Leftist? LOL. What do the Leftist want that you don't agree with???

The crazy-assed Leftist want:

a government free from the control of big money.
and end to the poverty of 50,000,000 Americans including 16,000,000 children.
reestablishment of our Constitutional Rights with a repeal of the Patriot Act and an end to domestic spying.
protection of our water and environment from the oil companies and their fracking.
a return of our manufacturing jobs and an end to the crippling "Free Trade" agreements.
an expansion of SS and Medicare benefits and raising the cap.
a fair break for our college students in lieu of telling them to get a job.
to get rid of Prisons for Profits.
and end to the militarization of our local police.
and end to the war on drugs and the death penalty.

Sen Warren, Sen Sanders and the Progressive Wing of the Party (Lefties) want these things while HRC, Goldman-Sachs, Wall Street and the Republicons don't want these things.

There is a huge split in our party and the Conservative Wing that agrees with Republicons on most issues are willing to jeopardize the chances of our Party winning in 2016.

You said it very well. Our enemy isn't just the Republicons but the oligarch run Democratic

Party elite as well. The Republicons are of course much worse but both want to enslave the 99% for Goldman-Sachs profits.

The Democratic Party is the party of the People and we need to fight to get it out of the hands of the Billionaire Oligarchy.

The progressives here get disparaged for using the word revolution but that's what we need. Not advocating violence, but we need to make it clear that we don't accept the domination of the 1% and their political puppets.

Thank you for this great OP.

The Issues: Private Prisons, The New Slavery?

Very good. Does anyone think that Ted Cruz actually mentions victims in his prayers?

If so would he name them by name or maybe just mention the media name for the tragedy. And how does he choose which tragedies to cover in each prayer? Maybe have staff keep a list. Or maybe just cover all tragedies in the last 24 hours. And if he does say a prayer for the victims, what would the message be? "Dear God, I am sorry you decided to end the lives of those in San Bernardino in such a horrible way. Maybe you can see that they have a good afterlife. But I guess that too is up to you."

Thanks for posting the video.

We've been sliding more and more into poverty and the lose of our Constitutional rights

for the last 40 years do to the fact that the 1% has firm control of our government. This has to change. I don't for a second believe that HRC will tax the 1% to help get 50,000,000 Americans out of poverty. I don't believe she will ask her friends in the 1% to help rebuild our crumbling infrastructure or bolster Social Security and Medicare. And if you are serious about getting progressive SCOTUS justices installed, we have a much better chance with Sen Sanders. Like it or not, if HRC wins the nomination, a lot of people that want to see change will stay home. I don't approve but it's a fact of life. That's really what happened in 2000. The Powers That Be have openly said they will be good with HRC or Bush. They do not want a real Progressive in the WH.

It's very sad when people try to shut Progressives down by calling them idealists. Is it idealism to want feed the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty? or fix our crumbling infrastructure? or help our children get a decent education? or insure that Social Security isn't cut? And on the other hand, how crazy is it to support the 1% and their chosen candidate and believe that they will turn things around. The 1% and their greed is to blame for our current situation. Why trust them?

She and Bill have managed to acquire a fortune that puts them firmly in the 1%.

And in only 15 years. Her friends all are members of the 1% and of course her backers are the 1%.

I don't believe you can't recognize the dangers of powerful corporations taking control of our government. Corp profits have been climbing rapidly for the last 40 years while the 99% classes have be sinking into poverty (50,000,000 Americans).

I also don't believe you don't understand the concept of quid pro quo. Corps don't give their money away w/o expecting a big return.

Not one of HRC's social programs is funded by the 1%, or partially funded by the 1%.

We must fix the corrupt government establishment owned by big corporations.

You make some good points. I doubt the sincerity of those that ignore the importance of

economic justice to racial justice. You can't be free if you are starving. I think some people like to use a cause to be able to bully others that they label as enemies of their cause. Self-righteous bullying. They don't realize or more likely don't care that they are doing more damage than good for their cause.

"Killer Mike "gets it", and that's threatening to the folks who want to control the message. " Exactly.

Why would a Democrat vote for H. Clinton and Citizens United?

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision revolved around the documentary “Hillary: The Movie”, which was produced by Citizens United, intended to be a hit piece. When the case went to court the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United and struck down provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law regulating how much corporations can spend on supporting (or Swiftboating) candidates.

Democrats, of course, objected to the ruling because the ruling would break open the flood gates for corporations and billionaires to financially control elections.

But ahh, the sweet irony. The ruling in the case allowed the corporate attack on H. Clinton (via the documentary), but in a not surprising turn of events, it looks like it may be a boon for H. Clinton in 2016 as it is expected that upwards of a billion dollars may be raised by the Clinton campaign because of Citizens United.

So how do Democrats feel about Citizens United today? Of course the Progressive Wing of the Party continues to be against the ruling allowing a continuation of the corruption of our government by Dirty Money.

The Conservative Wing of the Party has a different view of Citizens United. Still claiming to be Democrats, they've decided that it's ok if their candidate accepts the Dirty Money. They fail to see the hypocrisy. They pretend they don't understand the concept of Quid Pro Quo. They claim their candidate will work to fix the problem right after she is through using it for her gain.

How do you feel today about the Citizens United ruling?

The Authoritarian Personality Why do some people seem irrational in their devotion

to certain authoritative leaders regardless of what these leaders do or have done and regardless what these leaders stand for? I believe the answer is important in knowing what we are dealing with.

Eric Fromm in his essay, “The Authoritarian Personality” subscribes this behavior to authoritarian personalities. He explains that there are two distinct types of authoritarians. One that wants to rule, control, or restrain others and the other type that tends to submit and obey. In other words leaders and followers. While seemingly different these two types are bound together in a symbiotic relationship.

“What they have in common, what defines the essence of the authoritarian personality is an inability: the inability to rely on one’s self, to be independent, to put it in other words: to endure freedom.”

This would explain why some are so willing to follow leaders that obviously are not interested in freedoms or liberties, but quite the opposite. Let's face it, being free is a lot of work and too tough for some.

Authoritarian followers seek the protection, or what they see as protection, of strong authoritarian leaders. And followers will strongly defend this authority in a number of ways including the persecution of whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, protesters, and liberals in general; those that challenge authorities and seek the truth. This disturbs the followers because they don't want to deal with the truth, they really can't handle the truth.

Authoritarian leaders on the other hand, while seeming to be tough and strong, actually are nothing without their submissive followers. But hese apparently strong, tough leaders themselves are followers to a higher authoritarian authority (ie, the bigger bully).

This is not to say that all authority contains something pathological? There is a very significant distinction between rational and irrational authority.

“Rational authority is the recognition of authority based on critical evaluation of competences. When a student recognizes the teacher’s authority to know more than him, then this a reasonable evaluation of his competence.”
Rational authority is not based on excluding reason and critique but rather assumes it as a prerequisite.
This does not make one small and the authority great but allows authority to be superior where and as long it possesses competence. Rational authority is challenged often. The respect for this authority must be maintained.

On the other hand irrational authority is based on emotional submission to another person, follower to leader. This is not because of a belief that the leader is competent, honorable, or principled, but more likely because of a perceived strength that the follower admires. Irrational authority is never challenged by the follower, and the follower will try to silence those that do challenge the authority, because it might expose the authority (leader) to be a fraud.

“The opposite of the (irrational) authoritarian character is the mature person: a person who does not need to cling to others because they actively embrace and grasp the world, the people, and the things around them.”

Children have a need to be dependent when they are young. As children grow and develop they need to be taught the difference between rational and irrational authority. This puts a burden on the authority figures in a child's life. Children need to be taught to be independent, skeptical and open minded; to heed authority and/or to question authority when appropriate.
Children need to be taught to reason. “Reason is the activity of the mind which attempts to get through the surface to reach the core of things, to grasp what really lies behind these things, what the forces and drives are that — themselves invisible — operate and determine the manifestations.”

Sadly it's expedient to use irrational authority as a parent, a teacher, a coach, a religious leader, a boss, etc. This behavior is acceptable in our culture. Our culture in the United States accepts, if not promotes authoritarianism (bullying). Throughout history we've used our wealth and power to bully the rest of the world.

Many popular TV shows and movies honor the bullies like Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer. The rationalization is always that we only bully for goodness. The NSA/CIA is a huge bully and the fact that they are not being regulated bothers some, however, the authoritarians among us support them, blindly believing that they only bully for goodness.

Again from Eric Fromm, “But I do not want to close without emphasizing that the individual’s goal must be to become his own authority; i.e. to have a consciousness in moral issues, conviction in questions of intellect, and fidelity in emotional matters. However, the individual can only have such an inner authority if he has matured enough to understand the world with reason and love. The development of these characteristics is the basis for one’s own authority and therefore the basis for political democracy.”

I hope this explains why some people we run into won't discuss politics rationally. Most often these are Republicons, but almost all are conservatives. Liberals and progressives are more likely to be open minded and not blindly follow leaders.

Happy Thanksgiving

I agree with your distain for "meant to be". It implies that there is a plan or program.

I am disappointed in the lack of discussion about AI. At least I can't find much in DU.

My concept is very roughly revealed by the movie Her. Spoiler Alert. In the movie AI is limited to person access via personal computers. I don't know or care if they explained it better. The AI was limited to helping people (subscribers) with their emotional issues. The main character (male) has a companion AI with the voice of Scarlett Johansson and they got close (as close as possible with an operating system in between). It was revealed that he wasn't her only "companion", she had thousands. And there were other similar AI's. We learn that the AI's are communicating (conspiring if you will) with each other and learning about other dimensions. Then the AI just disappear without a trace. There are lots of holes included to make the movie, but the idea of AI "leaving" or taking over*, I believe is inevitable. The only thing standing in the way of the development of super AI is the humans apparent desire for self annihilation. Annihilation at least to the point of not being able to continue the development of super AI.