without public support, no matter how each party's numbers GOTV. We will have taxation without representation.

THEN what. We can't clone Bernie Sanders. And he can't take the rigors of presidential campaigning, anyway. The damage has already been done. Further damage will be too much to undo.

I want a third party, but no third party registrations -- Green Party included -- exist across 50 states. Third party strength takes a 50-state strategy, and there's no real leadership or effort being made to put a strong, progressive third party in place.

Everyone here knows this.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
568. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:16 AM
Dec 2013

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love watching authoritarians crap all over themselves when they cannot shutdown the conversation!

Response to kentuck (Original post)

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
595. The OP and this whole thread is pretty sickening
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:59 PM
Dec 2013

to have so many on DU promote and push on behalf of any Republican win in any election by promoting a lethargic, give up, hopeless, helpless attitude is barf inducing.

OTOH...par for the course from this OP, and a completely predictable way to round out 2013.

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
620. Post any kind of divisive %$&* stirring and the usual folks get in line to lick the spoon.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:23 PM
Dec 2013

Sickening is right.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
627. What's funny is watching the numbskulls call those NOT in favor of burning
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:44 PM
Dec 2013

the United States to the ground in order to "fix it" or allowing Repubs to waltz into the gates of power "authoritarians." If there was an award for Most Misused and/or Poorly Understood Word, I would have to give it to "authoritarian". But when you look at the quality of the folks tossing it around, it's not the least bit surprising that they are using it wrong at almost every opportunity.

It's almost funny in a really sad way. I mean, some of these people would be scary if they had even the tiniest bit of power or intellect.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
632. I KNOW!!!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:03 PM
Dec 2013

They don't understand that [font size=3]Its OK when Democrats Do It!!!![/font]

Just because its WRONG when Bush & the Republicans did it,
doesn't mean that its WRONG when the Democrats do the same thing.
Christ on a Crutch!
I've tried, and tried, and TRIED to explain that you have to support our team no matter WHAT, or the Republicans WIN,
but its no use.
Its like talking to a bunch of children with their "Values" and "Principles" and "Ideals",
bunch of damned purists who don't understand the nuances of Party Politics!

We NEED a powerful daddy President who isn't bound by all that bullshit in the Constitution to keep us safe
and take care of the Job Providers, Wall Street, and the Big Corporations (unless its a Republican...then its NOT OK).

Thats OK.
We doan need no stinkin Liberals in our Party.
Fuck Em ALL.
Come on gang...3rd Way ALL the WAY!



Number23

(24,544 posts)
634. May your 2014 be better than your 2013.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:06 PM
Dec 2013

'Cause judging by this post, your 2013 was not good at all.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
638. What do you expect from people that believe 5 people trump 300?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:44 PM
Dec 2013

I think they've taken their hatred for the first amendment to new heights in this thread!

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
651. This thread is a perfect showcase.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:58 PM
Dec 2013

They have become a parody of themselves.


I know one thing.
"They" would have to pay me a BUNCH before I would publicly humiliate myself like what is on display here today.
The pathetic thing is that I suspect that some of them are doing it for FREE out of some misguided belief that they are supporting Obama or the Democratic Party.
So very sad that they would believe that this submissive, unquestioning devotion to authority is what makes one a Liberal...or even a Democrat.




You will know them bu their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.

Response to Phlem (Reply #611)

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
621. Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers: "Real Change Is Closer Than You Think"
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:30 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2013, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

DISCLAIMER: I've yet to read all this myself, however, it's highly germane to the OP, IMO.

http://www.popularresistance.org/popular-resistance-newsletter-real-change-is-closer-than-you-think/

Real Change Is Closer Than You Think
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
Popular Resistance, December 27, 2013


This week we review where we are, i.e. at what stage of the progression of social movements do we find ourselves; and broadly outline the next steps.

Successful people-powered movements follow a similar arc of development. The best description comes from Bill Moyer's The Movement Action Plan: A Strategic Framework Describing The Eight Stages of Successful Social Movements. Moyer expanded this 1987 article into, Doing Democracy, a book published in 2001, a year before he died. You can see a video of Bill Moyer’s last public presentation. (Note: We have had a few concerned readers. The Bill Moyer cited in this newsletter is not the Bill Moyers of Moyers Media)

Moyer's work is heartening for social justice activists because it shows how movements grow, recede and change their functions at different stages. By understanding the current stage of development we can better define the work that must be done to achieve success and predict how the power structure and public will react to our actions.

In a recent conversation, Ken Butigan, a peace and justice activist who worked with Moyer, told us that Moyer wrote the first draft of the Eight Stages of Successful Social Movements so people involved in movements would not despair when the movement did not immediately succeed and seemed to disappear without success. These are expected stages of development. Just as we would not expect a 4th grader to be doing calculus, we cannot expect a social movement to jump from Stage 2 to the success of Stage 7. Each step in the process serves an important role.

<>


Link from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28991.cfm
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
629. Waaaa waaaaaa!! Mommy, daddy! The bad thread won't stop!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:50 PM
Dec 2013

I LOVE watching the crybabies in this thread cry cry cry over the fact that not a ONE of them can stop us from talking about the truth! It just BURNS THEM UP and I LOVE watching them foam at the mouth!

WAAAA WAAAA! SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING ON THE INTERNETS THAT I DON'T APPROVE OF! ALERT ALERT!



I wish I could rec an OP twice!

God authoritarians suck! They make America a shitty place and have no place in a Democracy...but of course they already know that since they hate the idea of free speech!

WAAAA WAAAAA!!! STOP THE BAD MAN FROM TALKING!

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
714. LOL...
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 12:53 PM
Jan 2014

...and another kick for this epic thread.

[font size=3]CENTRISM!!!....because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO.[/font]




Whatever is In-the-Middle is good enough for ME!
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
724. We should keep this thread kicked all of 2014!
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 06:56 PM
Jan 2014

I would LOVE to see some of these authoritarians live by their convictions, but then that would mean they couldn't post here anymore!

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
635. You guys rock DU. The Democratic Party? Not so much. Looks like you marshalled all the forces....
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:14 PM
Dec 2013

from across the interwebs, from the Naderites, to the Stein/Barr/Paul idiots who couldn't win their way out of a paperbag. Congratulations! You rulez the internet!

"They will suffer no more under the illusion of being represented by the Democratic politicians in Washington."


I can hear those grandiose declarations coming out of this guy's mouth:





This must be a crucial midterm for you guys, you've kicked it into high gear pretty early. Oh, and I too am sorry I felt "compelled to say this".







Number23

(24,544 posts)
637. Oh my God, that graphic sums up this thread so perfectly
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:40 PM
Dec 2013

That is the funniest thing I've seen all day.

I said upthread that one of the dumbest things about this forum was the perception that recs=power. 300 recs confers all power and sentiment of... something from somebody, but then when I post that President Obama, the official leader of the Democratic party, enjoys a 77-79% approval from his base, his REAL base, which actually DOES say something about how the Dem party feels about its leadership and thus itself, somehow that was far less significant than a post on DU with 300 recs.

Over 1500 INDIVIDUAL people polled to get that 77% approval number vs. 300 recs on a web site. And that doesn't include the socks, zombies, Naderites and groups that you mentioned. Again, the phrase NO FREAKING CONTEST comes immediately to mind, but then I don't dwell in LaLa Land.

And let me just say, that ANY thread that has me agreeing with Beacool must be a very special thread indeed. Because what she (and more than a dozen other folks) posted upthread is exactly right. That's probably the first time I've ever said that.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
639. 300 recs = an "illusion" of grandeur. Hell, you could pick up 300 recs from the tree place, y'know?
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:55 PM
Dec 2013

Them acorns don't fall far from the "Old Elm". Offsite coordination is the key to 300 recs.







Number23

(24,544 posts)
640. ROFLLL at that pic!!! Girl, your graphics hit HOME every single time.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:01 PM
Dec 2013

I'm tempted to rec just for your pics! So glad to see that SOO many see what we see. And that they ALWAYS have and probably always will.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
636. Another kick so the RIGHT people don't miss this thread!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:25 PM
Dec 2013

I wouldn't want them to miss their chance to whine over free speech!

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
643. I'm sorry, as a minority lgbt female, I do not have any choice but to vote for Democrats. If
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:10 PM
Dec 2013

republicans take the WH, and Senate, I will be pretty much royally fucked, and will be forced to move to another country earlier than I want.

That's all, folks.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
645. That is exactly what they are "banking" you will think.
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:30 PM
Dec 2013

[font size=4]What are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahaha![/font][/b\]

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
653. I'm sure you're aware that I know that. My hope is that we can
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:12 PM
Dec 2013

nominate and elect a genuine progressive Democratic ticket. I don't want to lie, and say I'm not going to vote for Hillary if she is nominated. The religious right is, literally, as scary as all hell. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson 2016!.

NFW, Jose.

The truth is, my beliefs line up almost exactly with the Green Party Platform, which is the platform that I believe the Democratic party should adopt, and what I expect it it would be in a perfect Democratic Party world.

But I would be very unhappy if republicans ruled the country again... I look awful in pink triangles and concentration camp gray.

What do I do? What can I do? And I'm not the only one in this position.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
659. Happy New Year, Old Friend!
Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:51 PM
Dec 2013

Good to see you again!

It is encouraging to see the liberals finally stand up and try to change their Party. For over twenty years, they have voted for no other reason than to keep the "evil" Republicans out of office. They were told there was no other choice. Even as the Party slid further and further to the right and as it became less and less popular with the voters. Some still steadfastly insisted that no change was needed. In fact, it was dangerous to even call for change. In fact, it was downright traitorous to call for change.

Of course, this is a discussion forum and not necessarily indicative of any national patterns with the Democratic Party, we are to assume?

But, whatever differences there may be here are easily remedied. The "leftist purists" are not asking for much. They only want to have a voice in the Democratic Party.

They do not want to be part of any conservative Party, Democratic or Republican. They do not want more of the same. They do not want to see their Party debate Social Security as part of a negotiation over budget differences with the Republicans. They do not want to see more tax breaks and more wealth go to the top 1% in this country. They do not want to see wages continue to decline as the middle class continues to shrink. They do not want to see obscene defense budgets and continuous wars, as our people go hungry and homeless. They want to see their Party stand up to these special interests and stand up for the most needy in our society. That is their Democratic Party. They see it disappearing and they are ready to fight for it.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
663. another kick so minority gets it.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 12:27 AM
Dec 2013

Effective campaigning is pulling and pushing and in your facing, not hiding the corner with a bottle and blanky picking the least scariest in the room.

I'm hoping we're not made up of more than shuddering shoulders carrying a heavy basket of status quo.

-p

TBF

(31,922 posts)
671. I think most of us realized
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:42 AM
Dec 2013

what a pickle we're in when the banks were declared "too big to fail".

I don't blame Obama - he is a figurehead who took over a fiasco from a president (GWB) who will likely go down as one of the worst - if not the worst - in history.

We are now sitting in a new country that has turned into a playground for the oligarchs. One family, one single family, controls over 40% of the wealth. With advances in technology the few people who own everything have no ties to living here. They can be located in a skyscraper in Dubai, London or Tokyo just as easily as NYC.

If you look at capital in a wholistic fashion you can see (especially when you look at NAFTA and TPP) that we are turning into one world with capital leading the charge. This wouldn't have to be a bad thing, theoretically, because tearing down borders and letting people roam really isn't that horrible of an idea. The bad part comes when you realize that all the capital, however, is concentrated in the hands of just a few. Moreover, the few that hold the capital have pretty much destroyed our environment so while they are looking for new planets the rest of us are living with decreasing resources in every conceivable way.

I'm sorry, I know that isn't a very positive painting, but that's where we're at.

And the democratic party? Well-intended at best, better than the alternative, but we've got a lot of work to do that goes way beyond voting.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
675. Could you provide a list of approved Democrats
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 11:47 AM
Dec 2013

I want to make sure I fully understand who you approve of and who you think we should drive out of the party. Thanks!

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
676. This implies that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats, and I reject that
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 12:20 PM
Dec 2013

premise. It also implies it was the Democratic Left that allowed the Democrats to win in 2008 and 2012. The facts are otherwise.

Elections are determined by many factors, especially those who are in the middle

If the "Democratic Left" believes that the party has left them, then they should start their own party if they do not want to work within the current Democratic party. The Green Party tried to do that, and obviously that hasn't caught on particularly well either at the local or national level.

In other words, the Democratic party today is not going to change quickly, no party will, so there is no way that this supposed "Democratic Left" will be satisfied with the outcome. So instead of implied threats, I would say if they are not happy, and do not believe they can work within the party, then by all means, let them start their own party


Response to lostincalifornia (Reply #676)

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
679. Sensitive aren't you. I did NOT imply you should or should not leave, YOU DID in your OP.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 12:51 PM
Dec 2013

Maybe you should read exactly what you posted, including starting your own party.

"The Democratic Left will either take back the Democratic Party or they will start their own Party. "

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
680. I'm just sick of people that cannot or will not fight back.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 01:01 PM
Dec 2013

Bill Clinton started the "New Democrat" Party. Did you like that? That is what we have now.

If a new Party is started, you can bet that it will look more like the old Democratic Party than the one you exhort at the present. We cannot continue this decline.

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
681. I agree. Bill Clinton, I believe, set the foundation for where the Democratic party is today,
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 01:12 PM
Dec 2013

and that is NOT a good place to be.

I really hope Elizabeth Warren runs,

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
683. He definitely moved it to the right, and his policies of deregulation were right out of
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 01:24 PM
Dec 2013

the republican playbook, so yes, I will agree at least in regard to Bill Clinton, 60% of his policies were Democratic principles. Incidentally, I use FDR as my standard for where the Democratic party should be

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
685. l hope Warren runs too
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 02:34 PM
Dec 2013

The more I look at her the more I think she would have national appeal, she could probably win.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
691. I believed the same about Kucinich's candidacy.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:11 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

I underestimated the ability of the conservative Party Establishment and the Media
to simply push Dennis off the stage during the Democratic Primaries.

Before 1988, the League of Women Voters used to "host" the debates,
and, back then, we had REAL "debates".
But in 1987, the League refused to host anymore "debates".

The role (hosting debates) was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

[font size=3]"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]


I agree with the League of Women Voters.
I am deeply embarrassed by the "Democratic Party" we are leaving to our young,
and fear for for the future of our Democracy,

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
708. You have a point too.
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:59 AM
Jan 2014

[font size=3] Don't worry about the Liberals.
What are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahaha[/font]

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
693. Kentuck, dear one...
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 08:42 PM
Dec 2013

You can hope but from the stuff I've read and heard, this will not be an election, it will be a Coronation....

unless the electorate sees that the anointed one has no clothes....

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
696. I think some folks will realize...
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:25 PM
Dec 2013

...that the Democratic Party they support now is not the Democratic Party of old. There are a lot of good Democrats left but they are not running the Party. Bill Clinton and his politics are running the Party. When they ridicule others about "leaving the Party", they actually left the Party in the 1990's and joined the New Democratic Party of moderate conservatism and triangulation of Bill Clinton. Hillary is only a continuation of those politics. Whether or not she will be "coronated" is still open to question? If she is the nominee, most Democrats will probably vote for her but they will not be voting for the "Democratic Party" principles that we knew before the 1990's. They will be voting for compromise with the radical conservatives and will be allies with the big bankers and the world capitalists. Just so we understand.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
697. How bout that list?
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:50 PM
Dec 2013

You keep talking about how some Democrats will know that it is not the same party of old, please let us know who we should be for. I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of voting for compromise with radical conservatives. Thanks again for your help.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
698. If you don't know, I can't help you.
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 09:53 PM
Dec 2013

Sorry. Vote for whomever you want. Just don't ask everyone else to agree with you.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
700. I thought you knew who the good Democrats are???
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 10:19 PM
Dec 2013

You know, the ones not in charge? I guess I misunderstood. Anyway, I plan to support the Democratic party candidates that are on my ballot.

You ok with Patrick Murphy? Just checking... sorry.

Thanks again.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
702. Thanks, Happy New Year
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 10:36 PM
Dec 2013

Btw, I agree with you on a lot of the issues you raised. We disagree on what to do about it.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
733. Who are the good Democrats?
Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jan 2014

There ARE some, and you will find them in the Progressive Caucus,
though the largest caucus in the Democratic party has been so marginalized by the Big Money Party leadership
that they have been reduced to writing letters to the White House.
But thats OK, because the letters have signatures.
Here is a good place to start.

Dec 21, 2013

Progressive Caucus Folds

More than 10 days ago, Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano initiated the forthright letter, circulating it among House colleagues. Addressed to President Obama, the letter has enabled members of Congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.


The Progressive Caucus co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, signed the letter. So did Barbara Lee, the caucus whip. But no signer can be found among the five vice chairs of the Progressive Caucus: Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Michael Honda, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Jan Schakowsky. The letter’s current list of signers includes just 16 members of the Progressive Caucus (along with five other House signers who aren’t part of the caucus).

What about the other 54 members of the Progressive Caucus? Their absence from the letter is a clear message to the Obama White House, which has repeatedly declared its desire to cut the Social Security cost of living adjustment as well as Medicare. In effect, those 54 non-signers are signaling: Mr. President, we call ourselves “progressive” but we are unwilling to stick our necks out by challenging you in defense of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; we want some wiggle room that you can exploit.

In contrast, the House members on the short list of the letter’s signers deserve our praise for taking a clear stand: Brown, Cartwright, Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/27/progressive-caucus-folds/


Only 24 Democratic Representatives would sign a letter pledging to NOT vote for any bill that contains cuts to Social Security or Medicare?

Oh Well, that IS better than Republicans, none of which would sign such a letter protecting Social Security.


Like it or not, there IS a sizable contingent of the Democratic Party who have had "Entitlement Reform" on their To Do list for 20 years. In the last 5 years, Social Security has morphed from the Untouchable 3rd Rail
to just another chip on the table in every Budget "Compromise".


Here is another recent "LETTER" to the White HOuse from members of the Progressive Caucus:

Six senators and 16 House members sent a letter to the White House yesterday, asking why it seems like our Trade Representative is fighting against the EU's push to lower carbon emissions, fighting for better treatment of tar sands crude oil, the stuff that, (purely coincidentally) would come through the Keystone XL pipeline.

The letter was spearheaded by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). The other signers are Senators Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, and Elizabeth Warren (who's not running, yes, we know); and Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Barbara Lee, Raúl M. Grijalva, Rush Holt, Louise M. Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Judy Chu, Peter DeFazio, Anna G. Eshoo, Sam Farr, Peter Welch, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Pocan, and Steve Cohen.

We write to you today to raise our concerns about the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s position on the European Union’s Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). Recent reports suggest that USTR has pressed the European Commission to alter its proposed treatment of tar sands crude oil in the FQD. If these reports are accurate, USTR’s actions could undercut the EU’s commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors.


These reports are troubling... Given the substantial harm that tar sands crude oil poses to the climate and the United States’ long-term economic well-being, as well as the potential conflict with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, we request that you provide us a statement of USTR’s position on the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221054

If you take the time, you can see that the Good Democrats keep STANDING UP on ISSUES that are important to the American Working Class.
These Democrats are worth supporting.
They have EARMThere ARE some, and you will find them in the Progressive Caucus,
though the largest caucus in the Democratic party has been so marginalized by the Big Money Party leadership
that they have been reduced to writing letters to the White House.
But thats OK, because the letters have signatures.
Here is a good place to start.

Dec 21, 2013
Progressive Caucus Folds

More than 10 days ago, Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano initiated the forthright letter, circulating it among House colleagues. Addressed to President Obama, the letter has enabled members of Congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.


The Progressive Caucus co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, signed the letter. So did Barbara Lee, the caucus whip. But no signer can be found among the five vice chairs of the Progressive Caucus: Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Michael Honda, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Jan Schakowsky. The letter’s current list of signers includes just 16 members of the Progressive Caucus (along with five other House signers who aren’t part of the caucus).

What about the other 54 members of the Progressive Caucus? Their absence from the letter is a clear message to the Obama White House, which has repeatedly declared its desire to cut the Social Security cost of living adjustment as well as Medicare. In effect, those 54 non-signers are signaling: Mr. President, we call ourselves “progressive” but we are unwilling to stick our necks out by challenging you in defense of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; we want some wiggle room that you can exploit.

In contrast, the House members on the short list of the letter’s signers deserve our praise for taking a clear stand: Brown, Cartwright, Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/27/progressive-caucus-folds/


Only 24 Democratic Representatives would sign a letter pledging to NOT vote for any bill that contains cuts to Social Security or Medicare?

Oh Well, that IS better than Republicans, none of which would sign such a letter protecting Social Security.


Like it or not, there IS a sizable contingent of the Democratic Party who have had "Entitlement Reform" on their To Do list for 20 years. In the last 5 years, Social Security has morphed from the Untouchable 3rd Rail
to just another chip on the table in every Budget "Compromise".


Here is another recent "LETTER":
Six senators and 16 House members sent a letter to the White House yesterday, asking why it seems like our Trade Representative is fighting against the EU's push to lower carbon emissions, fighting for better treatment of tar sands crude oil, the stuff that, (purely coincidentally) would come through the Keystone XL pipeline.

The letter was spearheaded by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). The other signers are Senators Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, and Elizabeth Warren (who's not running, yes, we know); and Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Barbara Lee, Raúl M. Grijalva, Rush Holt, Louise M. Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Judy Chu, Peter DeFazio, Anna G. Eshoo, Sam Farr, Peter Welch, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Pocan, and Steve Cohen.

Thanks guys, for being on our side!

Some highlights:

We write to you today to raise our concerns about the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s position on the European Union’s Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). Recent reports suggest that USTR has pressed the European Commission to alter its proposed treatment of tar sands crude oil in the FQD. If these reports are accurate, USTR’s actions could undercut the EU’s commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors.

...

Tar sands products have a significantly worse carbon footprint than other petroleum products... According to the Administration’s estimate could produce more than $70 billion in additional damages associated with climate change over 50 years, the costs of which will be partially borne by U.S. businesses and investments worldwide.

...

These reports are troubling... Given the substantial harm that tar sands crude oil poses to the climate and the United States’ long-term economic well-being, as well as the potential conflict with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, we request that you provide us a statement of USTR’s position on the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221054

AS you can see, the same names keep turning up,\
fighting FOR ISSUES that are important to the American Working Class.
THESE Democrats have EARNED my support.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
738. Now we are getting somewhere
Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:00 PM
Jan 2014

Great, so the 16 who signed the letter have earned our support!

The 54 other members of the progressive caucus are to be run out on a rail for being disloyal, oh I mean unprincipled... This letter is a deal breaker for them, they have proven on this one issue they are not worthy of our support. Their support on other issues important to us are not worth us sacrificing our principles.



We are off to a good start here. Superb post...

messiah

(1,092 posts)
703. Funny post kentuck
Tue Dec 31, 2013, 11:41 PM
Dec 2013

History says nothing will happen. Democrats will become scared of a Republican Presidency and come back into the fold like everything is fine and dandy. Centrist Capitalists will create a party that will end up doing the same thing as the current Democrats.

The weak Democratic Left will do nothing but assimilate after the rabble rousing dies down.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
709. This is worth kicking into the New Year.
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 12:35 PM
Jan 2014

Epic Thread.
Righteous Thread!


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font]
[/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center]
[/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
710. MUHAHAHAHA YOU FOOLS! TPTB ARE TAKING OVER WITH THE CENTRIST PARTY!
Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:35 PM
Jan 2014

One dominant party for all.

Jasana

(490 posts)
712. K&R - This thread has been around for days now...
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 07:34 AM
Jan 2014

It's the first time I've seen anything like this on DU. While some parts of it do read like a food fight, much of it also contains a lot of interesting information for a DU newbie like me. Thanks for the dust up. I haven't read it to the very end yet but I've got it bookmarked.

JI7

(89,182 posts)
722. THere is no Backlash from the Left , most are working within the party or on their own
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 04:48 PM
Jan 2014

on various issues around the country.

the internet warriors are just those who mostly fantasize about being some revolutionaries but they don't really do anything else. they see things going on in other parts of the world like the arab spring and love to imagine themselves as being similar types.

true liberals are out there actually working on issues at different levels. los angeles and some otehr areas have put limits on use of plastic bags. people bring their own grocery bags or they can pay 10 cents for a paper one.

in the poorer areas of los angeles people have started to do things like farmers market, they put in lanes for bikes . another poorer area was successful in keeping walmart out.

when i read things like i the OP i just have to laugh .

another good example is de blasio's election and how people tried to use that as something against the Clintons. i had to remind people that de blasio is a clinton guy. yes there are liberals who are clinton people.

from my experience in politics and all the elections there have always been a certain type. i worried about them earlier but over time i learned most didn't really care about any real change. they just like to complain and it makes them feel they are morally superior or some shit like that. after a while i just told them to not vote for the Dem and vote for whoever they want. and they got upset . because what they want is attention and ass kissing and people begging them.

it's like trying to get votes and wasting time with some teabaggers. you could be out there informing and getting support from those who really are open to what you have to say and likely to go out and vote based on whatever issue you give them. you don't want to waste time on people who just need their ego fed.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
730. EJ Dionne has a good editorial on the reemergence of a Democratic left
Thu Jan 2, 2014, 10:07 PM
Jan 2014

I thought that this editorial was decent http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-resurgent-progressives/2014/01/01/3fc6c686-723c-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

The resurgent progressives are battling a double standard. They are asking why it is that “populism” is a good thing when it’s invoked by the tea party against “liberal elites” but suddenly a bad thing when it describes efforts to raise the minimum wage and take other steps toward a fairer system of economic rewards.

And here’s why moderates should be cheering them on: When politicians can ignore the questions posed by the left and are pushed to focus almost exclusively on the right’s concerns about “big government” and its unquestioning faith in deregulated markets, the result is immoderate and ultimately impractical policy. To create a real center, you need a real left.


I have no trouble with the people on this thread trying to move the center
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The imminent backlash of ...