General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI love the new meme: FDR Democrats are hurting the 99% by focusing on Snowden
It's a hoot! From the Third-Way prevaricators at politicsusa:
As Republicans Make Millions Suffer, the Left’s Ideologues Obsess Over Edward Snowden
This claim is being made by Third-Way Democrats, the very people who have gleefully disembowled the 99% for a few shekels over the past 20 years, and who have relentlessly claimed that the NSA Spy on Everyone program is actually about Snowden not NSA overreach.
Wow!
Of course, FDR Democrats are infinitely more concerned about the Constitution than about Snowden, and believe in helping the 99% by helping the 99%, not by cutting Social Security or sending jobs abroad through "free" trade agreements.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
Skittles
(171,716 posts)yup
DJ13
(23,671 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)they really SUCK at their job.
They have become a sad parody of themselves.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)A projection of what FDR democrats accuse them of.
It is based on the old school yard taunt....I'm rubber your glue.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That tells you who they really are.
They are not the 99%.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)don't you understand that lies are not important if your heart is in the right place ? AND what the problem with an ORWELLIEAN form of government? sorry about being such a bad smeller OOP'S MAKE THAT SPELLER
AppleBottom
(201 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)As far as I can see, most people concerned with NSA spying revelations are thankful towards Snowden but the story of the leaks and how far they go is the main concern. Whether he eventually gets hauled back or finds asylum is interesting but besides the point.
Those who don't want the American people to think about increasing government intrusion and corrosion of civil rights start these kinds of Snowden-centered memes that claim everyone but themselves are Snowden obsessed.
Its a well used tactic by Fox News etc.... Accuse the other side of doing what you are.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)Or Freedom, or patriotism, truth, transparency. Yep I can see how those are all bad qualities...
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)as the NeanderCons. But,hey,as a Rooseveltian,tofu farting,tree hugging,pinko,fairie,I defend the constitutional right to freedom of speesh. That is as long as it is opinion and not gift cards,donations,junkets,dining or good old fashioned bribery.
They also get talking points from the same conservative think tanks,since they are on the friendlies list.
May the mid-terms find them all kicking rocks back to the private sector along with their neo-nazi pallies in the house and judiciary.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And FDR Democrats are the ones that put a higher value on truth.
How many lies has Snowden told so far? How many lies will his sycophants let him get away with?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So tell us... How many lies *has* Snowden told so far? Let's see 'em.
(Note that rebuttal by the "least untruthful answer" crowd doesn't exactly count as refutation.)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The surveillance apologists lie, cover up, and pretend to themselves that privacy doesn't matter anyway. Privacy does matter. That's why the Constitution guarantees so much of it to us.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Using false premises does not win an argument.
why do you never attack Republicans, instead of the people who have the common sense to get into office and manage to do something to keep you from living under Republicans.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..and NO.
The denial by Gen Clapper doesn't count anymore,
and neither does the original claim by the NSA on their Website "Fact Sheet".
They were forced to take THAT one down.
So How do YOU know
that the NSA isn't spying on all Americans?
Vanje
(9,766 posts)with no help from anyone else.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)Their policies and NOT the R by their name. So when someone with a D by their name starts imitating the ones with R's by their name what exactly does it matter who you live under.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)As well as many other respectable progressive media outlets.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is rank exaggeration.
FDR would have spied on all Americans (if that is even possible) if he needed to in order to protect this country.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)100% accurate.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)Is that really what you are confused about?
You don't understand his meaning, or you don't believe it is happening?
Either way, you are way too easily confused to try and engage in this discussion.
What's really interesting is your use of the ellipses in post. That's irony that is so delicious I can hardly stand it.
It's as if you want us to read your mind while you are typing...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)It's not really mind reading, it's more like the way your smartphone finishes words. I cannot believe folks would get so confused over so simple a statement. I think they are just liars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I guess Google is reading your mind when it "suggests" what you are attempting to search for!
NealK
(7,162 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)How this could be confused with mind reading is pretty illustrative of how cognitively unqualified some of these folks are to make comments on complicated subjects.
It's a pretty simple idea, how does one go about getting so confused by it?
If you've read my posts on the topic of Snowden, you'd know I think he should be captured and tried.
However, I don't see this as a claim to "mind reading", but a poorly worded claim that the government can watch in real time what you're typing, proofreading, editing to make corrections, etc., (watching your ideas form as you type).
reusrename
(1,716 posts)He should get in line right behind the perjurers, banksters, and war criminals.
One of the charges against him is a property crime. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution makes it very clear that he should get a pubic trial by jury. I honestly don't think that's possible now, under the current circumstances. I'd love to be talked down from this viewpoint, but it would take a lot more than some recast promises about hope and change to convince me.
AppleBottom
(201 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Poppy Bush, W., John Yoo, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, those FDR Democrats?
There is something wrong here....none of those qualify as an FDR Democrat, and several are not Democrats even in name.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)So says Glenn Greenwald.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)who did you hear it from? And what did you compare it to to recognize which was true? I have a feeling you are just making it up.
Ad hominem attacks is all you got. Not one bit of substance.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)nt
baldguy
(36,649 posts)No matter how much libertarian fuckwits like Glenn Greenwald say it is.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)So its GREAT?
Obama is not as bad as Bush, So he's great?
The Democratic powers that be are not as bad as the GOP, So Yay!
Very inspirational.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Of course, FDR Democrats are infinitely more concerned about the Constitution than about Snowden, and believe in helping the 99% by helping the 99%, not by cutting Social Security or sending jobs abroad through 'free' trade agreements."
...divide and conquer post?
Look who voted to cut SNAP - Sanders and Warren. What a kick in the gut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987698#post12
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)A government-propaganda sock puppet.
Hard to tell these days!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nt
ProSense
(116,464 posts)And anything I post can be refuted. I'm just a poster for "God's sake!"
I mean, if I say the President is great, you can refute that.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)eom
RC
(25,592 posts)Do they support 3rd Way, DLC, DINO's on a what used to be a Left leaning web site?
Do they blame Snowden for the over-reach of the NSA?
Do they maintain that collecting the meta data if fine, because they then need a warrant to listen/read the actual communications? Or do they maintain that the NSA does not collect the actual Communions, so the collecting of the meta data is legal, because that data does not belong to us?
And on and on and on, trying desperately to somehow make the wholesale hoovering of the worlds digital data is what honest governments do.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Otherwise the Third Way-ers wouldn't be called out like they (rightly) have been.
MADem
(135,425 posts)two of those guys many "lefties" have since thrown under the bus--Gore and Lieberman.
Two of those awful Third Way, DLC types. Were it not for those "DINOs" this place wouldn't exist.
I think just because one quadrant of the party is very LOUD here doesn't necessarily make them the majority.
I also think that people who are DEMOCRATS can have differing views over national security issues. People who feel compelled to call those who disagree with them shitty little goading/baiting names or attach labels to them that suggest they are less "loyal" to Democratic principles than the people with the "correct" ideas are the ones who need to check their mirrors.
Honorable people can differ on this issue. Labelling and name calling doesn't help the situation--it makes this sad thread look way too META, too.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)A really good example of a strong Democrat for you to use, a veritable black hole for charisma and honesty in politics.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He wasn't always a pariah here.
And he was half the reason this website was founded.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)A damn sight bigger part than Ralph Nader.
Joe was always a loathsome creature, a Grima Worm Tongue brought to life.
His evil in 2008 was so great the emanations of the penumbra of it rippled back in time and turned Democratic voters off in 2000.
MADem
(135,425 posts)fans of Gore, Edwards, and others that some people here now have flung under the bus as "wanting."
The point remains, this website wasn't founded to tout Ralph Nader or Rand Paul, it was founded as a reaction to the theft of the White House from Gore-Lieberman by George Bush.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Because he definitely would have shafted us with Globalization - just like Clinton did. OK, I can't prove he wouldn't have betrayed his Corporate Backers and taken Perot's pro-worker positions "in his second term" (gag - still falling for that one?) - but if we could make a bet and had a way to prove it, it would be a good one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Sock puppets are so 1990s. What we now have are "personas", which are like Mach X sock puppets on steroids.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
pscot
(21,044 posts)as soon as we're done bringing the President down. So much mischief, so little time.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)that he swore an oath to uphold, then I would have no big problem w/ Obama.
If the President, who campaigned on "transparency" in government, would
stop criminalizing whistle-blowers, and would shut down all the secret spying
on US Citizens, then that would go a long way to restoring my faith in him.
If Obama would use all that constitutional law he learned at the University,
and use it on behalf of the 99% who are being totally hosed by the 1%
on his watch ... If the President would to that, then I would feel like
he was keeping his campaign promises and would not have any significant
beef with him, well .. except for the medical marijuana promises he
made, to leave states alone who had MM programs.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Look, I'm a two-time Obama voter. I'm generally inclined to like the guy, on personal level. But the trashing of the Fourth Amendment was pretty much the last straw.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Voted for him twice, would probably like him if I met him personally. Cut him a lot of slack inre GOP obstruction. Unhappy about drone killings, but violating 4th A is final straw.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)I don't know if he just has gotten and acted on bad advice, or if he's truly been seduced by the power of the office.
That said, violation of the 4th A began long before Mr. Obama went to Washington.
The USA Patriot Act kicked it into overdrive.
However, long before that, the SCOTUS ruled that in a border-crossing area, the 4th doesn't apply and border officers basically have carte blanche to do what they want (I live within walking distance of the Canadian border). That frightens me every time I come back from Canada (I've rarely had trouble on the Canadian side, but too often get "the works" coming back).
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]"If Obama would use all that constitutional law he learned at the University,
and use it on behalf of the 99% who are being totally hosed by the 1%
on his watch ..."[/font]
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their speeches, promises, or excuses.
NealK
(7,162 posts)Lol! Oh the irony. 
Apophis
(1,407 posts)
kentuck
(115,406 posts)She's a very bright, straight-razor toting woman. Would you call her Third Way or FDR Democrat?
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)By espousing left-wing values, we're hurting left-wing causes.
Makes sense to me!!!
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)They will be clamoring for FDR Democrats to come to the rescue.
I personally applaud this "divide". It means we are getting somewhere. After all, if we FDR Democrats were merely inconsequential "fringe", the DNC trumpeters would not be "wasting time" complaining about us. Time better spent on more important endeavors like championing the feeding of our hungry instead. I am dismayed that they have allowed FDR Democrats to distract them from this important work.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)us telling us we must vote democrat and if we don't it is our fault if the republicans win. They do this because in the past we have, like dutiful abused spouses, obeyed and did what we were told, but there does seem to be something different in the air this time. I don't think as many liberals are just simply going to do what they are told. I think this time around we will see liberals do what their conscience has been telling them to do for years.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
-p
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...to sell himself as a Working Class Pro-LABOR Populist THIS time.
That one is ALL Used Up.
There will have-to-Be a SOLID Track Record of Public ADVOCACY for the Working Class,
and a SOLID Track Record of countering and OPPOSING the consolidation of Wall Street and Corporate POWER and the burgeoning Surveillance/Security State.
Without THAT,
they won't get my money, support, GOTV activism, OR my vote.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)There will be more reality-based scrutiny this time.
Lord, I hope so!
AllINeedIsCoffee
(772 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)He was filled with hate. Perhaps from what he witnessed in the Pacific Islands.
Regardless, I thought we had strategically advanced past the firebombing of Yokohama. Certainly, we are doing a better job of mitigating collateral damage. Still, women and children appear to be casualties. No avoiding it in "war" I suppose.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Both were/are multifaceted and the job description includes doing things that the innocents consider evil. But we are not really all that innocent, are we?
'The Prince of Peace' wasn't on the ballot. God traits assigned to humans end up disappointing us.
'In space no one can hear you scream.'
No one is coming to save us. We have to do this ourselves. JMHO. YMMV.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Have you even read their other posts on PoliticsUSA?
Rmuse has a personal opinion on Snowden you don't like and suddenly they're Third Way?
What a fucking pathetic type of group think. You should be ashamed for accusing Rmuse of being Third Way.
Response to joshcryer (Reply #28)
Post removed
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Here is a thread in which you are wrong about policy, wrong about who appointed the US Attorneys, and in which you claim those who speak the facts are lying for agenda's sake.
"And a back-door attempt to bash Obama (yet again) from what I'm seeing posted here."
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2070156
I could do this for an hour or so. You have been more pointedly incorrect about basic verifiable facts more often than any DUer I can think of save for one. On Marijuana law alone you posted more false statements and assumptions and accusations than I can count and you did it for years and year, even after the facts were shown to you, you'd persist in claiming otherwise.
Sorry, but we all have memories.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Important negotiations on "free trade deals" and "entitlement reform".
They are merely concerned that the FDR types with screw it all up and harm negotiations that would prudently and sensibly continue a plan to "moderately" take sacrifices from the 99% to enrich the wealthy and corporate job makers enough to eventually allow them to open up the floodgates of trickle down wealth that will raise all boats after the flood of poverty makes us all buoyant enough.
The TPP will ship jobs to cheaper labor markets enabling more profit to trickle on the soon to be under/unemployed that the deal will create just as it will be most needed!
Savings from Medicare cuts Third Way negotiations have just given us will free up more money to keep taxes low on the 1% bringing us all closer to the impending trickle cash we need so much! They are getting things done folks, we should be helping them!
Also, medicare is cutting back on funds for home healthcare visits.Then there is the closing down of senior centers, sometimes called adult daycare. Not to mention much less funding for wheelchairs and cushions.
We needed these "ENTITLEMENT" reforms! But they know we need more and are negotiating for us even now to achieve more to help the 99%
I hope the FDR libertarians don't screw up the negotiations happening right now that would cut more from the 99% so that the 99% can be "enprospered".
More on the work being done offering cuts to the 99% to help the 99% here:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republicans-white-house-in-talks-toward-big-fiscal-deal-20130717
So you see it is the Third Way doing all the work to help us whereas all the FDR libertarians have ever done is cause the problems that need to be fixed now by creating the "Entitlements" that are hurting the 99% so much that they need to be cut. So they are right that the FDR's are hurting the 99%
reusrename
(1,716 posts)How can people not see this happening?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line.
Based on that,...the main effort by the Beltway Ignoramuses is to head off that love by telling everyone Snowden isn't your new boyfriend.
We don't need a hero. We need the shit to STOP.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Until Obama locks up an entire race of people based solely on their ethnicity and nothing else, I don't think it's smart to compare anything to FDR.
Just google FDR and wiretapping to see that what Obama has done is not new and certainly not something FDR was above doing himself.
But let's just continue with our revisionist history. It's what you're good at, Manny.
You know, it's funny, so many of the DU leftists here like to ridicule Obama supporters for their blind faith and turning him into some god-like figure, and yet, those same posters will turn around and promote FDR in similar terms - ignoring every bad and questionable thing he did and focus entirely on the good. Funny how that works, eh?
FDR was a great president ... but let's stop pretending he didn't have flaws, or didn't so some truly questionable things.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)We'd simply like to see our government put enormous primary effort into actually helping people, like FDR did with the New Deal, instead of our government primarily functioning to serve wealthy private interests, like what is happening now with the Raw Deal.
As for FDR's wiretapping, he had Hitler and the Nazis, and a whole lot of other nasty fascists to contend with. Genocidal fascists who were invading other countries and who were intent on establishing a RW authoritarian world.
That's a bit different than the NSA wiretapping Occupy Wall St and everyone else in the world in order to protect the 1% from democracy.
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)You tell me no one is pretending FDR didn't have his flaws and then justify his questionable actions. When those who support Obama try to justify his actions, we're instantly told there is no justification whatsoever - you either support wiretapping or you don't.
Obama has done a lot to help the American people? AS much as FDR? Probably not. Then again, FDR served three terms and was elected to a fourth - so, it's not quite fair to compare.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Then: I am pretending FDR did not have flaws.
No.
Sorry, but that does not make logical sense.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The terrorist of today are more dangerous to civilians than the Nazis. They have modern technology and can physically get here, which the German army could not do.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Are you frackin' kiddin me?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM
With all due respect, our educational really needs to put history back in the curriculum.
The lack of basic common historical and understanding that I have seen here at DU is astounding, disturbing, and frightening.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
treestar
(82,383 posts)We were talking of the NSA and national security, so I thought we were just discussing Americans at home in the United States.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I suspect that far more Americans have already been killed and wounded by George W. Bush on the pretense of fighting terrorism than will ever be harmed by al Qaeda.
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
I have always had a problem understanding the reason why terrorists from other countries would want to attack us. What is it that they perceive that we do to them that makes them hate us so much that they want come to to kill us?
I understand the reasons behind the delusions why deranged RW domestic terrorists do their nasty deeds, but why would Islamist terrorists from Asia want to kill American civilians? What do they believe we did, or do, to them?
No one has ever rationally explained this to me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Is it not possible that these people are just deranged? Why do we always have to be at fault for everything, even attacks made against us?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It was the excuse Japan was seeking to start a war.
The whole Islamist terrorist thing is a very different scenario, I believe.
Yes, I'm sure some of them are deranged, but I still don't understand why they are they attacking us.
I'm not saying it's the fault of the US, but maybe if someone could find out why they are attacking us we could put a stop to it and not have to got through all this terrorist rigamarole.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)but it was regionally applied, you say 'an entire race of people based solely on their ethnicity and nothing else' but geographic location was a big part of who got sent to camps. Japanese in Hawaii, no internment. On the East Coast, no internment. So why revise that to 'an entire race,based on ethnicity and nothing else'?
"The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally as a geographic matter: all who lived on the West Coast were interned, while in Hawaii, where 150,000-plus Japanese Americans comprised over one-third of the population, only 1,200[4] to 1,800 were interned. Sixty-two percent of the internees were American citizens.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
No one is pretending FDR had no flaws, but some pretend the history, intention and parameters of the internment were much different than they really were. It was not the entire population of Japanese heritage, it was not 'ethnicity and nothing else'. It was a large war, Imperial Japan attacked the West Coast several times and was seeking new and better ways to do so. They were doing some horrific shit in China which we did not want to happen here. War,it was fucking all out war. Oregon had civilian deaths from Japanese bomb.
Is this wartime? Do we have lots of brown Muslims in prisons? Did FDR keep people for 'indefinite detentions'? Internment ended before the war ended. When does Gitmo end again?
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Not to mention the American Nazi party and their Madison Square Garden Party
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-3.htm
treestar
(82,383 posts)OP would have been disappointed in FDR, too. Nothing he did was complete in terms of what OP would have wanted.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)To increase their own power and control, to facilitate their corporate predatory agenda, and to prevent both investigation of their abuses by a free press *and* dissent by the citizens they are systematically exploiting, stripping of their rights, and impoverishing.
No surprise the corporatists among us are arguing that ignoring the spying is the best way to help the people.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)that is all
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)own party? Suppose they just decided that since they are not welcome in the current iteration of the party, they all just left??
Do you think Democrats could win an election without the hated 'Left'??
That may be the end result of all this hatred for the 'Left'.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We go through these realignments every 75 years or so.
The Ds are fast becoming the party of business. The Rs will either adopt the left agenda, as incredible as it sounds, or likely disapear, and a third party will emerge to take the place for labor et al.
The parallels to the 1850s are uncanny, by the way.
So yes, liberals will leave, like Radical Republicans left the Whigs, and form a pro labor party. Don't believe me...just read what Lincoln had to say about labor.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Third Way party it is today. And this is a question many Democrats are asking. Why stay in a Party that has made its disdain for you perfectly clear?
We'll see, but there is a feeling of despair and disillusionment and when you begin to see the kind of right wing attacks on Liberals, now more frequent than ever, you have to wonder, 'why am I being a fool'? And people are wondering.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And that is that.
Dems in leadership will get it when a challenger in third party defeats either major candidate, and not in a small state. That process is accelerating in California where unaffiliated, as in indie voter, is the fastest subgroup
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is really your only solution. It's a free country. You can do it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and we intend to keep it. There IS a Third Party and it has attached itself to our party. That is what needs to be dealt with.
We have learned a lot over the past few years, it won't be easy to push republican-lite candidates on Democratic voters anymore.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If it does not win elections. The rest of the party has a voice in what it represents, too, not just the purists. Again you feel entitled to control the party, yet if you did, it would not win elections in present-day America.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We thought winning elections was everything, because of Bush. We've learned that is not 'winning' and we will work to rid the Party of people whose own policies are listed on their website. Ther is another party for them. We need two parties, not one.
Democrats win when their policies are implemented. That is winning.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Democrats.Then all that remains is two authoritarian anti-democratic parties completely committed to serving the needs wealthy private interests.
Without traditional Democrats, the Democratic party does not have enough support to defeat republicans.
Game over, 1% wins.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)without the Left? The Left can vote for Progressive Dems and/or Independents and work towards building up a progressive Congress. The WH costs over a billion dollars.
They may have speeded this up too fast to be able to sustain the loss of the Left and still win.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)of the Third Way corporatists.
What is important to them is that, whoever is elected, be they republican or "Democrat", maintains the status quo ~ ie, supports anti-democratic profit seeking commercial interests, wealthy private interests, over the interests of human beings. In reality, they probably prefer that republicans be in power, because it strengthens their ability to present more authoritarian 1% friendly "lesser of two evils candidate" to Democrats.
Using their socks and unwitting dupes to drive traditional Democrats out of the Democratic party insures they get either business friendly republican lite or republicans. Either way, it's business as usual, and profits continue unhindered by those pesky regulations supported by traditional Democrats, while the overall condition and quality of life of the general population continues to degrade into a permanent condition of serfdom.
The game is rigged, and it's not rocket science.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)Sure seems like it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If some big races can get "messed up" for the PTB if one or more third parties enter in to them, if these third party candidates would unite and say if in the domain they are running (national if president, a given state if state level), that legislative bodies pass instant runoff voting for subsequent elections to be in place, that they would pull out of the present race, then it would put in place in the future an elective environment where the corporatist 1%ers could no longer "buy the field" if a good third party candidate ran that the 1%ers couldn't buy off.
Then the Dems and/or the Repubs in those elections would be forced to be honest and listen to their constituencies or go the way of the Whigs...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Politicsusa sucks and should be thoroughly discredited.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Reagan Democrats look for a Grand Bargain.
mick063
(2,424 posts)I'm positive I will leave the top of the ballot blank if we get another corporate schmoozer nominee.
If I'm put in a position where I have to defend FDR, I'm definitely in the wrong party. Perhaps I won't leave the top blank after all.
Can anyone point me to a good progressive forum I can join?
tridim
(45,358 posts)Then Obama got elected and a bunch of idiots decided to take over DU and turn it into a libertarian shithole filled with lies, misinformation and personal delusions.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)backscatter712
(26,357 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
Skittles
(171,716 posts)and DU is back to the way it used to be!!! 
Nailed that one, alright.
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)A Larouchies type calls her cult FDR Democrats. Unfortunately she was on the ballot in CD 22 in Texas in 2010 and 2012
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its pretty disingenuous to change the terms from those used in the article and not mention that you did so.
Its also an interesting tactic to call something a "meme" when no one is actually saying what you claim is being said about "FDR Democrats".
The article refers to "ideologues" and "civil libertarians" (a term I've heard some on DU use to describe themselves), "disaffected liberals" (sounds like a part of DU).
"FDR Democrats" are not mentioned, and from what I can tell, its not a well defined term (maybe you can define it and make sure the description includes interment camps and their impact on civil liberties).
Skipping the labels, the key point of the article is an important one. Republicans are intentionally doing as much damage as they can, all around this country. And that's where the real fight should be. And that's where many Democrats are focused.
Meanwhile, the folks on the left who are the most disgruntled tend to argue that there is some group that is preventing then from obtaining the change they seek.
What they don't seem to want to consider is the possibility that it is their approach, and not some scary group, that causes them to fail.
The same folks who ran around this site impotently screaming for a primary challenge to Obama, might have been better served focusing on more realistic targets for their outrage. Perhaps focusing it on the GOP members who, on a daily basis, are actively trying to screw this country.
Or not.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Good luck in 2014.
You are every bit as scary as the GOP.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I will be focused on defeating the GOP in 2014, and you will be complaining in nonproductive ways.
mick063
(2,424 posts)That is the difference between you and me.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You going to hunt down TPTB?
Which local candidate in your area is running on an "anti-plutocrat" platform?
You are making my point.
Thanks.
mick063
(2,424 posts)What's the deal? You have a monopoly on "focusing"?
You are more qualified to focus than I am?
I suppose I will start by abstaining from your candidates. Then I will be active in supporting my candidates.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'll explain.
In my local races, I'll be looking for democratic candidates who can beat the right wing nut that they will certainly face here. The key issues in the general elections will be jobs, women's reproductive rights, education funding, and infrastructure investments. As it turns out, these issues are also important nationally.
Among the list of critical issues, Snowden will be way, way down the list. Any candidate spending lots of time on that topic will be wasting their time.
As will anyone running on the "anti-plutocrat" platform.
Now, you (and the other disgruntled folks) can spend all of your time complaining about the bad democrats, but that's not an effective strategy for winning elections and getting anything done (or preventing the GOP from doing really terrible things).
Let's skip 2014 ... think about 2016 ... with all the complaining about Hillary, some of these disgruntled folks should be getting busy trying to build up an "acceptably liberal" alternative.
But look around DU ... the OPs are 20 complaining about existing Dems to maybe 1 or 2 putting forward the alternative the disgruntled would support in 2016.
Rather than focusing on what to do to actually get a candidate you'd prefer, you are going to spending your time complaining about those you don't like.
So you better get busy ... 2016 will be here very soon, and Hillary will win (if she runs) unless the alternative is very strong.
And you'll be here on DU complaining about the plutocrats.
mick063
(2,424 posts)I choose to no longer be an enabler.
I do not recognise your lofty perch. Scare tactics no longer work with me.
I will work against your compromise. I will relentlessly communicate this position to all that might listen.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)WE will STAND together!
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman
[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!
No Whining. No Blaming Somebody Else![/font]
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Democrat and republican, who voted to protect the NSA and not the people.
Call it singe issue if you will, but civil rights are on top of my agenda. The process Joe...is accelerating in California...where people will be indeed voting third party. As is most voters in Cali are unaffiliated at this point.
There are things that partisans always miss.
By the way he also voted to defund Obamacare...in case you wonder. It made zero difference.
Now the man does have a flair for political theater though.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)candidates.
That's the point.
Spend your time complaining about how bad the current Democratic candidates are, or find better candidates that can win.
But I don't see the disgruntled really trying to do the latter.
And if you want to vote 3rd party, go ahead.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we had a better candidate, she lost by a mere 100 votes in the primary.
But I guess you know my local politics better, I mean this is like my beat or something... what do you want to know of the local JUDGE race? Serious? We even cover that shit, which none does.
Regardless, the move to a majority of voters being unaffiliated is happening, next step is not voting for either major party. That is not me saying it, that is political scientists who understand far more than you do, and are NOT PARTISAN, saying it.
And the trend increasingly among FIRST TIME VOTERS should really worry you.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/More-young-voters-register-unaffiliated-4147453.php
Should I remind you that California IS A TREND SETTER?
Don't worry, IN PRIVATE, my local Democratic Party Leadership understands this problem... the Rs are too dysfunctional to care.
By the way, as a reporter I AM AN INDIE and intend to remain such... it is just good practice. And giving money to campaigns. that is well over for me.
But you know what? What I hear from you, or rather read, is rationalization and denial of what is going on. and what is going on is that the Democratic Party, in a historically predictable shift, is becoming the party of business.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Oh wait. That didn't happen.
And let me get this straight ... your "better candidate" lost in CA. A place where it should be easy finding winning "better" liberal candidates.
btw ... you seem confused.
My point is not that liberal candidates can't win. Or that I don't want them to.
Its that the disgruntled appear to be spending their time complaining about Democrats that are already elected and not finding and BUILDING UP better liberal candidates who would have a chance to win.
And coming up with an anecdote here and there doesn't cut it.
If the disgruntled spent half as much time developing "better candidates", as they do complaining, we'd probably have more liberals in office around the country, now.
And as for the unaffiliated. The mistake you are making is that you assume that they are going to vote with you ... with whatever 3rd party you think will come along at some point.
What's more likely is that the effort from the right and left to get people to hate the government entirely is going to do 2 things.
1) Right wingers will be energized to vote ... and they will vote GOP, period.
2) Members of the left will become frustrated and simply not vote.
The net effect, if there is one, will be to help the GOP hold on and even gain power, even though demographic trends should destroy them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are so deeply partisan that like your counterparts, as long as they have a D you do not care what they do. Moral center... not need apply.
And the net effect is that the GOP is going away, while the Ds, become a business party and the challengers emerge. This is a historic pattern, not the first time we have seen that, and if the US survives, not the last time either.
History books are useful.
For the moment, you are a deep partisan, died in the wool, and no evidence will enter your mind.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If you could cease with the name calling and invective and redundant rhetoric you might notice that not all States and districts are like your own. You do the 'let's skip 2014' bit because it sure as hell does not serve your trope to speak about the next election or who puts whom in Congress.
Wyden, Merkely, DeFazio. You'd probably seek to defeat them all, but here they are very popular. We don't need to find 'alternatives'. We know how to win elections. Last cycle, we had visible groups of 'Republicans for DeFazio' campaigning against the Republican candidate who was full tilt crazy Art Robinson. Republicans supported the progressive DeFazio, they did not whine for some Blue Dog type, they rejected insanity for reason and ethics.
Too bad the name calling and invective crowd can't stop with the blather long enough to learn some lessons. Our midterm turn out breaks records each year, including 2010 when all the Blue Dog Moderates stayed home and failed to elect their Tea Dogs or Blue Baggers....
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I had no idea.
Ironically, the disgruntled tend to ignore that reality. The reason you get a blue dog in one district is because he or she lives in a red district. And no amount of lamenting that fact is going to get a Bernie Sanders elected in that district.
Also ... you said ...
That idiotic statement tells me a great deal. I like those folks and I think we'd do well to have more like them. But you thought making that erroneous claim would what, hurt me?
And as for name calling (a complaint which was ironic after your prior quai-personal attack) ... spare me ... the folks who are endlessly complaining call me (and others) far worse than "disgruntled".
For the most part, the disgruntled are easily distracted. They shift from outrage to outrage on a very regular basis.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't think so.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I don't think so.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)when I came across your reply - which, BTW, is an excellent response.
"Meanwhile, the folks on the left who are the most disgruntled tend to argue that there is some group that is preventing then from obtaining the change they seek.
What they don't seem to want to consider is the possibility that it is their approach, and not some scary group, that causes them to fail."
On.The.Money.
For some, the poutrage is everything - and they refuse to be distracted away from that poutrage by such trivial matters as what is happening to their fellow citizens in the real world.
I would suggest they form their own party, The Perpetually Poutraged - no heavy lifting required: no supporting a candidate, no financial contributions to be made, no time or effort expended on electing suitable office-seekers. All one has to do is post on a political message board 24/7 complaining about anything and everything.
mick063
(2,424 posts)You know where you can put that GOTV chant.
Chad counting is good entertainment. Let the Supreme Court decide the next one.
It is called extortion. The only language the corporate schmoozers can understand. Hell......you probably respect us for it.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Rest assured I wouldn't waste my breath encouraging anyone to vote on this site.
The good citizens here who vote will continue to do so, and need no encouragement from me, or anyone else.
The rest of those here will do what they always do: sit home on election day, stew in their own poutrage juice, and then return to whining on websites about how terrible everything is.
mick063
(2,424 posts)After 2014.
Reverse extortion.
Instead of being extorted through threat of potential GOP leadership if I don't support third way, I shall extort through threat of demanding an alternative to third way or stay home and allow GOP leadership. In either case the failed ransom is GOP leadership.
I prefer my terms when playing "chicken".
I shall work diligently in this endeavor.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)That's all it takes these days. It's unfathomable that we may stand on the issues, principals. I am extremely proud of the stand many here and in the country are taking. It is very inspiring and it's helping to show peoples true colors.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Fairly selective opposition when the Sec of Defense was selected from Republican choices and an anti gay, anti choice Iraq War supporter is the choice .
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)My remark was sarcasm. That the only qualifier to be a "democrat" is to be anti-republican. By anti-republican I mean that even with what you said, which is true, the loyal are blind to it because it's just about two letters D and R to them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Cabinet, it's hard to remember we won.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And classic projection, of course, it's not us that wants to make it about Snowden.
treestar
(82,383 posts)back in his day, as the social programs have been expanded since, and therefore were not perfect from the jump.
And you would be disappointed with Warren because she would have to work with Congress too, and every one of them would be more conservative than she, almost all the rest of the Democrats.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)If FDR saw how you behave he'd strap on the leg braces and kick your butt.
railsback
(1,881 posts)FDR Democrats?? ROFL! How about 'Magic Wand Democrats', or 'The Unicorn Party'? How dare anyone slander FDR by associating him with ilk like Snowden.
Well, it seems those 'Third Way Democrats' are smart enough to understand that we NEED Congress to move forward, the President IS NOT the King, and you just can't snap your fingers and wiggle your hips to make shit happen. Do 'FDR Democrats' (*cough*) really think that losing BOTH chambers of Congress is good for the country? And how about 2016? Hillary hardly has a commanding lead, and 47% voting Republican is a gimme. There's not much ground to cover to put the GOP candidate over the top, especially if its someone like Christie, who only has to reach another 5% of moderates. I guess giving the Republicans another blank check is great for Socialism.. because that worked out so well in the past.
The more I see shit like this, the more I want to see Snowden behind bars. The now de facto leader of the 'FDR Democrats', who tried to sabotage the U.S., now has his minions trying to sabotage the Democratic Party. The Right went all Teabaggery, the Left is going all Libertarian.
The 'new meme' is spot on.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)When they get exposed too much in their past history of corruption, they must find a new dark cloud to hide in.
quakerboy
(14,868 posts)Republicans and Democrats. There is no "third way".
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)since it feels like they're screwing us.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Though "quislings" works too.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)though I can't think of anyone who fits that mold at the moment.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Since no real progressive would want those guys anywhere near ANY kind of policymaking position, let alone economic policy, but the DLC, Third Way Democrats treat them like THEIR FDR.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Confession is good for the soul.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)It sounds like a religious cult.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)"Third Way" Democrats are chiefly a product of the now-defunct Democratic Leadership Council.
After the electorate shifted so far to the right in the 12 years of Reagan/Bush Senior, with Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis getting trounced by Lee Atwater's GOP machine, a faction in the Democratic Party believed that they needed to be more "centrist" to get candidates elected.
Between the lines, that reads:
1. Stop pushing for universal, single-payer health care, because there isn't the "political will" for it.
2. Go along to get along with cutting taxes for the top 1%.
3. Jump on the Republican bandwagon on "welfare reform" (cf. Bill Clinton, 1994).
4. Show that you're just as "pro-military" as any Republican.
5. Cut social programmes to prove you're pro-"individual responsibility."
6. Be cautious with your embrace of organised labour but pay lip service to it.
7. Trumpet how pro-"private sector" you are.
8. Show that you're "tough on crime" by supporting the death penalty.
9. Show that you're "tough on terrorism" by supporting the USA Patriot Act.
10. Distance yourself from the Great Society and New Deal but pay lip service to it.
The best examples of these "Third Way" types I can think of are the late Paul Tsongas, the Clintons, Evan Bayh, Claire McCaskill and Kathleen Sebelius.
In Britain, Tony Blair and his so-called "New Labour" got him out of a job for being George W. Bush's unstinting supporter of the Iraq War.
The current Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, is a Third Way adherent.
The Liberal Party in Canada is largely Third Way, and even the formerly-socialist New Democratic Party has adopted some Third Way stances.
They call themselves the "radical centre"...to me that's trying to please so many people that you end up pleasing almost nobody.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The DLC as an organization is now defunct,
but that is because it achieved ALL of the goals for which it was established,
and was no longer necessary to funnel Corporate CASH to conservative, "NeoLiberal" "Democrats". Its People were installed in positions of POWER at the head of the Democratic Party.
The organization is defunct, but the DLC is FAR from gone.
Its People and Advocates are STILL very much with us.
[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Liberals Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website in 2009)
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)I'll be on the lookout now.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Thanks!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Because I worked on his campaign... But I can't.
However, in Tsongas' defense, he had actual positions and beliefs, and was willing to debate not demagogue. Which is an important reason why Clinton beat him.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)When I first heard him in the '92 campaign, I wondered, "why is this man a Democrat?" especially after he articulated his position against universal health care.
However, that was not meant to impugn his character.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Rather than trashing it all the time.
Someone who wants Democrats elected, even if they are Blue Dogs, if they are from Red States where a Blue Dog is all you'll get.
Someone who deals in today's political reality rather than complaining constantly.
Someone who opposes Republicans and blames them rather than blames everything on the Democrats.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)
nilram
(3,549 posts)None of his top posts are about empowering the 99%.
http://www.politicususa.com/all-time-popular-posts
And it's hard for me to take his "issue" seriously when he's got a sports blog on there as well.
Rex
(65,616 posts)is getting them mass ignored I see. I guess they will have to make new socks to cheer for their old socks.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)That's a nice sentiment about the FDR democrats, but your post is about Snowden, and this was an afterthought.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'm obsessing over the Fourth Amendment and I'm not too happy with Democrats who think its violation is no big deal or think that having a secret court oversee the details of the program is a sufficient safeguard.
Well, it's only a pieces of paper, right?
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)
Politicub
(12,328 posts)Your post is about an opinion some people hold. It's not a meme in the traditional sense.
Your post is thought provoking, though.
There are people who are hungry, homeless, sick or have any number of afflictions that affect them because of no fault of their own. Worrying about "the constitution" is difficult on an empty stomach.
Voting rights and women's rights are vital. Children are killing each other and themselves with handguns they find
Now that I think about it, the discourse on DU often revolves around Snowden these days. Or at least it dominates the front page.
Meanwhile, none of the other social issues that need addressing are going away. If anything, they're becoming more acute.
But I don't believe thoughtful discussions about poverty, for instance, lend themselves to soundbites.
Snowden has become a symbol that people use to describe themselves more than a real cause. It seems there's an unspoken Snowden Scale that a subset of posters use as a kind of purity test.
IMHO, Snowden has become an indulgence for some. A few quick searches revealed that Snowden is the sole topic of interest for many of the posters upthread.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But don't insult us by acting like it's some kind of virtue.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Gotcha.
Your post explains something else too.
Obama's bankster cabinet choices, and Larry Summers , his golden boy for the FED, have been too busy worrying about the poor and hungry, to oversee and address continuing rampant financial and fraud.
Bless their dear caring hearts.
Can I send you a big sandwich? Maybe if you had full belly, you'd give a shit about constitutional rights.
Politicub
(12,328 posts)I stand by my opinion.
The Snowden loyalty oath has become the DU version of the Norquist Tax Pledge. Just like all good republicans must adhere to the Norquist pledge, you're not a real democrat unless you join the Snowden fan club.
You can be against PRISM and the more odious provisions of the Patriot Act while believing Snowden is a traitor to his country. It's not the whistle blowing that bugs me. It's how he conducts himself with his tour of despotic countries.
As an aside, I think your comment telling me to go eat a sandwich is beyond disgusting. Do you also believe poverty is the fault of the impoverished - that the poor are too lazy? It sure sounds like that's what you believe.
"As an aside, I think your comment telling me to go eat a sandwich is beyond disgusting. Do you also believe poverty is the fault of the impoverished - that the poor are too lazy? It sure sounds like that's what you believe. "
The very opposite is true.
I fucking hate the rich.
Your assertion that being concerned about Snowden and civil liberties is an indulgence for the elite, and well fed, is repulsive.
I am fortunate enough to have an income, it is below the poverty level, and yet I concern myself with constitutional rights. Such an elitist, eh?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Seriously?
One of us is confused, could be me. My take is that there are a bunch of people who are mad about the White House's Spy on Everyone program that Snowden revealed - some are pro Snowden, and some (like me) are not super comfortable wit what he did. Then there are the folks who seem to feel that the most important issue here is proving that Snowden sucks, which is just weird.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 3, 2013, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Oh, and Germany's been pulling a similar routine to the one Bush/Cheney started as well....but why isn't the U.S. media picking up on it?
http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/germany-to-spend-millions-to-expand-internet-surveillance---report_286245.html
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...that BILLIONS are suffering under the hands of the present administration's policies. Billions of people around the word are being subjected to illegal violations and intrusions into their privacy on a daily basis and on-going basis.
And that's the part we know about.
These ignorant people who claim membership among Democrats would do well to read some history. They need to understand that without our rights it doesn't matter if a few millions will suffer because all of us will suffer. And in the worst ways imaginable. Get your damned heads out of the sand. Take those blinders off. And then open your eyes and SEE.
- Wake. Up.
K&R
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)as long as their "team" wins in the short term. They do not care about long term consequences.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sorry, crummy joke.
