We live in a binary political system. If the Dems lose, the Republicans win.

[Yavin4]

And that's why so many DUers rally and close ranks behind Obama/Hillary/Biden etc. It's not that we're apologists or sychophants or whatever derisive name that you can conjure. No, it's that we know who and what the alternative is.

The alternative is ultrasound legislation, restricted access to health insurance, denial of citizenship rights for the GLBT community, denial of voting rights for the poor, denial of Medicare for the elderly, more tax breaks for the 1%, deregulation of Wall Street, and more war in the Middle East.

So my humble suggestion to my fellow DUers is stop attacking those who are supportive of Obama. Instead, do the hard work of building a political consensus for a third party. Organize and elicit public support for your party and your candidates. Build a real party from the grassroots. Give people a real choice out of our binary political system.

Until that happens, lay off the name calling of your fellow DUers.

[Proud Public Servant]

1. F*ck that; it's OUR party

I don't need to go about building a third party; I need my so-called leaders to actually promote the values of the party that put them in power.

Now, if DLC/Third Way/former Rockefeller Republican types want to go form a third party, they're welcome to do so. But if not, it would behoove them to act more like Democrats, and they deserve to have their feet held to the fire when they don't.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. not going to happen. Mediocricy is not good enough.

My children's future is going down the toilet while democrats use the excuse well at least we're not that othe guy. That is a lazy excuse for not working towards economic justice for the poor and middle class.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. +1

[Autumn]

3. You know that works both ways. I have seen a lot of Obamas supported ripping into

Duers who do not support the President on this and a few other issues. But you are so right " lay off the name calling of your fellow DUers." it's a discussion board so people can discuss different points of view.

[upaloopa]

4. If there is a progressive third party the republicans win.

All you do is dilute the power of the vote.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. that argument doesn't wash with me. All it does is give democratic politicians an excuse

not to work as hard as they should. Government politicians represent citizens of the United States. They represent what we want. They do what we demand of them. How are they even suppose to know what to do if we don't tell them what we want them to do? It's like asking a waiter at a restaurant to serve you dinner without telling them what entree you want. Even worse, without citizen action to hold politicians accountable we end up with a third world corrupt government. Which is basically what we have now. The 1% own both parties.

[Autumn]

9. I've gotten to that point.

Why do I want to vote for Democrats that will give me "kinder, gentler" republican policies? they are going to have to do better than that for my support.

[upaloopa]

21. We are both right we just have to be willing to live

with our choice. Reality can't be wished away by good intentions.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. well I can't live with my choice anymore.

I'm tired of my children not having a proper education because neither party gives a crap about our public school system. That is what I can't live with anymore.

[Autumn]

45. Sometimes you have to walk away. If nothing changes why vote for it?

I want something to vote for, not something to vote against.

[CakeGrrl]

50. So, do you honestly believe that if the R's get the WH and BOTH chambers of Congress

that it won't be worse than it is now?

[Yavin4]

52. If 8 years of Bush does not covince them of how bad it can be

I really don't know what else does.

[CakeGrrl]

57. 8 years of Tea Party-driven House legislation, rubberstamped by a GOP POTUS

will be an unfortunate reality check.

I think for some who choose to be blind to what has been accomplished, they'll only understand when the GOP repeals and revokes.

I'm going to do my part to see that I don't have to suffer because the 'sit it out / 3rd party' crowd is willing to hand control to the GOP.

[frylock]

84. you have already managed to hand control to the GOP..

everytime a democrat kowtows to republican policy out of fear of what the teabaggers may think or say, they have handed control over to the GOP.

[liberal_at_heart]

89. +1

[CakeGrrl]

95. I don't give a rat's ass what Teabaggers think. I care that their reps ENACT legislation.

Get the difference?

And if you want the crazy shit that comes out of the House to go through, just let the GOP take over the Senate.

If they get the WH, let the rubberstamping begin. Then everyone will see what Republican policies are REALLY like.

This "they're all the same" blather is bullshit. Apparently some will never understand what HAS been accomplished until it's taken away.

[frylock]

99. shit, we hear all the time "dems can't do that. whatever will the teabaggers say?!!1"

all the fucking time.

[liberal_at_heart]

58. my kids get a raw deal on education no matter who is in office, and I'm tired of democrats

ignoring the issue of education. Education has become my number one issue and democrats have just as bad a record on education as republicans do.

[CakeGrrl]

73. Maybe you've become a single-issue voter

but I for one keep the big picture in mind.

I'll be voting Dem and will try to get someone to take up your vacancy, because I'm not willing to let the Tea Party destroy things that aren't a priority for you because you don't have as much of a personal stake in some issues.

[liberal_at_heart]

76. go right ahead. I don't care what you do. I will fight for my children's education even in the face

of the democratic party's abandonment of it. It's hard to fight a ticked off mom who has seen her kid suffer, who has seen her kid come home crying because he thinks he is stupid when it is the grown ups who make the system who are stupid. So yes maybe I have become a one issue voter and considering who I am fighting for I am damn proud of it.

[clarice]

60. +10000 nt

[Eddie Haskell]

54. Yea, look at the damage the Tea Party did

[cali]

101. um no. the one place there is a progressive third party is Vermont

It's the only viable third party in the country with members holding statewide office, having held the mayorship of the largest city for most of the last 2 decades and members in both the VT House and VT Senate.

No, it has not meant that repubs have won.

[upaloopa]

106. I guess I should have said in National elections

[riqster]

5. Damn straight.

People who act otherwise are hung up on what reality should be, instead of what it is.

It sucks that we have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but that is our lot.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. We don't have to settle

If the "lesser of two evils" is actually our standard-bearer, we can at a bare minimum say, "be less evil." If we can't even do that, then politics becomes a spectator sport in which our only goal is to have our team beat theirs.

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. It's become just that for many

the further detriment is that they don't even know what they stand for once it reaches a certain point. The principles get lost entirely.

[riqster]

16. Do you really think Obama is just as evil as Romney?

Romney who would have kept DOMA, DADT, wrecked the safety net, and so on?

I see the Reeps as they are: far, far worse than the imperfect Dems.

[Yavin4]

20. Once they get a Republican president with a Republican congress then they will see it

In fact, it's already happening in some states.

[riqster]

30. Oh yeah. In Ohio for example.

[Proud Public Servant]

23. You were the one who referred to him as

The lesser of two evils. And as Jerry Garcia reminds us, "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

I'm saying that if the sum total of one's political efforts is to assure the success of evil-but-not-as-evil-as-possible, then maybe one needs a new pursuit.

[riqster]

34. That is philosophy, and on that level I agree.

But on the physical level, the "less evil" has done a lot of good: good that would NOT have happened under McCain or RMoney.

[Eddie Haskell]

63. The Democratic Underground accepts things as they are?

I didn't vote for hope and acquiescence, I voted for change.

[riqster]

86. Accepting the reality of one's surroundings is not acquiescence

It is accepting the paradigm of the present moment, and making strategic and tactical decisions based upon where we are and where we wish to be.

We cannot effect change on an existing situation if we do not grok said current situation. So to the OP's point: the current state of America's hugely fucked-up political environment can be summed up as "Dems or worse".

If we do anything other than GOTV and pull the lever for each and every Dem we can at every election, we are enabling Reep victories.

The time to push left ( and we need to go that way, oh yeah) is during the primaries and after our peeps get elected.

The alternative can be seen in the presidencies of every Reep since 1979.

[Eddie Haskell]

100. Don't you think we could have more than two parties?

Maybe one that could help push ... I'm getting tired of pushing and going backward.

[riqster]

109. Could, yes.

But right now, we don't. And until there is a race where a third-party progressive can win a spot that a Reep would otherwise take, we gotta vote for the Dem.

[bobduca]

10. I think so many rally and close ranks around indefensible policy

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

because they treat politics like its a team sport, and are small minded authoritarians.

[frylock]

85. i would agree

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. If the Democrats want the votes of the left they should appeal to the left.

Ignoring, or excoriating, the left isn't good way to get their votes.

[Silent3]

27. Your vote is a strategic choice with strategic results, not a reward for good behavior

I don't give a damn whether someone has "earned" my vote, I care more about what the end results of elections are going to be.

If withholding my vote and/or other support from a Democrat clearly leads to a better Democrat winning now or in the very near future, so be it.

But if I petulantly withhold support from a Democrat simply because he/she hasn't "earned" my vote, my donations, or my time, and doing so leads to Republican victories and no clear path from the pain caused by those Republican victories to better politicians and policies in the future, all I'm doing is spiting myself and others for nothing more than the illusory self-satisfaction of being able to claim that I didn't vote for the people who fucked things up.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. well the result is my children don't get a good education with either party. so the results speak

for themselves.

[DonCoquixote]

56. Thank you

But if I petulantly withhold support from a Democrat simply because he/she hasn't "earned" my vote, my donations, or my time, and doing so leads to Republican victories and no clear path from the pain caused by those Republican victories to better politicians and policies in the future, all I'm doing is spiting myself and others for nothing more than the illusory self-satisfaction of being able to claim that I didn't vote for the people who fucked things up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

I guess our principles differ.

What "self-satisfaction" do you get for voting against your principles and for fuck-ups?

[Silent3]

80. For all the stuff Obama has done that I don't like...

...every time I think about how Romney would be handling things, when I think about the federal government going the way of current Republican-lead states, when I think about how not voting for Obama would not have resulted, directly or indirectly, in President Elizabeth Warren or President Bernie Sanders or President Alan Grayson, I feel a good bit of satisfaction.

Better than my own selfish satisfaction, however, better than "cherish(ing) the sweetest reflection", I know that in a small way I likely helped create a very better present than not voting for, not contributing to, and not campaigning for Obama would have produced.

[Sirveri]

110. A romney presidency could have been the final nail in the coffin of the GOP.

Look at the damage that Bush did to their branding. Yeah, we'd lose a lot of people because the GOP would try to murder the poor with their policies, but so what? The American people get the government they deserve. They voted for it, screw 'em. As for the rest, maybe we'll stop being so complacent and actually take to the streets en masse. That's the only way to get rid of the corrupt corporate kleptocracy that currently runs both parties. Let them over stretch and then push them over and curb stomp them.

[Silent3]

112. If a Bush presidency wasn't the final nail, why would Romney done the job?

The 2010 election was a perfect example of a strategy Republicans can employ again and again: Fuck things up badly, and when Democrats can't fix the damage overnight (in the face of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, no less), get their own base energized and Democrats demoralized, then sweep back into power again. It shouldn't be so easy for the American public to be played that way, but sadly, they are.

[RainDog]

13. This is true - we have two options

However, this does not excuse Democratic Party supporters here in their fact-less attacks on this guy, Snowden, for instance. Or attacks on his girlfriend. Or attacks on those who have concerns about growing surveillance in modern society.

The insults go both ways.

Some people have been in long-term forum disputes here and the history of those comes into play with every post - but everyone else here may not be familiar with those long-standing disputes, SO, those who are defending the current powers-that-be come off looking worse than those who are farther to the left than the power structures will allow in this nation.

I would suggest that people consider, when they post, whether the slur they are making is really helpful to the party or not.

[sibelian]

14. We live in a unitary political system.

The choices presented to us are sculpted by those with the largest slice of influence over the narratives that guide our lives into structures that always produce outcomes that favour them.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. sometimes I feel like cattle being herded into the political corral.

I'm tired of being told how I have to feel and who I have to vote for, not only by fellow democrats but also by the media. The media gets us all whipped up in a frenzy over something and all of a sudden we have forgotten there are other issues to worry about other than the ones we are told to be worried about. I am my own person. I can think for myself, and my vote is my vote, no one else's.

[woo me with science]

49. +10000 One corporate party masquerading as two.

[CrispyQ]

91. TPTB have every aspect of our electoral system rigged to their advantage.

Even our primary system, which people say is our best opportunity to elect a People's candidate, is rigged. The media demonizes anyone who might challenge the status quo. Howard Dean was the Dean scream. Kucinich was presented as a kook. Greyson will be presented as a wild eyed liberal. Elizabeth Warren, she might be a little harder to push off rail, but they will try. And Sanders? Well, the man's a socialist, 'nuff said.

Big money has infiltrated local elections as well. It's getting harder for the People's voice to be heard over the sound of money. Money is speech, after all.

We're fucked.

[tarheelsunc]

15. For DU, take a left. For FR, take a right. For Third Party Underground, keep straight.

Your OP seems to go against some of the policies of this site and I'm sure someone will file an alert eventually. Instead of encouraging people to support a new party, shouldn't you be encouraging them to change the Democratic Party for the better from the inside?

[DCBob]

17. The bashing of the President and and of fellow Democrats will not result in anything postive.

Healthy debate is fine but what's happening now is bashing.. plain and simple.

[morningfog]

18. Then Dems need to get their shit together.

[DCBob]

26. Who defines what getting their "shit together" means?

I suspect President Obama already thinks he has his shit together.

[morningfog]

29. You really think so? He is reeling.

He is playing defense everyday. Much of his political capital and time is spent on reacting rather than promoting his agenda. He has long since forfeited control of the narrative and plays cath up on the framing of important issues.

[DCBob]

32. Yes.. and he is not "reeling".

Every one of these so called scandals are mostly exaggerated bullshit.

[morningfog]

37. But they are forcing him to respond and react. They are also controlling

the narrative. In other words, shit is not together.

[DCBob]

97. having to deal with a bunch of lunatics making false claims..

is not reeling.

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. Two reasons this is wrong. 1. The very first reply. 2. The mutant republicrat party owns the game

and uses that position to exclude everybody else from playing. When another party gains support, they change the rules to keep them out.

[Savannahmann]

25. So what is the difference if a Republican denies GBLT rights

or a Democrat denies those rights? There are over 1,100 laws that discriminate against GBLT including one that was posted here within the last couple days, don't have the link sorry, of a couple where the foreign husband (British) was denied a green card despite the fact that it is automatic in any hetero relationship.

So should they be more or less disgusted and disappointed with the nation because those rights were denied by a Democratic Administration?

The problem isn't what happens if the Republicans wins, it's what doesn't happen when the Democrats win. We never follow through on our promises. Oh we got Health Care reform, but did we get anything else we campaigned for? The GLBT community supported our side at nearly 100%, and went to bat for us, and we said thanks, now be cool, we'll get to you when we get a chance. Not any time soon, later, much later.

Oh we'll blame the Republicans for obstruction, but we hope that the Supreme Court does the work we don't want to, because that's easier than standing up and telling the voters that the right thing, is the right thing, no matter who it is for. Now, if the Supreme Court does it, we can rant and protest for a bit, and then sadly say that it's the court, and kick a rock like we are disappointed, and some of us will moan about how this denied them a chance to vote for or sign legislation allowing equal rights.

Does it really matter what the party affiliation is regarding the boot on your throat? The people of Eastern Europe were conquered by the Soviets, then the Nazi's, and then the Soviets again, and each time it was pretty much like the last one. These people were victimized over and over again by dictatorial forces, and it didn't matter who was murdering, raping, or pillaging, because the Soviets were just as bad, if not worse, than the Nazi's for the people of Eastern Europe.

[Yavin4]

28. Wasn't DADT ended in the military?

Didn't the President and VP come out in support of marriage equality? Didn't the president make it a plank in his inaugration speech?

[JoePhilly]

35. There are those ...

who hate Obama so much, they argue he never really wanted to do any of those things. So the fact that he did them is irrelevant.

They are the only true democrats. As they said above, this is their party. And apparently, President Obama should not be welcome in it.

And each week or so there is a new outrage. Its just a part of what DU has become.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. Am I outraged? Yes. I am outraged that I have to pay $925/month in medical premiums. I am

outraged that in order to keep up with new educational standards that democrats go along with my son's school district made a rule that every kid regardless of ability had to take grade level math forcing my son to skip two years of math. I am outraged that for decades both the republicans and democrats have spent less and less money funding public schools. I am outraged that a demoratic president would use the Patriot Act to spy on American citizens. I am outraged that democrats on the panel investigating rape in the military voted to drop a measure that would take authority out of the hands of the commanders. I'm outraged that the DOJ seems fit to prosecute medical marijuana patients but not bankers. I'm outraged that democrats voted to gut the Dodd/Frank bill. Am I outraged? Damn right I'm outraged.

[CrispyQ]

102. I don't have children & I"m always amazed at the difference in the school system now,

& when I was a kid in the 60-70s. What does this mean:

my son's school district made a rule that every kid regardless of ability had to take grade level math forcing my son to skip two years of math.

Would this be similar to being forced to pass on prerequisites for the later classes? So he goes into those classes not properly prepared?

[SidDithers]

77. +1...

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Sid, as a Canadian you might not know that in most of the US, 29 States

LGBT people can be and are legally discriminated against in housing and in employment, openly and without other reason people can be fired or evicted. This is of course in addition to the other hundreds of rights we are denied because of DOMA as well as the tax and immigration laws.
Some of the 'moderate Obama supporters' here claim that 'gays have plenty of rights'. They just say it like that.
Straights want a medal for discriminating against people. They want huge praise for no longer practicing horrific bigotry in the armed forces. The millions of dollars, the millions of votes, the amazing one liners he is sent to use as he will gratis, none of that is enough for them. No matter how much work, praise, cash and electoral percentage you give it is never enough to please some straights, it's all 'why aren't you happy with no right but the right to die in Afghanistan? Why do you care about your loved ones? That's so gay!'.
If I was a straight American, I'd be ashamed of my community and culture. Canada is a bit ahead of us on all of this.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. They can't be fired but can a spouse inherit property or make medical decisions?

[Yavin4]

38. The President cannot unilaterally enact laws about marriage

That is an issue for the courts and the states. Going on record being in favor of marriage equality is a huge step in the correct direction for the issue.

[CakeGrrl]

53. If you believe that NO progress has been made under this administration

then you're simply not paying attention. If all you see is what the MSM chooses to report, you're in the dark.

[freshwest]

67. The billionaire owned media gives a steady stream of talking points to lecture lesser mortals.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Moderate Democrats along with their Republican cohort just recently gutted

protections from the immigration bill for LGBT people DiFi and Durbin did the heavy lifting for them, volunteered to do and that action was instantly presented on DU by Centrists who tried to demand that we celebrate this as a 'progress'.
Your post is so accurate. The OP needs to understand that claiming we have rights we don't have, that those who are discriminating against us should be praised for claiming to think about not discriminating one day is a bit of salt to the wounds of actual financial and other injustices imposed on us by the straight majority.
I read a DUer who claims to be an Ultimate Obama supporter say gay people 'have plenty of rights'. Just like that. Recently. You people have plenty of rights. THAT is how the the OP's moderate center carries themselves, then they cry victim.

[Savannahmann]

93. You should read the responses I've been getting

First DADT ended, so that's all the victory we can expect for our GLBT community. Besides, what more do you want.

If GLBT rights assisted DiFi's Corporate masters then she would be frothing at the mouth demanding something be done. Since it doesn't, she's one of those who stab the Democratic Constituency in the back. Then when it comes time to get re-elected, it's donate and volunteer or we'll lose all we have. Then we get scare stories about how awful the Republicans would be in charge. Tell you what, I'll support Democrats who support the civil rights of the American People. Fair enough?

[cali]

105. Please tell me you're kidding. For fuck's sake.

There's a huge difference and it couldn't me more obvious. In state after state and on the federal level, dems have been fighting for those rights and repubs have not and often have been fighting against them.

As you bring up the green card situation, here you go. Senator Leahy has been dogged about this for a long time, and no matter how often he gets rebuffed, he's not giving up.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy filed three amendments Tuesday night to the immigration reform package, including a controversial amendment involving gay rights that could potentially derail the bill's progress in the Senate.

The senator from Vermont proposed recognizing same-sex marriages in which one spouse is an American, saying the amendment would "remove discrimination from our immigration system."

"Seeking equal protection under our laws for the LGBT community is the right thing to do," Leahy said in a statement announcing the amendments.

<snip>
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/vermont-senator-revives-debate-over-gay-rights-in-immigration-bill/

I'm sorry, but you have to be plumb stupid or biased to the point of brain fucking dead not to recognize that it makes a difference in the lives of real people whether dems or repubs are in office. Yes, they're both corporation infested, but one party is measurably better on issue after issue.

[Yavin4]

31. As an example, look at recent events in WI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251311113

This is what happens when Republicans take control.

[freshwest]

66. Those with the freedom to ignore this and what's in the OP consider themselves above the rest.

They consider the rabble that needs protection from the rethuglicans to be of lesser quality. Their privilege is on display complete with name calling, just like on a rethuglican board. Meh.

[datasuspect]

39. nope. wrong.

the 1% wins no matter what. doesn't matter which party is elected.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. +1000000

[olddots]

59. So true

and we peons will fight each other for scraps .

[CrispyQ]

103. Truth.

[markiv]

41. From Animal farm: the 'Jones would come back!' speech

reminds me of a passage from Orwell's 'Animal Farm'

(Jones is the farmer the animals ran off in their revolution)

The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness?room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well?being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The wholemanagement and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"

Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone


(When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the party in good health was all too obvious So it was agreed without further argument that indentured servitude (through H-1b visas)and logging of phone calls should not be questioned)

[Savannahmann]

43. +1

[Poll_Blind]

46. +1

SNAP!

What an excellent quote.

PB

[Yavin4]

51. The difference is that "Jones" is real, not a fiction

The Republican party ("Jones&quot is not gone, and clearly exists, esp. on a state level.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251311113

[markiv]

55. he wasnt gone in the book, either

you either get the parallels, or you dont

you really think Orwell was writing this entirely as fiction entertainment, or do you think he was trying to tell us something?

[Yavin4]

62. The book, no matter how powerful, is still fiction. The Republican party is not.

Just ask the women in WI about their reproductive rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. It is fiction, certainly as it is about talking animals but what sort of fiction?

It is perhaps the most astute political allegorical dystopian novel of all time. According to Orwell it was about the Russian Revolution and Stalin rising. Stalin was not fiction.
But yes, very good, the talking animals were a construct, not a reporting of actual events.

[frylock]

90. quite apt

[sibelian]

98. +1

Thank you.

[leftstreet]

111. Sweet!

nicely done

[SidDithers]

44. Good post...

but could I add that those intent on working towards their dream of a viable third party do it on some other website.

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Agreed....

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus



So does Admin, apparently.

[JackRiddler]

47. We do! If authoritarianism wins, we all lose.

[markiv]

48. Hope and Change.....Its.. ITS A COOKBOOK!!!!

[markiv]

61. The OP presupposes that blind obediance wins votes and support

wheras I think it repels them

voters respect a party that stands for something beyond winning, even if at times it's only the 'little members' of the party that do it

[Yavin4]

64. My post is realty. Not idealism.

If you are able to live with consequences of a Republican controlled govt, then you have the luxury of pursuing your idealism.

The people of Iraq that died during Bush's reign, the service people who died and suffered injuries because of that war, the people that died during Katrina, and the millions of people who were wiped out during the financial crisis do not have that luxury.

[liberal_at_heart]

68. pursuing my idealism? Exuse me. My son being treated like cattle in an education system that does

not care about him is not idealism. That is my reality so don't go trivializing people's problems. I will fight for my son's and everybody's children's education which is more than I can so for the democratic party.

[Yavin4]

69. The problems of your child's educational system have more to do with your local leaders

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts there.

[liberal_at_heart]

70. The local leaders are responding to the pressure by the feds telling them that if they don't perform

to a certain level they will lose funding. This is a systemic problem. They whole system is broken both at the local level and at the federal level.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Speaking of localities, what State and district do you live in?

Because you say you speak of reality. How do your methods play out? Who represents you in DC? What sort of turn out do you get?
If you are so very correct, your results should be super good. What's going on where you are?

[freshwest]

71. Those who have luxury under the status quo, mock those who hope > work for > change.

It's easy for them to dismiss those who aren't into politics as a leisure sport. It must be nice to not have any skin in the game and stand aside and make jokes about what is important for those beneath them in society.

[Fire Walk With Me]

72. No, the wall streeters, banksters, and billionaires win either way.

Both republicans and democratic presidents have and are bailing them out to the tune of trillions of our tax dollars while pushing "austerity" upon us at the same time. Occupy Wall Street is correct. It's about the bankster behind the curtain, not their puppets in office.


Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900

"Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states."


8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill

"Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends 'tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,' which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, 'little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.' Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds."


The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html

U.S. banks in 2012 post highest profits since '06
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-fdic-earnings-idUSBRE91P0N820130226?utm_source=Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=de8376aab3-DD_2_27_132_27_2013&utm_medium=email#.US5jjkXSlU8.twitter

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/this-years-subsidy-to-wall-street-the-amount-of-this-years-sequester-cuts.html#.US_yiFwwnHY.facebook

Don’t Blink, or You’ll Miss Another Bailout
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100466032

America faces more than a dozen deadlines, all caused by billionaires and wealth transfer
http://americablog.com/2013/02/america-faces-more-than-a-dozen-deadlines-all-caused-by-billionaires-and-wealth-transfer.html

Bank Bailout 2: Obama Lets Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-5

[LostOne4Ever]

78. Third Parties

I feel you are 100% correct on your title, but suggesting that they work to build a third party under this current political situation is disingenuous at best.

The way that our winner takes all system works, a third party will never be viable in the US. All you are doing is throwing your votes away and wasting your time if you work on a third party under this system.

The best solution is for us to rally around the democrats and build a coalition that makes the republican party completely irrelevant and then either a) Lobby and work within the party to pull it to the left or b) lobby and win support for legislation that can make third parties relevant.

If you go route a) you need to be out actively working to change minds on the issue if not running for office yourself. Get into the system and start working to change the party while being realistic with the positions you take and the ones the public will vote for.

If you go route b) you need to support the democratic party till we have all three branches of government firmly in our hands then push for legislation or an amendment that ends the winner take all system and set up a more parlimentary system for our the government is run.

Both of these recourse have issues associated with them. If you go route a) you will have to fight conservative democrats and risk splitting the party in two. If you go b) you will have to deal with the party not wanting to lose their potential monopoly on power.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. What a one sided view you have of things. And it is insulting to claim LGBT

people have rights we do not have, in a week just after a major set back created by Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin and the rest of the right wing when they cut the LGBT protections from the immigration bill. DU centrists were instantly here demanding praise or them for doing that. Now you claim we have those rights, rights the Center of this Party refuses to so much as attempt to win. Bullshit on an old shoe smells better.
I think you have forgotten primaries. You Centrists and Blue Baggers Tea Dogs and and Moderates are going to have to win nominations. I think that is not going to be so easy. I think that is beginning to nag some DUers badly.
I read yesterday more baseless, stupid attacks on my Democratic Senators by 'Centrists' from States that elect only Republicans that it renders your entire 'poor bullied moderates' claim laughable. I wonder who they'd vote for if they lived in Oregon, and I think they'd vote for the Teapubicans. The way some went after Grayson? Shameful. The lack of self awareness? A well known trait of the slippery middle.

[MotherPetrie]

81. And the point of rallying behind Dems who screw us the EXACT same way Repugs screw us is -- ?

[LostOne4Ever]

88. So the democrats

Are trying to keep doma, ban same sex marriage, end abortion for all women under all circumstances, are doing everything they can to destroy the first amendment and turn this country into a totalitarian theonomy, and disenfranchise all minorities of all stripes?

Yeah the dems are screwing us the EXACT same way the repugs are

[MotherPetrie]

94. Dems are still screwing us or trying to screw us (Chained CPI anyone?) in plenty of ways

and I intend to call them on itat every opportunity.

I DON'T intend to just be GRATEFUL they're not ALSO screwing us on reproductive issues.

[CakeGrrl]

96. Nobody said you had to be grateful for anything

But until you have a viable alternative who has the actual numbers to win a national election, then either a Dem or a GOP will be in the White House.

And Congress isn't going anywhere. You still have the reality of their makeup. Which way would they break for a far-Left POTUS?

Despite being largely dismissed on this forum, the President has appealed to the American public to give him more Dems in Congress to get something done. People should be working locally to increase the number of Dems, or get more liberal Dems in there.

Otherwise, what impact would a far-Left President REALISTICALLY have...again, assuming that the numbers were actually there to get them elected nationally?

[Corruption Inc]

92. False paradigm because there are other choices

Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson for example. Plus, take a look at who's not prosecuting anyone on Wall St..

And, please tell your fellow political operatives here at DU to lay off the name calling, they're constantly attacking posters here with ad-hom attacks, hit pieces, vulgar language, raising false paradigms like your post and hijacking threads, not to mention directly insulting progressive democratic congressmen as they did to Alan Grayson just yesterday.

[Chathamization]

115. Pretty much. People have to be able to fight both interparty AND intraparty fights.

Or do people think that Obama in 2007 should have said..."If I attack Clinton, the Republicans win!"

[MrSlayer]

104. When we lose elections, they win. When we win elections, they win.

We never win.

[Art_from_Ark]

107. As Bullwinkle J. Moose would say,

"Yeah, funny how that works out"

[LWolf]

108. If that's the case, then

it seems like the mainstream majority Democrats might want to work a bit harder at nominating and electing politicians who earn our support. Otherwise, some of us might think that tptb in the party don't really give a shit what we want, or what we think. They'll just depend on us to shut up and get in line because of that binary system you are referring to. That strategy, to be honest, is not ethical, nor is it always effective.

FWIW, a "win" to me is a win on the issues, for the people. What happens at the ballot box is not a "win." It's what the elected person does upon being elected that determines "win" or "lose."

[Logical]

113. Maybe one of the worst ideas ever. You must love the 100% blind support GOPers also. They....

are no different than a 100% blind support Dems.

[DirkGently]

114. We do not live in a "binary" world.

Our decisions on how things are to be done, what policies work and are just, are not limited to putting either a D or an R in office. That's blind faith in a political party, and there is no rational basis to do that.

You have put your finger on the reductionism that leads blind partisans to in bad faith attack anything perceived as politically inconvenient, but that simply empowers leaders to do whatever they want.

Under that logic, if Dems are dominant, Republicans can simply flip the sign next to their name, keep doing what they want, and be able to count on the unyielding support of the same people who opposed them previously.

If we put party and personality over policy and principle, we have no policy or principle; only who wins. The result of that is that raw power and political convenience dominate everything. Wall Street can (and does) just as easily support Democrats. The same goes for any other repellant philosophy. The name means nothing if we do not define it.

It's not a zero sum world.