Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:46 AM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
Things are coming to a head. I believe vast changes are coming, whether we want them to, or not:
From the way I view it, there seem to be two Democratic factions: 1. Those who are
beholden to the Corporate Power people, and 2. Those who are fighting against the corrupt Corporations. Hillary is the leader of the Corporate-beholden Democrats, and Bernie is leading the Progressive or Liberal Democrats. Hillary sometimes refers to herself as a Progressive. I don't think she is one. The Democratic Party seems to be splitting up, and the same thing is going on with the Republicans -- they have their Establishment people and Donald Trump is leading his own faction. Of course they have several other factions in addition. The Republicans seem to be even more split than the Democrats are. The Corporate Power people, of course, will do their best to have a strong hold in every faction -- as usual -- and control things from behind the scenes. Somehow things are coming to a head: Large numbers are sick and tired of their same old Establishment policies, and are leaving their Parties -- both Republican and Democratic. Changes are probably coming, whether we want them to, or not.
|
92 replies, 5192 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | OP |
Jackie Wilson Said | Mar 2016 | #1 | |
revbones | Mar 2016 | #3 | |
Jackie Wilson Said | Mar 2016 | #5 | |
revbones | Mar 2016 | #12 | |
Armstead | Mar 2016 | #13 | |
Jackie Wilson Said | Mar 2016 | #26 | |
daleanime | Mar 2016 | #6 | |
Jackie Wilson Said | Mar 2016 | #8 | |
daleanime | Mar 2016 | #11 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #14 | |
Gwhittey | Mar 2016 | #58 | |
Art_from_Ark | Mar 2016 | #60 | |
senz | Mar 2016 | #67 | |
Autumn | Mar 2016 | #68 | |
Jackie Wilson Said | Mar 2016 | #82 | |
libdem4life | Mar 2016 | #86 | |
Kip Humphrey | Mar 2016 | #2 | |
yourout | Mar 2016 | #52 | |
Scuba | Mar 2016 | #4 | |
DemocracyDirect | Mar 2016 | #7 | |
JEB | Mar 2016 | #15 | |
Lorien | Mar 2016 | #9 | |
senz | Mar 2016 | #69 | |
BlueStateLib | Mar 2016 | #92 | |
randome | Mar 2016 | #10 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #16 | |
randome | Mar 2016 | #19 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #22 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #27 | |
ibegurpard | Mar 2016 | #32 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #34 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #44 | |
Fumesucker | Mar 2016 | #70 | |
floppyboo | Mar 2016 | #80 | |
randome | Mar 2016 | #85 | |
DanTex | Mar 2016 | #17 | |
CorkySt.Clair | Mar 2016 | #21 | |
DanTex | Mar 2016 | #50 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #89 | |
CorkySt.Clair | Mar 2016 | #90 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #24 | |
Autumn | Mar 2016 | #72 | |
coyote | Mar 2016 | #18 | |
procon | Mar 2016 | #20 | |
djean111 | Mar 2016 | #37 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #48 | |
procon | Mar 2016 | #56 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #59 | |
AgerolanAmerican | Mar 2016 | #65 | |
procon | Mar 2016 | #71 | |
uponit7771 | Mar 2016 | #23 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #25 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #30 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #31 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #49 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #28 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #33 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #35 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #39 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #40 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #41 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #42 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2016 | #43 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #46 | |
upaloopa | Mar 2016 | #29 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #73 | |
leftynyc | Mar 2016 | #81 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #88 | |
JaneyVee | Mar 2016 | #36 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #87 | |
Name removed | Mar 2016 | #38 | |
Octafish | Mar 2016 | #45 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #54 | |
procon | Mar 2016 | #57 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #91 | |
SoLeftIAmRight | Mar 2016 | #84 | |
oldandhappy | Mar 2016 | #47 | |
Zambero | Mar 2016 | #79 | |
oldandhappy | Mar 2016 | #83 | |
ladjf | Mar 2016 | #51 | |
riderinthestorm | Mar 2016 | #53 | |
Hydra | Mar 2016 | #61 | |
riderinthestorm | Mar 2016 | #62 | |
Hydra | Mar 2016 | #63 | |
riderinthestorm | Mar 2016 | #64 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Mar 2016 | #66 | |
Califonz | Mar 2016 | #55 | |
raouldukelives | Mar 2016 | #74 | |
Cal33 | Mar 2016 | #75 | |
raging moderate | Mar 2016 | #77 | |
Rebkeh | Mar 2016 | #76 | |
CorkySt.Clair | Mar 2016 | #78 |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:50 AM
Jackie Wilson Said (4,176 posts)
1. You are treating the issues of the right as if they are legitimate. Most of their issues
simply are not.
The issues we have in common, economics mainly, yes, but almost every factor which drives them to the polls is based in hatred and fear. Your thinly veiled attempt to throw Hillary into the same camp as the rightwing, is part of the problem. |
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:52 AM
revbones (3,660 posts)
3. I'm sure people on the right feel their issues are just as legitimate as yours
and probably feel the same about you and your issues.
I think you misrepresent what was in the OP as well. There are similarities as noted in it. Denial without reason is just someone yelling "BUT my opinion says otherwise!" |
Response to revbones (Reply #3)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:53 AM
Jackie Wilson Said (4,176 posts)
5. It doesnt surprise me AT ALL you are sympathizing with rightwing racists and bigots.
Saw that coming for a while now.
|
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #5)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:08 PM
revbones (3,660 posts)
12. I sympathize with people in general and tend to call out hypocrisy like that in your comment.
I did not mention racists and bigots, you did. Do you honestly feel that all your opponents are racist and bigoted?
Trivializing the beliefs of one side in such a broad and general stroke, does not allow you to understand and combat their views. |
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #5)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:13 PM
Armstead (47,803 posts)
13. That's wrong. People are not automatically evil....
I know a few people who support Trump who are not evil or racist. They are simply conservatives who are seeing through the corporate bullshit of the GOP Establishment, and tired of the same quagmire that progressives -- and many moderates -- are.
They may be ideologically misguided, but rather than assume they have base motives, it is more constructive to a look at all the reasons for the discontent of people, and separate out the racist crap from the legitimate grievances. |
Response to Armstead (Reply #13)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:33 PM
Jackie Wilson Said (4,176 posts)
26. Ugh and sigh
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:55 AM
daleanime (17,796 posts)
6. And you are using that.....
to avoid the point of the OP.
Why don't you believe Hillary is pro-corporate? Doesn't she do enough fund raisers with them? |
Response to daleanime (Reply #6)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jackie Wilson Said (4,176 posts)
8. All democrats or almost all are pro corporate. Bernie isnt, a couple others.
You are not seeing the big picture
|
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #8)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:07 PM
daleanime (17,796 posts)
11. Most 'elected democrats' are pro corporate....
the pro people side isn't represented. The 'elected democrats' have shown over and over that the concerns of the rest of us don't matter unless they're running for office, and then they rate lip-service at best and are easy forgotten once in office.
The problem is I am seeing the big picture. The world has pressing problems that have to be addressed by all of us and as long as making money is our main concern we won't even begin. |
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #8)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:27 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
14. "All democrats or almost all are pro corporate." Really? I think Hillary is winning at this point
only because of all the unfair advantages and tricks the Democratic Establishment people are
favoring her with, right from the time Bernie announced his candidacy for the presidency in May, 2015: The way DWS arranged the Dem. Primary debates is well known. And right now the Arizona legislature has just announced it will be officially looking into the possibility of illegal voter suppression that may have taken place last Tuesday. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511563148 I believe there are more Americans who support Bernie than those supporting Hillary. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #14)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:41 PM
Gwhittey (1,377 posts)
58. They debates where not rigged!!
Just because the DNC reduced number from 26 to 6 from 2008 to 2016 does not mean they did it on purpose. Maybe someone forgot the 2 in front of the 6 when they planned them.
![]() |
Response to Gwhittey (Reply #58)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:48 PM
Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)
60. And schedule those few debates during major sports events
That'll draw in the viewers!
|
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:56 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
67. "Issues of the right??" The OP doesn't even touch "issues of the right."
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:01 AM
Autumn (42,868 posts)
68. Those on the Right? Their issues are just as legitimate to them as yours are to you.
![]() |
Response to Autumn (Reply #68)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:30 AM
Jackie Wilson Said (4,176 posts)
82. I knew it, I knew it
![]() ![]() God, am I proving my point or what !! ![]() |
Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:19 PM
libdem4life (13,877 posts)
86. HRC is a Camp all unto herself. Many of her currrent positions fall
over to the right. Some to the middle, and few to the left. And some of the important ones just depend on the way the wind is blowing.
I fear a Hawk...IDC which party. I fear a person owned by groups of people who care not one whit for me or my issues....bankers in boardrooms. IIDC which party. This is a subterfuge...blame discussing HRCs real issues (many of which are shared by the RW) on the Left/Bernie folk being accused of "driving hatred and fear". When we discuss issues, that's what is appropriate to respond to. Not accusations of "flirting with the enemy". |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:50 AM
Kip Humphrey (4,753 posts)
2. Your choice: Corporate Socialism or Democratic Socialism. Choose wisely.
Response to Kip Humphrey (Reply #2)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:23 PM
yourout (7,418 posts)
52. Oh.....I like that. That would make a great teashirt.
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:56 AM
DemocracyDirect (708 posts)
7. I agree...
As we hit the point where 50% of likely primary voters would vote for Bernie, and Independents leaning left break for Bernie at above 70%...
Even if he doesn't win the nomination he has started a Progressive movement with a detailed platform. The next step is for Berniecrats to start or join a Progressive meetup in every congressional district. It only takes 2 or 3 people per district to get started. Then they will start a primary challenge against every Democratic Congress person that doesn't support the Progressive platform. |
Response to DemocracyDirect (Reply #7)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:33 PM
JEB (4,748 posts)
15. We need that in my district.
Fucking blue dog Kurt Schrader.
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/11/kurt_schrader_splitting_with_m.html |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:00 PM
Lorien (31,935 posts)
9. Hillary is a "Progressive" in the same way many corporatists believe that this
is "Progress" :
![]() Bernie is a Progressive in that he believe in economic and social justice for all, and environment and worker protections. |
Response to Lorien (Reply #9)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:03 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
69. ...
The two sides of that photo can't be from the same location. It makes no sense.
|
Response to Lorien (Reply #9)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:15 AM
BlueStateLib (937 posts)
92. Like the movement conservative on the right, Bernie Sanders is a movement progressive on the right
Leon Panetta is a progressive, he ran on environmental issues and showed west Democrtic party how to win. He was raised, in his words, within the tradition of “progressive Republicanism,” which he dates in California to Hiram Johnson. Parenthetically, sitting on his desk is a certificate his grandfather received when he contributed a dollar to the Progressive Party campaign of Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in 1912.
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:05 PM
randome (34,845 posts)
10. Change is ALWAYS coming. This isn't some overly dramatic transformation going on, it's a sea change.
As exemplified by angry white men becoming less numerous and less powerful. And by the GOP's ongoing dissolution.
The Democratic Party isn't splitting up. DU might but what does that mean in the vast scheme of things? Not much. The over-dramatization of events is getting tiresome. And who is 'The Corporate Power people'? All corporations or only those you disapprove of? The only strings that are getting pulled are those connected to Congress, not the Presidential race. If you can't see that Congress is where the power lies, then you're going to be as effective as OWS -a brief sunrise and then fading away again. [hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr] |
Response to randome (Reply #10)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:51 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
16. Examples of Corporate Power people: The banks that took part in the financial scandals of 2007
and 2008 that economically ruined our nation. The oil companies that profited from the War in
Iraq. The insurance companies that overcharge their clients, but provide as little coverage as possible ....etc. I am referring only to those companies that overcharge or steal from the general public, and financially help elect politicians into office, and those who accept would then help to enact legislation favorable to these companies. This is corruption. I realize that there are many banks, insurance and pharmaceutical parties, etc. that do business in a fair and square way, which is the way things should be done. I am not referring to these. Are you satisfied now? |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #16)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:55 PM
randome (34,845 posts)
19. I'd be more satisfied if we aimed at the correct targets: Congress.
A Presidential bully pulpit only goes so far, which is not far at all. Regaining control of the Senate (doable this election) and the House (possible but unlikely) is where we get the power to actually change things.
Like it or not (and I don't since I've said many times that I'd prefer someone other than Clinton as President), it is nevertheless Clinton who has the coattails to bring change to Congress. [hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr] |
Response to randome (Reply #19)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:21 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
22. About "a presidential bully pulpit," Pres. Obama is not only not using it - he, in fact, is
the one who has been bullied by the Republicans for the past 7 years. In the last 2 or
3 months, MAYBE he is beginning to wake up. Just MAYBE. Congress: Never in the history of our nation has our Congress had a lower approval rating from the people. The last I heard, it was in the single digit range -- something like 9%. It's disgusting! I wonder if a reason could be that too many of them have sold out, and are working more for Special Interests than for their constituents. Does this miserable rating bother them at all? Not likely, politicians are noted for having very thick skins. They simply don't listen to the people. They prefer listening to the Special Interests. Corporations, in short. (There's that word "corporation" again). The American people are more than fed up to the gills. You may call it whatever you wish to, but I feel we are right now already at the beginning of a dramatic change. Where it will lead to, and how it will end, I have no idea. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #22)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:37 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
27. When Obama uses the bully pulpit ... the disgruntled left screams ...
.... "PRETTY SPEECH".
The disgruntled left is reactive, not proactive. They spent ALL of the Obama Presidency complaining about Obama (reactive) and doing nothing to develop candidates for 2016 (proactive). All that time wasted ... demanding Obama face a primary challenge in 2012 even-though there was no candidate to challenge him. Brilliant political strategy!! I've noticed a bunch of DU members who only appear when the general election is approaching. They complain about Obama and the evil DNC, and then disappear when they don't win. Only to return again, when its too late. The folks who have attached Obama endlessly wanted Warren to run in 2016. She turned them down. So Bernie stepped in, and suddenly he is the only person who can save America!!!!!! These "fed up people" you speak of ... don't appear to have the stamina of a house fly. My prediction is that after Hillary wins the nomination, they will again disappear. Only to return and demand she face a primary challenge in 2020. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:43 PM
ibegurpard (16,685 posts)
32. Obama uses the bully pulpit
To fight AGAINST "disgruntled leftists"... pushing things like the TPP
|
Response to ibegurpard (Reply #32)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:44 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
34. Bernie should run against Obama then.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:50 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
44. You've noticed "a bunch of DU members who only appear when the general election is approaching."
I've noticed just the opposite. The numbers of Hillary supporters increased dramatically with the
approach of the Democratic Presidential Primaries. I'm pretty sure most of these latter will stop posting here soon after the General Election this November. All we have to do is to wait and see who is correct. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:08 AM
Fumesucker (45,851 posts)
70. Eh, I've been here all along
In fact though I'm reading less and less and posting less and less, I joined Democratic Underground not Democratic Establishment, I can get the corporate spin just by watching the electrical television machine or talking to my neighbors, I don't need DU for that.
|
Response to randome (Reply #10)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:18 AM
floppyboo (2,461 posts)
80. "DU might but what does that mean in the vast scheme of things? Not much."
Except the rest of the world. Just keep your eyes shut tight and repeat: "There's no place3 like home".
|
Response to floppyboo (Reply #80)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:37 PM
randome (34,845 posts)
85. I'd prefer that a great transformation take place.
Minority rights, income inequality, voting rights, equal pay, climate change, all these things need greater attention. But those calling the loudest for a transformation usually do so on social media, which is next to useless. Until we have dedicated protesters demanding change, I don't see that anything will actually change other than on the margins.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr] |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:53 PM
DanTex (20,709 posts)
17. Soon Bernie will endorse Hillary, and then there will be the Democratic party and a few
perpetually angry people on the far left who are in love with the word "Corporatist".
|
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:02 PM
CorkySt.Clair (1,507 posts)
21. That's when Bernie will get his spot under the bus
It will be fascinating to watch.
|
Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #21)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:19 PM
DanTex (20,709 posts)
50. True that. It will be hilarious.
Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #21)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:09 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
89. <> -- you hope. Only vindictive people think
that way.
|
Response to Cal33 (Reply #89)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:14 PM
CorkySt.Clair (1,507 posts)
90. No more vindictive
Than the Bernie supporters here barely able to contain their wishful thinking and glee over an HRC indictment. Items from the RW fever swamp on this topic are posted here nearly every day.
But you keep on pretending it's a one way street. ![]() |
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:27 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
24. Yes, Bernie would be the type to endorse his opponent should he lose. I wouldn't
endorse her, but I would vote for her should she win, simply because I couldn't
possibly vote for a Republican or help them win in any way |
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:22 AM
Autumn (42,868 posts)
72. Did you miss this?
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:53 PM
coyote (1,561 posts)
18. I totally agree
Something is going to give and soon. I am placing my bets that it will happen in the right 1st. Either way, change is coming.
The manifestation of Trump and Sanders is no fluke. The anger has been simmering for a long time. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:31 PM
procon (15,805 posts)
20. Donald Trump is using much the same criticisms.
I doubt that anyone likes the effects of out of control corporate power and influence, but it has been in existence for nearly a century, all fully enabled, endorsed and perpetuated by both sides. And it's all perfectly legal because our elected officials made it so to keep themselves in power.
Citizens United added ungoverned volumes of money as an unending anonymous resource. I'm happy Sanders found a successful schtick that worked so well and allowed him to fund his campaign at the grassroots level. Kudos. Would there have been room for other Democrats to repeat that and tap huge amounts of cash from the same source... no, I think not. Do I fault Clinton for gathering funds from other sources, using the wealthy to back her campaign against the unchecked corporate money pouring in the Republican coffers? No. If elected, the question is not about whether Clinton or Sanders can change the status quo, but if they can convince a majority of the old bulls who have been comfortably parked in Congress for decades to give up their perks and jump off the gravy train. So I ask, of our two remaining presidential candidates, which one would have the most clout and leverage to influence changes in the system we have now? |
Response to procon (Reply #20)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:06 PM
djean111 (14,255 posts)
37. I do not think Hillary would even try to influence any changes in the system we have now.
If she did become president, then, obviously, the system will have worked for her the way it is now.
(What she may have said about this is irrelevant, because she will say anything, it seems.) |
Response to procon (Reply #20)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:05 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
48. Yes, I agree that many of the "old bulls" in Congress should have already retired. You can be
sure that, if Sanders became president, he and Elizabeth Warren would be hard at work in
trying to get non-bribable Real Democrats into Congress. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #48)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:27 PM
procon (15,805 posts)
56. And how do think that might actually happen in the real world?
Under what authority does any president control who can run for office, how they fund their campaigns or what policy platforms they promote? Are you saying that a president Sanders will somehow be able to stop all other sources of funding and provide gobs untainted money -- all gratis??? -- to directly fund all the down ballot campaigns of aspiring pure Democratic politicians?
How do you envision that existing laws will be changed when it seems Republicans will yet hold the House for years to come? Then there's a Constitutional amendment needed to overturn Citizens United, and knowing how many states are already in the hands of Republican legislatures, how do you get the ratification to change this? Tell me... |
Response to procon (Reply #56)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:44 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
59. Since 90% of the news media is Republican-owned, the Democrats are at a horrendous disadvantage.
Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1) Democratic leaders will have to fill in where they suffer from the lack of not having their own news
media, which could have been doing at least a part of the work. Beginning with Sanders, whenever the opportunity arises (such as giving a speech, at the end of it tell the people about what's going on in Congress, how many Republicans and Democrats there are, what the bills they just voted for or against may mean in terms of helping or harming the American people. How it would hit their pocket books. The Republicans will provide all the ammunition the Democrats need. Each time they make proposals to cut down spending less to help the poor and try to give the "savings " to the Super-Rich, point out clearly the insanity of such a move. What could be done to have the situation remedied. Then point out who was responsible for taking away from those who alr have too little to live on, and giving it to make the rich richer. If blatant lies on the part of the Republicans have been told, give the American people the real story backed by evidence. It will take some time, but more and more uninformed Americans will get to learn the truth of who are trying to make their lives better, and who are the ones who are trying to make them still poorer. They will also begin to realize that voting during off-years is just as important as voting during presidential election years, because bills have to be passed in Congress first before they reach the President. And the Party with the larger number of Congress members have the say wnich bills get to be seen by the president , and which bills don't. This doesn't have to be long, but it should be done often. Warren and other senators could be doing the same thing in the Senate, and Pelosi and other Representatives in the House. It could be done briefly when they are speaking on TV. Just give a short but clear message whenever something interesting or important has happend. I feel very strongly that Democrats should strive to have a news media of their own to counter the omissions, propaganda and lies of the Republican news with true news, and backed by evidence. The above is a gist of what could be done. But you get the picture. |
Response to procon (Reply #20)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:41 AM
AgerolanAmerican (1,000 posts)
65. Clout and influence are meaningless
without the will to change the status quo, the ability to do so doesn't count for anything at all
|
Response to AgerolanAmerican (Reply #65)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:21 AM
procon (15,805 posts)
71. That's illogical.
I can have a strong will to get an education, paint a masterpiece or become a rockstar, but without the ability to be successful, nothing will ever happen. You might have the will to change the status quo, but you have no ability to force the majority to vote to change anything.
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:24 PM
uponit7771 (88,968 posts)
23. Yeap, the marginalized and left out are coming to power... inside the DNC. The DNC establishment...
... doesn't like that and buck against the revolution by supporting Sanders
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:29 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
25. Sorry, don't see it.
The disgruntled right and disgruntled left will what, join forces???
yea ok. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:40 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
30. At the moment both Democrats and Republicans are simply rebelling against their own
Establishments. We'll have to wait to see how things turn out.
|
Response to Cal33 (Reply #30)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:43 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
31. Well ... Trump is killing the GOP establishment ...
... and Bernie is not killing the Dem establishment.
Am I wrong? |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #31)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:11 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
49. You are partially right, Bernie is not killing the Dem. Establishment the way Trump is
killing the Republican one. To do so, Bernie would have to act as crazy as Trump does.
This is something that I wouldn't recommend. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:39 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
28. The divisions with the dems are just as serious as the
RNC. They are just under the surface. No endorsement will stop the process of party realignment or disappearance
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #28)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:44 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
33. Nonsense ...
... lots of Bernie supporters will follow his lead.
If anything, the Bernie supporters will SPLIT. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:45 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
35. Historical realignment. Sixth in fact
Is well underway go read some poli sci and try to learn something. Or not...
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:14 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
39. Ahhh ... argument from imagined authority.
Very persuasive.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #39)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:29 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
40. Nope. It is happening
Party realignments happen. This is what is happening. It has Butkus to do with Sanders the current D transformation started with Bill Clinton in 1992. When it is over you will be free of the left you hate.
As I said. You can go find info. The Google is useful. Or you can continue to cast aspersions. I really don't give two shits about it, really. But ignorance is truly a choice |
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #40)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:34 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
41. You babble a great deal as you make assumptions about who you think ...
... I "hate".
I think, based on evidence, that many of those in the "disgruntled left" are full of shit. They do nothing but complain. I'd be happy to see more progressive candidates all across the country. I simply understand that in many states, those candidates will struggle because the country, while becoming more progressive, is still very much split. After Hillary wins the primary, which she will, Bernie will endorse her (he might even do so in prime time at the convention). What happened then? I think, his supporters will SPLIT. Some will follow him to help ensure we stop Trump, and some will go off and SULK. I'm not sure which of those you will end up to be, but I now have an idea. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:36 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
42. It is your online persona
The Google try it...or not. Don't care
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #42)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:38 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
43. Another great non response.
You being my intellectual superior (as proclaimed by you), I expected more.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #43)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:52 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
46. Use the google or not
Search string Sixth political party realignment
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:40 PM
upaloopa (11,417 posts)
29. All I can reply to this is thank whoever that Bernie will not be
President and that you are wrong about Hillary
|
Response to upaloopa (Reply #29)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:04 AM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
73. The latest national poll shows that Sanders continues to increase his lead over Clinton. He
is now ahead of her by 6 points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511346023 This shows that more American people prefer to have Sanders as president. The only reason why Hillary is winning in the Primaries is that the Democratic Establishment people are propping her up with unfair means. (Example: DWS's rigging the number and dates of the Democratic Primary Debates). The Dem. Establishment want her even though more Americans would be voting for Sanders than for Clinton. I am sure the Republicans would also prefer to have Clinton as an opponent during the General Election, as she would be easier to beat. |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #73)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:23 AM
leftynyc (26,060 posts)
81. It's still not translating into
big blocks of delegates which is what he'll need to defeat her. Where does he make up for the 300 pledged delegates (we wont even discuss her HUGE lead with super delegates) she's ahead by. We don't have winner take all states.
|
Response to leftynyc (Reply #81)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:24 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
88. You're right. At this point, it looks more likely that Hillary would win in the Primaries -- all
because of unfair and partisan tricks, which should never have taken place. But it did take
place. Bernie has said that he would stay in until the last vote has been counted. I'm rooting for him all the way. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:48 PM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
36. The guy who bowed down to gun corporations and lockheed martin isnt a corporatist?
The guy who voted to fund every single war vote isnt a corporatist?
|
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #36)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:15 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
87. If you're talking about Bernie, he voted against the Iraq War. He is definitely not a Corporatist,
since he has stated that as president he would break down the Big Banks to size, cut down the
insanely high prices of some pharmaceutical companies, enlarge Obama's ACA to a Universal Health Care Single-Payer system that would cover every American...etc... How did you come to such an idea, to begin with? Bernie a Corporatist?!?! |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:51 PM
Octafish (55,745 posts)
45. Bernie is setting the table for Elizabeth Warren.
The stripes and solids are ready for a run to the 8-ball. Win or lose we win. She is young and hopefully will continue the work. Perhaps as veep.
|
Response to Octafish (Reply #45)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:26 PM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
54. That would certainly be a good idea. Warren has the integrity, brains and good-will to
try to make the changes our country so desperately needs.
|
Response to Octafish (Reply #45)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:37 PM
procon (15,805 posts)
57. Elizabeth Warren is almost 67 years "young".
Well, she's 8 years younger than "old" Bernie Sanders, 3 years younger than me and The Donald, and 2 years younger than HRC. LOL - Is that how it works? Yep, she's practically a Spring Chicken in political years.
|
Response to procon (Reply #57)
Sat Mar 26, 2016, 07:58 AM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
91. Some people retain their health and vigor - both physically and mentally - longer than
average. Both Elizabeth and Bernie seem to belong to this group. The main thing is
that they have started a political movement to return to the policies of FDR's New Deal. I hope this movement will continue to grow, flourish and blossom after they will have departed from the political scene. Big Business dominated during much of the second half of the 19th Century, until Teddy Roosevelt came along briefly. Then Big Business resumed its domination again until FDR. His New Deal carried on by his successors lasted for half a century. Then Business Corporations took over again until the present time. From the way it looks, there will always be changes, there will always be this up followed by down and up again. Enough damage has been done to the American people now. It's time to bring true Democracy back to our nation again. |
Response to Octafish (Reply #45)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:30 PM
SoLeftIAmRight (4,883 posts)
84. Many Many Thanks
the things being talked about have changed
the possibility of a move back to the left is being created |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:55 PM
oldandhappy (6,719 posts)
47. I call clinton a repub. Definitely not a progressive. What laugh!
Response to oldandhappy (Reply #47)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:15 AM
Zambero (8,337 posts)
79. Yet Republicans loathe her with a vengeance
Why is that? Many hate Trump as well but would vote for him in a heartbeat if Hillary was the alternative. Are they seeing something that's being missed by her progressive detractors?
|
Response to Zambero (Reply #79)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:59 AM
oldandhappy (6,719 posts)
83. Maybe she is too far right for me and not far right enough for the far right?
She is not progressive. But maybe i would be more honest to say she is a right-leaning Dem. The far right has pulled the country so far right that sometimes we do not have the vocabulary for what we are trying to say. Or at least I do not.
![]() |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:20 PM
ladjf (17,320 posts)
51. I agree with your intuitions. nt
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:23 PM
riderinthestorm (23,272 posts)
53. Climate change means politics as we know it will be irrevocably changed
within 10 years as the catastrophe begins its real impact.
Are you voting for more status quo or for meaningful change? The planet's health won't wait for us to fiddle around the edges. |
Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #53)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:21 PM
Hydra (14,459 posts)
61. I think this is really what's in play
The Dem establishment is telling us to wait again. That tact might have worked if climate change hadn't been put off so long that it's a full time disaster every day.
Personally, I think the status quo can only continue for 2 more years before things really start unraveling. By the time 10 years roll by, this place won't be recognizable. |
Response to Hydra (Reply #61)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:28 PM
riderinthestorm (23,272 posts)
62. I actually agree with you
but I'm thinking I'll just get shouted down by those who will want to argue over the number of years so I'm being "generous " (cough).
I figure 10 years should have people really getting the point even though I believe irrevocable catastrophes will be occurring much sooner. |
Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #62)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:36 PM
Hydra (14,459 posts)
63. :)
10 years is easily the longest we're looking at...the problem with that is, someone will then say we have time for 2 full terms of status quo before we actually have to do something about it.
We really needed to deal with it at least 8 years ago ![]() |
Response to Hydra (Reply #63)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:45 PM
riderinthestorm (23,272 posts)
64. Obama's legacy will soon be badly tarnished as the full-scale of the disaster begins to unfold
He should have been using his bully pulpit on this from day 1.
I fully recognize his inability to have effected major change but dammit, he really needed to be leading the charge years ago. I really like and respect him too so I'm saddened at what's ahead. Trump or Clinton will be even more vilified (if elected) and they fail to propose, and work for, massive change. History won't be kind to those who failed the planet in its 11th hour. |
Response to Hydra (Reply #63)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:44 AM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
66. I will take the average... 5 years
now on a serious note. We are in trouble and I think the eiltes, no matter what letter behind name, are in denial. So all this is to hold off the peaseants
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:36 PM
Califonz (465 posts)
55. Starting to think a UK style politics might emerge in the USA
That is, a first-past-the-post electoral system with multiple parties, which power going to whichever party can get 35%+ of the national vote.
Bernie could have started his own party, and I kinda wish he would have a decade ago, but it was easier to run for POTUS as a Democrat. In some states (such as California) the two major parties saw the writing on the wall and attempted to shut out other parties with their "jungle primary" system, keeping them off the November ballot in state elections. |
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:05 AM
raouldukelives (5,178 posts)
74. One is the face of the system, the other is facing the system.
Some of us would like to honestly address issues like climate change. Corporate shareholders fear this as it would harm their income and might drive some of them to the point of having to attempt personal labor instead of feeding off the destruction of our only home.
|
Response to raouldukelives (Reply #74)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:50 AM
Cal33 (7,018 posts)
75. I suppose there are some who believe the Republican propaganda that what is happening
to our climate is a part of natural changes. But the rest, as you say, are made up of Corporate
shareholders who care about their income, even to the point of risking the destruction of Mother Earth, our only home. I believe the USA Republicans form the only major group in the entire developed world that continues to insist on doing nothing about climate change. It is astounding that human greed could reach the point of being so all-consuming, that risking annihilation of much of life on earth (including their own) is preferable to losing a portion of their wealth. Are these people possessed? The rest of the world probably think that Americans must be possessed! |
Response to Cal33 (Reply #75)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:01 AM
raging moderate (3,857 posts)
77. Or great big children!
La LA la LA la la!
|
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:01 AM
Rebkeh (2,450 posts)
76. When the party is mostly co-opted,
allowed itself to be co-opted, that is, this is the natural outcome.
![]() I'd rather the party correct itself, I really do, but you're right, it looks less and less likely to happen. It's unfortunate and disappointing. |