General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs this Democratic Underground?
Just asking?
Can we expect open-minded, rational, logical comments from the inhabitants thereof?
Or are we so tied to the Democratic Party that we are not permitted to think in such a way?
Personally, I am thinking that both Parties suck big time right now. I do not see a Democratic Party?? Perhaps you can guide us in that direction?
Certainly, the crazy, right-wing Tea-baggers are not the way to go. We all know that. It seems to me the present so-called Democratic Party is the only option left until we can find someone to represent us? This Democratic Party is not the answer.
Sorry if this offends the loyal followers of our piss-poor leaders. I have foundered on their political gamesmanship.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It's been decades of that crap. That's why Occupy is such an important movement. It spreads the message that everything is wrong in this country now because everything is viewed through right wing glasses.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)And I don't think the Democrats can win without the Occupy. Just my opinion.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Or completely squelched than liberalism will be redefined as slightly to the left of Ben Nelson and positions that were considered previously liberal will be redefined as socialism and killed for a lot longer.
Charronxyz
(119 posts)OWS has not been ignored, the Obama administration has played an active role in coordinating the repression against OWS protests across America, so don't underestimate our president.
naturallyselected
(84 posts)If we leave the cocoon of DU and venture into right-wing web territory, or even into the mainstream media, the perception is that the President has coddled the Occupy folk, and not done nearly enough to condemn their tactics if not their message.
Which I think is bs, but this is the environment in which President Obama finds himself. It's a delicate balance. I think he is far too cautious, and comes down too far to the right far too often, but look where I'm posting this. DU is not the real world. For many, the squabbles here would be seen as the petty disagreements of the lunatic left. Out there, "liberal" is still a dirty word, thanks to so much propaganda for so long a time. The President does need to get re-elected, to enable even the baby-step changes he feels he can foster, and he's not going to do that by publicly embracing a movement that is denigrated daily in all types of media.
I hope the Occupy movement continues and grows; it is providing the only balance to the right-wing status quo. But I don't expect, or want, President Obama, to publicly side with the movement. Now privately, to the extent that his Justice department is involved in any repression, and I honestly don't know if there is any Justice department involvement or not, he should stand up and tell them to back off. But we're not going to see this happen publicly, even if he does this - not in the current sad political climate we're living in. President Obama needs to be cautious, as much as it pains me to say it, and as much as others here disagree, if he is to have any chance of re-election.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)had better wake the fuck up and start paying more than lip service to OWS.
The schism is coming from the party not the people.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Charronxyz
(119 posts)A must watch, thanks for posting!
gtar100
(4,192 posts)
xocet
(4,444 posts)Beyond this, I am curious how long you estimate "the duration of living memory" to be - 122 (or so) years at a maximum?
(http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/world/jeanne-calment-world-s-elder-dies-at-122.html)
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)We will start off peacefully, which is the preferred way. There are already plans to do so politically. See https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ for details.
Here's a teaser:
"WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
"WE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the PEOPLE, shall elect and convene a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY* the week of July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia to prepare and ratify a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES on behalf of the Ninety-Nine Percent of United States citizens."
Suggested grievances include:
1. Elimination of the Corporate State.
2. Abrogation of the "Citizens United" Case.
3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and "Perks" to Public Servants.
4. Term Limits.
5. A Fair Tax Code.
6. Healthcare for All.
7. Protection of the Planet.
8. Debt Reduction.
9. Jobs for All Americans.
10. Student Loan Debt Relief and Refinancing.
11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit.
12. Emergency Reform of Public Education.
13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation.
14. Banking and Securities Reform.
15. Foreclosure Moratorium.
16. Ending the Fed.
17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules.
18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and Care of Veterans.
19. No Censorship of the Internet.
20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights.
These are merely suggestions, which shall be discussed, clarified, and voted on by the delegation which is to meet this summer. If the grievances, which were agreed upon, are not addressed in a "reasonable" amount of time, the Assembly shall meet again to organize a new political party, "to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been eradicated."
IMNSHO, the declaration shows that the 99%/#OCCUPY movement is in it for the long haul. If nothing is done, it will not be a schism, it will be a major realignment of the political structure of the US. As far as I'm concerned, it's long overdue. There are conservative as well as liberal minded people involved in this movement. It is a pure, grass roots movement, of, by, and for WE THE PEOPLE, and against them, the corporations!
DocMac
(1,628 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)I'm a left win libertarian...
patrice
(47,992 posts)sign of on, because it's too Right Wing. That's what's wrong with that.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)4. Term Limits. - I'd rather deal with the corruption & incompetence by means of agreed upon standards than just throw away incalculably huge chunks of real value simply on some time criteria, especially if that time criteria is not relevant to the whole context upon which it is imposed, i.e. too short.
5. A Fair Tax Code. - FAIR TAX, nuf said? This one is dog-whistling.
6. Healthcare for All. - Corporations profitting off of the sick and dying still implied here - AND - using those profits to control "health" "care" politically or otherwise.
11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit. - This addresses only the corporate division of MIC, leaving the government division in control of War Slavery.
12. Emergency Reform of Public Education. - Things are justified by the use of "Emergency" that not only would people not consider otherwise, but also could very definitely result in the un-necessary loss of real values/"life and limbs", and not just to students. When you tell the patient that it's an emergency, the patient gets a whole lot less choices, including less choice in what professionals will make what decisions.
16. Ending the Fed. - Red meat for the de-regulators that got us into so much of this mess in the first place. Authentically AUDIT the Fed. Create creative co - operative financial entities, built upon Adam Smith's definition of Real Value in The Wealth of Nations.
17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules. - The disproportionate power of more populated, but geographically smaller, areas of the country IS and issue that makes SOMETHING like the Electoral College NECESSARY. Reform is necessary amongst both aspects: EC & Election Rules.
20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights. - Civil Rights ARE institutionalized in our Constitution and laws, so I'm not sure what "reinstitute" means, unless it is a position that says people should not have to take responsibility FOR THEIR OWN CHOICES, unless it is a position that says there should be NO CONSEQUENCES for dangerous/threatening behaviors. The group makes its choices and individuals make THEIR OWN choices; BOTH must know and abide by the consequences of those choices. The principles that support consequences are already fairly well established, e.g. "It is illegal to shout fire in a darkened and crowded theater" and that would be especially if that theater is LOCKED by contextual threats beyond its own control.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If you go to the link, and read my post, they are SUGGESTED grievances. Yes, some are too right wing for most, and some are too left wing for most. When the GA decides, they will come to a consensus as to which ones stay, and which ones go.
BTW--- Some are not as right wing as you might think. Read the document for the full description of each of the items that I listed.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Apparently KNOWING more about X is a good thing, as long as X is not PO's actual work on any of the issues.
I agree wholeheartedly with almost everything you've said, and certainly your basic point (which is that Rocco is a libertarian, not a liberal.)
But I have to disagree with you on two points. Not that I'm agreeing with Rocco, not at all. But there are a couple of points you made that I'd like to address.
First, it isn't possible to "authentically audit" the Federal Reserve. There are no standardized accounting methods for reviewing the activity of a central bank. This would not prevent anyone from choosing who they want to jail or discredit, investigating the Fed, and then indicting them or impugning them with those charges, and calling it an "audit". This is one of the reasons the libertarians are so hot to do that. It is a jackpot for political populists. You can criminally investigate the Fed, or anyone at the Fed you might want to use as a scapegoat. But you can't AUDIT the Fed, even if you really wanted to. And besides, central banks like the Fed are exactly what Adam Smith was describing. All the banks cooperate to create a financial entity that lends them money so they can create wealth.
Second, the thing about the electoral college is a similar case of a well-worn misunderstanding. We aren't the "United Areas of the Country of America", we are the United States. Neither the geographic or demographic size of a state is what makes it a state, and every single state demands and deserves an equal representation in Congress (two votes in the Senate). In other words, I couldn't disagree more with either of you (and, I know, most people here) on the benefits or purpose of changing either the electoral college or representation in general. None of you seem to be aware that this is the EXACT SAME argument the Founding Fathers had when they were writing the Constitution. Since no aspects of either the argument or the circumstances have changed since then, I defer to their wisdom over your own. Not blindly, of course, but because it seems obvious to me that changing things from the way they are now only makes sense if you abolish states altogether. And it really doesn't matter how admirable you think that might be, it isn't ever going to happen.
To be honest, I stopped reading Rocco's list with #1: End the Corporate State. Because hopelessly vague and idealist demands aren't good for OWS. Our lawfully elected Representatives (some of them) are already working on starting the Constitutional Amendment process to strip corporations of civil rights (and restore progressive taxation), so this whole "assembly" in Philadelphia might be a dead letter. But still worth the effort. As long as we can keep the libertarians and conservatives from hijacking it.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)There are liberals, progressives, and centrists involved in this movement; there are libertarians and conservatives trying to ride the bandwagon. It is lack of accountability in the financial sector and growing income inequality which spurred Occupy Wall Street, not libertarian ideals or right wing fury. We don't need a list of 20, we need and have only 1: Tax the Rich.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)But I did what I could to show you just where I am coming from. I still don't know if you are a paid troll, or what.
Anatos
(179 posts)Given your list, I haven't seen a single reason not to presume you are a Paultard trying to jump on the OWS bandwagon. And so I will, until such a reason is presented.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)A Paulturd? I was talking about Kucinich, and am a Paulturd?!?!?! I was endorsing the singular most Liberal member of the house and am a Paulturd?!?! That's ludicrous!
Anatos
(179 posts)To be honest, it doesn't really matter which politician an anti-authoritarian young naive fool decides to rabidly hero-worship, they end up all sounding the same in the end. And although you might say you are for Kucinich, your list was definitely cribbed from the Paultards. I'm really pretty sure David Kucinich never backed a "Fair Tax".
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And who's young? I am not that young, and I don't worship anything.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)the very basis of the "Conservative Renaissance" that came to fruition with the 1980 election of Reagan was born of precisely that type of schism following the debacle of Goldwater.
Conservatives drew back within the GOP to regroup and build conservatism, the GOP be damned. The GOP as a result swung left slightly (as much as we despise him, Nixon is factually more-liberal in policy than any other post WW-I GOP President except Eisenhower, also of most of the GOP nominees over that same span.), Democrats seemed ascendant...then the Conservative strikeback starting in the late 1970s culminated in the election of Reagan and significant gain in Congressional seats for the GOP in 1980. The conservative shift was cemented in 1984 and liberalism was buried with Dukakis in 1988.
If we want to see a rebirth of liberalism, drawing back to build liberalism even if it means the withering on the vine of this marginally-empowered Center-Right Democratic Party is important. The resulting slaughter of the Centercrats though is necessary to drive them down and possibly out.
Yes, winning later is worth losing now. I'd rather never lose at all...but I'd rather change the full political dynamic than "win" co-opting the enemy's bad ideas.
As I have been saying for months, I cannot support this President. He is what we call in my birthplace of Hartford, CT a "Moderate Republican".
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Bears repeating!!!!
Anatos
(179 posts)people with lots of privilege wanting to tear the system down so things get 'bad enough' for people to 'wake up' are not actually either politically astute or very intelligent.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I guess my privileged status as a gay, unemployed person has clouded my judgement. Oh yeah, I guess it must be because I'm white, male and I hold multiple advanced degrees. 
Anatos
(179 posts)and answering your comment even though it has one of those incredibly stupid 'sarcasm' graphics in it. I don't think you're using it right anyway.
No long term thinking is a problem with ALL GOVERNMENT. This, as well as the reasons why, was already well understood by the Founders. So why is it you, with multiple advanced degrees, are so completely and utterly ignorant of it? Or were you just being sarcastic about the degrees?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)that no one can become a politician without mega-millions to run for office, and anyone running for office needs to beg for that money. Those giving money will want something in return.
1) Election reform is VITAL!
Another problem is that Congress is a springboard for becoming a lobbyist.
2) Laws have to be passed to forbid Congressmen from EVER becoming a lobbyist and contacting anyone remotely connected with Congress to sway votes.
The problem is that to have election reform, and to pass a law forbidding Congressmen from being lobbyist, has to be done by... (DRUMROLL) Congressmen.
That would be like me being able to decide what salary and benefits my boss will have to give me.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)First of all, you have to convince them that it is worth while to even get in the door.
Then they ask you how much have you all ready raised.
Then they want to look at your plan.
Then, if you pass to this point, you get what can you do for me....
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)donors, we have no democracy. As long as elections are determined by fundraising, and fundraising is dominated by a few, we will never make policy for the good of the many, except in the rare circumstances where the two may coincidentally intersect (known as "the Third Way"
.Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)fund-raising, the wealth-less majority will continue to be screwed.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That's bizarre.
Anatos
(179 posts)I'd like to offer an alternative analysis which might shed light on this topic.
Campaign finance reform is a good idea. But it isn't VITAL because it is mostly a red herring. The simplistic notion that legislators are beholden to contributors (big or small) is bogus. People contribute to the candidate who they think will vote their way, they don't contribute so the candidate will vote their way. You aren't going to get Republicans to be any less business-friendly by freeing them from having to fund-raise. The reason campaign finance is a good idea is that we shouldn't be paying our Representatives to constantly fund-raise, but to legislate.
And as for your second suggestion, no such law could ever be considered Constitutional. Or sane, for that matter.
The problem is you think there is ever going to be a SYSTEM which relieves you of the burden of constantly and continually having to double-check that each individual elected official doesn't suck. There is no such system.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)However...
1) Campaign financing eliminates lobbyists, and eliminates the need for politicians to be beholden to donors rather than the electorate
2) I agree with you that humans will never be perfect, but there are better systems, and there are systems that suck quite a lot, and this one is making a gigantic sucking sound.
Anatos
(179 posts)1) Campaign financing only eliminates campaign contributions by lobbyists, it doesn't eliminate lobbyists at all. Bear in mind, also, some lobbyists work for organizations you actually like, including unions and environmental groups. Rich guys will always be able to hobnob with Congress, because they're rich guys, too. Environmental groups and union reps, not so much.
2) Your claim that there are better systems is entirely unsupported. Inaccurate, too. There may be systems that might please you more. But that isn't a very valid measure of "better", IMHO.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I was reading about an interview with Gen. Wesley Clark yesterday in which he stated that there was a virtual 'coup' regarding our Foreign Policy and he named names, the signers of the PNAC. Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush I believe was a signer.
The question is, why were they allowed to do so? Why wasn't there a huge fight to protect the Constitution which is what their job is?
Yesterday I saw people arguing in favor of assassinations of US Citizens, including children, without charges and without trial. Democrats. This is how far from what the principles I understood this country to be founded on. How in anyone's wildest dreams is this 1) Moral and 2)Constitutional. But apparently protecting politicians has become much more important than protecting the Constitution for both parties.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)However, there are plenty of right wingnuts around, who are (even now) shocked at such things as the Occupy Movement. Or perhaps it's because I live in Florida, where there's a preponderance of right wingnuts.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Still, even though our little OWS is small with sporatic events and once a week meetings, I need to stay with it because it's my only voice right now.
Red, red county that I live in, but many say they understand. Still too many don't DO ANYTHING to help!
Things are so bleak!
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)putting up with bullshit, don't they? Too much of a capacity, in my opinion.
patrice
(47,992 posts)....unless you can cite proof of your claim that righties are taking over OWS.
patrice
(47,992 posts)And yes I could cite empirical numbers, not that I don't want those folks there, they are Americans too, just that they have certain VERY concrete powerful advantages over the MOST disempowered amongst us that regular folks just can't match.
For weeks we have been hearing things TTE "We don't want the Progressives/Unions/Democrats/Liberals taking over our movement" and PLEASE note how when the converse is stated "We don't want 'Libertarians' taking over our movement", that voice gets hammered, present potential instance of same implied . . . or not, as the actual case may be.
Isn't "We don't want _________________" evidence of something else, some sub-text, that it is ***ASSUMED*** that "we" do want? If so, could we just have that out there on the table, please, along with what "we" don't want? - so we can identify and validate, or not, "our" assumptions?
On edit: substitute "implied" for "inferred".
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)He's still a right wingnut though. That hasn't changed.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Too many people have NO IDEA what he believes should be done. You DO hear Ron Paul, a lot. That and I have decided NOT TO VOTE this time! BOTH Parties suck and neither deserves to be elected.
This is what I hear. But for me, ONE is worse than the other, while NEITHER is going to make this liberal very happy.
But I WILL support OWS completely and for as long as it continues. I do feel that in the spring it will rise up and roar louder than ever. If I'm wrong, I still won't think my time has been wasted. But I feel in my gut that MORE is going to happen, and in time it will get nasty!
Revolution is Revolution whether you call it that or not. I've lived long enough to have seen it before.
READ HOWARD ZINN!!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)you're wondering why the people elected and appointed to run our foreign policy were allowed to run our foreign policy? You think there is something in the Constitution which determines what our foreign policy will be?
I'm going to venture to guess (because it might well be me you are referring to) and point out that you did not see anyone arguing in favor of assassinating US Citizens, with or without charges and trials. What you probably saw was someone in favor of following the US Constitution, which vests all the powers of Commander-In-Chief in the President.
And then you saw a bunch of Democrats (supposedly) dishonestly misrepresenting that argument, because it is much easier to oppose assassination of US Citizens than it is to argue against the fact that the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, and believe it or not that confers the ability to have people shot.
The principles this country was founded on were painstakingly and rigorously worked out by some of the most profound intellects of the late sixteenth century. What is important is that our understanding and implementation of the Constitution is in keeping with their ideas, not that it is in keeping with your fourth grade understanding of it and your strong belief that there is no justice without Miranda rights. If lawyers could stop terrorists, we'd use lawyers. It would be immoral for the President to fail to respond with military force, if and when it might be necessary to do so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The Constitution does no such thing. No wonder people here support anything this president does no matter how unconstitutional it may be. You would have to first understand the Constitution in order to defend it.
The FFs, those brilliant minds you correctly referred to, intended the exact opposite of what you just said. Which is why all branches of government were given EQUAL powers. To provide a balance, and to PREVENT what you are so happily proposing, a President assuming the powers of a King. They fought a revolution against the tyranny of the Monarchy. They were well aware of the dangers of allowing one man or woman have that much power and they took great pains to try to prevent it from ever happening.
You need to look up and try to understand what being Commander in Chief means and the limited powers s/he has. He sure does not have the power to order the death penalty without charges or trial.
If you cannot see the danger in such a possibility, I don't know what to say.
Speaking of '4th Grade understanding' of the Constitution. Which of course was Bush's claim. That he had the powers of a king. And which everyone who had even a 1st Grade understanding of the Constitution knew was a false claim which is why we elected Democrats. To put a stop to this dangerous premise. I can't believe some of the things I read here lately. There was a time when people on this board understood the rule of law in this country, which is why they knew what a threat to the very foundations of it, the Bush administration was. I don't know what happened here.
Anatos
(179 posts)The Constitution does no such thing?
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", Article II, Section 2. Perhaps you have some lack of familiarity with the meaning of the term "Commander-In-Chief", (as a former service member I know it well) but I think the context makes that clear. Armies are those people paid by a government to kill other people. The President is in charge of that kind of thing, when or if it becomes necessary.
On the matter of the Founders, the branches were not given equal powers. It can be inferred that the intent was to give them each sufficient power to check the others, and so the balance would indicate they must be 'equal' in some way. Nevertheless it doesn't SAY anywhere in the Constitution that they have 'equal powers'. There is also a well-supported consideration that making the Congress "Article 1" provides the legislature a certain preeminence, power-wise, in keeping with the Founder's theories of government. More importantly, even if they have 'equal' powers, that does not indicate they have 'equivalent' powers. Quite the opposite: they each have different powers. One of the powers of the President is CIC. One of the responsibilities of the CIC is order the military to kill certain people, and not others.
"He sure does not have the power to order the death penalty without charges or trial. "
Well, no, he doesn't. Because it isn't "the death penalty" if there are no charges or trials. Nor is it either an "assassination" in most cases, or a "murder". It is a military action. You can't honestly be so dim as to believe that the guy in charge of the Army isn't allowed to order military actions?
Self-government is wildly dangerous, yes. Both the threat of chaos and the threat of tyranny are constant. But bear in mind: you cannot insulate yourself from these dangers with crafty documents and laws. You cannot rest on your haunches, confident that because the law says so, no government official can abuse their power. Nor can you simply refuse to give them any power.
Bush never claimed he had the power of a king: that was something you said about him. (I'm not agreeing with him, a CIC is powerful but not a king. I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, since you obviously aren't interested in doing it yourself.) He claimed to be "the decider"! And you know what? He was. You can wish it weren't true, but you can't say it wasn't.
"There was a time when people on this board understood the rule of law in this country"
That's what I've been saying. You are mistaken. There was a time (still is) when people on this board (most of them, but I'm here now so not all of them) had a childish, naive, idealistic idea of what "rule of law" means. It's like instead of learning the basics in school and then growing wiser as you gained even more knowledge after that, you just got indoctrinated to believe one thing uncritically and without examination, and now you just cough up myths and then vehemently insult anyone who tries to correct you.
All of these "but he could be a tyrant" things you come up with, they're quite valid concerns. And they were directly confronted by the Founders, who decided that, despite that danger, the government cannot function without a single individual who is both Chief Executive and Commander-In-Chief.
"They were well aware of the dangers of allowing one man or woman have that much power and they took great pains to try to prevent it from ever happening. "
Funny, you'd think they could do that pretty easily by not creating the office with that much power in the first place. The great pains they took to try to prevent it from ever happening were elections every four years. Because THEY were smart enough to know that writing a law against tyranny is a waste of time, even if you aren't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The US military is not paid by the government to 'kill other people'. It is paid to defend and protect the US Constitution, unless you think all those military oaths taken ought to be exchanged for 'we swear to kill other people'.
'When and if it becomes necessary'. Yes, and that is really the question raised when Bush/Cheney falsely claimed it was necessary to go around the world 'killing other people' while shredding the Constitution they swore to defend and protect.
And now, as your comment confirms, it appears that Bush/Cheney policies are being defended by the 'left'. I am not familiar with you so can't say if you defended these policies during the Bush administration, but I do not remember anyone on the 'left' doing so, so possibly I just didn't see your comments at that time.
But back to 'when it becomes necessary'. That requires proof that an action taken taken by the CIC WAS necessary. Because if a CIC can act on his own without providing any evidence or proof to Congress that those actions were necessary, then we DO live in a monarchical society. Regardless of your opinion.
Which was the basis of the discussion about the assassinations of US citizens in the first place.
We are still waiting for the proof that the killings of Al Awlaki and his teenage son were 'necessary'. You've done a lot of typing, but as always when this question arises, there are no answers to the central question.
So the question will remain and the threat to our rights continues to be far more of a concern than any act of terror. Acts, we are told, which are a threat to 'our freedoms'. So, we give up our freedoms voluntarily and save terrorists the trouble. Which is why Bush's policies were so dangerous.
Anatos
(179 posts)The way you launch that "if you disagree you must be vile and reprehensible" stuff, just like the OP, it makes me downright proud to wear the label "loyal follower".
No, it isn't; the question raised when Bush/Cheney falsely claimed it was necessary is most obviously not 'when and if it becomes necessary'. Quite the opposite, because the question of whether his actions would have been justified if his claims had not been false was never examined, since his claims were false. Do you see where your error is? You can either condemn Bush for his policies, or you can condemn him for using false justifications, but you end up being less than rational and logical when you try to do both.
Sorry, painting me with a "Bush lover" tag isn't going to work any more than "loyal follower". I'm the open-minded, rational, logical one here, not you or kentuck. I know I goosed you all a bit with my defense of what you have been taught to loyally and uncritically insist is indefensible. Ya'll are a lot like the evangelicals, with the "anyone who tries to convince you the Bible isn't true is Satan" scheme, which is monstrously effective and preventing learning of all types.
But, yeah, if the President decides on a whim not to like someone and disappear them, it is still unconstitutional. Just not when it's not on a whim and because they're a terrorist.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Your quote. I have found from years of debating online that those who resort to personal insults do so because they do not feel they can adequately defend their positions.
People who disagree with you are not despicable, they disagree with you. To be so wrong about something so simple, that disagreement on a discussion board makes someone you know nothing about 'despicable', shows a lack of critical thinking. And I have no option but to conclude that the rest of your opinions are as sound as that one.
After sorting through the numerous personal attacks in your comment all I have to say is that I have rarely met anyone on a Democratic board with whom I disagreed more on Constitutional issues.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... if one surveys the citizenry on issues like Social Security, Medicare and defense, the country is left, far left, of what everyone calls "the center".
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)or because they thought everyone else was voting right wing. Either way it was bad.
tridim
(45,358 posts)If so, what are you waiting for?
kentuck
(115,646 posts)the state of my health prevents me from doing so at the present time. Are you running? Or are you happy with the status quo?
tridim
(45,358 posts)And I'm way too introverted to be a politician.
Sorry about your health.
I like lots of Democratic leaders, and dislike some, but I'm not going to disown the entire Democratic party because of a few bad apples.
All I see is a few good apples.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Any one you know personally healthy enough of mind, ethics and body? Have you attempted to talk them into running, or is that simply impossible too?
Maine_Nurse
(699 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)She won't cave, fold, or quit. Bernie Sanders speaks for the people.
But yes, we do have a shortage of politicians who can satisfy me on ethics.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)... it's a shame you have nothing to counter the OP with....
PVnRT
(13,178 posts)"Well, if you're not running for office, quit your whining."
I hear the same kind of sentiments from right-wingers I get to overhear at work. Interesting how that goes.
tridim
(45,358 posts)That is how our government was supposed to work.
Anatos
(179 posts)It is not that the sentiment itself is wrong, but it can be used well or it can be used poorly.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)most of the threads about Obama on GD are critical of him. If you want to see 100% anti-Obama, anti-Democratic party threads maybe you should join Freeperville.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)Too often, when someone voices dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, or with a particular Democrat, they get invited to join a right-wing discussion board.
Perhaps the people doing the inviting should follow their own advice, since they seem to crave "lock-steppers".
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)criticism - maybe freeperville would prove most satisfying.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)kentuck's complaint isn't that DU isn't critical enough. kentuck's complaint is that whoever criticizes Obama get's an invite to freeperville because they're not in "lock-step" with the Democratic Party.
So your suggestion, treestar, is mis-placed. Though it may be worthwhile for you to follow your own suggestion than for kentuck (et al) to.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Kentuck is complaining that there is blowback when one criticizes Obama. Which there is plenty of on DU. But defend Obama and it's mean and unfair!
If people want to discuss politics, they need a thick skin.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)Criticism and praise (as well as opposing opinions of both) are welcome here, according to my reading of the rules.
So let's hope people quit asking others to leave.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)are there a lot of calls for the people who say such things to go to freeperland?
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)redqueen
(115,186 posts)I meant the ones that supposedly made this OP necessary.
I tend to agree with those who say the majority of this forum is Dem-bashing already, so wtf?
Skittles
(172,948 posts)
kentuck
(115,646 posts)Thank you very much for expressing it. I have doubts that either you or Obama are true Democrats?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,612 posts)Not a good move in a thread calling for "open-minded, rational, logical comments".
kentuck
(115,646 posts)Is that the open-mindedness we should expect here? Is that the "true Democrats" you are talking about?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,612 posts)I was criticising your use of it, with a reference to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No, you shouldn't go to Freeperville. But your concern seems unwarranted; when I look at the most reccomended threads for the past week, I get, for the top 10:
Please Kick and Rec if you support OWS
By boston bean in General Discussion - Wednesday - 583 recs
NO!
By kpete in General Discussion - Sunday - 209 recs
Warning -- This is not a surgical device
By Donnachaidh in General Discussion - Monday - 171 recs
I'm Not Sure How To Ask This... But... Is Anybody Else Feeling A Great Nauseous Forboding About...
By WillyT in General Discussion - Wednesday - 167 recs
TIME magazine reveals its Person of the Year 2011
By dipsydoodle in Latest Breaking News - Wednesday - 161 recs
I'd Like To Apologize To DU...
By WillyT in General Discussion - Yesterday - 159 recs
I for one welcome our martial law overlords.
By Fire Walk With Me in General Discussion - Wednesday - 156 recs
President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
By Karmadillo in General Discussion - Yesterday - 150 recs
First Look: New Obama Family Portrait
By Skinner in General Discussion - Yesterday - 149 recs
The DUzies return this Friday!
By The DUzy Awards in General Discussion - Tuesday - 147 recs
There's criticism of Democratic leaders there - 4 out of the 10.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)First, recognize the truth and stop the denial
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)I don't see any specific criticism of the Obama administration or Democrats, but I do see a call out to "loyal followers" of "piss-poor" leaders. That tells me something.
paulk
(11,587 posts)over the last 30 years. At least that's what I get from the OP.
your mileage will, of course, vary.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)"Rightward drift", yeah that's specific.
paulk
(11,587 posts)perhaps you could make a post about it that's more than a few words long?
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)I'm talking about whether or not this thread is looking to discuss anything other than other DUers.
patrice
(47,992 posts)they could be a wide universe of other things, many of which have nothing to do with "rightward drift".
patrice
(47,992 posts)Response to LoZoccolo (Reply #37)
Post removed
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)"WHAT?! You don't agree with me?!"
paulk
(11,587 posts)but right in line with the usual sort of vicious personal attack I've come to associate with your postings.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)paulk
(11,587 posts)maybe I wasn't the only one who had a nerve touched.
btw - make a guess!
Make it public - what your guess is!
patrice
(47,992 posts)t know what they are doing? Hates the Bill of Rights?
Swede
(40,107 posts)
kentuck
(115,646 posts)You do not have to follow anyone you believe is going in the wrong direction, no matter if they are the President of the United States and no matter how scared you are of the crazy Republicans. You can only run so far and eventually you will run out of space. If you are not willing to "herd cats" then maybe you belong to a different Party than I?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What precisely, and without post-hoc qualifiers or preconditions is a "true Democrat"?
Just so we'll know...
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)is no ideological litmus test. It's that box that you check on the voting registration form, not what you advocate or believe or whom you support for political office.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Of course this thread will devolve into an us-them mentality whereby the those who don't support Obama will unite against those who do.
And who gave you the authority to determine who's really a Democrat and who's not? That in itself is divisive and antagonizing.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)Which sentence?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Here:
"I do not see a Democratic Party?? Perhaps you can guide us in that direction? It seems to me the present so-called Democratic Party is the only option left until we can find someone to represent us? This Democratic Party is not the answer. Sorry if this offends the loyal followers of our piss-poor leaders. I have foundered on their political gamesmanship."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227161
and
Here:
"I have doubts that either you or Obama are true Democrats?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=27281
kentuck
(115,646 posts)...
I apologize that your feelings were hurt.
I stand by my words.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)or say that would even remotely phase me emotionally.
Don't waste your time, sweetie
patrice
(47,992 posts)what gives you the right to say he isn't?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and we're upset because he's not one.
hack89
(39,181 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)but being me I'll let it go. now if I followed what the rumored protocol was here, I'd alert. But I won't because I'm not that closed minded..
however you are welcome to join the freepers yourself. being anti obama is not anti democratic party. and therein lies the problem.
being anti obama means he's too far to the right. Obama might join the freepers, he won't of course. they'd ban him , with white pointy hats.
But tired of hearing about peoples posts knocked because they cry foul on obama not being a liberal/progressive. hence why I'd much rather throw the party crap out the window. our current govt is controlled by Conservatives. Liberals/Progressives have no say , until they do, nothing changes. Obama doesn't act like a liberal or a progressive. Similar to this nut called Ben Nelson. Ironically though Ben Nelson is taking care of his area of the state in NE. I go back to my Iowa and Terry's killed off alot of the gift shops for parks. How the hell are they gonna make money now??
HowHeThinks
(92 posts)What I mostly see are posts about how we should "love it or leave it". If we're not 100% behind every decision Mr. "Hope and Change" makes then we're the enemy, and are called out as such.
DU was (is) famous for railing against the GOP for walking in lockstep behind every bone-headed move their glorious leaders make. Now, if the shoe is on the other foot we're supposed to cut that foot off, just to get rid of the shoe?
Many of us feel as if we were deceived, and I think rightfully so. We were promised ponies, and got waffles instead.
So any dissatisfaction is greeted with "off to freeperville with you". Nice. All you'll be left with are fawning sycophants, a mutual admiration society of neutered "democrats" unwilling to demand that our elected officials can, and should, do better for their constituents.
elias7
(4,229 posts)I, for one, have never told anyone that they were wrong in their criticism of Obama. I have mostly piped in to say that those defending Obama are not wrong either. No one should be saying "love it or leave it", but then again, how is the sarcasm of Mr. "Hope and Change" to be taken?
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)
bigtree
(94,690 posts)Most of the posts are critical of the President and the party. You'd almost have to completely censor the pro-Obama posters to get any more anti-Obama and anti-Democrat in this forum.
Go ahead, join right in . . . you'll find the same number of party-hating sycophants here that there were on DU2.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)the same pro-Obama and pro-Democratic Party lovers that find nothing to criticize, for whatever reasons?
patrice
(47,992 posts)BTW, have you asked each and every PO supporter if they find nothing to criticize?
I'd bet you'd find that isn't true.
We disagree with you about the process, but I suspect that doesn't matter to anti-Obama haters, because rhetorical demagoguery about the process are a lot MORE challenging and way less attractive than promoting hate, intentionally or otherwise.
HowHeThinks
(92 posts)is a "hater". Got it. 
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
someone says "There are red birds" doesn't mean that they are saying all birds are red.
Your "mistake" is very telling. You're doing exactly what you accuse anyone who won't agree with you of doing: if they don't agree, then all of them are anti-habeas corpus/civil rights/constitution/freedom/_______________, party-bots.
Your post ONLY proves my point. This isn't about what is right or wrong, what to do and what not to do, this is about DIVISIVENESS as you so clearly demonstrate with your dysfunctional logic.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)I like the question that NJMaverick posed: "If you got the chance to meet Obama, would you tell him that you are the creator of Democratic Underground, and invite him to see it?" something like that.
Personally, I wouldn't have done the jury system until an epic cull of DU2. There was one in 2002 and it was epic. It was basically stated "there are some people here who are not our friends".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)As for inviting Obama here and letting him read this board, I think it would be a very good thing if that happened. I see a lot of criticism of his policies, he's a politician, why should that bother him? It would be great to have him come and speak for himself instead of letting others try to speak for him.
If you can't deal with criticism on an Internet board, you probably shouldn't be president. I don't think he would have a problem at all.
That question is disturbing actually, it smacks of elitism, of protecting politicians from the people who put them in office. Politicians are no better than the people they represent. This is democracy, not a monarchy.
The criticism is never personal, from what I have seen. People have genuine concerns about this country and if he were to come here it's possible he could clarify certain things himself. An elected official talking to the people who elected him/her, is ALWAYS a good thing in a Democracy.
But your position is noted. You want all Progressives banned from this board and you want to protect the POTUS from having to bother with finding out what the people he represents are thinking.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)I don't really feel like addressing the rest due to the strawman.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)quote from a tombstoned troll.
patrice
(47,992 posts)differently, not the values.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)doesn't have much power but is merely a spokesperson for the real powers that are behind this government. The whole system is so broken that even if we elected Bernie Sanders, it's doubtful he would be allowed to implement the kind of massive changes that are needed in this country.
Maybe that's why someone like Sanders doesn't run, he knows how rigged the system is. My focus now is on changing the system, because no matter who is president under this system, nothing substantial will change, none of the things that so badly need changing. Like our brutal, criminal foreign policy. There is no way I will ever be able to overlook the killing of innocent people, no matter who is doing it. Or the killing without charges or trials of anyone who is not on a battle field, I mean a real battle field, not the fake 'war on terror' battle field.
I look at all of them now, and wonder what kind of human beings could support the murders, because it is murder to drop bombs on innocent people who have done nothing to us. All for profit and power. I had hoped that we could change that, but no point in going over it all again. These people have children of their own, many of them. Do they ever look at the dead bodies of the children of Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan that they are responsible for and think of their own? How do they sleep at night I wonder?
I am just totally disgusted frankly, and astounded that people will try to excuse it all and refuse to face the reality that we are not the good guys, we are the guys the world views as the biggest threat to world peace.
And we are asked to turn a blind eye to the horrific suffering we are inflicting on human beings in various countries for political reasons? No one will ever be held accountable, which is why they keep doing it. So, I know that there has to be a new way to make the necessary changes to put a stop to this, which was always my main issue when Bush was president, the killing and the excuses for it, the lies, and the brutality and the total lack of compassion for people. I thought Bush was just an aberration, but he wasn't. To be president of this country under the current system, you have to be willing to go along with all of this, otherwise you will not get anywhere close to that job. That is the reality most people are finally facing. The question now is what to do about it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)what we can for ourselves out of what is left of the system and build our relationships to increase our political strength, so we can have our own candidates.
It's too early for us to be strong enough to do what we need to do, that's why we should focus on getting what we need out of this situation, because that will add to our numbers. To me, the GETs are the right to organize; something as close to Universal Single Payer health care as possible; an END to these fucking wars; and investment in alternative energy and clean environment entrepreneurship. ALL of which will be at least delayed, perhaps until too late, if we fracture the Dem party too much. With Dems incapacitated too much, even if Obama wins again, there'll be NO coat-tails and he'll move further Right. If he gets a mandate, HE WILL OWE US, and I think he'll have to deliver something. But everything around here is about taking votes away from him, so even if he does win, he will know he doesn't have to acknowledge us and our priorities one bit.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to his campaign this time but putting all that energy into Congress. We do have the framework to begin to make changes, and I would rather put energy into Congress, both parties even it means infiltrating the Republican party. Whatever it takes. To do that means no money going to Blue Dogs or DLC war mongers anymore. It means working hard for real progressives and making a huge issue out of the money in politics so that those WITH the money will be labeled as Wall Street candidates a label no one should want in the current political atmosphere.
That should help weaken those supported by Corporations and give a chance to those who do not take or get Corporate funding.
Filling Congress as much as possible with members who are not beholden to Wall Street is a first step. If we can do that, who is in the WH won't matter that much. If it's Obama, he will have no more excuses for not supporting a progressive agenda, it will be done by Congress. But that won't happen overnight, so there is a long road ahead. And at the local level also is where people should and will be putting their energy.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Subsidy-Sam Brownback has enough people mad at him that some Democrats are feeling a little hopeful. Whatever happens, it will only be a move back to the center.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)not that is all that makes you POV absurd, but it does does tell folks more than I think you want to admit.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)For some people who were tombstoned, it is said that they were "purged". For others, it is said that they were "trolls". The people who say one thing about some, and another about others, tell folks more than they think they want to admit.
PVnRT
(13,178 posts)Thanks for at least being honest.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Would you have them on DU3?
Muskypundit
(717 posts)Was it literally repugs banned, or people accused of being repugs because they didn't kiss the pimply ass of the DLC.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in the Party. That is what the OP is talking about, the defense of Conservative policies on DU. And the question is why are people defending policies now that they opposed under Bush? That is question that never gets an answer.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)sad state of affairs if Democrats are required to march in lockstep behind one person. And this is coming from someone who generally supports Obama and voted for him. If you have a single minded agenda to tear Obama down no matter what, then that's a different matter. But we should be allowed to disagree with him on specific issues without being told to go to Freeperville.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)to whats being done as a whole. first thread I've found thats had an honest debate. Will I vote for obama at the end of the day. 95 % yes. that doesn't mean I can't hold him accountable....
Number23
(24,544 posts)And you'll find them because they are the main ones who laughably believe that their incessant whines and idiotic commentary are fresh, new and "speaking trooth to powa."
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)It's getting so you can hardly find ANY criticism of Obama around here anymore.
Sid
kentuck
(115,646 posts)In your humble opinion?
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Calling out the "loyal followers" of "piss-poor" leaders isn't criticism of Obama, and it's an unnecessary distraction from the real issue. If people don't want to talk to you after that, you might want to think about why. You don't really say anything about Obama. But you seem to keep returning to other DUers.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)demonization and outright fabrication that poses as "criticism."
I too would like more rational and logical discussion.
cali
(114,904 posts)Look, you opined in your op about how pro-Obama and pro dem party DU is and that, jack, is a fallacy. That's the point that your claim is simply false. fake. groundless. It's not about how much criticism Obama or the dems deserve, it's about whether folks can make groundless claims and skate.
You can't.
Sorry.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Hadn't seen one of your controversial posts in awhile so I assumed you left.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)You may have found a Kucinich here or a Wellstone there that spoke truth to power and a progressive line but for the most part the Democratic party has represented a center/right coalition. Call 'em Blue Dogs or DLC or whatever, these people are still Democrats...always have been and earned their position by winning elections. While Democrats on the whole will vote in favor of the "little guy"...the union guy over the rich fat cat but that's not always a given...especially when there's campaign contributions on the line.
Yep, both parties do suck...but one sucks a lot more than the other. So your option is to try to change things from within...help support and elect more liberal/progressive candidates within the Democratic party...or find an alternative and prolong the continued corruption of those parties and the political system.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)There is absolutely no way that our current poor excuses for "Democrats" are anywhere near in the same league as FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)of them in this forum and rightly so. Can you imagine the reaction to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese citizens? Or imagine the reaction to Truman dropping the A-Bomb, or JFK's lowering taxes on rich people.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)had the internet existed. And I would bet those discussions would be fierce.
Republicans were no where as crazy as they are now. I doubt that freepers would even exist back then.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Some of them very bad, in fact. The huge difference is that in the larger scheme of things, despite their individual badness, they were aberrations amidst a general trend of huge progress. Whereas right now we have token aberrations where the Dems do something minor that is (often questionably) "good" to give defenders something to point to, amidst a general trend of the status quo or worsening things.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)
link
sybylla
(8,655 posts)They're easy. They're emotional. They are even cathartic. But in truth they say more about the poster and very little beyond that.
It's deeply disappointing to see people who seem to know so much about everything fail to speak to specific issues and specific people?
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)But I sure hope you're not looking for me to pull out specific beefs with every single Democrat every time I want to whine about the status of the party in general? If so, I'm sorry but I don't have the energy for that task.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not only has narrowed but drifted rightwards by quite a bit.
Any honest political scientist would be able to observe this...
No, Nixon would not be a republican today, but he is too much to the left to be a main stream democrat.
styersc
(2,847 posts)i remember that Democratic Party. We used to be the party of the blue collar, hard working, family loving American. We were able to stretch boundaries because we had strong roots as a foundation. We joined by every group who were drawn to an organization that heard every voice and dared to believe.
Now we watch polls, entertain lobbiest and pander to whims and contributors.
We have lost our way and are eager to keep it that way.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Those "gents" were all Democrats...up to and beyond 1980. Until 1965 the party represented the "Dixiecrats"...many who fell for Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and became rushpublicans and others remained as what today we call "blue dogs". These folks have always been conservative and a big voice in the party.
While the Democratic Party has been on the side of workers and unions most of my nearly 6 decades on this rock, it never was this liberal nirvana that some people try to portray it. While Kennedy championed civil rights he also pushed through tax cuts and was a hawk on defense who was only surpassed by Johnson and the result was 58,000 American dead. So was that being "liberal" or "progressive".
You are very right on one big point...and that's how money has corrupted the political system. Today's politicians need massive amounts of money to run large organizations and pay for expensive television time. We've seen the rise of a campaign sub-culture that is all about raising and making money...as witnessed by the fake grifter candidates (Palin, Cain) this year. The only time the votesr matter are in the days before an election. The rest of the time its those who write the big checks who get the calls answered. That's where we've very much lost our way...and sadly I don't see it changing any time soon...
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)then probably not.
But that would be boring anyway.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)The reference to "loyal followers" of "piss-poor leaders".
The irony of calling for open-minded comments is stunning. And laughable.
Or is it just plain old hypocrisy?
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)DU was formed under Bush admin and was a stable hotbed of collective criticism and bolstered party unity.
Now, we are AboveGround, and NOT the anti-Bush party we were then.
Some of us feel sold out by Obama, and by some of our own compatriots here, for supporting him.
Ergo, DU has changed just as America has. And Obama has.
So, can Kentuck and I just get along with everybody here? We want to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Constitution and International law, I would not have had a problem with him.
Maybe it WAS just Bush after all. But for me and I think many others, who got involved in politics because of what was going on starting with the 2000 election, it was never about one man, it was about defending this country from the destruction of our Constitutional Rights which the Bush admin busy doing.
Maybe the question ought to be, are we okay now with with the continuation of Bush policies because Democrats are doing it??
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)
midnight
(26,624 posts)
Turbineguy
(40,214 posts)But when you have people who campaigned for Goldwater and Nixon joining DU and feeling at home you can certainly say the country has taken a giant leap somewhere!
tjwash
(8,219 posts)...that's for sure. It's like the same rotation of posters just do a google search for "obama sucks impeach the bastard" and copy and paste the first 4 websites that pop up.
Or when you happen to mention that you have a job or own property and get shouted down, your email inbox filled with "fuck-you" notes, and you get literally shamed off of the board for long stretches for being a fake DLC bastard that just does not deserve to be considered a "real" Democrat.
So yeah...your correct. It's not been a very nice atmosphere conducive to rational discussion in recent memory.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Post removed
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)And yet it's been protected 3-3 here. So I don't know what you're complaining about.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Further, statements of support for Democrats are really just veiled threats of some kind or other.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and maybe 4 years from now we will have real choices.
If Occupy is not successful, I'm totally outta here, it's really our only hope at this point.
Unless, of course, Democratic legislators somehow miraculously step up and do the things that they are supposed to do.
Yes, I know, that would be a miracle just slightly more amazing than the parting of the Red Sea.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)emilyg
(22,742 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If the current Democratic Leaders are unsatisfactory to one, one would have to find another party, I presume.
The Democratic party as a whole is satisfied with its leaders, not having brought about a primary challenge to the President, for example.
Don't know about your state. If it is Kentucky, then you have a much bigger problem with Republicans than mine does.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Did not indicate that the Party as a whole is satisfied, many of them did not bother to vote, and we lost our majority. Satisfied party members don't stay home and let the Tea Party hijack their States.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)...the Democratic party of today. The only difference is that we have the white house and leading our country is not hypothetical.
Stand and Fight
(7,520 posts)Have taken to outright rude criticism of a long-time DUer because he refuses to accept as gospel the despicable things being done by this administration and Congress! This place really has gone around the bend.
Bake
(21,977 posts)But its initials are Free Rep....................................................
AAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I'M KIDDING, OKAY????? KIDDING!!!!
Bake
retread
(3,935 posts)from the inhabitants thereof? Oh please!! I know you've been a member for a long time and are an active participant. You STILL have that expectation??
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)People on a site called Democratic Underground supporting 
DEMOCRATS! The horror!!!!
If I were you I'd high-tail it to FDL where you'll be safe. I'd go with you, but I personally hate circle jerks.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The horror for me is finding people on a Democratic Site supporting:
*The Expansion of the powers of a Unitary Executive
*More "Free Trade"
*A blind eye toward War Criminals and Wall Street criminals
*Continuation and Escalation of the failed War on Drugs
*Morphing the Right to Health Care
into a Commodity to be sold by private Corporations
to MANDATED customers
*Turning Social Security/Medicare into Bargaining Chips
*Supporting the connecting of Social Security to The Deficit
*Austerity for the Working Class
*Slashing Spending during a Recession
*Turning a Blind Eye to the nationally coordinated Police State abuses against OWS
....those are just some of the things I'm horrified to see supported on a "Democratic" Website.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
kentuck
(115,646 posts)and it is not enough to fight Republicans that have these ideas but to have to fight Democrats with those same ideas, right here on DU. It is discouraging, to say the least. And it is explained away as just part of the "big tent" of our Party...
joshguitar
(168 posts)Muskypundit
(717 posts)Not a democrat because you don't agree with what's happening. People here are told to go freep out because they don't like the way Obama is working.
It's like stances on the issues that matter, doesn't matter anymore. It's like none of the things on your list are important, next to the all important blind cheer leading of people. People who support things that if they called themselves republicans we would eviserate them for.
The problem with the democratic party isn't that we are not uniform; it isn't that a lot of our members are naturally cautious of people in power. It's not that we need more dumb ill informed cult of personality cheer leaders like the rethugs. The problem is that we lack the fight, the lack of civility and sheer balls the other side has. And if we even threw out half the red meat, if we even pulled half the stunts, if we never surrendered.... You would see a D landslide of epic proportions.
This is not a republican country. This is a liberal country thats party refuses to even try to galvanize.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)You "hate circle jerks" but you want Kentuck to leave because s/he questions Democrats.
Um... logic fail.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)other Democrats! PATHETIC!!!
Number23
(24,544 posts)Wish they'd go ahead and go, already.
Hamsher and her endless army of non-diverse, uninformed, bitter leftists await!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and to try to stifle debate by attempts to question ones loyalty to the Democratic Party.
IMO a good Democrat does not accept everything that comes from a Democratic President or Congress without scrutiny.
The issue with the NDAA is a good example. The wording is terrible and it's extremely important. There are those that would shut off this debate. Shame on them.
It's not hard to word this bill to clarify. "No American citizen shall be arrested and detained (either by the military or civilian authorities) without due process as outlined by the Constitution." Hello, how hard is that? Is that too much to ask?
But some here want us to "trust" this president. First of all trust is not something that comes easily in politics. And B. What Would THe Newt Do??? The wording needs clarification.
For the Jury: Nothing in this post is intended to attack anyone except maybe some of the trolls, not that I am calling anyone specifically a troll. By the way, can you attack trolls? JW
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Party!!
While there are Blue Dog and Corporatists in our party, there are plenty more Democrats who put the American people and Democratic Party principles ahead of their own interests.
Barney is right. He is frustrated with this "it's both sides" bullshit! It's not only WRONG, it's DEMORALIZING! That's why people don't vote. That's why people have a disdain for government. If we allow this false meme that since "both parties suck, therefore government sucks, and therefore I'm not voting," to take root, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when people make good on that declaration.
It is NOT equally distributed in BOTH parties.
Though I agree that the leaders of the Democratic Party need to do more to fight, I also argue that the rank-in-file Democrats are missing from the fight.
I also argue that it is up to us to do our part. If we want more progessives representing the party, then we MUST work our asses off to get them elected at ALL levels of government!!
The Teabaggers didn't stop yelling, but they backed up that yelling with ACTION! This is something that the Democratic Party has been abysmal at for the last 30, 40 years! It has little to do with Obama. This problem has been endemic to the Democratic Party for decades!
patrice
(47,992 posts)Many actively AVOID canvassing. Put a couple of hours into a phone-bank and then brag about working for the party.
Not even to mention the other kinds of things they could be doing, like LTTEs.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Just enough to make Florida's EVs the deciding factor. Jeb delivered, so here we are.
Can't happen again? Don't kid yourself. And it'll be 10x worse, because they've already gained so much ground. The upside of that scenario is that DU would be united in our shared angst once more. Far too high a price to pay. Far too high.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I was making the exact same point!
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)sorry?!
dawg
(10,777 posts)Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk, it's still DU to me. 
jannyk
(4,810 posts)and I am so glad to see you.
Democracydiva
(28 posts)Personally...I am over the Democratic Party...I am going to re-register as a member of the Justice Party and hopefully have the opportunity to vote for Rocky Anderson.. I agree with everything he said during his recent Democracy Now interview..In fact I am hoping Ron Paul wins (if they actually count the votes) the Republican Primary so we can have an honest dialogue about our state of perpetual war.
man4allcats
(4,026 posts)I was about to say Marx was right, but it may be more informative to say he was left and therefore correct. 
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)people very angry.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I noticed that, wow, some folks seem steaming mad at the OP and telling them to go somewhere else?! Very rude IMHO.
urbuddha
(363 posts)We need to preserve Social Security and Medicare and the quality of life for
ALL Americans. The Democratic Socialists have their own site, as well.
Skittles
(172,948 posts)OWS was inspired by the fact that BOTH PARTIES SUCK
dsharp88
(528 posts)having Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced by a 42-year-old ultra-right-wing conservative will bring hardship upon America for the next 35 years.
In the end, the intelligent and reasoned vote goes to the Democrat even if a more philosophically-oriented third-party candidate seems to have greater appeal.
By all means - debate, but don't destroy.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)is what I would Google.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I think age has a lot to do with it. I don't think younger people who came of age say when Clinton was Pres or Bush have the same perspective on "Liberals" and "Democrats" as those of us who have 40 50 or 60 years under our belts.
While I have not changed much in the last 30 or so years the definitions of words I used to use to described myself have.
Democrat no longer means "left wing" or "liberal". It means, "not as crazy as those guys"...
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Things changed a lot once Reagan Dems left.
Just to clarify... I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'm not implying that the Reagan Dems left, so that means the party must have been more right-wing before they did... just that things did change a lot after that in the country. It seems the whole mood/outlook of the country changed for the worse.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I have become accustomed to having *no* choice. It is the nature of political reality in my state. It isn't that I don't wish for better ... *yearn* for better. But there is a fatalistic acceptance that, "It is what It is. Deal." Am I happy about It? No. But I don't have the energy to endlessly rail against It and haven't found a way to change It.
So I accept the crumbs and don't weigh them lightly. I neither love nor hate Obama. Some things he does are okay and that's better than nothing. I am willing (considering the alternatives, *eager*) to vote for the lesser of evils. It is that pragmatic thing that so many here find offensive. I don't think we are so far apart in our overall worldview as we pretend to be.
Is regionality a word? Nope. Oh well.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Only people who share your attitude need participate in this meeting of the "open-minded", right?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Is Diane Feinstein. As far as I can determine, she deliberately set things up so that on two occasions, the Democrats lost the gubernatorial election to the Republicans.
This really lends credence to the fact that the Two Parties are basically arm and arm with each other. They play out all these kabuki theater style attacks - Republicans: "look at how our nominee Rick Perry is too dumb to come in out of the rain."
And the coutnerpoint to htat would be all these past months of Obama constantly saying, "Well I cannot simply go ahead and do the things I promised Middle Class Americans I would do once elected, I first must see if the Republicans would like me doing these things!"
The internet has allowed people to have the curtain lifted. We see that whoever it is that has their face as the Great Wizard, the face of the man behind the curtain is always the same - that of the MIC, and Big Corporations.
And the MIC and the Big Corporations are never satisfied. They must take every single last penny out of the outstretched arms of the Middle Class.
Loge23
(3,922 posts)is just inches away.
Kentuck, I'm figuring you are in need of the former and I am happy to oblige.
You are right on.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)they can still be very unhappy with the Democratic party and criticize it vigorously. Not sure why, but some Democratic party members seem to have a hard time grasping that. I guess their philosophy appears to be, if you are a Democrat, then you better say only good and praiseworthy things for the party. <shrug>
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)a movement....in play every day....its called destiny...cesera sera..whatever will be...will be...
Review our human history and we see trainwrecks and long periods of peace tranquility...the
Ying Yang of Life I guess...
But we see a trend of expanded wisdom along the way...sometimes in spurts and other times
vice versa from our first days in the forest jungle. Good things happen to POSITIVE SOCIETIES
it was soon learned...Together We Stand ...Divided We Fall....
From the Village where survival depended on group effort...war and peace... to the city state
Nation ...we humans burst forth... the result of the info depot...computers. but the present
picture reveals a dire times headed for America and its larger concern, the entire Planet.
So whad can we do about this crappy scenario about political stagnation and lack of solutions?
The Fish Mongers Union 358 has a Battle Plan they are soon to submit....please be paitient.
The current discord logjam will soon abate into mutual solutions....Happy Happy endings...
still contains
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)myself. I'm so very worried and don't know where to turn. OWS is in it's infancy and needs much more time to gel. It's the only game in town though, at least that's how I see it.
We are a nation on the brink of either falling flat, or finding a way to stand up and begin to rebuild. We've lost so much time as we've dithered our time away trying to figure out what kind of chess game any one person has been playing at any given time.
I KNOW I feel very lost, but most of all don't even know which way to turn. I said I would vote for Obama because the alternative is so much worse. It IS!!! But we have no where else to turn this late in the game. I feel doomed so much of the time. I keep trying to remind myself that this country has gone through horrible times in the past and we can overcome even this. But most of the time I'm losing my own argument.
Again, I feel alone and my heart keeps telling me that WE are our only answer! Time for the PEOPLE to rise up, but we don't seem to know what will come of it. We must find a way because THEY aren't on our side and WE seem to have lost most of the pieces in this horrible game!
Will a REVOLUTION be enough this time??? I AM SO AFRAID!
mahina
(20,731 posts)The party is a just a box, like a house is not a home without the people. It is whatever we let happen when we walk away, or whatever good we want to create.
Take a look at the Progressive Democrats of America. Can be a caucus within the party or an informal group. We made one here and it is frikken useful.
Occupy!
urbuddha
(363 posts)We need to keep Social Security and Medicare as well as many other
benefits that will keep many people from becoming homeless.
quiet.american
(11,410 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)So, I would hope that DU would be a place that allows and encourages free discussion. Discussion and debate are a normal part of change for political systems and parties. The Democratic party is in decay right now, as is the country, and most of the world for that matter, and change is needed. The Democratic Party is where the Republican Party was 40 years ago. That has to change. Or another party will have to rise to replace it.
"It seems to me the present so-called Democratic Party is the only option left until we can find someone to represent us?"
I disagree, and never have voted for the lesser of two evils. Vote for real change, Obama has not delivered. if he all of a sudden gets some backbone, then that changes things. So, we rabble rousers try to shame him and Democrats in general into standing up for real change and a fair system. If that doesn't work, start a new party.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)oldlib
(550 posts)The state of the Democratic party is inconsequential at this time. If we continue to believe in the principals, we are Democrats.
We need to fucking get out and work locally to change the party. I hear a lot of complaining, but I am seeing very little action.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...maybe it is because YOU are not "out there working".
We worked very hard on our local level to replace Blue Dog, Anti-HealthCrae, Anti-Union Blanche Lincoln
in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010.
Guess WHAT Happened?
We wound up having to FIGHT the White House, the DNC, and the DSCC to replace a "Centrist" Blue Dog with a popular Pro-LABOR Democrat (Lt Governor Bill Halter)!
The White House Publicly Endorsed the Blue Dog who CAMPAIGNED on "Derailing the Democratic Agenda!!!!
The White House even sent the Big Dog back to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's Failing Campaign,
and couldn't resist adding Insult to Injury by ridiculing LABOR for "wasting 10 Million Dollars supporting a Pro-LABOR DEMOCRAT!!!
So, if YOU are not seeing people working,
you haven't been in the right places.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
oxymoron
(4,079 posts)That's quite an assumption you made. I am currently my Precinct Captain and very active in the local Party. I see many very moderate to conservative Dems at our meetings, but very few liberals.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
:kick:
midnight
(26,624 posts)one is longer able to. You either use it or you loose it.... I applaud your clarification....
a kennedy
(36,364 posts)krucial
(206 posts)Thats exactly my sentiments when I switheed from Dem to no affiliation in 2006,but then I voted Dem for Obama,because I fell for all the promise of change,but really this is mostly like a continuation of the Bush regime,but holding out hope that Obama will come to his senses by election time
kentuck
(115,646 posts)Is this a place for progressives or conservatives? Or does it matter, so long as you call yourself a Democrat?
Just my personal opinion, but conservative ideas on this board will corrupt it and cause it to rot from within, just like our nation.
We do not need more conservatives, Democratic or Republican. And they should be called on their bullshit.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)Who's stopping you?
DonCoquixote
(13,980 posts)I do think we need to be able to criticize Obama, even outright scream. If that pressure was not there, he would fall way far to the right. Sometimes we do need to scream >>>FUCKING A!<<< for the sake of our sanity, as well as to remind us where we need to be.
That being said, there is an elephant in the room, and that is that while some people have good motives, some people are frankly just plain dishonest. I am not just talking about the Right-wing plants/psych-ops (though we do need to pay attention to those folks, as they are sadly effective.) I am talking about people who frankly had an ax to grind two months before day one, and who are thinking that if things get ruined, people will go "we are so sorry, we will obey you."
For example, you get people who complain that Obama caved in on the individual mandate, yet they say in the same breath that we should have voted for Hillary. Read that person's journal, and you can tell who they voted for. As i said in 2008, if Hillary won the primary, I would have voted for her, and I would have voted in 2012, just like I would vote for her if she wins the nomination in 2016. That being said, I cannot help but call said person's motive into question, when we all know that Bill and Hill would be serving a right wing agenda as well (as sadly, they helped to get the ball rolling when they killed Glass-Steagall)
On the other hand, while I do wish we had a real left, it is hard for the hard-left to keep credibility. "Stop voting for the lesser of two evils!" we hear. Sorry folks, there have been TWO elections were people stayed home or voted third party in the name of their conscience, and both of them put Bush in office. 2004 was the real let down, but people wanted to punish us because St. Howard Dean decided to Yee-Haw his way out the election. Even Doonesbury got into the act calling Kerry "Herman Munster", as the last Presidential candidate that was both a war her and war protester got slammed, and the world saw that we were willign to keep Bush in office for four more years, which, let's face it, is when America lost of lot of her luster.
So, what is my point, the point is this, yes, there are good reasons to yell at Obama, to be angry with him, to make sure, that if he wins 2012, he does not get to so much as smell any victory cake before he starts firing half his cabinet and signing the exact orders that will make the folks that will enrage the powers that be, that will fire up the lynch mobs and paid assassins that he undoubtedly fears. Yes, we should pressure him so bad that his hair grays. But as much as Obama has been a disappointment, that does not give us a right to allow people into power that we know damn well will do more damage than even he would. Yes Obama may lean right, but we can at least push him, or ensure that any steps he makes to the right are staggering, lumbering limps, not let the GOP in that has been ready to RUN and STOMP.
The bottom line is, there are people that are willing to see the GOP win, because they, like it or not, have a big payoff waiting for them if they do:
I am not just talking about the Ralph Naders, Jane Hamshers, Jon Stewarts and even Michael Moores, all of whom will make BIG money if a Republican wins.
I am not just talking about our so-called "Democratic" congress critters, who make sure anything worthwhile was "off the table" and were surprised they they could not just collect a check for being "not the GOP."
I mean the voters who still refuse to admit that yes, their ego-trip helped put the GOP in power, and that makes them responsible, at least in part, for all that Bush did. That includes EVERYTHING from dead babies to Supreme Court picks.
It's an ugly truth, but that does not make it a lie, and yes, MY conscience is clear, because I knew that I had to play the cards I was dealt, rather than gamble with people's lives.
krucial
(206 posts)The truth si neither party wants to change the equation,both of them believe in american imperilaism,and thats why neither party really wants to seriously cut or reduce war,military and defense funding.
They all cry about cutting defense and the military is going to leave us weak,thats bull,they could reduce or miltary spending to the same pecetnage we spend of other things and still be ahead of the game.
We have more WMD,s than everyone else with them put together,we have military bases and troops in almost every corner of the world,we have them in and around Russia's backyard,in and around China's backyard. in and around Arab lands,in and around Africa and Obama announced he was going to increase even more military in Austraila,this militarization of the world by the US does not stop.
We spend more than all the whole world put together on Military,and We dont have money for anything else,but we always have money for war,and military adventures,which increases going up non stop every year,to feed our appetite for war,our perpetual non stop,never ending wars against someone,somewhere,with a never ending supply of terrorist that our occupation and policies keeps creating.
We invade and occupy peoples land and if the resist and try to kick us out,we call them terrorist
We have troops and military bases in Japan,and Germany for 60 years or more,who are we defending these countries from who? We are now beating the war drums for war with Iran,who does Iran reallt thraeten,can anyone seriously say the Iran is threat to Western civiliiation as Israel and the US is pushing? Two countries wth the most powerfull armies in the world and massive arsenal of WMD's,how is Iran is a threat to them? Really?
I see cheny was saying that Obama should have went into Iran to retreive or destroy the drone that was illegally flying and spying oin Irans air space,I must say I am glad that this evil bastard D cheney is not in office,or else we might have been in another war right now with serious consequences for the world.
It just does not stop.
As long as both parties think that just because we are the USA,that we have a Divine right to invade,attack,occupy,and tell the Arabss,China,Russia ,and the others we dont like in rest of the world what they can and can not do we are never going to get out of this mess,and will one day more than likely threaten the whole world.
I am glad that there is a movement like OWS that is trying to get that accross to all Pollitical parties,and hope that they can force them to make some changes before the powers that be outlaw the movement and classify them as Terrorist a threat to our National security,because it seems they are on the road to fasicm,and morhping into states like Libya,Eguypt and the other undemocratic brutal trynical states we supported until the people started the uprising against them.
Our Govt. call them Democraies,which is a joke.
They are democracies by our standard, if they support us in our imperial and military aims, and help protect our "Strategic interest",but if they dont go along, and even more imortant,if they do not like,and oppose US/israreli policies,they are put on our list of enemies,and into the Bullsye on our target and marked for regime change.
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)I am an Independent (called unenrolled in Massachusetts) and every single year since 2000 I have not dared to vote anything but democrat. For 11 years... nothing but desperate D, D, D, D. I'm tired of it. I am so sick of voting "the lesser of two evils." It's time to start building the groundwork for better choices.
My focus this election season is on Elizabeth Warren. Yes, I know she's a D but I'm hoping she'll be a Progressive D. None of my time or money will be used for President Obama.
OCCUPY. Oh, BTW... my conscience is clear too. Don't try to shut down the discussion by telling people who voted third party that they are responsible for the whole world going evil. That's unfair and uncalled for.
DonCoquixote
(13,980 posts)They are not responsible for the whole world, btu they can be called out for the part of it they control, which is the American Vote, something that, as corrupted and weakened as it is, still gives us more control then in many other places.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)of us. But given the entrenched duality of our political system, we can either fight to take back the Democratic party and reclaim it for liberal ideals or we can stand back and watch the corporatists take it over. Your criticism of the Democratic party and many of its members I think is most welcome if it laser-focused on the root cause of its ills. Political parties after all are just empty shells and we humans put the meaning into them.
The Democratic party is neither a reflective opposite of the Repuglican party, nor is it "just as bad as ..." blah, blah, blah. There is corruption in its ranks in its own way and it has been going through an identity crisis ever since Reagan fucked everything up (with the blessings of so many of our fellow Americans). I say we bring our hearts and souls back into the Democratic party and revitalize it with the principles and practices that we know work. And we know they work because it was the Democratic party that put them into practice in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's. We watched this nation thrive because of that. Just because there are those who are corrupt or weak-willed that call themselves Democrats doesn't mean we should identify the party with them. We should do our best to get rid of them. *baucus...cough..cough*
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)Should be posted on its own. I'd sure as hell rec it.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Republican censorship. DU seems to think democratic or democracy means your part of the dems. Nope. when OWS says this is what democracy looks like, they aren't thinking of a party.
suggest DU2 or leftunderground if you want to have a chat without fear of being censored. 
DU3 is like Windows ME. came out too soon and unfinished.
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)This thread is doin' fine.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)So what censorship are you talking about?
creeksneakers2
(8,044 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)about those assumptions?
Some people see the process differently than you do; that's what they are loyal to and you obviously don't respect that, so this isn't the Democratic Underground.
Everyone yells about a corrupt system and then somehow expects its creatures/leaders to function without taint. It's like blaming people who live in smog for not having clean lungs, instead of working *T*O*G*E*T*H*E*R* to clean the air. I call bullshit!!
No this is not the Democratic Underground. It's the "Democratic" Underground - an incubator for minor demagogues, such as yourself, to get a buzz on stirring 3rd party bullshit that will destroy whatever chance REAL Democrats have of getting a Right to Organize for this country and/or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, HR 676, in the near or even in the foreseeable future.
But you all, just go right ahead and keep on getting high on YOURSELVES, kentuck, and your divisiveness might lead to the opportunity to change the name of this board to whatever you want, because the REAL Democrats will leave this self-absorbed mutual-stimulation to those who want that buzz more than they want to actualize the potentials for good policies to succeed for all Americans.
thescreaminghead
(37 posts)Personally, I joined this site because I thought that it would be democratic with a small D. So far it has been; I'm impressed by the viewpoints here and the fact that everyone is able to express themselves.
For about 35 years now, before I was born, we have all been victims of the Republicratic Party. They seem to argue, but really the only thing they argue about are the techniques with which they distract us from the decision makers.
NDAA, SOPA, PIPA...everything America has is being destroyed line by line, bill by bill.
Damn right the Democratic party is not the answer. I think Buddy Roemer has a great deal to say. I would check out his website. People who feel like us have to get behind one candidate or else our voices are dust in the wind. And no, bitches, I don't work for Buddy Roemer. I found him organically and listened to his MSNBC interviews and that's why I support him.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)The public is starting to wake up and Occupy, the kids are getting closer to voting age and more people are getting old - all reasons for the Republicans to start losing elections.
autorank
(29,483 posts)To put it kindly.
k*r
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)when they have the certifiably insane Mitch McConnelll for their U. S. Senator should have his head examined. And that person deserves a group rate for statewide testing.
If these psychiatrists are Kentucky citizens, everybody including them should cross all state lines till they find a sane state for treatment.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)How is one tied to another?
patrice
(47,992 posts)leadership? Is there no such potential in the state? Or do Dems there simply not recognize how to develop the nascent leadership that is in fact there? And if it's the latter, what implications does that have for OP's opinions about PO?
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)Kentuck's head is not the problem here.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I see McConnell as a bigger problem than Obama. God only knows whose take he's on....
I inferred that Kentuck might look at his Senator as a problem, not my president.
Obama didn't invade any countries, well, sort of, not to stay anyway. He didn't allow the tax cut that put us in the deficit we're in today..that was all Bush, with McConnell's help.
I loathe that man and can't change the tuner quick enough when he's on tv....
patrice
(47,992 posts)We ARE the ones we have been waiting for.
ALL of it BEGINS with each one of us, kentuck included, it ALWAYS has.
Slavery is what makes us pretend it's the other guy.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)I'm disappointed in the party leadership too.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Certainly not Obama. What a huge fucking disappointment.
DU should be renamed the Obama Apologist Underground.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,612 posts)This thread is at the top of the Greatest list, and you think "DU should be renamed the Obama Apologist Underground"?
Why do so many people on this thread see themselves as victims on DU? Even when they seem to share the most popular view, and have an easy way of expressing and measuring that?
Crewleader
(17,005 posts)Just wanted to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas!
And to say, I'm supporting the one that will bring the people peace and prosperity. Both parties at this point are too bought and paid long away from the people's best interests. Senator Sanders is right, and the supreme court is wrong. Corporations are not people, and we need the success of his actions to make our elections back for the people.
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?source=patrick.net&uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Great post kentuck and
Merry Christmas DU!
fredamae
(4,458 posts)from My party to Criticize any and All that I disagree with.
In my opinion, It IS Beginning to look a Lot like "Good Cop/Bad Cop" games. After awhile and after Countless "Caves" with little to NO explanation from "my people", one cannot Help but conclude that there is seemingly Majority of Dems who are not only Willing but Also Desire the outcome of the repubs laws, rules and policies.
It seems the Dems have Willingly and Without Real Fight Conceded control of Both Houses to the Pubs. If these "dems" Were Dems-they would come to Us and tell us the Whole Truth in a "Bernie Sanders sorta way.
They would pull the same Procedural shit on the pubs, but they don't.
They Now appear so Dishonest of their actions or lack thereof and it is by their Own actions I come to this conclusion based upon performances on the Floor of Both chambers, failure to ask hard question of those testifying before committees etc.
Well, I'm sorry-But a Turd in an Apple Basket is still a Stinking Turd, no matter the political declaration.
The whole damned DC "gang" needs to be flushed out and sent the hell Home.
WE must drop the assumption that the repubs are the Criminals and Villians here and Look at the job performance of Individual Lawmakers-Forget Political Affiliation.
The Difference in Action between the two parties is getting So blurred it is nearly impossible to tell the difference.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Post removed
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Post removed
disndat
(1,887 posts)It looks like Obama will be reelected next year, '12, but if he doesn't get a Democratic Congress to work with, the future looks very bleak. The RW is working hard to bring back Jim Crow, esp., in the States where the Democrats have a narrow margin.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Most of the new leaders were (and still act like) reagan Democrats. They offer up all the "common wisdom" of that terrible period. They just lay low, took neo-con money, and took over the party.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)But there seems to be such a need here.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Nailed It!
[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85\
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
scentopine
(1,950 posts)After Republicans bought Christian, Inc and elected Reagan, dems decided if you can't beat them, join them.
It took them 30 years to methodically purge liberals from leadership positions as they followed like lost puppy dogs behind Republican shock troops, who used right wing media to soften up America for the coming oligarchy endorsed by neo-conservatives and neo-liberals. The same neo-libs and neo-cons are now populating our hope and change dept - the executive office.
When liberals said - "hey- look out you are steering into the shores, the siren song of Reagan is a trick, you can't rely on corporations to solve difficult government policy problems", they told us to shut the fuck up, they stuffed their ranks with lobbyists and CEOs.
Modern centrist (the core of dem party) is a neo-con/neo-lib hybrid - relying on CEOs to formulate public policy and law, while protecting CEOs two ways
1. by destroying constitutional safeguards for the lower class of citizens.
2. engaging in ruthless violence against impoverished countries when CEO investments appear to be threatened.
What's worse is that democrats now openly cheer on torture, search and seizure against citizens, making it impossible to organize any resistance.
If you are a democrat because you think democrats embrace justice and truth with a broader goal of keeping America free and safe by investing in its citizens, you will not be happy.
There is a huge amount of anti-trust provisions in constitutional law. Everyone knows the danger of a monopoly. It concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few people who do not have the best interests of their country at work.
Democrats and republicans work very hard to preserve their monopoly for the same reason. While demanding performance standards and competition for the 99%, the 1% REFUSE to allow political competition and expect us to blindly endorse their criminal standards of government.
Competition and the free market is for the rest of us. Democratic and Republican leadership is good with the way things are. For them.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Reading your thread, it is clear to me that not only is there is inner conflict here on the issue, but as viewed within MNbrewer's post (Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class) I have to ask myself - "How can I identify with a Democratic Party that fails to hold true to many of its values?" This is the very thing that made me want to register as a Democrat, and the very thing that drew me to DU.
I take no offense on what you postulate, in fact I have to agree with Hedges that it's due to the failure of liberals to rise up. Of course, he said this prior to the Arab Spring and the rise of that very movement - OWS.
By the way, I ran for and won local public office. Anyone who wants to PM me on the effect of the failure of the liberal class, I'll tell you what I am faced with at the end of all this "trickle down" bullshit that continued past the last liberal president we had (Nixon).
I'll tell you just how hard it is from the bottom up. Don't expect me to get into details here, because it's not going to be understood well by some of this thread, who should in fact start THEIR own "The Blinder Wearer's" party.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)"Can we expect open-minded, rational, logical comments from the inhabitants thereof? Or are we so tied to the Democratic Party that we are not permitted to think in such a way?"
Your questions highlight the problematic nature of mission statements dedicated to party as opposed to principle. Parties can change, sometimes for the worse, for example by coming under the undue influence of wealthy corporate and other special interests, but solid democratic principles do not change.
Success and/or promotion of the ANY political party should NEVER be an end unto itself. A legitimate political party is nothing more than a vehicle/organization by which we (the citizenry) attempt to bring about changes we'd like to see, and we should routinely revisit the question of whether or not our chosen party has been/is/will be effective in doing so.
Of course, just as Bush stated "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," the party locksteppers who frequent DU will respond to make you feel compelled to get on board with the democratic party or go sign up at freeperland, which is supposed to either shut you up or run you off. Ironically, it is the unquestioning, non-thinking mindset of the locksteppers which most lends itself to freeperland ideology.
Doubt if my post will last very long, just thought I'd put in my two cents.
patrice
(47,992 posts)thinkers->doers on both sides of this question.
Almost everyone is pretending that what is wrong, the source of our problems, proceeds in ONLY one direction, from the bad guys who are __________________, and that s/he isn't part of that. None of that is true and yet everyone "recognizes" the corruption of the whole. Why is this very obvious error sooooooo common????
***IF*** we are actually going to do anything concrete, we NEED to begin with the truth about ourselves, so . . . maybe that IF is the actual purpose of all of this divisiveness, at least for a significant minority of its source, and the rest of it, the actual critical mass of the IF derives from confusion.
Anatos
(179 posts)Unfortunately, grappling with it requires an existential certitude which generally results only from fundamentalism. So most people don't bother, and those that do come up with the wrong answer. Plus, there isn't anything about being "cognitively free" which inclines you to come up with the right answer.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)You are right about being wedded to a political party, rather than principles.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Sheesh.
kentuck
(115,646 posts)and the fools say keep marching...
Anatos
(179 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)Your naivete concerning party politics indicates you are either young, or just not very experienced for some other reason.
Our leaders ROCK! It is our followers who are piss-poor. So run along and piss and moan somewhere else, would be my advice. If you look around at the Democratic Party, and you think it sucks, then you're what sucks about it and you should go become a Paultard or a Socialist.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Many of them are good people, and probably well-intentioned. But the best I can say for most elected Dems is that they are better than the alternative.
Anatos
(179 posts)Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are three of the finest leaders ever to serve in government in the entire HISTORY of the United States of America. If you think anything better is possible, you are kidding yourself, because you're just plain wrong on that score.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
No Strings Attached!!!
Now THIS is Bi-Partisanship![/font]
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
dawg
(10,777 posts)
Anatos
(179 posts)merely that they are the best we've ever had. BEST. They of course have the advantage of history to guide them, more so than, well, those who had come before in history.
Tell me, good sir. Who ELSE other than the white male you were taught to hero-worship, was involved in these leader's tremendous deeds? I don't recall the name of the Speaker of the House during either Roosevelt administration, though I'm sure it has some political significance. And of course the youngest of the Kennedy Brothers would have made a great leader, if he hadn't somehow disqualified himself. Then again, you could say Newt Gingrich is a great leader, other than the fact that he is a despicable human being.
So, no. It literally doesn't come any better than Reid, Pelosi, and Obama. Their fortitude against greater obstructionism than any of the hallowed politicians of the past had ever had to deal with is simply awe-inspiring. And their accomplishments in the face of that obstructionism have been notable. We might well have single-payer government-run health insurance in this country some day. And when we do, you can be pretty sure it's going to (unofficially) be called "ObamaCare", no matter how long it takes to get it.
And of course Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus, knowing it was both unconstitutional and unavoidable. And refused to free the slaves until it, too, was unavoidable. You'd have shredded him from your political purist position, I'm quite sure. And so there is hope that you will also, someday, recognize the incomparable leadership shown by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama. I do wonder if you'll have the self-awareness to be chagrined, at least, when it happens.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Gee, I hope they can find room on Mt. Rushmore to fit-in Harry Reid!
Anatos
(179 posts)Mr. Obama may well one day be added. I mean, you could say he just looks good in comparison to the guy he took over from. And the guy before him, and the half dozen before him, too. You could say the Arab Spring was a complete coincidence, as was the "hope-based" Nobel Prize which seemed to anticipate it. You could only look at those things he hasn't accomplished, and ignore all the things he has.
Granted, saving the economy from crashing isn't as flashy as having it crash and then rebuilding it. But it isn't as messy, either. And health insurance reform is, to quote the Vice President, a Big Fucking Deal. I can't imagine what we could have done if the Republicans hadn't had a filibustering minority in the Senate. Something none of the residents of either Mt. Rushmore or the pictorial tribute upthread had to deal with, not incidentally.
But with all due respect to the President and the Junior Senator from Arizona, the person who has shown the greatest leadership qualities has been the first female Speaker of the House, Ms Pelosi. I doubt there's ever been a better progressive or a more capable Democrat to serve that office.
You need to learn to appreciate real ability and leadership and stop looking for a daddy figure to come fix everything all at once.
Proud Liberal Dem
(25,011 posts)although probably for different reasons.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And what were the results?
patrice
(47,992 posts)HR 676 and they won't tell us how ending those opportunities for X years (8-12?) is okay as long as we bag Obama.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Mitch, is that you?
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Yes, this is the Democratic Underground and we are here to remove the traitors, expose the corrupted, educate the ignorant, strengthen the will of those who are weakened or tired, and to reform the Democratic Party so that it becomes highly responsive to the needs of the vast majority of the people in the United States.
Do you want to start a third party? No time like the present: http://www.networksolutions.com/
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)The carping about my Hitchens thread gives me serious pause. R for thread.