2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe live in an oligarchy. Clinton/Third Way Dems might ignore it. But that's the truth.
That to me is the basic problem that we have to contend with. It affects EVERY otehr issue, including the social ones.
And what happens when the "progressive base" no longer has to be placated in the primaries will determine whether or not
2016 will either be relevant or irrelevant.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)That's clear.remember debate when her response was to tell wall street to cut it out.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary and Bill don't own a large private firm, they have worked
for the American people most of their lives.
The only ones that can do something about Wall St are the GOP
people in congress, and they like the way Wall St works, they
get lots of money from Wall St.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)"If Hillary were part of an oligarchy, she would be a GOP person"
Even my 4th grader can figure out the glaring nuances in that statement with basic critical thinking.
my god.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I may have to laugh my ass off.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)face palm.
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)And, I might have pee'd a little bit too.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)is like a box of chocolates, huh.
Stupid is as stupid does.
You are the freaking poster child for Hillary Voters.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)"Hillary supporters are loyal Dem's, Sanders people are bashers of Dem's"
Show me the data that supports this assertion?
What are you in fucking grade school?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Reply one more time and you're on full idiot ignore.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Seriously? You actually believe this? Do you know that when the banksters went crazy stealing over half of the wealth of the middle class, they were breaking the law? The Bush administration decided not to enforce banking regulations. Bush and the banksters should have been indicted for fraud.
All a Democrat has to do is ENFORCE the law. You think only Republicans can do that? Seriously? Wow.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Not congress. No bill necessary.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Paulie
(8,462 posts)And how many years have the appropriations bills actually passed or even happened? The GOP can't figure out how to pass gas!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The attorney general works for the president, not the congress.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I'm not saying you are, but your post gave me that indication.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Clintons money is chump change compared to the Dem's
GOP Foe's:
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Who knew 'working for the public good' could be so enriching?...or maybe they got lucky on cattle futures?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bill has started one of the most successful charities
in history: The Clinton's are not trust fund babies, they
did not inherit their money. People paid them for books,
did so knowing exactly what they were getting, and paid
happily: The Clinton's are hard working successful couple because
they are well educated and have their hearts are in the right place.
Democrat believe in working: not in freeloading, Clinton's have
made the most of every opportunity, as well they should, it is
the American way. (Dem's want to give opportunity to Americans
not welfare).
The Koch's the Clinton's foe's 40,000,000,000,000each: and that's just one of
foe: and the Koch's have annual income:
100m is what Clinton's are worth together and with all their assets melted.
The Clinton's don't have own corporation to fund their campaign like Mitt.
Like the in,The Lord of Ring, you don't know what the Dem and Clinton's
are up against if you are complaining up Clinton's money.
(or maybe you are just jealous of the Clinton's)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hillary made a couple hundred thou a year as SoS. Are they paid a salary by the foundation? The same foundation that accepted donations from countries Hillary was approving arms sales to? Yea, they were also paid several hundred thou per speech to the same Wall St banks she says she's going to rein in.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Three cheers for Clinton's': smart, successful and
they use their resources to help people.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A whole lot of quid pro quo cash got laundered through the foundation.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)No different than the other GOP lies
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-hillary-clinton-run-populist-democrat-despite-her-elitist-ties
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Most of the money came books and speaking fees, and
they didn't have any income from banks. Left wring wrong
talking points are just as bad as right talking points.
Also, the Clinton's did not send money to an off shore
bank to avoid taxes, like Mitt. The American people
have benefited from the Clinton's hard work.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The Clinton's left a surplus, the middle class was being
rebuilt, they raised taxes on the rich.
In Short, The Clinton's Administration was one of the most
successful in American history. The Clinton's made promises,
and the delivered. (There was no fleecing).
The Clinton's no matter what they touch they seem to do
well for the American people or charity.
They are beloved couple to many: Bill, is still one of the most
loved American's. It is not a wonder at all that the Clinton's
books are successful, or that they are in demand for speaking
fees, and if they weren't you would be calling the losers, and
welfare drains..
The Clinton's are couple that Dem's can be proud of:
they came from a small state, talked American's into
letting the lead this country, and after leaving White House they are
still helping Americans
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Jobs were hemorrhaging, but the illusion was successfully being sold that "Evwryone can be a successful entrepreneur in the New Economy." and "Call-center jobs will replace those manufacturing jobs as a driver of opportunity." and "All you have to do is become an expert in highly complex computer code and scientific high technology."......Well turned out none of those were substitute for real jobs for average people -- and they and many of the high-tech jobs were shopped overseas anyway.
And communities that had been raped and pillage and left as empty shells were told they could all become the next Silicon Valley....uh huh
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bush reduced taxes without off sets, and its was Bush
that took the country from surplus to Debt, and it was
Bush that pulled back the SEC cops.
Happy days were here when the Clintons were in office!
Response to lewebley3 (Reply #39)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Sounds like a strongly worded letter from AG Holder to Legs Dimon or Pretty Boy Lloyd.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)It will be crushed by it's own weight during the next financial meltdown. Most probably started by either the student loan bubble bursting or International markets collapsing starting with China.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/12/the_crash_of_2016_thom_hartmann
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20378-the-banksters-are-now-setting-up-the-crash-of-2016
https://www.thereadingroom.com/book/the-crash-of-2016/7393082
Until the American Oligarchy fails, there will be no real movement on climate change.
Fossil fuels are one of the legs holding up the Oligarchy.
Nuclear plants won't change, because the technology we use produces a product that can be refined into weapons, so no molten salt reactors, which produce power without bomb material.
The problem is, can the United States survive the unrestrained collapse of the Oligarchy? Do we chose to set it down and disassemble it to save all we can. Or do we just keep holding it aloft pretending we look good in it's glow, until we drop it and it explodes?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)before the election 2016.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)and the D's are going to get that blame. Although I have a funny feeling when it happens it will be Wall Street that gets the blame. Hopefully.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)seen as the problem along with the rich. And in a collapse they are going to be trying to safe their own a** because they have the biggest fall. Anger towards the top is going to explode.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)oligarchs and multinational corporations.
coolepairc
(50 posts)Black Friday 1929 was on Oct 24, the crash in 2008 intensified in the run-up to the national election. Markets don't like uncertainty (aka democracy).
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)from now on. The people's frustration with both parties will continue to grow and eventually the people will demand something different.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Unless we can completely up-end the current system that only works for those at the top, nothing has a chance of making a difference for the rest of us.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Armstead.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Unions continue to support corporate democrats, but complain when such candidate does an 180.
leftupnorth
(886 posts)This is going to take a movement that overcomes money and puts people in office that will dismantle it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)of the corrupt Corporations. WE MUST HAVE ETHICAL NEWS NETWORKS.
And get rid of FAUX NEWS! Abolish it!
Reinstate The Fairness Doctrine - which Bill Clinton got rid of - surprise, surprise.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Now they all lie, spin, give us their opinions and feed us propaganda....according to what their Corporate Owners order.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)And our courts allowed them to. Now they control everything...including our politicians and our government from the top down.
Bernie took on Goliath.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)People still elect officials. Until that stops, it cannot be an oligarchy.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)9 Supreme Court justices.
There are 50 governors, and hundreds of mayors and thousands of state legislators.
There are thousands of country executives and county council members.
There are thousand of city councilpersons.
This adds up to at least 10,000 people. All elected.
How is this rule by the few?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)They only go on their own thesis!
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Those schools aren't known for their intellectual prowess.
TM99
(8,352 posts)are full of extremists, commies, & hippies, not practical woodchuck centrist neoliberals like our poster.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can always toss them out if we want to.
this stuff insults the voters, saying they respond only to slick ads or campaigns that spend a lot of money.
It is a complaint that the other voters are not with you and instead of convincing them, you look for scapegoats like "the oligarchy" "the banksters" "the corporatists" the "Third Way" or DWS and the DNC. Somehow these people and their money prevent voters from thinking like you want them to.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)If that was the case, third party candidates would be on the stage debating against Dems and Republicans. We'd have a president picked by a populace vote.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Der duh der doh!
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Except that you run for office in increasingly gerrymandered districts arranged by a party that exists to serve the wealthy.
And then you have a media that judges a candidates worthiness based upon how much money that candidate raises.
And you have laws that are practically written by professional lobbying efforts.
While it may not be a Dejure oligarchy it certainly might qualify for that in fact.
treestar
(82,383 posts)1
: government by the few
2
: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3
: an organization under oligarchic control
See oligarchy defined for English-language learners
See oligarchy defined for kids
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
Historical examples of oligarchies are Sparta (which excluded the Helots, who made up the majority of the population, from voting); the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in which only the nobility could vote); the English parliamentary system and execution of Charles I in 1649; and the restriction of the franchise to male property owners in young democracies, such as the early United States. A modern example of oligarchy, based on race, could be seen during the twentieth century in South Africa in the apartheid system, which became official government policy in 1948 and lasted until the democratic election of a government dominated by the black majority in 1994.
Russia has been labeled an oligarchy because, after the fall of Communism, political power became concentrated in the hands of certain individuals who amassed great wealth by taking advantage of the new system.
The social system of capitalism is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Critics argue that in a capitalist society, economic, cultural, and political power rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states are also perceived as oligarchies, ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Oligarchy#Examples_of_oligarchies
DrBulldog
(841 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)No question about it.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)People sometimes confuse the meaning of the word oligarchy. It technically means rule by a small group of people or a family. While our history of Clintons and Bushes certainly does merit inspection, the real problem is not so much an oligarchy as that America has become a plutocracy.
Plutocracy is IMO a more accurate description of the current state of affairs in America: it means government by the wealthy for the wealthy. I wish Bernie himself would start using Plutocracy over oligarchy.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The US is too big for a true oligarchy in the technical sense, and plutocracy is probably more accurate.
Howvever at the same time, with the increasing monopolization of the economy and concentration of wealth and power, the idea of oligarchy is also becoming more ingrained with the moguls and families and political dynasties like the Waltons, Kochs, Aldesons, Murdochs Clintons, Bushes (though the Bush dynasty has hit a pothole), etc.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)most voters, at this way-station along the ginormously long path to election, have no idea an election is coming, unless they happened to hear it on the tv...
The most horrifying prospect is that the Oligarchs mean to control the entire economy through the TPP, TTIP, and TISA...this is the triangle of doom for all our democracies...
The 1%ers don't ignore the global take-over...they embrace it...they created it...
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Can you provide contradictory evidence that we have not been moving in that direction for years?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Will our children be allowed to debate what is happening in our country or will our textbooks go on calling it a democracy for decades to come even though it clearly is not?
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)The kids will NEVER be allowed to know how bad their Government is.
It shouldn't take much longer to privatize the rest of the Public Schools. They're already well on their way - Democrats and Republicans BOTH are getting rid of Public Schools. Greedy!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I will not sit back and watch the Democrats comply with the destruction of our public school system anymore.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Rahm Emmanuel stared privatizing Chicago public schools which disproportionately affected 90% AA communities. A DEMOCRAT who worked with Obama no less!
I am so over the so-called"Democratic" party. It's a farce.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)policy try to force him to keep up with his general education peers. That was the last straw for me.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)These days, I am just thankful my son is in college and I don't have to personally deal with the system anymore. I still get angry watching what's being done to our Public School system for the sake if money and knowing what other parents are going to have to deal with in the future.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)They tried forcing my son to learn algebra in middle school which he was not understanding and just passed him on to the next grade all three years of middle school. We moved school districts and got lucky. They evaluated where he was in math and went back and taught him addition/subtraction, and multiplication/division before they tried to teach him algebra. Now he is learning algebra in the 11th grade and is actually understanding it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The US is a Republic.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)As you said,
And what happens when the "progressive base" no longer has to be placated in the primaries will determine whether or not 2016 will either be relevant or irrelevant.
Especially since our first debate aired some members have been bouncing every conceivable notion that crosses their minds here on DU. They are more determined than ever to find what policies and talking points they are successful with, using this forum as a guinea pig. They are extremely well organized and share strategies, techniques, common goals, etc. This is not a bad thing to do when you want to win. The goalposts will move and the strategies, etc will of course be different going into the general.
frizzled
(509 posts)That way you aren't constantly disappointed and maddened at how terrible the political system is, and more surprised and pleased on the rare occasions US politics does anything that helps normal people.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)want to fight to get it back for my children and my grandchildren.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)And created this new name, progressive and now try to call Bernie Sanders both socialist, and populist an impossibility;
being a Democratic libertarian is an oxymoron.
The Dixiecrats were populist, religious bigots, racist and all for socialism for the "right" kind of of people
TumbleAndJumble
(24 posts)very likely a third way, left libertarian pile of doo doo.
The Democratic must stop being Republican/libertarian.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)All you have to do is listen to Bernie Sanders talk about the corruption in our government and how our democracy has been turned over to the corporations--who are in bed with our politicians.
Bernie is one of the handful of politicians who DARES to go up against the stranglehold of corrupt politicians in both parties. He'd definitely the only presidential candidate trying to stop it.
We're very lucky. We finally have a Presidential candidate who is speaking about and verbalizing the things that we write about on message boards like DU.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of complaining. I'm sick and tired of watching my country go down the drain. I'm sick and tired of fellow Democrats (including the politicians) who insist that those who are not on board with this corruption--are like kids who don't get ponies.
We are right. They are wrong. It's going to take a lot to bust up this corruption, and electing Bernie Sanders is a good first step.
senz
(11,945 posts)From Counterpunch, May of this year:
- Boeing: between $1 million and $5 million.
- Lockheed Martin: between $100,000 and $300,000.
Oil Companies
- Duke Energy Corporation: between $1 million and $5 million
- ExxonMobil: between $1 million and $5 million.
- Chevron: between $500,00 and $1 million
- Noble Energy: between $200,000 and $500.00.
- Hess Corporation: between $100,000 and $250,000.
And, as a bonus, the top three contributors:
- Microsoft/Gates Foundation: at least $26 million
- Walmart: between $2 million and $11 million.
- Coca-Cola: between $5million and $10 million.
When looking at this list, Mrs. Clintons vote in 2002 authorizing Mr. Bush to invade oil-rich Iraq is not terribly surprising.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/01/hillary-clinton-elitist-imperialist-politician-extraordinaire/