General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you want a president who fights like hell for the 99%?
With a Congress that fights like a son-of-a-word-I-can-no-longer-use-on-DU for us, too?
I think the whole country does. Let's figure out how to do this.
I will not go quietly into that good night.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
bigtree
(94,179 posts). . . I see what you did there.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Be specific.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I was referring to the corporations who plucked this guy out of complete obscurity, a barely elected first term Senator, and who invested billions to make him President.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Certainly bigtree will be along to explain what he was trying to imply.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)bigtree
(94,179 posts)I've never had anyone characterize that effort as a 'ruse'. It's been more cathartic - mostly a way for me to flesh out my own life experiences and try and relate all of that to the history that has emerged before me in my life experience and in the things that I read and learn.
I'm relatively sure that I'm entitled to my own opinion here - not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting for you to accept that it actually is my opinion or respect that.
Here you are, duca, without knowing anything (I think I can be certain) of any substance about me, but, you're secure in throwing around all of these invectives about me on this thread. You seem unhinged. I hope you can find someone to talk to about what's really bothering you. This is just strange for you to speak about me like you know me. It's creepy and really incredible (par for DU, though, I'm afraid). Seek help, man.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)had anything to do with racism, slavery etc. was patent trollery and you fucking know it. good bye and welcome back to ignore.
bigtree
(94,179 posts)got it
DonCoquixote
(13,956 posts)But on the other hand, using the term "own" with Afro Americans can summon up a lot of images that need not be summoned. I am not saying the person did this, merely that the choice of words could cause issues.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Issues with whom? Those among us who pretend the phrase "corporate-owned" is not used on a routine basis to describe any politiican who takes boatloads of money from big corporations and then repays them by pushing their policies? On what planet is that phrase suddenly racist?
Personally, I'm sick and disgusted beyond words by the constant ugly, unwarranted accusations of racism from adults who cannot seem to defend the president's policies any other way.
Yes, I think that's pretty clearly what bigtree was "getting at." And I think it was a despicable attempt to try to smear another DUer with racism when racism was clearly not implied.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
Raksha
(7,167 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
bigtree
(94,179 posts)The notion that someone 'owns' our nation's first African American president is certainly offensive, even if there was some benign intent in using that term - even if you are suggesting that corporations 'own' President Obama.
Certainly this president is more friendly to corporations than most progressives (myself included) would want from the man Democrats elected. However, I don't believe that President Obama has demonstrated the type of subservience that would deserve the 'owned' label. I can understand that it's shorthand and a cute way of expressing dissent with his economic policies and initiatives - but it's so imprecise as to make the term more related to the pejorative than to the economic complaint.
So, yeah, I have a problem with the term 'owners' to characterize this African American president's relationship with corporations or anyone else. It is racially charged (I'll accept that it was unintentional) and unnecessarily belittling, in my opinion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But since it offends the sensibilities of white people who: a) do not have a history of having been owned; b) do not give a sh!t that there are a segment of DUers that DO have a history of having been owned; and c) do not give a sh!t that what they say can be seen as hurtful, we should just allow them to use it because ... well ... their right to express themselves shall continue unfettered ... it's the liberal way.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I kid you not, check this subthread out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4676059
Any word, at any moment, can engulf its author in flames.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Just when I think it can't get more...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Here's another recent one where she tried to make folks think I was quoting stats from some sick source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4971335
It's just nuts.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You should consider it a compliment to be a target, though. It means your posts are perceived to influence people.
And - the still unnaturally growing list of corporate personas aside - I think most of DU sees it for what it is.
sheshe2
(97,419 posts)Yes I saw the one below too. Not the first time I saw you link to etc on other Op's. Though the other one was your OP about your friend getting boinked.
Snort....I am not sure you are helping your case by linking to me, however 
your followers will eat it up~
Have a great evening Manny~
DonCoquixote
(13,956 posts)corporate stooge, toady, crook, idiot, etc, none of which has a risk of bringing up race that the right wing has alredy brought up ten thousand times. The sad fact is, you have to be as careful to avoid not saying something in the midst of making your point. Part of the reason DU had the whole "priviledge" thread issue is because a bunch of minorities tried to point out things that many people DO NOT REALIZE THEY ARE DOING; and what we got was a lot of angry threads from angry people that went ahead and hopped onto Discussionist, where they churn out some stuff that is as vile as anthing Free Republic did. Yes, care does need to be taken, especially if you are sincerely trying to avoid focusing on race.
"Personally, I'm sick and disgusted beyond words by the constant ugly, unwarranted accusations of racism from adults who cannot seem to defend the president's policies any other way. "
I will agree that some people do act in the way you describe. However, do not assume because some people point out the racism that Obama is affected by means that we are tryign to shield his policies. I myself am angry that he put in exactly the same Clinton style cabinet members we voted against, and whatever good he does only comes after a lot of pushing and genuflecting to the almighty reagan democrats; those centrists who saldy, are much more effective at maintiaing conservatism then the GOP could be on their own. Speaking of which, if Hillary gets elected, yes, there will be many that will try to shout "How darest thou attack our first lady President", and much will be bs, but that will not change the fact that there will be sexism used against her. One set of facts running paralell to another set of facts does not make one valid and another invalid; some trees grow apples, some grow oranges.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Absolutely nothing. Focusing on them and trying to imply that there was, while ignoring the clear intent of the post....
Well, I'm stopping now, because I don't want to enable this anymore.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)people trying and point out where you are being offensive and you just say, (figuratively) "Fuck you ... I'll say what I want and I don't care what you think about it"?
The poster you responded to clearly pointed out where many think you (and those like you) go off the rails and create unnecessary conflict; but you reject even thinking about it, in defense of your right to be offensive ... the rest of the world just must adjust to you.
That's very "liberal/progressive" of you ... and the reason that the white (male) privilege thread continue to be necessary.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)A very familiar problem, with very familiar tactics.
I'll let this thread speak for itself.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you believe you should be able to use whatever language you choose, including language that offends others, even after being told the language is, or could be, offense, and why ... because you don't think it should offend those others ... then just say so.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)its one of your best tricks
bigtree
(94,179 posts). . . cool, though, how comfortable you are with the notion that someone 'owns' President Obama.
No, it's just fine to put aside the entire legacy of 'ownership' of a race of Americans just to make a petty political point . . . am I right duca? You're cool with that, right?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)you can feign offense and mindread! wow a total package.
bigtree
(94,179 posts). . . or are your personal attacks on this thread just for your twisted entertainment?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)bigtree
(94,179 posts) bobduca
(1,763 posts)I knew he'd come out eventually. you are *so* drol! adding mastery of emoticons to your list of skills!
bigtree
(94,179 posts). . . better now?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)yeah sure, *I* have an axe to grind????
stay classy big tree.
bigtree
(94,179 posts)something must be bothering you. Too bad you can't just come out and tell me how you really feel. That might at least give you a little pom. Sorry you have to leave with so much more in your gut that you want to get out.
Don't stop on my account . . . let it rip, baby!
bobduca
(1,763 posts)mean is what wins here!
bigtree
(94,179 posts). . . you win the shit pie.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Chicago "Group".
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Sheesh.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Banking, oil, insurance, defense, universities. In 2008 Obama's largest corporate sponsor was, if I recall, Goldman Sachs. The amazing thing is not that these industries own both parties and virtually everyone in politics, but rather how cheap it is for them to do so. Exxon, for example, could pay 100% of every local and national election, both parties, every cycle, and fund the entire thing out of petty cash. If you want to understand why someone in Washington does what they do when they promised to do the opposite, look at their owners. The same corporations and industries buy both parties, and the reps do what they are directed to do.
The contest is not left versus right, it's a battle over which group will get the chance to cash in on the game. They all talk big when they are not in power, but once they win they do what they are told. That's their job. That's how they get into the club. That's why Obama made so many "You have to MAKE ME" speeches. He was telling the truth; you have to make him do it. That's our job, we provide the cover.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Or, if one were feeling ungenerous, cliché. I suspect you already knew that however, and think playing this rather flaccid race card will silence me or discredit my statement. I would say 'You can do better!' but I don't think you can. This kind of thing is really all you have. In the face of self-evident truth, the only defense is to attack the messenger or scream 'HERETIC!'
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 21, 2014, 02:13 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: the concept of politicians being figuratively "owned" by their backers is quite separate from the concept of people being "owned" by others in the sense of property/slavery. that said, both terms are potentially applicable when we're talking about a black politician, so some sensitivity to the potential ambiguity would be wise. having said that, there's nothing here to justify that the poster who introduced the term "owned" meant ever meant it in any way other than the first meaning. therefore, the post in question jumps to an unwarranted conclusion and is more than a little bit asinine. still, i don't think it rises to the level of hide-worthy.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree that this is a smear. I also disagree that the poster in question actually accused them of anything improper.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: In this case msanthrope claimed that Demo_Chris was making a racial comment, when it is clear that the comment was really about the influence of corporate money. Intentionally distorting another's argument does not further anyone's understanding and is intended to inflame, not inform.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While the poster clearly sees a message in Demo_Chris's post that I don't see, the post itself does not meet the requirements for removal.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's intellectually dishonest rhetoric-- this sort of deliberate twisting of intended meaning serves no good purpose on DU. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I understand the alerter's point, but I don't feel this post is hide worthy in itself
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
To jurors. Please read the entire subthread. The phrase, "corporate-owned" in reference to a politician is clearly* not racist, yet now *two* DUers are attempting to smear the poster with racism, because they dislike his argument. Please send a message that this kind of behavior is unwelcome on DU.
I tend to agree with the alerter that the poster you responded to didn't MEAN slavery, but you calling out the overlap was certainly not something that should be hidden. Any passer-by could have drawn the same conclusion you did, even if it wasn't the intent.
I think it's pretty ugly that someone tried to hide it, rather than encouraging or facilitating understanding between both parties.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)happens from time to time.
Thank you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)that hiding a post has consequences, and seem to be taking the process/action with serious consideration.
I am glad that your post was not hidden.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Hopefully the alerter got the "message."
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
ancianita
(43,302 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and the reason the white (male) privilege threads continue to be necessary, even in this "liberal" bastion.
"Playing the 'race card'?" Wow, nice!
While I suspect most understood that this verbiage is commonly used, and is intended to be race-neutral. What some are trying to point out is the metaphor is NOT race-neutral to PoC, and pointing that out is NOT "playing the race card." (I still can't believe you, a "liberal", said that! Well, of late ... I can)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)actually that is bullshit. it pleases me in fact.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)This is why I consider people like you to be so dangerous. You don't believe in separation of powers and you proved that in your other thread. You believe in dictatorial rule, so long as it's your agenda being dictated.
No thanks.
Now whether that's a conservative or liberal agenda, I don't know at this point. You did previously say you would rather overturn the election of Obama than the election of Reagan...so I really don't know where you stand.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)if a SCOTUS justice won't recuse themself for a conflict of interest?
And feel free to post a link to my post that you're citing, for context.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)just like they can Presidents. Individual members of Congress cannot act. The President can't act. FDR tried to pack the court and he did not succeed.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)With folks in their party?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Using entirely votes from his own party.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)many who supported FDR refused to end run the Constitution. FDR never tried to have Congress impeach any of the Justices, he refused to go there.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)which is really all that is alleged about the present SCOTUS justices. If Congress believes these conflicts are high crimes and misdemeanors, then they can impeach.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That is what is alleged about Thomas, not merely that he is a lecherous right winger.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)NOW, they should recuse themselves from all cases involving equal rights for women? I doubt that his views would change just because of his wife's involvement in an organization.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I doubt he appointed any conservatives, but I have not checked.
QC
(26,371 posts)The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the size of the Supreme Court.
FDR's proposal was not an attempt to "pack the court" or "end run the Constitution." Those are right wing talking points.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)anyone to have "talking points" since that took place 70 years ago and it didn't even happen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Some things are worth doing to bring things to the attention of the public, and also to send a message to Justices that they won't keep getting away with everything that pleases them.
QC
(26,371 posts)in absolute perfect seriousness, that for the president to lobby the Congress would violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Honestly. My jaw still drops when I think of that one.
merrily
(45,251 posts)His goal was not to increase the size of the SCOTUS just for the sake of having more Supremes. His goal was to get the SCOTUS to stop striking down New Deal legislation so he and Congress could save the country from the toilet.
After he announced that he would be increasing the size of the court, the SCOTUS did a 180 degree turn and expanded the scope of the commerce clause to an incredible degree. So, FDR got exactly what he wanted.
BTW, the term "court packing" is unnecessarily pejorative. The Constitution allows increases in the size of the Court. The size had been increased a couple of times before FDR and no one calls those increases "court packing."
I suspect Republicans of FDRs day came up with that libelous label. No reason for Democrats who admire FDR-or should--to keep using it. He saved the fucking country.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Every time I see the "my posts" tab go yellow here, I expect to find some conservative poster wielding a blunt instrument (because the right is almost never sharp). That make a post like yours welcome many times over.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)just another way of interpreting or framing things most DUers already know.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Thanks for bringing some reality to a discussion sorely lacking in it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I find many here react fairly hostilely to it.
QC
(26,371 posts)Just a very small but loud and carefully coordinated minority.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)with fists clenched, they tend to change behavior.
Thanks for the historical perspective!
former9thward
(33,424 posts)That is a power of Congress. When Roosevelt made his proposal he was immediately shot down.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Since each justice is responsible for overseeing one of those courts. Expanding the court simply because the justices don't agree with you is a horrible precedent and sets up an untenable situation where every President will just try to expand the court when the court doesn't agree with them. Thus I don't think "court packing" is unnecessarily pejorative in the slightest.
I don't fault FDR for trying to do it. His job was to save the nation from total collapse and the Supreme Court was a massive hurdle in his way. But congress was absolutely right to tell him no. That's why we have checks and balances in this country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Americans in the 99%. Those that are content with corporate rule as long as it's under the "D" flag. Those that seem to be afraid to stick their necks out to demand the freedoms and liberties that our founder fought so hard for. The dangers lie in those that willingly give up their Constitutional rights like the 4th Amendment to authoritarians like General James Clapper and Gen Alexander. Those that so easily give up their habeas corpus rights and pretend they dont. It's a danger that some of us cant recognize that we live in an oligarchy where the only reason we dont have a dictatorship is that the Adelson Group, Bush Crime Family, and Koch Brothers are fighting over it.
Wake up and smell the oligarchy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But of course it focused on the Presidency. But up to now Manny has insisted the president be so tough and mean that Congress is afraid of the President and does what the President wants out of fear. Or that it doesn't matter if there are any results, so long as the President fought so hard that the Congresspeople are bleeding. But now Congress should also fight for us! It appears these 538 people might have some independent thinking after all! Maybe they should be Democrats also!
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)that doesn't rock the boat too much.
alittlelark
(19,138 posts).....ENOUGH.... We The People say
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Why would anyone wish for more of the same? I don't get it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The 99% aren't exactly unified about what we want.
merrily
(45,251 posts)student loans until they are 50, peace, our rights under the Bill of Rights, jobs.
There's a start.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What concrete steps get us from here to there? That's where this breaks down.
merrily
(45,251 posts)FDR had no template. He somehow managed to save the country from going down the tubes.
We rank and file sure went from "yes, we can" to "no human could possibly have accomplished it" pretty damned quickly. Too damned quickly.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know where you got the idea that people gave up.
There are lots of ideas for making education affordable. None of them have 99% support. None even make 40%. There's an agreement on the goal, but not the means.
merrily
(45,251 posts)None of them have 99% support.
That's a ridiculous standard for legislation. If anyone had ever waited for the support of 99% of the population, no one would ever have passed anything at all. The civil rights act did not have 99% support. I bet even Medicare and Social Security did not have 99% support.
However, after Obama was elected, the public option and increasing taxes on income over $250K a year did have over 70% support in polls. That's about as high as anyone could expect, given a certain number of people on each side are not going to give anyone the satisfaction of approving the other sides's initiatives in a poll. And, Congress and the WH certainly knew how to do both those things.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Right now we have this muddy indistinct "politics as sport" contest between two parties that differ somewhat in style, and their stance on social issues but which both are basically "Bought and Paid For" to represent the interests of the most powerful and greedy Oligarchs and to advance Corporate Interests and Private Wealth over the public interest.
Therefore, the contests are limited to "celebrity death matches" based on style and personality, rather than an actual contest between Corporate CONservatism and Corporate Centrism, with actual liberalism kept out of the equation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's much easier to spout slogans than to realize we never get everything we want out of government. It involves compromise with other people by definition.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)by just voting for whomever, assuming that you're right that 99% of the country want this. In fact, it should almost be a certainty, we have always had this.
merrily
(45,251 posts)that no one would oppose Obama in 2012? How much of a role did any of us play when the SCOTUS decided Bush was President?
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)there would have been no question about the elections. We didn't, in fact there are more Republicans in the House than Democrats.
Obama wasn't challenged for the nomination in 2012 because the vast majority of Democrats supported his re-election. They supported it so strongly that no serious Democrat even hinted at trying to unseat him.
struggle4progress
(126,083 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Democratic Party has proved over and over that they sold out to the same corporations that own the Republican Party. It's really sad, but that is how it is.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"When the people lead, the leaders will follow"
Also sounds good, but that has not proven to the the case.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Given the sort of results that a search for " struggle4progress + OWS" provides. Seems you're not a big fan of efforts to organize on those lines.
Whose progress are you struggling for?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)struggle4progress
(126,083 posts)to put info into the DU2 state forums as you can check here -- most state forums there contain some posts of mine with Occupy! news, the volume depending on what news stories I could find
Unfortunately, Occupy! never developed a concrete agenda, never provided definite legislative or regulatory goals at state or federal levels, produced no useful research, had no usable analysis, and in the end never evolved into anything more than an expression of angst. It did not produce a self-critical movement able to try tactics for specific aims and able to study which tactics worked and why. It did not produce meaningful organization; it did not produce much phone-calling or door-knocking -- if any. The collapse of Occupy! as a movement was therefore predictable, and no one should adopt Occupy! as a model
Wanting "change" is not enough. One needs to specify exactly what change one wants, to find others who agree the change is necessary, and to persuade others to take definite steps for that change. On even simple issues, this can be a labor of a least a few years, and if one is working against organized opposition the task can be time- and energy-consuming
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For its time.
Occupy was the first thing in 30 years to change the conversation among the vast bulk of Americans. Perhaps its lack of coherence was exactly what made it successful: it focused on the problem (the 99% getting flayed alive by the 1%) rather than any solutions which will be much more difficult to get consensus on. Millions of people suddenly realized that all those pretty promises of unleashed market forces driving trickle-down prosperity were merely an astonishing con job.
But its time is over. Time to solve the problems, now.
alittlelark
(19,138 posts).... I was feeling 'down'......
But E.W. brought me back from the abyss....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)in that town!
NealK
(7,127 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)best interests? Have you lurked over at Discussionist? It's sad just how misinformed and naive the right wingers there are. It would be like slapping puppies to straighten out their brainwashing. Where to start? 
merrily
(45,251 posts)Republican voters and an end to domination of politics by only two parties-some might say 1.25 parties.
It isn't only Republicans who keep voting against their own interests. Unless all the signs are wrong, "we" are about to nominate the fifth New Democrat in a row for President, and the third co-founder of the DLC/Third Way domination of the Democratic Party.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Republicans vote for their interests. They understand those interests differently than we do. But bemoaning the alleged idiocy of the great unwashed is self-deluding and counter productive. Hint one: conservative activists are just as disappointed in the GOP as liberal activists are in the Democratic party.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)what they were told there intrests were by rush beck and hannity. they cant think for themselves they need to be told what they are afraid of and how to vote against it.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)That is where it ends, even if you believe otherwise.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)i like clean air and water it's good for me but it's also good for the people on the right so therefore regulation is needed but the people on the right are told not to vote for people who want regulation b/c it will hurt the job creators(needless to say, but i will anyway, regulating companies creates jobs) stuff like that
i know that government spending during a recession is good. i know this b/c of the great depression. this is also good for me not just me but everyone. but the people on the right are told that they dont want spending during a crisis b/c it will balloon our deficit ( cutting government spending feeds the downward spiral) so they scream about the spender in chief
does this only knowing of what's good for one's self apply only to me or does this apply to everyone. does no one know what's good for anyone else?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Remember you do not need to take part in silly arguments. I know the pull but sometimes it only leads to frustration. Especially when it's about who's better or more deserving than who. It's about all of us existing on this planet together and leaving it better than the way we came in.
-p
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The "I know what's better for you than you do" mentality is elitist beyond compare and particularly odd coming from supposed liberals where we champion patience, respect and understanding, or at least we used to.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)misinformed people, deliberately misinformed people, eating the propaganda the corporate media feeds to them, sheesh. Talk about pulling shit out of your asses that has nothing to do with the real problem.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Republicans don't primarily vote for their interests. They for vote their ideology.
OK, some Republicans vote for their interests -- the Koch Brothers, for example -- but there is plenty of idiocy of the great unwashed.
In many instances, Republicans are simply factually wrong. E.g.
--global warming is a hoax
--the need for Keynsian stimulus
--whether loose monetary policy is going to cause hyperinflation
--whether Obama was born in Kenya (you may laugh, but at one point this was about 50% of Republicans in polls)
--etc.
I guess you could argue that Republicans who believe that global warming is a hoax are voting in their perceived interests, but in fact they are harming themselves along with the rest of the world.
There are some issues where Republicans vote in their own interest, but these are mainly social issues. Republicans feel threatened by gay marriage, and feel that abortion is murder. They feel that there should be more religion in the private sphere.
But on economic issues, they mostly don't, except for the wealthiest among them. It's pretty hard to make a case that it is in the interest of most Republicans to relax regulations on large investment banks. Or to allow hedge fund managers to recognize their income as capital gains, thus effectively putting them in a lower-middle-class tax brackets. Or, for that matter, to invade Iraq.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)they are electing legislators who will vote policies that favor the wealthiest. They have to be educated that they are being played by the 1% who are baiting them with their own prejudices. This is why they need to know that gay marriage isn't going to ruin their hetero marriage. Abortion is not baby killing and that no one is going to take away anyone's guns except from the psychopath who might kill their children. This is why messaging and anti-propaganda is needed.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)That's the problem right there. You notice they haven't outlawed voting? Why? Because it's in the interests of the 1% to have people believe that voting can change things, and then when nothing changes, the two sides go at each other. Classic divide and conquer.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Thanks for saying that out loud.
-p
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)problems light gay marriage, while they rip off their base on bread and butter issues like suppressing wages, shifting taxes from billionaires to the backs of the middle class, and multi-billion dollar tax giveaways to the most profitable companies in the history of the planet.
Until they look down at their pockets and see that the Republic politicians are stealing their wallets, they will be of no help at all.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I think if she decides to run (and we need to convince her to do so), that she wins over not only progressives, but Democrats who are sick of the Third Way "Democrats" AND she wins over a lot of people who either don't vote or vote, sometimes reluctantly, for Republicans. This happens because she's one of "us" and nothing she's done in her career in the private or public sector says anything different about her This happens because she's plain-spoken and, when asked a question, answers it DIRECTLY. She relates to people because she IS a people. She has no ambitions to be part of the 1% and won't betray us like Obama did and like Hillary CERTAINLY will do (hell, she's pretty much announced it). I know you said you're waiting for her book in the library and, once you read it, you'll see what we mean.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)flung at her and dirty tricks, like the Dean scream that will be played on her.
certainot
(9,090 posts)for 25 years the left has studiously ignored the right's most effective weapon, and a classic psyops, rw talk radio.
not only does the left ignore rw radio, it criticizes and evaluates the performance of its elected reps as if 1200 alec/koch think tank-coordinated radio stations didn't exist! fuck all the left that criticizes their reps while ignoring rw radio, as their idiot ignorant blowhards take free pot shots at all things sane and liberal.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/18/1298906/-How-to-record-and-transcribe-your-state-talk-radio-propaganda-operation-for-200
merrily
(45,251 posts)What, in your mind, does not ignoring rw radio consist of? Never criticizing a Democratic President? Posting about rw radio?
And, FYI, until Obama, the Executive Branch could have revived the Fairness Doctrine, highly relevant to rw radio, without an act of Congress (which, like an amendment to the Constitution to overrule Citizens, ain't gonna happen as a practical matter). But, Obama's FCC put the final nail in the coffin of the Fairness Doctrine.
Sorry, I can't "have his back" on that or other things his administration has done or failed to do.
?
The most powerful and pampered man in the world--and I'm supposed to protect him by not posting the truth. That's hilarious.
certainot
(9,090 posts)white billionaires house ad kick ass! that's really fucking hilarious.
criticize all you want but as long as the right's best weapon is almost totally ignored most criticism is not only useless, it's counterproductive.
as individuals we can criticize all we want with all our principles, but the left as a whole, considering the time lost on global warming, made the biggest political mistake in world history when it decided it would rather listen to a scratched barry manilow CD from under the seat than any of those think tank-scripted carnival barkers.....
there are no two words that get a more virulent reaction from the right than 'fairness doctrine'. there's a reason for that, and the left has no fucking clue.
merrily
(45,251 posts)What is your point in the rest of your post?
The right hates the fairness doctrine? So what? That didn't mean the Executive Branch under a Democratic President had to nail its coffin shut. You were the one going on about right wing talk radio, cursing everyone one who ignored. How do you think right wing radio?
Barry Manilow? What are you talking about?
certainot
(9,090 posts)the left allows the right to create because it ignores talk radio. the left would not be 'getting' her back either, just as when we allowed those radio stations to create the buzz that enabled the republicans to block her appointment and make it politically impossible to pass her. i just heard van jones remembered as a 'commie' by a talk radio star. another one of their predictable and preventable victories.
there is no organized opposition to it except for the very effective if specialized and limited rush boycott. if the 'analysts' had been factoring in talk radio they may have polled to find out how big a factor the boycott activity was in creating that record gender gap for obama in the last election. an election that was actually looking close at some points. another election in which the 20% of americans who say they get their news from (unchallenged) talk radio helped advance a pack of loons and one more spoiled brat pirate 1% 'er to way to close to the white house.
we have incredibly low expectations because of it. and reinstating the FD would be impossible, like single payer, precisely because of rw radio's major part. people here will even add to the screaming of "free speech!" when the FD is mentioned.
maybe my cursing was a bit much, but the very same giant buzz machine almost kept warren out of the senate, against an asshat talk radio candidate like scott brown. just like so many other good candidates that they get to take free pot shots at all day long. there will be no fact based national and state level discussions about any major reform of candidates qualifications as long as the left continues to allow the right that major advantage. and that includes getting billionaires out of politics and reforming media.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's hard for "the left" to use tools like the radio when Democrats like Clinton and Obama cut them off at the knees by pursuing policies that hand over the means of communications to the Big Corporate Monopolies.
certainot
(9,090 posts)are 1200 very loud radio stations reaching 50 mil a week, deciding what and who is acceptable in media and politics, enabling loons and ignorance, and intimidating, bathing the country in alternate reality and creating made to order pro corporate constituencies. that wouldn't exist if the left had not ignored it. the rush boycott is probably the most effective liberal organization going, because it is the ONLY organization, a very small one and specifically targeted at that, challenging the talk radio.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A LOT of people have been working hard for a LOT of years to turn this tide on many levels and in many ways.
I don't think you should be bashing people who are advocating for reform with such a dismissive broad brush.
"The Left" as you call them, include a lot of very reasonable and realistic peope who have been successful in their own ways. And many on "the left" have also been warning about the foreseeable disasters that have occurred and trying to avert them for decades.
The rel problem is not just the wingnuts on the right. They ave been aided and abetted by may of the "moderate centrist" politicians who claim to be opposed to the right-wing agenda, and have not been providing a clear alternative to the rantings of Rush beck, et al.
certainot
(9,090 posts)major party they use. i know there are many dedicated activists working their asses off spending resources, and that's part of what pisses me off the most- much of those resources are wasted. i've been to a lot of protests the last 25 years and many of them could worked better if they had included those limbaugh stations instead of the state capitols. those are the true headquarters of the GOP. pols dont have to listen to protestors or a lot of their constituents anymore because the 1% can blast the same area with lies from a few blowhards with loud megaphones. much of our activism can be negated by a few blowhards because we don't get in their face in real time while they're creating made to order constituencies for the think tanks, whenever and wherever they need them, nationally or locally.
The rel problem is not just the wingnuts on the right. They ave been aided and abetted by may of the "moderate centrist" politicians who claim to be opposed to the right-wing agenda, and have not been providing a clear alternative to the rantings of Rush beck, et al.
there is no bigger factor in making liberals and liberal ideals "unacceptable" and taking the democratic party rightward than those 1200 stink tank coordinated and unchallenged radio stations, creating that alternate reality.
from who wins primaries to stopping liberal legislation and reforms, evaluating and democratic party performance and composition without factoring in and challenging the right's best weapon is really counterproductive. until the 'left' starts including talk radio in their strategies we're wasting a lot of time.
whatever we do individually, we're allowing the right to beat our reps with a talk radio 2x4 and then we're booing them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)However, it isn't the fault of the left. It is the structure of media, in which stations have no responsibility to exercise balance between profit and their responsibility to the public and equal access to diverse opinions. They figured out they can make money by programming for cranky wingnuts, so that is what they do.
We had set up a bad media business system that is why radio is dominated by rw cranks.
certainot
(9,090 posts)they are psyops to sell war, deregulation, tax breaks for billionaires, voter fraud fraud, immigration invasion, terrorism and whatever else is needed on a national and local level.
it IS the fault of the left if it ignores talk radio because it doesn't recognize that. it generally doesn't recognize it because it is so easy to turn the radio dial and ignore it.
it is an insult to america to suggest 95% of the people who would listen to talk radio in a country where rw radio is the only free option for politics while driving or working, prefer the wit and wisdom of limbaugh and hannity over the progressive talkers that beat them when given an equal chance.
it's as if the right put carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country yelling liberal women are commie whores and liberal men are lazy commie thieves and their ideas are treasonous. and the left just walks by. after many years of that, those talk radio gods became truth tellers.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)bottom line.
certainot
(9,090 posts)that's what they've been screaming from every corner and stump in the country since reagan killed the fairness doctrine and they realized they could start classic psyops on the US instead of the other countries. liberals justwalk by woith their fingers in theirears
some would say guns are for idiots. ignoring talk radio is for idiots.
left radio is fighting a monopoly with a 95% to 5% market domination. and it's clear some in the braintrust on the right sees it as one of or the most effective weapon they have. they're shutting down prog radio in heavy blue areas and pushing prog talkers out before the elections.
boulder denver just had their sabotaged and closed down in time for the elections. 760 started in 2006 and that year CO went blue.
if your active in any issue know that the idiot blowhard behind the megaphone at your local rw radio station may be undoing your work and that of thousands of others like you
bobduca
(1,763 posts)and yes, even it is for idiots.
certainot
(9,090 posts)before going home for quality time with the family. or football
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I guess i'm just done with talk-radio as a format, having had Clear Channel crush any local outlet for AM based left/progressive talk.
What's the solution though to counter the anti-intellectualism that seems to come with the format?
certainot
(9,090 posts)in recent diary http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251364203 a way to monitor talk radio without listening to it!
and
Four ways Democrats and progressives can challenge the talk radio advantage before the 2014 elections:
1) Right wing radio has been successful because it has been ignored. Use the latest transcription software to make transcripts of the major local RW talkers available for searching and reading. Lies and distortions can be responded to in other media, or with picketing at stations, BEFORE they hurt Democratic candidates and progressive causes. Most advertising the GOP and its candidates do is built on and reinforced by lies and distortions popularized and made acceptable with the unchallenged repetition that only talk radio is capable of. Correcting the talk radio gods and their propaganda publicly will reduce the effectiveness of those ads and the numbers of disinterested fence-sitters the dittoheads and teabaggers can mobilize on election day.
2) More than 28% of Limbaugh stations piggyback publicly funded schools. I don't think the RW radio monopoly can survive without its parasitic relationship with our institutions of higher learning. Shame colleges and universities that broadcast sports on RW radio stations. Get them to honor their mission statements and look for apolitical alternatives. The benefits those schools get from their associations with the loudest stations in the state pale in comparison to the damage RW radio has helped shills like Walker do. The RW stations and their talkers use college sports logos to boost their community credibility and attract advertisers while they help ALEC and the Koch brothers and their candidates defund and privatize public education, attack teachers and unions and Democratic candidates, and deny global warming and other science. Those stations also weigh in on elections of regents and the short lists of candidates for school presidents. The radio component of the media licensing revenue a school receives (usually packaged with all media) may be minuscule compared to total licensing revenues and schools need to be asked to reveal those details. What's the price to get a university to trash its own mission statement? The amount may be surprisingly small.
3) Support the Rush Limbaugh boycott efforts and extend it to all advertisers on right wing stations. Most stations include some innocuous and apolitical programming during the week but they are primarily part of the larger RW propaganda operation. Any damage done to progressive radio will made up for many times over as the right wing radio monopoly disintegrates and stations become available.
4) Where appropriate, include radio stations and talk show hosts in peaceful protests. For 25 years a few hundred RW talkers with big soapboxes have attacked, distorted, and sabotaged the citizen activism of millions- with little protest or acknowledgment from the 'Left' or it's organizations. Protests at state capitols are routinely minimized by the state RW stations and their carnival barkers. Those attacks can continue long after the protestors go home. Almost any major issue is appropriate, from social justice and equality, fair wages, global warming, the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking, media and election reform, voter suppression, gun control, wall street, and political corruption. All could legitimately be picketed at those giant megaphones - the true source of 'popular' power of the new irrational Republican Party. Media and politicians used to being intimidated and enabled by RW radio and its made-to-order think tank talk radio constituencies, will notice.
certainot
(9,090 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)that's what they've been screaming from every corner and stump in the country since reagan killed the fairness doctrine and they realized they could start classic psyops on the US instead of the other countries. liberals justwalk by woith their fingers in theirears
some would say guns are for idiots. ignoring talk radio is for idiots.
left radio is fighting a monopoly with a 95% to 5% market domination. and it's clear some in the braintrust on the right sees it as one of or the most effective weapon they have. they're shutting down prog radio in heavy blue areas and pushing prog talkers out before the elections.
boulder denver just had their sabotaged and closed down in time for the elections. 760 started in 2006 and that year CO went blue.
if your active in any issue know that the idiot blowhard behind the megaphone at your local rw radio station may be undoing your work and that of thousands of others like you
certainot
(9,090 posts)not ownership. that's allowing them to shutdown those prog talkers and radio stations ahead of the 2014 elections, but it's the UNCHALLENGED repetition that actually allows it to sell lies- and much better than fox. it's the "i'm never wrong certitude" that the authoritarian mind craves like a fear reducing drug
treestar
(82,383 posts)How dumb is it to expect him to have the back so to speak of every one of those people, who have a million different opinions? Think about it. Politics can't work that way. We can call them public servants, but they only have the power we confer on them. No point in making it impossible for them to serve the community because them can't serve us individually.
certainot
(9,090 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Collectively. That happens to be his day job. You know, the one he spent billions of dollars to get and keep?
But, how dumb was it to misinterpret my post so you could dub it dumb?
No point in making it impossible for them to serve the community
Remind me how I made it impossible for any politician, including Obama, to do his job.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)backs but in 2010 we gave potus the extended middle finger and gave him a congress full of asshats to deal with
PatrickforO
(15,420 posts)Americans have become too apathetic to be 'in it for the long haul' in terms of holding those we elect accountable for their actions. Oh, we'll vote...sometimes. But in an off year election? Really?
And that's the attitude. But it is more than drafting someone who is a genuine populist like Elizabeth Warren. It is ALSO being involved in your state's politics at the local and state levels and making sure we're running good candidates who will actually represent our interests when they get to Washington. In many ways it is all about primaries and caucuses, petitions and involvement in your local party structure.
The reason the United States has gotten so terrifyingly close to being a police state is because like nature, politics abhors a vacuum. Since American culture has been so dumbed down and so many are anti-intellectual and proud of it, most don't even think about the upcoming election until a few days before, and vote for the best looking or the one with the most name recognition without really knowing where that person stands. Then, instead of keeping track of what the people they voted in are doing when they get to Washington, they simply go back home and watch reality TV and would never dream of calling their Representative or Senator and expressing their thoughts about upcoming legislation.
Into this vacuum steps who? Corporate interests. The Koch brothers and their ilk. The Donald. Sheldon Adelson. And, since our apathy has given these robber barons so much influence, they use that influence to strip the treasury through tax loopholes (did you know over 30 Fortune 500 companies no longer pay any US income tax on billions in profits? Check out Citizens for Tax Justice - they have researched IRS records of publicly held companies and have a whole list).
For these people, this top 1/10 of 1%, it is about controlling government so they can route the maximum amount of public money possible into their own coffers. AND WE HAVE GIVEN AWAY THE STORE TO THEM.
As a friend of mine once said to me, we have exactly the government we deserve.
The moral of this story is that while I agree Sen. Warren would make a find President, we MUST also elect Representative and Senators who have our interests at heart, and then we MUST stay involved or else Warren won't be able to do a thing for us.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)When I encounter threads like these and there are so many here, it's makes me once again glad to be black. Most Americans are anti-intellectual so they don't read, especially history, political science, sociology. Most Americans do not know there are three branches of gov't, supposedly separate and equal. There is a certain group of people in America who are especially ignorant and so easily manipulated. They engage in a lot of magical thinking. They believe for instance that it is possible to protect Americans in America and abroad without an aggressive surveillance program. They believe these surveillance programs target specific individuals rather than specific information. They are highly attracted to people with yellow hair, which FOX NEWS has built a whole fear and hate industry around. Many of these people confuse the president with their fantasy of a perfect mommy or daddy. Many of these people could stop pretty much everything they hate politically by NOT BUYING THINGS THEY DON'T NEED. America is a consumer society and it is the America people who make corporate America possible. Why do you shop at WALMART, one of the worst corporate oppressors? Why did you buy that tablet, I-phone, flat screen, cable package? Why do you need a new car when the one you have still runs? Why are you sending your children to a private school? Why are you paying 450,000 dollars for a 1200 sqft house? Why are you having children you can't afford? Why do you need corporate America's bling to make you feel good about yourself? Just sayin'
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I do, however, object to this part:
I read this as chiding those of us who oppose blanket surveillance of individuals not suspected of any crime, which is antithetical to a healthy democracy. We who oppose such activity by our government do not do so because of "magical thinking," but because we prefer not to cower in fear of the spectre of "terrorism" to the point of surrendering our civil liberties.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as you correctly pointed out.
Initech
(108,659 posts)Either way that's the anti Rand Paul / 1% ticket.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Sorry, but my goals are loftier. I'm holding-out for a complete collapse.
But good luck with your plan anyway.
K&R
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I would prefer to change our course and avoid it, though.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ananda
(35,071 posts)..
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That attempt to smear you (above) was so lame I laughed out loud.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)If I'd waited 20 min, it would have been Wednesday, when I never loved him.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That'd be a good start
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Do you really thing we could get clones of Robert Reich and Ralph Nader to head the SEC and OSHA respectively?
I think i hear the sound of a bone saw revving up.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We are supposed to just turn a blind eye to abominations like appointing a Bedmate of Comcast and other Big Media to the FCC at a time when Comcast is making a bid on basically take over control of Internet access -- and when they and other Corporate ISPs are pushing to eliminate their public responsibility to handle all Internet traffic equally?
There's a big choice of options between that and someone like Ralph Nader.
Should we just lie back and accept the fact that politics is totally corrupt and hand over the keys to those who have the Money and Power, and to hell with the rest of us?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)But it does cause a lot of heartache, disappointment, & general disillusionment, and diverts good people from changing the things that can be changed, and ultimately from creating the better world they hope for.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)be dismissed as unattainable fanatsies to aim for.
Trust me. At age 62 I have "realism" in spades about prospects for change.
But I don't think trying to at least restore some basic principles that DID exist and DID work in reality is a "fantasy." And I sure as hell don't think that the party that is supposed to represent those values ought to be undermining them.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The question is just how do you start? Especially if you dismiss every politician that can't grant you instant gratification?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Instant gratification? Gimme a break.
How many other knee-jerk cliches would you like to drag out? Ponies? Electable? Uncompromising Left? There's a bagful of empty, meaningless high-handed put downs you can borrow.
In my own little sphere, I've done a lot to advance my beliefs and values, personally and professionally over the last 40 years. And my conscious period of paying attention to these things started somewhere in the late 60's and early 70's. I've seen this moing unfolding for a long time.
And as a nation we started in the late 18th Century.
And I give slack to a lot of politicians who aren't perfect, includin our current president, who I actively supported in 08 and last time round, despite my misgivings.
But I suppose we all should just shut up and sit down unless we want to participate in anempty love fest and excuse and look awy from all the things that need addressing.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ground in this country. But that's more your problem than mine.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That old shopworn cliche again.
I'm so glad you have the complete and final answer on that cosmic question "What is reality?"
Hokey smokers, I' m also sure glad you have a grasp of the reality "on the ground" that we stupid lefties don't see from our perch beyond the fray.
In reality, the reality of situations is very complex. WE ALL interpret reality through our own subjective perceptions and opinons. All of us, including you and me.
I don't care if you say you think I'm wrong.....But don't pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of "reality"
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And it's a haggard & threadbare one at that. The simple facts are that it will take America a century to recover from the damage done by the Bush Regime & 40 yrs of RW propaganda, and the populist liberalism necessary to do it is in the very early stages of growth, and is nowhere near the majority in the country, and isn't even on the radar in Washington. You're trying to push an agenda that, in the eyes of those in power, doesn't exist & isn't even part of the conversation. There's no reason it should be, because it's not really a coherent movement at this point & hasn't won any elections. Has it?
And yet here you are whining because the most liberal President we've had in three generations just isn't liberal enough for you. Talk about a cliche.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You also don't seem to pay much attention to the agenda of people who see things like I do (which is a lot of people) and the nature of this "incoherent" movement.
Your half-baked dismissal and shallow assumptions may have been true 15 or 20 years ago. But you seem stuck in the mentality of the country as it was in the 1980's and 90s'.
For one thing, people like myself KNOW that it is an incremental process. Also that it is not "black and white" simple.
But a lot HAS been done already, and there is much that CAN be done in the near term that would make big differences now.
I could go into more detail, but since your mind seems to be closed tighter than a lockbox, I won't waste my time.
So go ahead and sneer at anyone and any ideas that do not fit exactly into your narrow template of "reality". Just sit back and allow the crap to continue with no real change for the next 100 years because, God Knows, we should not try to do anything mildly different than what we've been doing for the last 40 years.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)we sign petitions for her, we show up at book signings, we extol, beg, plead, do whatever we need to do to convince her to run. If she doesn't, this country's democracy is lost forever.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)a robust public option.
Oh well.
randome
(34,845 posts)That won't help much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)does this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024802019
Very impressive!!!
If Obama got his way...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024972225
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Granted, we've patched it 27 times but it's been a long time since the last update, and it's vulnerable to a huge number of exploits.
Most other western democracies have upgraded to DemocraticGovernment 2.0. While not perfect, it does provide a better experience for the user.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)but I think its a better way of running a government.
Alas, we are so exceptional here in the U.S. we need never consider any changes to our system.
TBF
(36,563 posts)this would also be a step in the right direction:
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Got fooled, again. Guess I didn't pay close enough attention, not that I had any other good choices.
I don't have a solution. if you figure one out, let me know.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)When they stay home, we get a GOP House. NOT a good way to help out the POTUS.
ancianita
(43,302 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)who in their words "live in reality". The reality they live in is "a progressive cannot get elected". Hence they will never vote for the candidate who will "fight like hell for the 99" because they believe that candidate can never win.
Even on DU it's against the rules to promote the candidate you believe will best serve you and your country unless they have a "D": next to their name.
It's sad really...
flvegan
(66,238 posts)Closest thing to come along in a while.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)There will be no triangulation with Hillary. She will do what needs to be done "to raise the child." Bill will cut her loose once she wins. I think it is gonna be fun. The GOP is scared shitless.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think I must have.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I really should look at the EIR for the Sierra Juarez... that is my project for next week I think. Now talk of bad acid.
But when somebody tells us that HRC will not play the triangulation game, it is funny as hell. given her voting record.
840high
(17,196 posts)status-quo. Think in that voting booth.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)If this is what YOU think a President should do, great. Work you heart out for her/him.
But saying "I think the whole country does" is incredibly naive. Almost half the nation voted for "47%er" Mitt Romney; many of them will this year vote for Tea Party candidates for the House and Senate.
Stand for your own policies, but have a realistic view of the electorate when you do.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm not sure that it's working out so well. For the 99%, I mean.
Maybe it's time to try a different approach?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Jost don't propose it under the illusion that "everyone" agrees with you.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)As many Republicans as possible lose re-election, put the remainder on defense and keep them there.
Overturn Citizens United, work hard for public funded elections....the rest of
what we need and deserve will follow..only then will they be working for us again.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the other 70% of the job of the POTUS? That probably wouldn't work out well.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)from the collectively organized and well funded 1%.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)far more than economics.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the 1% has, yes..I want him to fight back hard because too many Americans are still
sinking. Economics if key..and I would think you would appreciate I was not being literal
but speaking to where his emphasis should be.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But too many here seem to think that economics should be the President's ONLY concern, even to the neglect other concerns like, and specifically, addressing racism/sexism/equal opportunity.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)we as a party need to support unions etc. Of course we should be addressing racism and sexism,
I would love to see a summit on these issues. I feel these organized platforms bring attention
to the problems that too often go to the way side because we have so many problems that
stemmed from the 2008 crash and the wars Bush began years ago.
I also feel a summit brings out who are the hypocrites within the Republican party..which is
not a surprise yet it can accomplish a few goals..highlight the statistics of where we have
problems and what policies we can develop to improve these issues. When the Republicans
balk about, fine..you won't accomplish convincing everyone, but you have a formal agenda
in place from which to launch policies..that is where you begin to build consensus by many
Independents..which help us win elections.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for PoC (and women), equal opportunity is NOT dependant on, or related to, the economy or economic issues.
I agree that we as a party need to support unions, despites union's history of discrimination.
And, those on the "left", as well. Just look at the reaction above to the "Owned" metaphor ... While I suspect most understood that this verbiage is commonly used, and is intended to be race-neutral. What some are trying to point out is the metaphor is NOT race-neutral to PoC, and pointing that out is NOT "playing the race card." (I still can't believe a DUer said that! Well, of late ... I can)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Perhaps I am being too generous about Democrats and race, yet overall, there is a
noteworthy amount of blatant racism for Obama and in general from the right wing.
Small example, I have relatives that live in Columbia, Maryland, where it is and has been very common
for families to be of inter racial marriages...the medium income is middle class to upper.
For each generation growing up in these neighborhoods, their personal point of view
regarding race becomes a non-issue. The children find nothing rare about their
friendships and the bonds are quite real. On the other hand, we have areas such
as Baltimore, where the poverty is off the charts and the crime is high, the state and
local agencies are corrupt as hell. Drug money infiltrates a great deal and there is
next to nothing to support the families and especially the children. They are perceived
as the scary people..whether African American and or Hispanic, Latino.
A summit on race and income inequality could bring an understanding of why these
problems persist, and they are not problems inherent in any race, or ethnic background.
As fundamental as that is, Americans need to hear them again and without the noise
of the Republican party bullshit machine.
Perhaps I have too much faith in people, but when presented with facts, I believe
this is how you garner support for programs, and resources to address these issues.
It is tragic and we are guilty of negligence by allowing these cities to deteriorate
where our main solution is to incarcerate minorities at an unprecedented rate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Please pick up and read:
The Rage of a Privileged Class by Ellis Cose (http://www.amazon.com/The-Rage-Privileged-Class-Middle-Class/dp/0060925949)
It is filled with stories of Blacks that are well educated, professionally accomplished, and because of those accomplishments are largely insulated from economic woes, yet still experience (racist) indignities.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)at the center of the platform. Although I do not understand how anyone can discount
the inequities of education and economic security...so I will agree to disagree on that
point.
I appreciate the book suggestion..thank you very much.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Of course, you're right.