Facts Our Party Will Not Officially Admit, That It Must

[True Blue Door]

1. The preceding "administration" was a dictatorship. It didn't merely violate the Constitution, in the way that American Presidencies may play fast and loose with the laws - it existed completely outside of the law, with the enthusiastic consent and support of the military high command and security apparatus.

2. Failure to understand and publicly acknowledge this, increases the likelihood of a recurrence, and a recurrence would (a)happen the very next time there is a Republican President, and (b)more than likely be far, far worse. The next Republican will not only be torturing and disappearing foreigners captured in war on distant shores - it will be torturing and disappearing journalists, college students, lawyers. Americans.

3. The militarization of police forces undertaken in the Bush era was not just some kooky right-wing lark with tragic, unintended consequences - it was undertaken in anticipation that Americans would resist when seeing their families, friends, and neighbors being dragged away in the night for political reasons.

4. The US media actively silenced nearly all criticism of Bush and his policies. With few and rare exceptions, it behaved as a monolithic propaganda machine regurgitating verbatim talking points from Bush political operatives and neither sought nor tolerated publication/broadcasting of any contrary fact in its coverage. But there was a loophole in that propaganda system out of which grew a strong and vigorous resistance: The internet. That loophole will not exist next time. If we allow things to go that far, we will learn what life is like for the netizens of China and Iran, with critical comments and news articles disappeared the moment they're posted, and lawsuits on the matter dismissed with impunity by conservative courts.

5. An election where the legally eligible voters denied the right to vote outnumber the deciding margin...is a rigged election, and leaders who obtain office in such a way have no right to it. Every time Republicans do this and get away with it, they will take it a step further next time. Eventually they will stop pretending that elections need to occur at all before they assume the powers they grant to themselves via money, corrupt courts, and guns.

6. George W. Bush's two Supreme Court appointees are illegitimate due to the dictatorial circumstances of his rule, the naked fraudulence of his original "election," and the deliberately-sought impossibility of verifying the legitimacy of his second. All decisions resting on their votes are null and void, including (but not limited to) Citizens United, the striking down of preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and (less importantly, but still worth noting) the Hobby Lobby ruling. This is merely in addition to the fundamental illegitimacy and lawlessness of those rulings on their face.

7. The current Republican House "Majority" is illegitimate and has no lawful authority. The American people voted for a Democratic House majority in 2012, and the arbitrarily-drawn districts invented by Republicans simply countermanded their will. There are no valid complicating factors such as a constitutionally-mandated electoral system in this case - the House of Representatives is meant to be representative, and Republicans have thoroughly and treasonously subverted that, making themselves open enemies of freedom and democracy.

8. Deliberate attempts to suppress legitimate voting are treason. They are open warfare on the republic and the Constitution. Rights must be asserted and defended as if lives depend on them, because they do.

[librechik]

1. Whaaaaat?!! The Emperor is naked?!!! No way!

our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle need us to be as accommodating as we can to their pushing, biting, body blocks, invective and lies. Because both sides are the same, dammit! Even though we do none of the biting gagging and gouging. Both sides. Same.

[True Blue Door]

3. "Nobody's perfect."

Republicans seek the destruction of Enlightenment civilization and the end of American democracy, and we Democrats are sometimes tardy in paying parking tickets. What kind of hypocrites would we be to judge them?

I only wish this were not a commonplace attitude among our leaders.

[librechik]

5. the Dems just don't want to call them out. They think they'll get killed. Literally.

can't blame them, really. But they forget how popular it is to stand up against the bullies. There would be a swell of support to meet their courage. They're too scared to believe that. And there are hundreds of lobbyists and wrongheaded poetical consultants to persuade them not to try anything, just go along with the corporations and special interests, if they want to keep their seats. Very few can stand up to that kind of pressure.

we're screwed.

[True Blue Door]

7. I agree, our leaders are physically afraid of the GOP's terrorist leanings.

But they forget what a pack of loudmouthed cowards these guys are, and (as you note) how much stronger it makes them look to stand up against that much noise and fury.

Unfortunately, you have to be motivated by some kind of moral principles to stand up like that, and we have too many hollow people in leadership who are only Democrats by default - because we tolerate their weakness while Republicans would just eat them.

[world wide wally]

8. Yep! ^

[valerief]

10. Right, but can't the bad guys be given the anthrax this time? nt

[truedelphi]

94. Oh baloney. People like Diane Feinstein are not afraid of being killed by

Republicans -- they are far too busy doing big business deals with the same crowd that the RW is doing business with.

Do you really think that members of this Administration are afraid of being killed by the Big Banking and Big Financial Crowd? They act in concert with that crowd - their only real concern at this point is how to best maximize the reward for all the favors that they have done.

[BuelahWitch]

145. Really, if the status quo is treating you fine

Why change?

Just keep going to the cocktail parties and clinking glasses with the likes of Rupert who trashed you and/or your family in the news. I got mine, it's all good!

[merrily]

182. +1

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

"They don't get it." "They're so afraid of Republicans that...." They try to get Republicans to love them ad don't realize that will never happen." "They need a spine." "They caved."

All wishful thinking on our parts, IMO. Difi is willing to put a stake in the heart of the First Amendment while her husband is busy buying up post offices. They act out of self interest, period. Not fear. Not desire to be loved. Not lack of a backbone. And they didn't cave, but they love that that's the kind of excuse we will make for them again and again and again. Because lesser of two evils.

[yurbud]

101. who got anthrax? Where's Paul Wellstone today? How is President Kennedy enjoying his retirement?

all those things are in the back of their minds.

Also, many of them in the corporate wing of the party want to take Bush's place.

[AndyTiedye]

114. They KNOW they Will Get Wellstoned if they Don't Go Along

can't blame them, really.

No, you can't. Those who didn't cooperate got marginalized or destroyed.

But they forget how popular it is to stand up against the bullies.

Only if you actually defeat the bullies. If you lose you get despised and ridiculed.

There would be a swell of support to meet their courage. They're too scared to believe that.

because it isn't true and never has been.

[chervilant]

156. "Wellstoned"

That should definitely enter the lexicon as a verb.

[el_bryanto]

2. Are you suggesting these points should be part of the Democratic Party Platform?

Or what exactly?

Bryant

[True Blue Door]

4. That would be one option, not exclusive to anything else.

But since nobody reads party platforms, they don't really commit anyone to anything. Our leaders basically ignore the platform.

I would rather they "made an issue" of these things, and went on the record during media interviews.

But even if they don't, I'd like to see these facts represented in some way other than my feeble internet commenting.

[el_bryanto]

6. Than what exactly should be done -

When you say party leaders need toa dmit this - in what form will this admission take?

Bryant

[True Blue Door]

9. The historical issues would need to be broached as secondary comments

in interviews about current issues, by highly respected officials. Then controversy would be predictably stirred among the right-wing hate machine, and Democratic leaders could then respond by strongly defending it and not budging.

But the election issues are current events, so the Party should just come right out and say it: GOP vote suppression attempts are an attack on the most basic foundations of the republic that will not be tolerated.

In other words, I want Democrats to stop merely asking for the favor of the country and start leading it again.

[el_bryanto]

18. Well I agree that we need to make voter suppression a key issue in the upcoming election

That has to be a priority.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Sounds like a manifesto or declaration of independence.

[heaven05]

11. +10000, thank you for uncomplicated TRUTH

and the Democratic Party leadership are cowards and have been from at least since 2000. Earlier than that really. Oh and did I mention the 'bluedogs'? Useless and without worth to true progressive movements like we are supposed to be. Did I mention Bill, Hillary, Feinstein, Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman and even with the unprecedented racial and partisan obstruction Obama has faced, it is disappointing to me that he is not speaking out and up on issues like economic disparity among americans, the continued foreclosure debacle, bankers and their greed, corporate power in influencing policy, racism and hate being openly practiced by state sanctioned executioners/murderers, politicians and the average fucking racist in the streets. This 'new' racism is only because of his color as POTUS. He can talk about it now with no danger to his administration and we better hope we come up with a candidate strong enough to weather the RW media backlash IF he should ever speak out on these issues.

This is a sick, sick country politically, racially, culturally and it is not going to be any different in the foreseeable future.

[L0oniX]

13. Lack of spine ...noted.

[True Blue Door]

16. Let's all accept full responsibility.

We get what we pay for in sweat and attention span. Democratic politicians don't appear out of thin air - we define the process that chooses and shapes them. We're distracted, we're fickle. We often demand to be lied to and punish those who tell the truth. If we're told a problem is complex, we more often assume we're being strung along than bother to look deeper and see how we can help our leaders do the things we want from them. We're satisfied with self-fulfilling prophecies of failure and betrayal, because the alternative - success - is unstable and anxiety-inducing.

There are always two components to any political solution: What you demand from others, and what you demand from yourself, and the second one always determines how successful the first one is.

[Scuba]

31. The Democratic Party leadership are cowards and have been since November 22, 1963.

[heaven05]

42. no problem with that, statement

of truth

[stillwaiting]

62. If they are corrupt then they aren't necessarily cowards.

I believe there are far too many "Democratic" Congresscritters that occupy Democratic seats as a "block" to any better Democrats. Many, no doubt, had/have been strongly encouraged to run for office, and some of the worst Democrats are some of the best funded by corporate interests.

If a Congresscritter doesn't want to work to pass legislation that will help the 99%, then they aren't cowards. They are assholes. Assholes that know who they are serving, and it's not the 99%. They are WILLING tools of the financial elite.

To be a coward, to my mind, someone has to want to do something, and then that person buckles to pressure and doesn't do the thing they want to do and that they know will help the masses. I just don't know how many elected Democrats fit that bill these days.

In other words, to my mind, there might be more elected Democrats that are assholes than there are elected Democrats that are cowards.

[merrily]

181. Interesting idea. As a block to better Democrats. Never considered that.

I'll have to mull that one over.

Off the top of my head, though, I am not sure there are any young people who are well left who are going into politics as Democrats.

But, thanks for the concept. As I said, I want to think more on it.

[noiretextatique]

122. [phone]

grow an fng spine.

[L0oniX]

12. USA ...the place where everyone tries to fuck over everyone. Old news.

[True Blue Door]

19. I don't think it would be possible to miss the point any more than that.

[L0oniX]

20. Your snark is evidence of my statement.

[True Blue Door]

83. Your statement is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[L0oniX]

120. Enjoy your extended stay.

[starroute]

14. They've been dreaming of a "permanent Republic majority" since Nixon

As I posted here a year ago, "There's a reference to Pat Buchanan proposing it in an account of the founding of the Heritage Foundation by longtime movement conservative Lee Edwards. He writes, "Patrick J. Buchanan, then working for Nixon aide H. R. Haldeman, had developed a plan similar to the Weyrich-Feulner analysis. Buchanan had made himself the White House expert on 'how the liberal beast operated' in Washington, and within days of Nixon's reelection in November 1972, he presented the president with a lengthy memorandum on how 'to make permanent the New Majority.'" (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/edwards-ideas.html)"

It was also in the Nixon years that Karl Rove and the other GOP dirty tricksters got their start.

Ever since then it's been a core GOP objective not to go with the normal ebb and flow of political power but to use their time in control to entrench themselves, make voting procedures less democratic, and weaken sources of support for the Democrats such as unions.

If the Democrats don't call them on it, I believe it's because the prospect of admitting that one of our two major political parties has abandoned democracy is intolerable to anyone whose life is built around a faith in the democratic system.

[True Blue Door]

26. I think we have to create our own opposition.

And not a straw-man opposition either: A strong, vigorously-fought conservative party who differs from the GOP in that their premises are democratic, even though their conclusions are idiotic. Even if it meant we lost some elections that we would have won against the fascist GOP, the results would be healthier for the country.

The problem, of course, is how to go about social engineering on that level. My sense is that the best way to choose your own opponents is to give them your attention and deny it to people you don't want to ever face. Argue long enough and passionately enough with someone, and the uninvolved public who sees the argument starts to think this other person is on the other side. Only we would know that fundamentally we're not, and have chosen people who also know this even if they don't articulate it.

But the status quo - where one party pretends everybody's on the same side, and the other is waging an all-out political and social annihilation campaign against the first - that leads at best to civil war, and more likely to a One Party State like China.

[starroute]

41. I don't think these things can be done artificially

It would be nice to have a sane conservative party -- but we're more likely to see the pro-corporate Democrats become that, while a new progressive party springs up on the left. That is, if our entire system of electoral democracy hasn't already been fatally compromised.

Right now, much of the GOP seems to be obsessed with how to maintain control despite becoming a minority. They look at the election figures that show them with a comfortable majority of white men and think about how to disenfranchise women and minorities. They dream of repealing the popular election of senators and having them chosen by easily corrupted state legislatures as they were in the Gilded Age. They cook up schemes for having states chose their presidential electors one per congressional district plus two at large.

And meanwhile, they're making no effort to win over Hispanics, blacks, young people, or working women. But all those groups are a natural Democratic constituency. So who does this leave as the possible core of a new, legitimate conservative party?

* Small business people
* Farmers (if there are any left who aren't agribusiness types or back-to-the-land hippies)
* Socially conservative immigrants
* Reagan Democrats and aging yuppies

Frankly, that's a pretty thin list. You might describe it as a combination of "people who work hard, know the value of a dollar, and don't look for handouts" with "people who have profited from the system and know it but also retain a sense of social responsibility." But do those people really exist any more or are they just a vanishing historical myth?

And meanwhile, the financiers and CEOs are going to stick with the presently-existing GOP for all it's worth, as will the the angry-white-male voters, both urban and rural. And the Paulites have swept up whatever more youthful energies there are on the right and sent them on a dead end road to nowhere.

It's like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with too many missing pieces.

[True Blue Door]

84. Good points, very depressing.

[starroute]

87. Democracy only works as long as nobody gets greedy

Same thing is true of capitalism, come to think of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

135. Until we as a species return greed from the list of virtues

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

to its traditional home on the list of sins, where it has been at all past times until Gordon Gekko moved it, and shape our conduct, our values and our laws accordingly, then I see no easy way to beat the decadent capitalistic system.

[woo me with science]

15. Just a Republican thing, huh?

War is Peace!

Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

One Of The NSA's Original Whistleblowers Says The Goal Is 'Total Population Control'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025225549

Petition Calls On Obama Stop Intimidation Of Journalists And Whistleblowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025509395

U.S. Plunges in Global Press Freedom Rankings As Obama Wages War on Whistleblowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488178

Obama Promises, Including Whistleblower Protections, Disappear
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014549454

President Obama on Whistleblowers: Then and Now -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x536574

Obama's unprecedented war on whistleblowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101613051

James Risen: Obama Is 'Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025401662

An Assault from Obama's Escalating War on Journalism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025030391

Obama administration to reveal legal justification for killing Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014808253

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

NSA Phone Snooping Cannot Be Challenged in Court, Feds Say ..
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1014542562

Democratic establishment unmasked: prime defenders of NSA bulk collection
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10023337088

NSA can store a billion cell phone calls.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023125853

N.S.A. Examines Social Networks of U.S. Citizens (Decision Made In Secret 2010)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014605329

PBS Frontline Exposes (Softly) Bush's and Obama's Authorization and Coverup of NSA Spying
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/55928/pbs-frontline-exposes-softly-bushs-and-obamas-authorization-and-coverup-of-nsa-illegal-surveillance-of-

Stopping police militarization = confronting corporate politicians (increased under Obama)
...http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025416709

Federal grants drive the militarization of police departments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025383806

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

James Clapper Calls Journalists "Criminal Accomplices" -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017174990

Rachel Maddow on David Miranda and the White House
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/19/1232435/-Rachel-Maddow-on-David-Miranda-and-the-White-House

Obama Pentagon Employs Bush-Era Propagandists to Screen Embedding Journalists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6380567

Obama the Conservative: Little Hope for Change
http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

Obama: After 911, we tortured some folks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014860709''

Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

"My Head Exploded When Obama Sanctimoniously Said, 'We Tortured Some Folks'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025339047

Obama Administration: Further Legitimizing Targeted Assassinations by Drones
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/05/02/further-legitimizing-targeted-assassinations-by-drones/

Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama

President Obama’s Dragnet (New York Times Editorial)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022960012

[ballyhoo]

17. Excellent. Some of us know...

[xocet]

22. Thank you for the linked summary.... n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=5554112

[GliderGuider]

23. Nice list. I agree.

Men who are beholden to the same masters usually work for the same ends, though often through different means.

"Here comes another one, just like the other one."

[heaven05]

24. make a list

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 08:29 PM - Edit history (2)

for hillary also. We need a leader that cannot be compromised. If Obama had really stepped on some white PTB nuts or ovaries, he'd be dead now or extremely marginalized as the angry black POTUS'. Our cultural history bears that out. Any black man showing any defiance to any white, no matter the station, is deemed 'angry' and marginalized if he cannot be shot down in the streets openly. History, contrary to popular belief, was not and has NOT been on his side. The regression of this culture, for the last six years, into it's racist origins, is all the proof I need. Get real with your bashing. What's Hillary going to do? Continue bill's bullshit corporate kowtow? Yes. In this compromised and corrupt political system, nothing will help because we have a Democratic leadership that is just as corrupt as the republicans. The system is corrupt. I expected more from our POTUS yet with 'blue dog' and RW obstruction, he never stood a fucking chance and that was from the first goddamn meeting of the rethugs at the first goddam inauguration. Get real with your bullshit criticism and point the finger where it fucking belongs, at obstructionists from both goddamn Party's.

Democrats never would have supported Obama coming out against ANY of your BS list. Oh, the list is true, no doubt, history records it, but Democrats did not support this POTUS at all. They cowered in the corner every time the rethugs or tea drinkers raised their hands whimpering, "don't hit me again".

Fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.........well you should know the rest.....you can't fool me with your BS list. The truth speaks for itself and it ain't your 'truth'. Period.

[True Blue Door]

28. Your inability to see the forest for the trees is duly noted.

[Fuddnik]

39. So, you're only blind in one eye.

What has changed with our national security apparatus, our surveillance state since the last administration? Voter suppression has gone into overdrive the last couple of years (However, I'll grant you that it's mainly a republican thing).

Or trade agreements being negotiated right now, that end run the constitution?

I'll loan you my chainsaw, so you can get those trees out of the way.

[True Blue Door]

54. You're blind in both eyes.

The "security apparatus" you're talking about was largely created by the Bush regime in the aftermath of 9/11 with a blank check both literally and figuratively, and still has overwhelming Congressional support due to both bribery and blackmail - not to mention the boring old fact that demagoguing security issues has traditionally been easy for the GOP.

Maybe it's your fantasy to have President Obama wage an impotent one-man war against the entire US government and most of the American public while you backseat drive, then watch him go down in flames a despised and impeached laughingstock, blamed by the entire media for whatever terrorist incidents followed by coincidence...but most people didn't vote for him to do that. We elected a President of the United States, not some foam NFL mascot version of Che Guevara to act out your absurd Resistance Theater because you don't get Netflix.

I've seen this President stand up to the security state; I remember his Executive Order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison that Congress simply refused to fund and thus never got implemented; I remember the enraged shrieks as he turned this massive runaway ship of state away from invading Iran and instead pursued diplomacy, which is still ongoing and actually leading somewhere; I remember all the things people like you ignore because you live in your own little self-serving narrative bubble. Every time the President has done the sort of things you say he isn't doing, people like you go strangely silent and are occupied elsewhere when he needs grassroots support for what he's doing.

So forgive me if I don't take you too seriously, since I've seen identical examples of your comment thousands of times before, animated by equal parts amnesia and self-aggrandizing fallacy.

This is a thread about standing up to Republican assaults on the basic foundations of our democracy. If you're not on board with that because it involves choosing a side, go do something else.

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. I think trying to build street cred is a subtle thing...

...the vagaries of which seem to elude you.

(Of course, I'm just part of the apparatchik, I suppose)

[True Blue Door]

73. ?

[woo me with science]

64. 2+2=5!

2+2=5!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5554112

[True Blue Door]

70. Reminds me of a Libertarian I once had to deal with a lot.

He was constantly spamming laundry lists of loosely-connected facts that didn't support his positions, and could never actually string together a single logical argument for his claims. Nor could he answer a logical argument that was made in rebuttal. Couldn't even make fallacious arguments - the whole concept of reasoning and productive dialogue was totally alien to him. If you weren't dazzled by his ability to Cut & Paste, then you were a demonic member of the "New World Order".

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. That must have been quite a struggle for you. nt

[True Blue Door]

78. Where did that come from?

[rhett o rick]

184. In case you are series, your post can be taken in more than one way. It appears to me that you

intended to be cute with your disparagement. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because the "calling liberals, libertarians" meme, is way last month and I know you wouldn't go there.

[L0oniX]

123. +1

[Maedhros]

75. Obama did not try to CLOSE the Guantanamo Bay prison,

he wanted to MOVE IT to the continental U.S.

[True Blue Door]

82. He ordered the facility closed, not "moved."

[m-lekktor]

90. he wanted Gauntanemo closed and moved to the Thomas Correctional Center in Illnois.

google if if you don't believe it.

[True Blue Door]

92. That's not a military facility. It has no institutional connection to Gitmo.

The fact that some of the prisoners would have been transferred there - i.e., into civilian custody, under civilian law - would have been a clearly good thing, and obviously didn't in any way justify claiming that Guantanamo was being "moved." That was an utterly ridiculous claim.

[rhett o rick]

110. Our biggest danger is the meme that Republicanism is our biggest danger.

Those that think that are being manipulated to believe that distraction. Neither Sean Hannity nor Herman Cain-Cain are our biggest enemy.

When the Power That Be pull out their check books, they know their money is much better spent on Democrats. The NSA/CIA Security Branch of Govment isn't a Republican organization, it's a tool of THe Power That Be and transcends political parties. Pres Obama can't fire Gen Clapper but Gen Clapper can fire Pres Obama.

If you think that strictly fighting Republicans will fix our problems, then go to it. It is the easist road.

[cali]

170. yep. corporate control and influence is not solely a republican problem.

[Oktober]

151. It really seems to make you uncomfortable to have people disagree with you....

[RufusTFirefly]

49. Don't worry. Hillary will save us.

Are you a communist? A Rove operative? Or do you simply hate America and its freedoms?



"Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first."

[polichick]

69. The good news is there seems to be fewer willing to pretend...

Still, there is not yet a clear way for voters to fight back - "our reps" have so rigged the game.

A lot of people are watching and waiting...

[Octafish]

111. Don't forget Goldman!

Larry Summers: Goldman Sacked

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

[cui bono]

129. Yeah, I didn't notice all of that stopping when Obama became president.

Until people realize it's both parties nothing will change. They'll just dutifully play the team game the corporatists want them to play to keep them distracted.

[Triana]

21. "before they assume the powers they grant to themselves via money, corrupt courts, and guns"

You wonder why they love their guns and want their minions armed...that might be why. Their idea of a 'well-trained militia' is an insurgency against a US government that represents anyone except them and/or their rich owners.

[True Blue Door]

30. Pretty much. Their internet cesspools are usually full of unmoderated threats of assassination.

They threaten to go on murder rampages so constantly that the government is physically incapable of acting on all of the threats. Then when someone carries it out, the news media refuses to call it terrorism, and bends over backwards to not mention the political context of their actions.

[Eleanors38]

45. When the State issues orders to disarm, will you?

[True Blue Door]

80. The only arms I have are firmly attached to my shoulders.

[Eleanors38]

143. You won't mind if I don't? The mechanical ones?

[Eleanors38]

44. If half of the OP is true, I'll never disarm.

If what YOU say is true, I'll never disarm. Glad you are beginning to see the light.

The corporate state IS in charge NOW. And in its hubris, it thinks it can do what our prior governance could not: Choose an opportunity to disarm 80 to 90,000,000 people.

Gun control issues are deck chairs on the Titanic.

[LanternWaste]

105. people still believe this wonderfully effective commercial branding from the gun industry?

"Choose an opportunity to disarm 80 to 90,000,000 people."

Oh dear... people still believe this wonderfully effective commercial branding from the gun industry?

[Eleanors38]

142. I merely called for clarity; instead I get a surface burst.

[geek tragedy]

25. Dictators don't typically serve out their term

then leave office as their opposition succeeds them.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

32. Forget it, he's rolling...

[True Blue Door]

38. You seriously believe they didn't exhaust every option before satisfying themselves

that the country as a whole would have erupted if they'd tried to block Obama?

I forget exactly when it was, whether on Inauguration Day or thereabouts, but Obama said something pretty extraordinary in a speech about how great it is that we live in a country where power could be transferred peacefully and without bloodshed.

It struck me as something radically different from the sort of platitudes an American President-elect tends to say. It struck me, in other words, as a warning to certain people.

And if you don't think those people were contemplating how to stay in power, you weren't paying attention to every single day they were in it.

As it is, you may have noticed their appointees continue to wield a strangely considerable amount of power over an opposing administration.

Denying this country was under dictatorship 2001-2009 is the most laughable amnesia. Dick Cheney was basically a more subtle version of Valdimir Putin.

[mwrguy]

56. They knew it would be guillotine time

as the masses rose up to support Obama.

[True Blue Door]

85. Damn skippy.

[cali]

57. I seriously believe they didn't have any plans of blocking Obama or an election

there is virtually no evidence of that.

And, btw, that speech about the peaceful transfer of power is stock stuff and not different at all from the type of rhetoric employed by Presidents.

I payed a lot of attention.

Your claims are largely mirror image of right wing cts.

[True Blue Door]

88. LOL. Fine, play that game.

George W. Bush with his torture chambers, "mission from God" to remake the world by force of arms, flouting of Congress and courts, monolithic media control, history falsification, unhinged Orwellian propaganda, gleeful hatemongering, and "inherent authority" to decide who is and is not a human being...was clearly not a dictator.

[img][/img]

Uh huhhh.....

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. Oy. Those dudes were ITCHING to take the money and run.

What a WEIRD dictatorship that was: prepare to kill every American, and then leave office because they were afraid
of Americans.

[True Blue Door]

91. Who said they were "prepared to kill every American"?

I know you're trying to rewrite the single overwhelming fact of nearly a decade of American history, but you're getting pretty brazen if you think you can rewrite the history of the last hour of comments in this thread.

BTW, spamming smilies...not creating a great impression.

[truedelphi]

96. So you think then that the Emperor does have clothes.

I guess you re in a happy situation with regards to your financial situation so that you don't see some harsh realities many of the rest of us see every day.

[True Blue Door]

98. Was that comment meant for me?

[truedelphi]

139. Most certainly.

We have had over the last forty five years first one party then the other being in power, but despite that split in power, the jobs have been outourced, the enivronmental regulations are relaxed, (With Obama saying that natural gas is a "clean energy" as though he has never heard of fracking,) the Big Bankers now control not only the economy (and all our lives as endless wage serfs,) but also control the courts. Then witness the endless wars, each one with a more terrifying bogey man than the last. An exorbitant defense department and its spending is so out of control that there are literally no other places to put the military hardware goodies than in the hands of various school districts. And on and on.

Obama not only entered office with a mandate from the people to "change" things and really shake things up, he also had a Democratic Congress backing him. And what is the end result? Jobs are still overseas, Bankers have even more power, the military "peace" dividend will now be spent on ISIS and Surveillance etc.

[True Blue Door]

146. We elected a President, not a dictator.

And then we lost control of the House of Representatives. If you don't know why this President is not only a good but a great liberal President, then no President in history would meet your standards, and no human being ever could.

[philosslayer]

140. The opening paragraph from Reagan's first inauguration address

"To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle."

Presidents routinely bring up the peaceful transition of power during their inauguration address.

I think President Obama said it quite eloquently, and certainly better than Reagan, but this is commonplace. You are just wrong.

[True Blue Door]

147. Hey, I can admit I was reading from context rather than intent.

But the fact that two million people attended Obama's inauguration made a pretty powerful statement.

[CJCRANE]

40. IMO Bush was tired of presidentin', but it also served their purposes

to let democracy take its course.

Now we're in Obama's second term we can see the overall pattern, starting from Neocon Thesis in the Bush-Cheney years, through Antithesis in the Obama campaign and first term, and now Synthesis in the second term where some neocon principles are absorbed into the mainstream.

[hifiguy]

48. Chimpy and The Dick

did what they were supposed to do - set the country on an irreversible course to soft fascism/inverted totalitarianism, and their credibility was in any case exhausted. Obama has done virtually nothing to reverse it. The next Repuke president will consolidate things in to a considerably harder and more recognizable form of fascism

[True Blue Door]

157. "Irreversible course" - I don't see what purpose fatalism serves.

[True Blue Door]

67. It's a mistake to see them as omniscient.

The "neoconservatives" (a euphemism their own media invented to be more palatable than "fascists&quot were and are completely delusional. They genuinely believed that by now Iraq would be some docile, obedient banana republic with American bases and businesses everywhere, cheerfully giving us its oil at cut-rate and aping the gloriously superior culture of Texas. They still managed to steal a metric fuckton of money out of the chaos they created, but it wasn't their plan by a longshot.

Plus, I wouldn't overestimate their ongoing influence - there are a lot of them burrowed into the bureaucracies, but I've seen no evidence they've been able to extort anything from the administration. It still pursues diplomacy with Iran, still dithered for years about whether and how to be involved in Syria, and still overwhelmingly focuses on coalition-building and measured responses to the Ukraine crisis and ISIS rather than doing anything Wagnerian (rhetoric aside). Certainly has a vast and deep respect for the international process that neocons loathe.

[Dustlawyer]

27. +1! Let me set the record straight, Democratic politicians

are not afraid, spineless, or anything of the sort. They react to campaign contributions (bribes)! These are all smart, ambitious people who got to their current positions because they are ambitious and look out for their self interests first, second, and third!
Until we change the dynamics by taking campaign contributions away and having Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections (PFE's), we will continue getting hosed by our own party. Making the change will be very difficult to say the least. Bernie is the only national politician I am aware of talking about PFE's. We must pull out all stops to show our support for both Bernie and PFE's!
This is the challenge of OUR time! Climate Change will not wait and will not be arrested in our current Oligarchic system! Help spread the word and let's make the change!

[Scuba]

35. +1 It's corruption, not fear, that leaves the Democratic Party silent on these issues.

[cali]

29. oh please.

this reads like the wingnut birther diatribes. It's slightly more grounded in fact- but that's the best that can be said for it.

Can you find even one constitutional expert who agrees with you?

[True Blue Door]

148. Finding one who agrees with me on every single one of my 8 points would be challenging.

But finding any for each would be trivially easy, if I knew how to search such things.

[cali]

159. seriously? you make the claim that finding any for EACH would be easy, and you don't

even know how to do such a basic search?

quite amusing.

[True Blue Door]

175. Now you're just trolling.

Or you've never actually done any serious research.

[cali]

160. here's what I can find-very quickly- on your assertion that bush was a dictator

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Harpers_editor_War_allowed_Bush_to_0306.html

however, in doing that brief search, just as much popped up, often from the same experts, like Turley, claiming Obama has taken things even farther than bush. To be clear, I think that's wrong, despite Obama's expansion of NSA activities, kill orders for U.S. citizens and drone bombing expansion, because bush initiated all of that. However, President Obama has continued down the same path in many respects. And I think you can expect future U.S. presidents, regardless of party to do much the same. Why? partly it's institutional behavior. these institutions (NSA, military, CIA, etc) operate more and more beyond the purview of oversight.

here's what I can find regarding your assertion that the republican majority in the House is illegitimate:

zip, nada and nothing.

you know, it's really not hard to do this kind of research.

[True Blue Door]

176. In other words, you were just trolling when you asked rhetorically

whether I could find Constitutional Law experts to support my position. Apparently they're legion. Thanks.

[cali]

185. trolling? YOU have a lot of nerve, dear. No, as I point out they're scarcer than hen's teeth.

you are entirely disingenuous and it's more than a little repugnant.

there is FUCKING nothing in the was of ConLaw experts to back up your assertion. not shit, my dear.

[CJCRANE]

33. Good OP.

I agree with most of your points.

[Hari Seldon]

34. Wow! Eight for Eight!

kicked and recced

and wholeheartedly agreed with.

[rusty fender]

37. If everything you say is true, then

Bill Clinton and Obama have been "useful idiots" for the Republicans because the militarization of the police began under Clinton and Obama has treated the Republicans like they have something useful to add to the betterment of society.

It is absolutely true that the Republicans are despicable, but it is also true that the Democrats have enabled them in almost everything they have done. That is a fact that you left off of your list.

[R.Quinn]

46. Agreed

As an example, Obama has taken no meaningful steps to repeal or even reform the PATRIOT Act (despite campaign promises), much to the delight of the neocons.

[True Blue Door]

149. What part of saying that Democrats need to change do you interpret as

absolving Democrats of needing to change? You've taken the exact opposite meaning of what I've clearly said.

[d_b]

43. fuckin' A

[hifiguy]

47. Well said.

Extremely well said.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. Jeez louise.

1. The preceding "administration" was a dictatorship.

As evidenced by its willingness to leave and transition to another Administration? What a fucking ridiculous statement this is.


2. Failure to understand and publicly acknowledge this, increases the likelihood of a recurrence

So by tautology, any Republican POTUS is a dictator. What magnanimous dictators we've had, subjecting themselves to the same orderly and lawful transition of power we've had since the late 18th century.


3. The militarization of police forces undertaken in the Bush era was not just some kooky right-wing lark with tragic, unintended consequences - it was undertaken in anticipation that Americans would resist when seeing their families, friends, and neighbors being dragged away in the night for political reasons.

The why has the phenomenon only increased in the last 6 years, when a non-dictator has been in charge? Wait, I already know the answer. BHO isn't really in charge. "TBTB" and the "MIC" are.


4. The US media actively silenced nearly all criticism of Bush and his policies. With few and rare exceptions, it behaved as a monolithic propaganda machine regurgitating verbatim talking points from Bush political operatives and neither sought nor tolerated publication/broadcasting of any contrary fact in its coverage. But there was a loophole in that propaganda system out of which grew a strong and vigorous resistance: The internet. That loophole will not exist next time. If we allow things to go that far, we will learn what life is like for the netizens of China and Iran, with critical comments and news articles disappeared the moment they're posted, and lawsuits on the matter dismissed with impunity by conservative courts.

This is simply stupid.


5. An election where the legally eligible voters denied the right to vote outnumber the deciding margin...is a rigged election, and leaders who obtain office in such a way have no right to it. Every time Republicans do this and get away with it, they will take it a step further next time. Eventually they will stop pretending that elections need to occur at all before they assume the powers they grant to themselves via money, corrupt courts, and guns.

You have a faint pulse of a point here.


6. George W. Bush's two Supreme Court appointees are illegitimate due to the dictatorial circumstances of his rule, the naked fraudulence of his original "election," and the deliberately-sought impossibility of verifying the legitimacy of his second. All decisions resting on their votes are null and void, including (but not limited to) Citizens United, the striking down of preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and (less importantly, but still worth noting) the Hobby Lobby ruling. This is merely in addition to the fundamental illegitimacy and lawlessness of those rulings on their face.

So was the pro-Obamacare ruling fraudulent and illegitimate, too? What about the other ones they got right (according to you, anyway...)


7. The current Republican House "Majority" is illegitimate and has no lawful authority. The American people voted for a Democratic House majority in 2012, and the arbitrarily-drawn districts invented by Republicans simply countermanded their will. There are no valid complicating factors such as a constitutionally-mandated electoral system in this case - the House of Representatives is meant to be representative, and Republicans have thoroughly and treasonously subverted that, making themselves open enemies of freedom and democracy.


Can you expand on this with facts, assuming you can distinguish between fact and opinion?



8. Deliberate attempts to suppress legitimate voting are treason. They are open warfare on the republic and the Constitution. Rights must be asserted and defended as if lives depend on them, because they do.

So far the only thing you've said that makes any sense.

[cali]

55. well done. I want to add that this is in the realm of will never ever happen

[NYC_SKP]

61. I served twice on alerts on your reply. That's odd.

I voted to leave in both cases, and only got a PM on one of the "trials" which came back with a unanimous leave.

Transparency.

The charges, "personal attack", but I think the attack was on the statements, not against the person.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. I said the statements were ridiculous, not the person.

Odd how the OP gets to call people blind because they don't agree with him/her, but
a forceful, pointed reply is a personal attack.

I guess some people need freedom and democracy jammed right up their ass by people
who know how to do some serious jamming.

[NYC_SKP]

66. Of course alerters aren't necessarily the OP.

Sometimes I think admins should require alerts to name the member.

I'm pretty sure there are people who want to moderate this board by alerts and juries.

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. Fair point. nt

[Hissyspit]

112. #4 may be hyperbolic but it is hardly stupid.

And you hardly support your comment.

I agree with you on one and two. It is more accurate to say that it was a fascistic-leaning administration that shared a number of characteristics with dictatorship.

[BKH70041]

125. Excellent! No doubt you could have done even more.

The OP is one of those posts that the opposition can point to and say "See, told you that's how they think." And from some of the responses here, they would have a legitimate point. Not good for the Party.

[True Blue Door]

150. You again? Oy.

As evidenced by its willingness to leave and transition to another Administration? What a fucking ridiculous statement this is.

Their "willingness" to leave was like our "willingness" to submit to gravity - there was no question of a practical alternative. It had nothing to do with laws or the Constitution, as their behavior for every single day before that demonstrated. Rewrite history all you want with your silly-ass rhetorical propaganda - we remember what happened.

So by tautology, any Republican POTUS is a dictator.

I have no clue in heaven or Earth where you're coming up with these non sequitur strawmen. Let me know when you want to deal with what I've said rather than the ripples of nonsense it creates in your own imagination.

The why has the phenomenon only increased in the last 6 years, when a non-dictator has been in charge?

Because the US is no longer occupying Iraq and thus has a new surplus of material.

BHO isn't really in charge.

What exactly is it you think being "in charge" means? The way you bring up the subject makes pretty clear you don't have much contact with the concept.

This is simply stupid.

I agree, your comment is stupid - and should have ended before it began.

You have a faint pulse of a point here.

I'm ecstatic to hear that you grudgingly concede the right of minorities to vote.

So was the pro-Obamacare ruling fraudulent and illegitimate, too?

That opinion didn't depend on the Bush appointees to win. Roberts voted in favor, Alito against. Without them, the result would have been 4-3 in favor.

What about the other ones they got right (according to you, anyway...)

Obviously conservatives would have a right to revisit any of them where the deciding factor was legitimately one of the two Bush appointees. The fact that you're arguing from interest against what I'm arguing as fact shows the corruption of your reasoning.

Can you expand on this with facts, assuming you can distinguish between fact and opinion?

What would you like to know?

So far the only thing you've said that makes any sense.

Again, I'm ecstatic to hear that you concede the right of the people to elect their government.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. 9. George W. Bush wasn't the last President. Cheney was.

[True Blue Door]

97. Probably, but Bush was heinous enough on his own to justify calling him a dictator.

It would be apt to call him "Joffrey W. Bush."

Hard to forget the naked glee on his face whenever he talked about death and war, and later when he was rubbing it in the world's faces that he committed torture and expected to get away with it.

The guy taunted a Democratic Congressman with the death or injury (my memory isn't clear on that) of his son fighting in Iraq.

Couldn't have done as much damage to the country and world without Darth Cheney running things, obviously, but it would have been a freakshow anyway.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. Then there was the glee he showed when they told him the price of gas at the pump.

[True Blue Door]

152. Which brings up a whole other memory of regime fuckery.

Before any of their Wagnerian murder-sprees, way back in June and July of 2001, they had conspired with Texas energy companies to corner the deregulated California energy market and defraud it of nearly $30 billion. This state had a "lost decade" because of them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

166. And the first thing Ahnold did was stop the Enron investigation.

[Cartoonist]

52. This cynic remains cynical

I remember the first governor I voted for back in 1972. He talked a great talk, full of idealism for the future and just criticism of the right. He could have written the OP, adjusted for the time. He turned out to be as big a crook as any republican. Since then, the only politician I voted for that maintained his integrity was Jimmy Carter. Sure has been a long time.

[True Blue Door]

95. The Carter administration trained and funded Savak, the Shah of Iran's secret police torturers.

[Cartoonist]

121. You get what you vote for

That's a refrain I hear many times. I have never voted republican, and I've been voting since 1972. I've always voted Democratic. With your revelation, that means I have only voted for the lesser of two evils every time. I have never been able to vote for an honest man. So what am I supposed to do? I have no respect for someone like Ralph Nader, though I used to, just like that governor I mentioned.

[True Blue Door]

179. I disagree that you've never voted for an honest man.

What you're talking about is never having elected Jesus or Buddha, and that's never going to happen because Jesus and Buddha weren't Jesus and Buddha either.

[Cartoonist]

183. Me and Diogenes

I did a search for him to make sure I spelled his name right and came upon this quote by him:

When I look upon seamen, men of science and philosophers, man is the wisest of all beings; when I look upon priests and prophets nothing is as contemptible as man.

The OP was calling for Dems to speak the truth. My point was merely to point out it makes no difference to talk, only actions count. No one I have voted for and won fulfilled their promises and they didn't need to be Jesus or Buddha to do so.

Perhaps George McGovern would have been that honest man we've been looking for, but he got annihilated.

[totodeinhere]

53. I have to disagree with #7. Every two years there are 435 separate elections for

House members. The House majority goes to whoever wins a majority of those districts, not who gets the most votes in House races nationwide. That is the way it's always been and it would take a constitutional amendment to change that. If one party runs up big margins in some districts while the other party wins a lot of close contests in other districts it is quite possible to get the scenario we have now where the Democrats win more votes nationwide but win fewer seats overall.

As far as the gerrymandering which made this possible goes, Democratic voters have nobody but themselves to blame for that. It was the wave election in the census year of 2010 that gave the Republicans the wherewithal to do so much gerrymandering. More Democrats should have come out to vote to prevent the Republicans from taking political control of so many states. Elections have consequences. And now we have to wait until 2020 to change that. And thankfully 2020 will see a presidential election, not a midterm election, so based upon past history there will probably be more Democrats voting in that election.

[librechik]

72. yup, voters failed to understand the importance of 2010 election and the Dems failed to tell them

I sense a change in that apathy this year, but is it enough to overcome the corporately overwhelming conservative bias in the media? Where are all the moderates and liberals? They aren't getting air time thanks to conservative media ownership. And that isn't changing anytime soon.

[True Blue Door]

81. Specious rationalization.

You could theoretically claim that a gerrymander excluding all possibility of Democratic election would be the "same system" as has always existed simply because gerrymandering has existed, but that would be sophistry at best - such an outcome would violate the fundamental purpose of the Constitutional laws establishing a House of Representatives. And so does a House run by a Party who The People voted against. It's illegitimate.

And I would gladly admit that a Democratic "majority" obtained under the same conditions would be illegitimate. I wouldn't be very highly motivated to argue the point, but I would admit it to anyone who asked.

[totodeinhere]

100. No, a majority of people in a majority of House districts voted for the Republican.

(or in some cases perhaps a plurality.) As I already said, House members are elected district by district, not at large.

[True Blue Door]

177. Let's be clearer about this concept.

There are ten voters in a room. Let's say hypothetically that six vote Democratic, four vote Republican. But because of an arbitrary grouping, each Republican is their own district while all six Democrats are one district. Voila - from receiving 40% the votes, the GOP receives 4 out of 5 seats, with (according to your logic!) unanimous acclaim in all four "districts" in which they competed! By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered democracy, and certainly not the Constitutional intent behind a body called House of Representatives.

[totodeinhere]

190. No your analogy doesn't work because by law each House district must have

approximately the same population. But in your example one district have six times as many as the rest. That's impossible.

[True Blue Door]

191. Not even close. Population per Rep. varies by as much as 59% from state to state.

The Constitution may stipulate equal apportionment (I agree that it does), but that doesn't happen.

[cali]

169. lol. your entire OP is filled with "specious". It claims opinion as fact

and has nada to back up said opinion.

[True Blue Door]

178. All you have is denial and alternate history. No shred of reason.

[cali]

186. lol. YOU are the one making claims of opinion as fact. It is incumbent on you to

provide some evidence to back up your claims. You do not.

sophomoric to the nth degree.

laughable and shallow.

[delete_bush]

189. One of the "facts" I see is the OP

stating it is paramount that whomever is out there speaking on behalf of Democrats state publicly, as often as possible and on the record, that not only was the Bush administration a dictatorship, but

"The next Republican will not only be torturing and disappearing foreigners captured in war on distant shores - it will be torturing and disappearing journalists, college students, lawyers. Americans."

If the goal is to elect Dems, I have to wonder how anyone believes this approach would do so.

[zeemike]

58. I will sign on to that.

When you have fundamental problems you cannot fix it with small things...and we have some fundamental problems that need fundamental solutions.

[Jester Messiah]

60. "Rights must be asserted and defended"

I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile that sentiment to the complete absence of will on the left to do anything more than non-violent protests. That idiot rancher out West managed to get away scot-free after standing down federal agents. Occupy Wall Street got herded, beaten, and maced. The key difference was the ability and will to employ violence. Without it, you aren't going to assert or defend jack shit.

[True Blue Door]

79. Non-violent protest works just fine under most circumstances if people are committed.

The Civil Rights movement faced down police dogs, batons, firehoses, bricks thrown by rednecks, and the ever-present threat of being murdered. They sat in their jail cells, and when they got out, they protested some more, still in bandages and slings from the last beating.

Occupy Wall Street just dissolved in a single police sweep, and most people just gave up. It's because the basis for it was too abstract and impersonal. The Civil Rights marchers were fighting to live in basic dignity in their own communities, not to "raise awareness" of a vague general set of issues.

OWS showed the weakness of social media-organized protests. They're not your neighbors and brothers willing to die with you, they're just strangers you're doing similar things in parallel with. So it evaporates quickly under pressure. No social connective tissue.

But even today people can stand strong. There were some admirable examples out of Ferguson.

Also, in historical cases where countries were fought over by a violent left and a violent right, the outcome was typically not freedom regardless of who won. In more modern times, you look at South America where these dead-ender ideological militias have degenerated into drug cartels and kidnapping gangs while the rest of their societies have moved on, it's just not a path with many good possible outcomes.

[questionseverything]

109. occupy is far from dissolved

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014897986

[navarth]

131. correct. nt

[True Blue Door]

162. A loan buyback program is pretty far removed from a mass street-protest.

The latter was conducting pretty radical experiments in direct democracy when it ended - experiments that really could have led to something with further work.

[Jester Messiah]

133. Two things that set the Civil Rights marchers apart from OWS

Malcolm X and the Black Panthers waiting in the wings with the credible threat of violence, should the non-violent option fail. Where is their modern-day analogue?

[True Blue Door]

163. What separated Civil Rights from OWS was, as I said, commitment.

They knew exactly what they wanted, what they were about, and who they were fighting for - themselves and their own families, in their own communities, just for the right to live daily life in freedom and dignity.

Also, the Civil Rights movement was protesting laws that dictated specific aspects of their lives, so defying those laws was easy and well-suited to momentous civil disobedience. It's more nebulous when what you're protesting is an absence - a lack of political and economic concern for the 99%.

You can't conduct civil disobedience of something that isn't there. At least without some pretty big balls (i.e., commitment) that were not in evidence. If people were willing to die in hunger strikes to protest economic inequality, that would probably do something, but we're clearly not willing to do that.

[questionseverything]

167. the difference in the civil rights protests of the 60s and ows

was in the sixtys the fed reluctantly sent in protection for the freedom riders, the marchers

in 2012 the feds coordinated AGAINST ows

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/kennedys-and-civil-rights/

[True Blue Door]

174. Again, no.

There was no federal protection for the vast majority of Civil Rights protests, the vast majority of the time, and they were constantly exposed to brutality and, on some occasions, murder.

What OWS faced was nowhere near the danger faced by Civil Rights marchers. Not even close, not ever.

The difference was commitment.

[mmonk]

68. On your #1, I would say the Presidency became a dictatorship.

The reason the Democratic Party was reluctant to go against it is their Presidents would assume those Executive Branch powers. The Democratic Party abandoned it's traditional coalitions for Presidential politics thanks to the DNC and Reagan envy.

[True Blue Door]

76. Presidential power has gone up and down with time.

Wilson and FDR's powers were theoretically absolute in total war, but never came close to trying to exercise it as such, and they were careful to maintain most of the forms of democracy even where they were assured of getting their way by the public mood.

Reagan wasn't especially powerful, he just appointed a lot of criminals who ignored the law. (Most felony convictions of any administration's appointees to date)

Bush was the opposite of FDR, and was sort of a logical extension of Reagan. His legal powers were not that extensive even with the Patriot Act, but he completely ignored the law and did whatever he wanted that was within his regime's practical capability. But ironically you lose some level of power when you abandon the pretense of law, so it weakened itself a lot more than was necessary.

[questionseverything]

103. you admit bush was lawless

say dems must face this but then give current potus a free pass for not prosecuting them and stopping other countries from prosecuting them

exactly how do you square that in your mind?

[True Blue Door]

193. I "square" it by the fact that Obama, unlike Bush, is not a dictator

and thus can't just order the Department of Justice to undertake the prosecution of thousands of his political enemies. And make no mistake - thousands of Republican political appointees and military officers are guilty of war crimes from the Bush regime.

I also square it by the fact that Republicans in the Senate simply will never consent to the appointment of any Attorney General who they had any idea might go after those war criminals. In fact, they probably demand guarantees of the kind that can't be violated.

So unless you seek to radically remake the face of the US government, and possibly seek a left-wing dictatorship, there aren't many paths to prosecuting Bush regime crimes. And basically none were open to this administration. That's the reality.

[mmonk]

192. Agreed.

[jtuck004]

86. Lol. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

89. MUST. LOOK. FORWARD.

[True Blue Door]

93. MUST. IMPROVE. READING. COMPREHENSION.

[stupidicus]

118. indeed

thats' the biggie where they should start.

ABsent fear of meaningful/substantive reprisals that represents, it's no small wonder license has been taken with this and that, no?

[99th_Monkey]

102. In (y)our dreams

it would be tricky undoing elections by declaring them fraudulent after-the-fact, because other candidates, that were not cheating, would also be effected. This does not mean it's undoable, as I'm sure there have been cases of declaring an null and void .. SOMEWHERE sometime?

I totally appreciate your thoughtful list. If I were King, they would all be law tomorrow.

[viInd_340]

104. The real problem

is we have too many millionaires (which is a small percentage), governing a population that is not. Until we can eliminate that percentage in Congress, where always going to be doomed.

[Duval]

106. Wish I could

"like" this 1,000! I hope we can keep this close to the top, because your post contains truths most people in the US don't know. We need to make drastic changes in our entire system of government. It's just mind boggling! Thanks for all of this info, TBD.

[hopemountain]

132. agree.

lots of ugliness - we must face these truths and not let the stop us - we must move on with what truth we have and overcome the challenges. "no nos moveran de la justicia y la verdad"

[bobthedrummer]

107. K&R#82 n/t

[Welibs]

108. As much as I agree with most of what you say, Obama is not blameless in all of this.

Had he prosecuted Republicans for war crimes and crimes against America and Americans, none of this would have happened. By letting them off the
hook they have become emboldened and they steal elections as you mentioned and literally sit in Congress using their power like a WMD against the
people that gave it to them!

Obama is Not a Democrat and admits as much. He has tapped tea people for powerful positions, lifetime positions, that didn't make the
cut, but the point is he tried to get them in.

The BIG weapons of war have been pointed at the American people more under his administration than Bush's and now the weapons of war are
at schools pointed at American kids.

That's bullshit!

Obama is in Africa making a massive mess there. They're taking gold and diamonds out that are uncertified!

Obama has also helped to destabilize the world, demonized Putin even more than usual as a cover for their sickening warmongering. The Pope says,
and I agree, that it's piece-meal WWIII.

I coerced my family and friends to vote for Obama but he isn't the man we thought he was, yet few criticize him.

It's time to lay blame where it belongs. I agree Bush created a lot of this but Obama is continuing it and he boldly put CANADA's BOOTS ON THE
GROUND! Pretty bad when you bully your allies, peace keepers in the most peaceful country on the planet into getting involved in invasions and
the slaughter of innocents. What Obama has brought to Canada will never be forgiven.

He's a bully and a Bilderberger and he's turning the US into Nazi Germany! Harsh but very true! Americans need to wake to what this man is although, it's
already too late!

[1dogleft]

113. there's 5 mins

of my life I won't get back. Maybe I'll re-read my shampoo instructions a few more times

[grahamhgreen]

115. And 8 years of mine.

[Oktober]

116. K....

[True Blue Door]

155. Whatever you say, Ari Fleischer.

[stupidicus]

117. Gee, what happened to the biggie

that the war criminals have to be prosecuted according to domestic/ international law? Dictators thrive and grow in an environement absent fear of reprisals, which is applicable to about if not everything you noted in some way, no?

ANd is BHO afraid of social disorder as Bush was?

A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.” The result is that police agencies around the nation possess military-grade equipment, turning officers who are supposed to fight crime and protect communities into what looks like an invading army. And military-style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year. http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/13/not-just-ferguson-11-eye-opening-facts-about-americas-militarized-police-forces/

He is to Bush as Bush was to Raygun

“[During] this 50 years of evolution, they really changed from their initial intent," she told host Alyona Minkovski. “They were designed to deal with very violent confrontations starting primarily in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was ramping up the drug war and these … federal grants [were] coming in to take military surplus goods and transfer them to local police forces. Those two things sort of coalesced.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/retro-report-police-militarization-_n_5785540.html

given he's made no moves to roll it all back. It's almost like it's "new" news or something.

ANd perhaps the dems, or Clinton in particular, should explain this.

That's where the 1033 program comes in. The 1033 program is a Department of Defense initiative that channels surplus military equipment to state and local police departments. It began in 1990 after initially being authorized by Congress through the National Defense Authorization Act. At first, it only transferred excess personal property from the Defense Department to federal and state agencies for drug-related activities. Later, in 1996, it was authorized for use in both drug- and terrorism-related situations.http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the-evolution-of-police-militarization-in-ferguson-and-beyond/376107/

The simple fact of the matter, it'd the precursor -- the "War on Drugs" -- to the phony war on terror, that explains the militarization, and like with almost all matters of foreign policy, that's where we find the most "bi-partisanship" in DC.

Thanks for demanding that the dems admit their complicity in all these abominations.

[Calista241]

119. Bush was not a dictator

Saying stuff like this just makes us look like idiots. He was a President, and he did not rule by decree. Everything he wanted to do domestically had to be approved by Congress.

Yes, Bush is responsible for some bad stuff that happened. Primarily an unsuccessful Afghanistan campaign, an idiotic invasion of Iraq and the collapse of the housing market and economy in his waning years.

All that being said, there was almost a total and complete lack of major legislation passed in Bush's second term.

Bush was unable to privatize social security.
Bush was unable to pass his immigration reform.

The fact that he failed in these 2 major initiatives pretty much proves that he wasn't a dictator. Bush spent a LOT of political capital to try and makes these two things happen. Just think how the Hispanic population would be voting today if Bush and the Repubs had managed to pass immigration reform.

[noiretextatique]

124. he was appointed by judicial coup

so none of the rest mattered.

[Dawson Leery]

126. kick

[Denis 11]

141. The continuous tantrum of the Republicans during the Clinton years resulting in his bogus impeachment

set up the Bush theft of the office of President. If they did not get their way it would of gotten very ugly. No one at the time could have guessed how much of a disaster W. would be.
The facts listed in the original post do matter. Most Americans have a skewed basis for judging the current circumstance of our country because the republicans deliver their spin better than democrats defend the truth.
Our country is devolving, racing to join the third world. We hoped Obama would stem the slide, I believe he did the best he could given the obstruction of the republican leadership.
The richest Americans own their megaphone, even here on DU their point of view is deceitfully defended. I don't know when America will begin to wake up. Not this year I suspect.

[cstanleytech]

127. Agreed. nt

[delete_bush]

138. "Saying stuff like this just makes us look like idiots"

One has to wonder if that was the intent.

[Oktober]

153. That one...

[True Blue Door]

154. Fallacious interpretation.

Plenty of Roman emperors were unable to make changes in how their armies or their Churches functioned. Lack of practical power to do something is not the same thing as respecting legal boundaries.

He did rule by decree, and his decrees had exactly as much power as he was able to corrupt the institutions of government into producing for him. That's how most dictatorships function, not as freaking North Korea.

A lot of people with personal experience of oppression dictatorship in other countries (particularly Latin America) saw what was going on here and commented on the parallels.

[Calista241]

165. So, you're saying he wanted to be a dictator

but since his opposition was so awesome, we were able to put a stop to it.

And that's definitely a VERY low bar for a dictatorship. By that definition, EVERY President that has ever issued an executive order, or appointed someone who made a policy decision is a dictator.

Sounds to me like he wasn't a dictator then. This place cracks me up sometimes. I mean, for ALL of 2007, speculation was rampant here that Bush wouldn't actually cede the Presidency to the new President elect. When Obama was elected, it got even worse. How on earth could the Imperial President Bush cede the office to a black guy?

Seems to me Obama's succession went off without a hitch. Furthermore, one of Obama's main goals in his second term is to pass immigration reform. One of his motivations for that, is to secure the Hispanic vote for Democrats for the next 50 years. Now, seems to me that meets your definition of being a dictator.

[True Blue Door]

172. His opposition was cowardly and pathetic.

He wasn't able to carry his decrees very far beyond the confines of government and military itself because his supporters were too corrupt and self-interested to risk anything on his behalf.

Again, Roman emperors - plenty of them basically ignored the society outside of the top aristocracy and clerics. The rest were left to be preyed on by criminals. During the Bush regime, federal law was not in effect - only the competing momentum of bureaucracy and the personal interests of George W. Bush. State law existed, but it was routinely undermined by federal impunity.

You're making a bunch of specious rationalizations to wave away the single overwhelming experience of nearly a decade of history. It was ludicrous back when it was happening, listening to certain people's staggering level of denial - "Oh, right, he's going to just start a war for no reason against a country that hadn't attacked us, in full view of the world - God, such partisan paranoia!" But acting like that now is just Orwellian.

[Calista241]

180. Federal law was not in effect?

In what universe is that a true statement? Like it or not. Disagree with it or not. Congress voted to give Bush the power to fight his conflict in Iraq. That pretty much settles it right there. He had to get permission to invade.

There was a vigorous debate, and while what we were told turned out to not be true, nobody can actually point to a specific statement and say "this is a lie, he knew it was a lie when he said it, and I can prove it."

I can't believe I am actually forced to defend Bush here, but none of this dictator stuff is true. The man made VERY poor decisions, but he wasn't this arch-enemy Dr Evil character of myth that everyone around here believes.

[cali]

187. bwahahahaha. you live in an alternate "reality" and your knowledge of history is slim.

federal law wasn't in effect during the bush administration? In what significant way has that changed? Think the NSA. Think the current administration declaring the right to kill U.S. citizens. This is so much broader than one administration- awful as it was.

and your reference to Blair? gad.

[cali]

171. oh for the love of reason. no, he didn't respect legal boundaries.

but no that doesn't make him a dictator. He's hardly the only President who hasn't respected legal boundaries. And they weren't all republicans.

He did not, largely, rule by decree. Would he have liked to? I think so, but on issue after issue, he was not able to push items of his agenda through.

[whereisjustice]

128. The Government doesn't work for us. We work for them. We are thoroughly owned and operated.

The problem with millionaire representatives is they view us all as their personal slaves.

[cui bono]

130. So none of that is happening any more now that Obama is president?

What a relief! Thanks for letting me know. I can sleep well tonight knowing all is right in the white house again.

Seriously, as long as you keep playing the team sport of GOP vs. Dems you are just being exactly the pawn TPTB want you to be by playing the little game they've given you to keep you distracted from the real issues. But you are playing the wrong team game. It's not R's vs D's, it's rich vs workers. Once we all see that and unite we can change things. Until then all you are doing is helping them along their way of pillaging this country for everything they can and using us to enable it all and make it easy for them.

[Jackpine Radical]

134. Excellent rant.

Really,excellent rant.

[LostInAnomie]

136. Am I missing something?

I was told there would be facts.

[Pharaoh]

137. One of the most brilliant posts I've seen

In all my years at DU. Thank you True Blue Door!

[indepat]

144. Even if all you say were proven factual, I sadly suspect only a precious few would give a rat's ass

[cali]

158. I find it hard to believe that so many DUers are taking this seriously. Firstly,

what the OP presents is largely opinion and if any of his/her opinions are backed by a single authority, i.e., and expert in constitutional law like Tribe, I can't find that.

confirmation bias- believing what you want to believe- is a powerful thing. It's also an enemy of critical thinking.

I suppose I'll be called a bush lover or a bush defender for challenging the nonsense in the op, but oh well.

The bush presidency was horrible. It was not a dictatorship.

yes, it set a for shit precedent, but not for the reasons enumerated. It set a for shit precedent for both parties and as has been pointed out, President Obama has, alas, elaborated on that precedent.

The militarization of police forces increased under Bushco. It didn't start there. It didn't end there.

The U.S. media is a corporate media looking out for corporate interests, but there was certainly criticism of bush- not enough, but to state as a fact that the media actively suppressed "nearly all criticism" of bushco, is not factual- not to mention the huge number of people who don't vote for all kinds of reasons.

It sure as shit is not a fact that bush's SCOTUS appointments are illegitimate. I can't stand the fuckers, but the U.S.
Senate confirmed them.

No, the republican majority is not illegitimate. You can live in silly lala land to your heart's content and declaim that until the sky turns lime green, but that ain't reality.

what a heap of nonsense.



Our elections are indeed problematical and gerrymandering is a huge problem. That said, anyone who thinks dems will win in Utah or any number of red states, is refusing to acknowledge the reality of a large number of voters who align themselves with republicans, who align themselves with bigotry, who vote against their economic interests.

[NewJeffCT]

164. Having been on DU for over 10 years myself

I've found that I've become used to the hyperbole. Back in 2004, I heard so many stories of Republicans swearing off Bush and promising to vote for Kerry, I got excited and thought Kerry would win handily. Yet, it was close enough that Bush's minions were able to steal Ohio for him.

Agree that gerrymandering is a big problem, but gerrymandering has been going on for about 200 years or so now.

well said on everything else. Agreed.

[cali]

168. thanks. you're right; hyperbole is rampant on DU

but I think this OP stands out, and I honestly don't get the accolades for it. It really does remind me of screeds I've seen from the right President Obama and dems.

I do remember the nonsense though about bush and concentration camps, about how bush would cancel the elections and stay in office (mentioned in the OP) and more nutty stuff. right here on DU.

[Dreamer Tatum]

173. Your FEMA Reeducation Camp has wifi?

Or are you using their secret WAN?

[NewJeffCT]

188. I managed to hack into

Sergeant Schultz's account - he still knows nothing.

[baldguy]

161. And it will take over 100 yrs to correct the disaster of the Bush Regime.

It's not going to be done with a revolution - Americans are too fat & happy for that. It will only be done with persistence & dedication by Democrats to restore freedom & liberty. Misguided sniping from Left-wing heterodoxy, which allows the ignorant, bigoted false populism of the Right to maintain power & influence makes the process of repairing this country just that much more difficult.