I've got a quick (and honest) question for HRC supporters.........

[socialist_n_TN]

before this board is shut down. And remember I don't support Sanders either, so this is just my curiosity asking.

Do you really think that the current problems that face the US can be solved with tweaks around the edges and incremental changes? or is wholesale change needed?

Thanks in advance.

[highprincipleswork]

2. It's not just how they voted as Senators.

[workinclasszero]

5. IKR?

Hillary is considered a hardcore lib by most metrics but on DU some people claim she is to the right of Rayguns. SMH

[Orsino]

25. Wars. Goldman-Sachs. n/t

[arcane1]

61. There is a 98% similarity between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees.

It's the quality that matters, not the quantity.

[geek tragedy]

3. problems that arose over decades won't be fixed overnight.

taking on big problems requires a long view and a will to grind it out, unglamorous as that may be.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. I don't give a rat's ass about "glamour".......

I'm not convinced that grind it out will work because 1) I don't think that we have enough time for decades of "grind it out" and 2) I don't think that the people that hold the power in society, the bourgeoisie to use a Marxist term, are even INTERESTED in changing anything. And this includes their employees in the political class. How do you bring about change when the rulers don't WANT to bring about change? Or at least, changes that help the majority of people.

[geek tragedy]

33. the reality is our political system, including the constitution, were created to make change

difficult and slow.

change has happened throughout this country's history despite this design, but dramatic, sweeping revolution isn't a viable option, people aren't willing to burn it down

[TwilightZone]

54. "I'm not convinced that grind it out will work"

The real-world choices are incremental change or no change.

Incremental change requires effort.

The all or nothing approach almost always results in nothing. That's how the real-world works, particularly in politics.

[ThinkCritically]

68. And how long have we been "grinding them out"?

Several decades.

[geek tragedy]

69. several centuries, actually nt

[BobbyDrake]

4. If my bathroom needs a new sink, I don't build a new house. nt

[hollysmom]

6. well sinking is an important problem with this country,so

you got part of the words right.
congrats world, we have our first documented mammal extinction due to climate change. some how I don't think incremental is going to save much. On the other hand, most of Florida will be gone so the Florida man stories will stop.

[randome]

9. But we'll always have Slenderman.

Few will disagree that addressing Climate Change is paramount. Yet it's the GOP that stands in our way of getting anything meaningful done. Sanders would not have accomplished anything because he doesn't even work well with his allies, never mind his enemies.

[hollysmom]

80. except, looking at history the exact opposite of that is true.

[NurseJackie]

7. Of course not! You burn it down first ... then you build from the ashes.

[BobbyDrake]

12. Or go try to take over someone else's house because I let mine fall to disrepair...

[NurseJackie]

15. Excellent! Nicely done, you!

[socialist_n_TN]

24. What if it's collapsing under it's own contradictions........

and burning it down is the safest path for the most people?

[NurseJackie]

51. It's not ... it's just the sink that needs repair.

Angry and pessimistic alarmists are always impatient and exaggerate and see the worst. Besides, you shouldn't intentionally burn down a house with people and pets inside.

[floriduck]

64. Just curious, do you believe man contributed to climate change? Is income inequality real?

[socialist_n_TN]

27. By this statement, I gather that you don't think that the problems.......

are very bad. I look at it like the house is falling down under the weight of its internal contradictions, not just needing a new sink.

You know, even if you're currently comfortable in your personal situation, that doesn't mean that you will always be comfortable. The problems that the US faces will eventually affect all but a tiny sliver of the population. So unless you're in that tiny sliver...

[BobbyDrake]

60. You didn't ask if I thought the problems are very bad. Move your goalposts much?

I thought you were asking an "honest" question, but clearly it was just bait to lure prey for you to attack.

You asked (originally, before you revealed yourself as a bait-and-switcher) if I thought the problems should be addressed by tweaks or major changes. I presented an example in which a single issue (the broken sink) would not be resolved in a better way through major change (buying a new house). The same is true of our government, because we simply can't afford to be endlessly buying new houses all the time.

[LuvLoogie]

76. So are you going to pick up a hammer or a trowel. A shovel or a wheelbarrow?

[B Calm]

41. I don't know, I bet that house it ate with termites. Better

check it out real close before putting in that new sink.

[bonemachine]

77. True...

On the other hand, if your house is loaded with rot and mold due to a lifetime of unfixed leaks, you might have to gut the fucker...

[emulatorloo]

8. US govt is built for incremental change. Separation of powers, president congress judiciary

That being said I think it is possible to get more wholesale change in the US if we elect left leaning politicians to congress and the presidency, and keep wingnuts off the bench of the Supreme Court.

Sanders primary supporter, HRC GE voter.

[FSogol]

35. +1. Agree. No change possible without having Democrats in office. n/t

[pampango]

67. Well said. The more liberal the person we elect, the more positive incremental change we will get.

Conversely, if we elect a right wing demagogue we are unlikely to get ANY positive change, incremental or otherwise.

Sanders primary supporter, HRC GE voter.

Ditto here.

[justiceischeap]

10. I'll give an honest answer: both

I think tweaks put band-aids on problems that can't be addressed immediately and, IMO, tweaks are better than doing nothing at all. If a tweak makes a difference for .001%, then that's better than 0%.

However, I also think we need wholesale change. I think we need term limits for all politicians... I think the largest cancer in our political system is career politicians, because they're the one's the want money in politics, so they can take it. I think Citizens United needs to be overturned, which won't be done with a Trump Supreme Court. I think most lobbyists have too much influence. The reason I say most is if you look at the difference between the NRA and the HRC... one is for fleecing the people, one is for helping the people. Not all lobbying groups are bad. I think lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to donate to candidates either (but that ties into Citizens United). I think gerrymandering should be abolished and an independent board created for creating voting districts--with strict DOJ oversight.

I think we need to embrace regulations, I think more regulations on Wall St. is fitting, I think allowing monopolies is a bad thing, I think the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated.

Do I think Hillary is capable of (or even interested in doing many of these thing), no, I don't because it takes more than one person to make these changes. It takes the American people holding our politicians' feet to the fire and making sure they do what we want them to do.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. So how do you go about "...holding our politicians' feet to the fire..."?.....

Strongly worded letters and emails? Threatening to vote the bastards out? Supporting Team "D" politicians no matter what their beliefs?

I ask this because I've gotten grief for criticizing Obama for some of his decisions, decisions that I would have been applauded for if I had criticized W about. It doesn't seem like people are interested in holding anybody on their "team" to any standards.

[justiceischeap]

53. I use the LGBTQ community as an example

We didn't let him forget about the LGBTQ legislation he promised us. We were constantly "reminding" him of his promises. We also have a powerful lobby behind us but we didn't used to.

The mistake many people make when it comes to today's politics is often forgetting that it is, in some ways, a game and unless your team really sucks, your team never gives up. Again, the LGBTQ has been fighting, incrementally, for marriage equality for close to 50 years now. It hasn't been a fast race but we got there nonetheless.

[rock]

11. This is a very hard point to understand about politics

Revolutionary changes mean much trauma and hard-to-correct mistakes. The most successful changes are agonizingly slow. Those that want radical changes are well-named radicals (not a complement).

[auntpurl]

14. Agree with all you wrote.

[rock]

16. Thanks

I appreciate it.

[auntpurl]

17. If I had to guess, you're old too.

(I'm in my 40s, I don't mean OLD old!)

[rock]

18. Bingo

Turned 72 just this June 7.

[auntpurl]

19. And a stalwart Democrat

I salute you!

72 ain't OLD old these days anymore either. My mom is 69 and spry as anything!

[rock]

21. Yep

[socialist_n_TN]

20. I agree mostly with your first sentence........

although I'm not so sure about the "hard-to-correct" mistakes. What if we don't have time for agonizingly slow successful changes? I'm mostly thinking climate change with that statement, but it could also apply to economic issues. When you run into a wall and the people in power are benefitting from the constraints of that wall, how do you change that?

[rock]

36. Climate change is a brilliant example of the problems we face

First it's highly political (everybody wants in on the action with their opinion). Second it's a highly technical problem (thus negating #1 - this is not a problem that a mob can solve). Thirdly it's one of those types of problems which occur frequently: the people that have to solve it are politicians and they're asking, "What's in it for me?" For that one and the "constraints of the wall" as you put it, both require you find a leader who will attack them single-mindedly with the bull-pulpit and the will of the people behind him/her.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. See any of those leaders around?........

And it's not just the politicians who are asking "What's in it for me?" Politicians only do what their bosses in the corporate boardrooms tell them to do. THAT'S where the real logjam is.

And the "will of the people" doesn't count for much apparently. The positions that Sanders advocated (which didn't go anywhere near far enough IMO) ARE majority positions, but they "unicorns, ponies, and rainbows" according to the very serious people who run our society.

[rock]

70. I didn't mean to imply there was a solution

It's difficult and I don't know if we'll be able to find a solution. We haven't so far on guns. Perhaps Hillary will prove her worth here. I trust her because she is cautious (slow) for which she has gotten considerable criticism.

[MineralMan]

13. See this thread for how it can work:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512188272

[BootinUp]

23. Get back to me with a real solution, not some pipe dream. nt

[ismnotwasm]

26. I think we saw what happens with huge change with the ACA

A lot of compromise, a lot of challenges, a lot of pushback a lot of critisism. The ACA for the left, doesn't go far enough at all, while for the right it goes far too far.

A tweak or an incremental change and be a meaningless gesture, or it can be the turn of a butterfly wing that causes a tornado.

So my answer is yes and no. Some issues need aggressive and wholesale change. Some need incrementalism to prevent destabilization--not just in the US, we have, after all, a global economy.
All of it needs oversight.

In my opinion, as a for instance, the environment needs immediate action. President Obama has started the green initiatives, which is good, but we need more. One thing I did appreciate about Senator Sanders is his sense of emergency about the environment although I didn't think all of his plans were immediately workable---they would require incrementalism, as did many of his other very good plans---and they seemed to downplay the fact that other countries that were great polluters, although he called for an international summit.

This is why I hope the many newly involved stay involved--it's apathy that causes us to fail, not passion.

[CrowCityDem]

28. I prefer making changes to what we know, not risking it all on the chance we build something better.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. And I don't think changes to what we know will be allowed to happen.......

Why would the people who have power in society today even WANT to change? After all, they benefit from society as is, so it's working great as far as they're concerned.

[Fresh_Start]

30. Yes, I think the path to progress is slow and step by step

and that is the smartest way to make progress.
No question about it.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Why would the people who benefit from the way things are today.......

allow even step by step progress? To those people, who are the ones who hold the power in this country, any sort of what we would consider "progress" would be a regression.

[Fresh_Start]

39. because they are not a monolith

and they too are invested in our society
and they too have consciences
and they too have children
and they too live on this planet

why should people who have the most to lose support radical change which threatens there already fragile existence?

[socialist_n_TN]

43. They are monolithic in that they require profit...........

and not just profit, but ENOUGH profit. Profit is dead capital unless it's reinvested in the productive sectors of the economy that creates jobs for the rest of us. But the only way to make ENOUGH profit is to cut wages and benefits for employees which increases the spiral to the bottom for most of us.

They are not invested in our society. They are invested in a tiny STRATA of our society.
Some have consciences, but most are psychopaths or sociopaths and the ones who aren't are captured by the profit motive.
They think that they will be able to take care of their children and live on this planet just fine no matter what happens BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS HAVE and they're powerful enough to know and believe that they and theirs will survive no matter what.

[Fresh_Start]

57. explain the following:

Warren Buffett
Mark Zuckerberg
Paul Allen
Phil Knight
John Paulson
David Geffen
these people have each given $100,000,000+ to charities to benefit society


Explain
http://fortune.com/2016/03/22/millionaires-raise-taxes/

I'm sorry that the facts don't support your narrative.
But there are good and bad people in all income strata of our society.

[Tarc]

32. "wholesale change" usually comes from the end of a gun, by rebels

Democracies do not do that. Like it or not, a democratic government is of all the people, not just the ones you like or the ones you agree with. Large changes take time, and need consensus-building to overcome objection. Sometimes, if something is so egregiously broken in an area of basic human rights, e.g. abortion rights or voting rights, then sometimes the courts step in to make a change happen immediately.

Otherwise, you work through the system.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. The system doesn't allow that.........

Not today anyway, if it ever did. Why are POC still discriminated against in 2016?

There is majority support for the issues that Sanders advocated for in his campaign. They are NOT radical policies, they are majority positions, but they don't get enacted by the political class. Why is that and what do you do about it?

[Tarc]

44. Sanders positions are not majority positions, otherwise he would have, y'know, won.

Also, racism will always exist, we just have to do what we can to mitigate its effects and punish those who act on it. Sanders ignored this topic area completely, and it likely cost him the election.

[socialist_n_TN]

49. I refer you to the Pew polls on issues...........

And no there was more to overcome than his having the majority position on issues. Hell the biggest drawback was the perception that he couldn't get those majority positions enacted, a perception that HRC and her supporters fully endorsed and trumpeted widely and loudly.

Bigotry will always exist, but racism is a product of a power relationship.

[Tarc]

55. I refer you to the pledged delegate count and the overall voter count

[workinclasszero]

63. People bitch about how bad things are and then sit on their asses

come election day and allow more republicans to get elected to make things even worse.

So they bitch about it some more and then comes election day and.....etc.

[metroins]

38. Trending over decades

Shows that life expectancy is up, crime is down, quality of life is up, and many other metrics show long term improvement.

Meaning, it takes time to move forward, nothing happens immediately.

Directly after the S.S. & Medicare, did things magically improve to today? No. Can more be done? Yes.


I'll vote realistic over fantasy every day. The goal is to get things turned in the right direction and keep adding to the progress.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. You are correct of course to a point.........

Even Marx thought of capitalism as a progressive system over feudalism. But all societal organizing systems eventually lose that progressive quality and become regressive. And those metrics have begun to fall lately and especially in the US. We are NOT exceptional except in the areas of empire and incarceration. In all the rest we're at best, average.

[metroins]

66. I think you're incorrect

I don't see them failing at all, I see them strengthening.

They will fail at some point, but not now. The world is in growth mode. We're growing so rapidly, I'm very excited for the future.

[YouDig]

42. This OP seems to carry the implication that Hillary's platform is just "tweaks around the edges".

And on some issues it is. Like social security. She basically just wants to protect it, expand it slightly for some people, and raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for it and keep it solvent long term. And in that case, yeah, I think her tweaks are just about right.

But on, say, climate, she is not proposing just tweaks, she is proposing very aggressive action. Which I think is good, because that's a serious problem and more than just tweaks are needed.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. Not really. ALL of the platforms, including Sanders'.....

are just tweaks. Sanders goes a little farther than does Clinton, but they are still just tweaks. But even on climate change, how does HRC get the very aggressive action that she's proposing enacted? Will that action interfere with profits of the multi-national corporations? If so, it's DOA and will never happen.

[Maru Kitteh]

62. I see. So only the wholesale appropriation of corps. would be seen as adequate change

for you.

There is no sense continuing any conversation with you because a) it will not happen and b) your question was misleadingly stated, and not what you really wanted to ask at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Yes

[arely staircase]

48. I disagree.with your premise. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

50. What premise is that? I didn't state a premise in my question........

I merely asked a question as to motivation of the winning candidate's supporters on this board.

Of course I HAVE a worldview. That's not a secret. I've been on this board as an open Marxist for years with over 10,000 post advocating that position, but that was not asked about. I asked about others' motivations.

[Blanks]

59. What you'd find is that the right kind of small change is enough for too many people...

I remember all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth during the Reagan Administration, but when the economy got moving, not enough people had enough time and support to continue fighting.

Sure, plenty of people were (and are) still upset, but if everyone is busy working and making good money, they aren't as motivated to try and force change.

There are a lot of changes that still need to happen, but if a big infrastructure spending bill passed and the economy kicked into high gear (and take home pay increased even a small amount) enough people would have good paying jobs, why bother with a revolution.

When the computer industry really took off in the 90's, all of the other issues that still exist even today fell by the wayside, simply because you either have time to lead your life, or time to fight 'the man'.

Most people are content with living well themselves, they don't care that much about society as a whole if they, themselves are doing ok.

Look at all the passion that was wrapped up in both the tea party and occupy movements, where is that passion now? Some people are still passionate about it, but mostly the 'movements' are historical events without much activity except a small percentage of folks.

People get wrapped up in emotion about politics, but the reality is that too many just want THEIR life to improve and when that happens, they don't have time to continue fighting the good fight.

[arely staircase]

71. To answer yes or no I am agreeing that Democrats represent

very little to nothing in terms of change.

It is a 'have you stopped beating your wife' type of question.

It would be like me asking you " does the failure of.the Soviet Union's only true version of socialism dissapoint you?" Obviously I am inviting you to agree with premises I am guessing you reject.

It is called a.loaded.question.

[tonyt53]

52. Change can only happen as quickly as the people allow it to happen.

Even with a Democratic appointed SCOTUS majority and a Democratic majority in the Senate, change will come slow - positive but slow. But it has to start.

[libdem4life]

56. Sanders is a Worker/Union guy. Hillary is a Management/Corporate gal.

Whtever each is selling this election, the roots run deep. Does not compute to respond to tokenism (another HRC meaning for incrementalism).

Even the union "Leaders" have become Establishment and most of the smaller unions have been dissolved. That's a big part of the huge disparity in worker's wages and lives.

And it isn't between $12 and $14 an hour, either. The Union movement was our Middle Class, more or less...some blue collar, as well. Even Mother Jones magazine is no longer relevant to the Left Liberals. She'd be rolling over in her grave.

[beachbum bob]

58. honest answer, no such thing as wholesale change in today's world

thats a pipe dream, but the system can be made better

[cloudythescribbler]

65. As a Bernie supporter who will vote for HRC in the general, I say:

As a socialist (a socialist seriously to the Left of Bernie's support for a system like Scandinavia, a more humane capitalism) I see incremental change as GROSSLY insufficient, and on the issue of climate change, leading necessarily to runaway global climate catastrophe. That said, the neoliberals like Hillary AND Barack are WAY better than what the Republican Party has to offer, especially this year. And the differences are at numerous levels

The Right in power doesn't yield a swinging of the pendulum in the opposite direction, as so many have suggested erroneously over the past century. Indeed, progressive Democrats should have a better opportunity to mobilize a progressive opposition WITHIN and outside the Democratic Party with a neoliberal Democrat in than someone like W or Trump that the whole Party unites against, blurring over the progressives' concerns with the neoliberals. BUT THIS OPPORTUNITY MUST BE SIEZED and under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama it generally hasn't (the most notable exception so far is the Black Lives Matter movement -- but a broader focus is needed including on issues of race). Another concern is civil liberties -- however bad the neoliberals are the likelihood is that things would get worse for progressives under the GOP, especially someone like Trump. And third, the other alternatives and arguments (like a third party candidacy under conditions lacking the kind of Third Party presence at the grassroots to make it work) simply go nowhere. Bernie Sanders could MASSIVELY help lead a progressive opposition BOTH within and outside the Democratic Party under an HRC presidency, a situation enhanced by his supporting Hillary in the general and maintaining and expanding those gains WHICH COULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE within the Democratic Party.

If a Third Party of progressives that goes ANYWHERE -- more than the Rainbow Coalition, which is a pretty low bar, given what is needed! -- (a) needs to mobilize significantly in MANY local areas, at the degree of Socialist Alternative in Seattle for starters, and THEN push for serious national power and (b) the MOST likely route to a successful left progressive third party would come out of a split in the Democratic Party -- eg if someone representing the progressive wing, with the kind of support that the Rainbow had that Bernie lacked in the black and latino communities (for whatever reasons), got more popular votes and maybe also pledged delegates in the primaries but was denied the nomination -- that could REALLY produce a candidacy that could NOT be relegated to alternative media and utterly marginalized. This illustrates mobilization both INSIDE and OUTSIDE the Democratic Party, often getting the same voters (eg people who vote for the Democrats in the general for prez but also support insurgent candidates in "safe" Democratic areas both inside AND WHEN SERIOUS outside the Democratifc Party

[Adrahil]

72. Our political system does not support sudden change...

very well. Political power is built from the bottom up, and takes place over multiple electoral cycles. I think short of no kidding bullets-flying revolution, or truly HUGE electoral turn-out, change in this country MUST come incrementally.

[Native]

73. Both - some can be solved via tweaks others need wholesale change...

but i take it your real question is if we honestly think Hillary (as the alleged incrementalist) can bring about the change that is needed. To answer that question, I have to say that unless we get a majority in Congress, not much will happen. However, with or without a majority, I think it is clear that Hillary stands the best chance of bringing about any change at all. Bernie has spent a great deal of time in public service, and his record clearly shows that compromise and working across the aisle are not his strong suits (to be gracious). My votes, almost without exception, have always gone to the person with the best resume (barring other disqualifying exceptions). And in this election, Hillary's can't be beat.

[eastwestdem]

74. Depends on the make-up of the new congress. It would be great to be able to make big changes,

but smaller changes or even holding steady if the congress remains repub would be better than having a repub president.

[wildeyed]

75. Wholesale change is risky.

That is only achieved with great upheavals. There is much suffering with that path too, and no guarantee that anything will actually be solved. So I don't understand your question. Can we "solve" all our problems. No. Not through either process. We can try, maybe solve some but definitely create others in the process. That's life. It's messy and complicated.

[Tal Vez]

78. Two things of which I am sure.

1) There will never be as much change as I want; and

2) There never should be as much change as I want.

[Agnosticsherbet]

79. First, I think that the solutions offered by the Republicans will make it much worse.

Second, I think change is needed, and in a system designed to require compromise by more than 400 individuals in the Federal Government, incremental change is the natural result.
In a very rare case, in very difficult times and when one side or the other, can make a large change or two, even those changes go through constant tweaks and adjustments. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Equal rights act went through many incremental improvements, and occasionally incremental changes to the bad.
Hell, the Equal rights act of 1964 was a modification of earlier civil rights act sand incrementally changed in later acts, 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1964. 1965, 1968, 1987, 1990, and 1991.

Finally, without huge majorities in the House and Senate, a President amenable to the change, and a Supreme court that liberal enough to allow it, a change of any size as not even possible.

The Affordable Care act is the largest change we've seen since the 60's. It will need a lot of incremental changes to make it a great program.

Wholesale change is not achieved without revolution, and the Amerian people have not taste for that kind of unpredicability.