HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The system is rigged

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:51 AM

The system is rigged

The superdelegates should have been done away with a long time ago. It was never a good idea.

Supposedly, it was put in place to give the sensible pros a way of getting around a popular choice like McGovern. Ironically, this time, the people are right and the "sensible Democrats" are corrupt down to their socks. They take money from corporate execs and do their bidding. For those who believe that a politician who takes money by the boxcars from sources like Wall Street bankers doesn't try first and foremost to keep their sugar daddies happy, all I can say is that you are either terribly naive or trying desperately to fool yourself.

The establishment Democrats are committed to the status quo. That means four to eight more years of voodoo economics or supply-side economics or Reaganomics. Trickle-down economics is a good term, sense it lends itself well to the ironic rejoinder than after three and a half decades of it we're still waiting for the benefits to trickle down. For three and half decades, since the election of Ronald Reagan, that second-rate matinee idol, we have seen tax cuts for the rich, public services cut, manufacturing jobs vanish, unions busted and ever increasing income inequality as the middle class goes the way of those manufacturing jobs.

Why do you think ground zero of movement to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour is the fast food industry? After all, don't they just employ high school students trying to get some work experience? Today, with all those manufacturing jobs overseas, the typical fast food worker is a young adult with a family obligations. I'm sure you all heard that, but did you try to connect the dots how that all fits together? Of course, I'm sure I don't need to be the one to tell you sensible Democrats that you can't keep a family of four fed, clothed, pay the bills and keep a roof over its head even working 40 hours a week at $7.50/hour, or, for that matter, with both parents working 40 hours a week for $7.50/hour.

That is the face of America today. For me, it hits pretty close to home. My son has graduated from college, is in his early thirties lives with his mother and her husband and looks forward to the day when he can quit his job delivering pizzas and start a real career..

Trickle down economics, the system endorsed by the oligarchs who foot the bill for most politicians' re-election campaigns and has been the economic article of faith for every president starting with Reagan, whether Republican or Democrat, has destroyed the American dream.

I want that system to end. It's termination is not just a nice thing to have, it is a necessity and history demands it, screams for it. Today, February 9, 2016, with the New Hampshire finshed and Bernie Sanders, the only candidate for president in either major US political party with the courage to speak about putting an end to the nightmare began by Ronald Reagan, having won three fifths of the popular vote, but still has not even half of New Hampshire's delegation to the Democratic National Convention committed to vote for him.

Tell me that system isn't rigged.

I will tell you that we will have a political revolution, whether Bernie Sanders, the people's choice, is elected president or not.

29 replies, 2990 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply The system is rigged (Original post)
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 OP
1000words Feb 2016 #1
SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #2
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #3
WillyT Feb 2016 #4
pnwmom Feb 2016 #5
mdbl Feb 2016 #8
Hoyt Feb 2016 #10
mdbl Feb 2016 #12
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #13
Hoyt Feb 2016 #15
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #17
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #11
tech3149 Feb 2016 #16
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #18
pnwmom Feb 2016 #20
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #27
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #28
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #29
Chakab Feb 2016 #6
Wilms Feb 2016 #9
Onlooker Feb 2016 #7
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #14
farleftlib Feb 2016 #21
raouldukelives Feb 2016 #19
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #22
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #24
840high Feb 2016 #26
in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #23
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #25

Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:13 AM

2. just another thing to do during the revolution

 

we have lots of work to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:18 AM

3. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:18 AM

4. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:23 AM

5. A popular choice like McGovern -- who lost 49 states. A lot of good he did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:09 AM

8. Yes, what a fair election, running against

a juggernaut crook like Nixon and all his GOP minions constantly using illegal slush fund money to influence everything. I don't think that had anything to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdbl (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:47 AM

10. Well, there is Mondale, Carter (2nd), and Dukakis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:50 AM

12. I guess there's just no room for decent politicians then

how do you suggest we change that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:52 AM

13. I believe the most apt analogy is Reagan or FDR.

A transformative candidate in a time of discontent. Without transformation, our party and perhaps the country will be lost. Our current path is simply unsustainable. I believe we are at a moment of historic transformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:55 AM

15. Well, FDR was a rich man who was not particularly progressive when taking office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:34 AM

17. Actually he ran on a progressive record

as governor of NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:49 AM

11. I do believe the McGovern analogy is inapt.

McGovern ran as a peace candidate against an incumbent, wartime president. Also, McGovern self-destructed and was not an effective campaigner. He was a great man, but a very poor candidate in a crowded field.

By contrast, Bernie is a very effective candidate running for an open seat. Instead of the prosperity of 1972, we have a shrinking, alienated middle class in 2016. I remember McGovern winning the nomination almost by default in a crowded field. Bernie is proving his worth against one extremely formidable political organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:20 AM

16. I think you might be missing an important point

During the primary, the entire McGovern ground game were McGovern supporters, not part of the party structure. During the general the party hung him out to dry.
That's why there are super delegates.
If the same thing happens this time the party is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:36 AM

18. Excellent point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:43 PM

20. McGovern was an effective campaigner in the PRIMARIES. It was the general where

his socialist positions -- like a guaranteed minimum income -- led to his loss.

He was no more a peace candidate than Bernie , who also is against unnecessary war. And just as much of a socialist, if you examine his programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:54 PM

27. I have a different take.

McGovern's campaign was centrally identified with his opposition to the Viet Nam war in my recollection and I believe that is the main reason he got the nomination. But his campaign was a disaster after he secured the nomination. It started with giving his acceptance speech at 2am and within a day or two his campaign was in free fall because he nominated Tom Eagleton for VP, said he was behind him "1,000 per cent," then within a day replaced him with Sargeant Shriver. He received no support from the Democratic establishment as I recall.

By contrast, Bernie has come out of nowhere, with no money and no name recognition and is on the verge of seizing the lead in this primary race. The social conditions in 1972 were very different than now, and particularly the economic conditions were much, much better in terms of minimum wage and upward social mobility. So there was not the sense of economic anger, which is so widespread now.

Also, I did not have a sense of McGovern being a transformative figure. Bernie fits that profile to me, in the same way as FDR and Reagan and, to some extent, LBJ. That's what Bernie represents to me--historic change in the direction of America and the fulfillment of the promise of the New Deal (i.e. a New Deal for everybody).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:39 PM

28. To Adm Loinpresser and pnwmom

I was 20 years old during the 1972 campaign; during the Spring, leading up to the California Primary, I was chairman of the McGovern at LA Valley Community College, then (and I believe still) the largest community college in the country,

I remember 1972 much more as the Admiral does. I think pnwmom must mean something else when she says that MvGovern was not a peace candidate; if McGovern wasn't a peace candidate, then he was nothing at all. I don't believe the two campaigns can be compared, mainly because McGovern was running against an incumbent president and because Nixon neutralized the issue of the war at least until after the election. The thoughts are fleshed out on pnwmom's thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:53 PM

29. See post 28 ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:32 AM

6. The most nonsensical part is that they're allowed to come out and openly

 

state that they're going to support a particular candidate at the beginning of the election cycle before the first debate has even happened.

...and the are a bunch of people running around this forum thumping their chests because of the NH superdelegates who committed to Hillary months before the primary even happened. How anybody can be enthusiastic about this anti-democratic bullshit is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:21 AM

9. And I've seen them hopeful that turnout will be low.

 

Low turnout, it turns out, is good for Hillary. It generally favors republicans, and it never bodes well for Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:36 AM

7. The Superdelegates will switch if Bernie keeps winning

 

Clinton led Obama by more than 2-1 in 2008, but by the time Obama got the nomination, he led by at least 2-1. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Superdelegates are not idiots. They won't go against Bernie if he keeps winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:55 AM

14. That's right.

To violate the Obama precedent could well mean the end of the Democratic Party, at least as a major force in American politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Admiral Loinpresser (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:54 PM

21. I fear that sanity only prevailed in Obama's case

 

because the party could afford to be magnanimous - he was another establishment dem. With Bernie, I fear, that premise falls apart. They're in the same place Hillary is with the Goldman Sachs transcripts, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If Bernie wins and tries to throw the moneylenders out of the temple, they're screwed. Otoh, If the party establishment totally subverts democracy to prevent that from happening, they're doomed.

I see something coming down the road, something along the lines of

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:37 AM

19. K&R We live in the most reality shareholders will allow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 12:58 PM

22. Is the term "Democratic" party false advertising?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

24. That thought began ocurring to me during the Clinton Administration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:25 PM

26. ..+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:19 PM

23. Just ignore the Super Delegates! The Corrupt Corporate Owned MSM is using them to PROP UP CLINTON!

That's all they're worth right now.

When Bernie goes to the Convention with the POPULAR VOTE *WE THE PEOPLE *, the Super Duper Delegates will switch their support to Bernie.

At this point, the SD are nothing but window dressing and a prop for Clinton...to make it look like she's "inevitable" and she's not.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:04 PM

25. Superdelgates need to be watched carefully starting now

The corporate crooks are very adept at corrupting the system.

Superdelegates tend to be "leaders" (we should use that term advisedly nowadays), professional politicians who habitually take the establishment line. It appeared Mrs. Clinton would have smooth sailing to the coronation, so they announced support fot her. Actually, a superdelegate isn't committed until he actually votes at the convention.

Nevertheless, as professional politicians they need to run for re-election sooner or later. It's not too much to imagine Legs Dimon or Pretty Boy Lloyd giving a superdelegate a [strike]bribe[/strike] generous campaign contribution to hold the line for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread