I don't think I want your revolution

[upaloopa]

I listened to part of Bernie's speech yesterday. I get that he has been saying the same things for forever.

I listened to Bernie for years on the various radio and TV shows he appears on. To this day I don't know how he plans to make anything happen. He says it will take tens of millions of people demanding change. That isn't going to happen.

In 2008/09 millions of people lost their homes and jobs and not a peep except for Occupy and they were shut down I think because of their apolitical methods. The public couldn't identify with them.


There were two times in the last eight years when I thought there was going to be real change. The first was in November of 2008 when Obama was elected and the second was when Occupy took over Wall Street. Well we got the ACA and marriage equality and other changes but nothing like I thought would happen back in 2008.

From Occupy we got the media to talk about income inequality and the phrase "the 99%."

I don't think Bernie's revolution is anything like Obama's hope and change or Occupy's we are the 99%. It isn't a movement of the people. I think instead he is giving a certain part if the political spectrum a voice. Both they and Bernie are convenient vehicles for each other.

A movement takes a long time to put together and to jell. Bernie has been in Congress for 24 years yet he only gained this following since he announced his candidacy for president. Prior to that his supporters wanted Warren.

No he is not leading a movement or a revolution though they may call themselves that. Their current form of keyboard activism will not bring about change. They are a actually turning some people off and are not gaining recruits. That is evidenced by the fact that their numbers in the polls has remained somewhere between 25% and 30%. They can't seem to inspire people who are outside of their niche.


So how is change going to happen on the federal level in today's political climate?
An obvious thing is that you need control of the three branches of government and a united party. You need a partnership of the people wanting change and their elected representatives. That will take the public financing of elections.

In 2015 the way to begin to go down that path is to nominate someone for president who can bring together voters from the whole spectrum of our party not just the left. It will take that to win the White House, gain seats in Congress and to put a liberal Supreme Court in place.

That gives us the footing to work toward achieving our goals.


So no I don't want the so called "revolution" Bernie supporters are selling. They are incapable of making real change happen and I am glad we won't be turning our country over to them.

[Gregorian]

1. "I don't think"

[Buzz Clik]

30. Oh snap!!!!!111

[Gregorian]

47. That was pretty cheap of me.

We all have regrets. Haha.

[Bubzer]

68. lol

[Blue_Adept]

57. Keeping it classy around here.

[Indepatriot]

2. Enjoy your Oligarchy.

[Codeine]

6. That's "fascist oligarchy".

At least be consistent in your hyperbole.

[NurseJackie]

10. Pffffft!

[Cali_Democrat]

15. LOL

[UglyGreed]

16. HMMM just looked at this list

14 POINTS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.


Scary...........

[tk2kewl]

23. but some apparently find it funny

[UglyGreed]

26. Kind of

resembles what is going on

[roguevalley]

50. some may be rich and don't like the idea

of losing their place at the top. Some are just ridiculous sychophants for their gal and some are only born since reagon. Enjoy the serfdom then. They will come for you too.

[UglyGreed]

54. I call them IGM

I got mine...........

[Admiral Loinpresser]

48. "Oligarchy" is not hyperbole

according to a growing number of studies on how American politics works. Legislative policy is generally indifferent to the will of the people, but highly responsive to the 1%.

[Armstead]

70. You do know the definition of fascism don't you?

Look it up and see what it says about the fusion of government and corporate power.

We're not yet in full fledged Moussilini territory, but we're getting there

[Buzz Clik]

31. I love socialist buzzwords.

Thank kind of stuff will rocket Bernie into third place.

[Armstead]

73. So let's just ignore problems, shall we? How's that working out so far?

[NCTraveler]

3. Enjoyed reading.

Turd Way
Oligarchy Lover
Crony Capitalist
Republican Lite

Just want to get some of the childish insults out of the way early.

[Buzz Clik]

32. +1

[Buzz Clik]

35. .. and Fascism (apparently)

[NCTraveler]

37. Didn't take long.

Yep, I see fascist was pulled out. They are making me smile on my Friday.

[Armstead]

79. Maybe you ought to look below the hyperbolie

Not quite so funny if you look at the actual situation, and the degree of concentration of wealth and power that has occurred at an increasing pace over the last 30 years without a clear liberal/progressive alternative.

Look at almost any sector of the economy, and see how the actual ownership and control is structured compared to 30 years ago.

Look at the abysmal records the Tepid Wing of Democrats have had in gaining and holding power on all levels vis a vis the GOP. And look at how awful the GOP is -- we can't successfully win people over from THAT?

yeah sure is amusing how voting rights are being stripped, media is now controlled by 5 corporate giants, income has become so concentrated at the top that there is less and less that is tricking down, etc.

yeah it's a laugh riot.

[murielm99]

91. You forgot one:

Corporatist.

[NCTraveler]

92. when I see that anymore....

I like to follow it up with "She's in the pocket of unions as well."

[MoonRiver]

4. Upaloopa, I think I agree with your post,

but, please, paragraphs! I can't follow a good rant without them.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. Your post lists the myriad challenges that progressives face

In moving America forward. That doesn't mean we shouldn't want such a revolution, it means we must fight even harder.

I read your post and didn't disagree with any of the facts. But the facts inspire me to do even more to back progressive candidates, not conservatives democrats beholden to special interests and big money.

[tecelote]

74. Exactly.

The OP basically says, I've seen it all before and it didn't work. Time to settle.

Then there's:

"In 2015 the way to begin to go down that path is to nominate someone for president who can bring together voters from the whole spectrum of our party not just the left. It will take that to win the White House, gain seats in Congress and to put a liberal Supreme Court in place. "

Hillary is polarizing. She can not claim to have any better chance than Bernie at getting bi-partisan support. If anything, Bernie's message crosses party lines much more than Hillary's.

Finally, there's this:

Clinton Sheds Progressive Façade with Bold Rightward Lurch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=830856

We need a revolution before WWIII and Climate Change force it upon us.

It may not have happened yet but that is no reason to give up and go back to the status quo.

[Codeine]

7. Paragraphs! nt

[upaloopa]

12. Done thanks for the input

[ruffburr]

8. That's Alright-

I don't want YOUR Facisim.

[mahina]

28. Geez I wasted some words down thread

to say just that. Ten points for concision. I like you.

[CentralMass]

9. The difference here is that a President Sanders

would not do things like ram a disastrous trade deal down our throats. Or lobby his own (albeit thin at the time) majority to extend expiring trickle down tax cuts, etc..

The Senator is consistent and demonstrably means what he says and says what he means. He wil keep congressional Dems focused on an agenda focused on economic equality.

[Gothmog]

11. I agree in that I doubt that Sanders will be successful in generating support needed for his goal

The concept that we general radical change in today's partisan and divided political enviroment is not reasonable. I like Sanders but I simply do not see him being the nominee and if he was the nominee, I see him losing badly in a general election contest.

[ibegurpard]

13. I don't think I want

Your continual dismantling of the social safety net in favor of private sector solutions in the name of the Democratic Party.

[RiverLover]

18. There it is!

BOOM! "....in the name of the Democratic Party." That's what make voting for her worse than anything. Reoublican policies have no place in Democratic rhetoric or platforms. To be like rethugs diminishes our party. And our country.

[Kentonio]

14. So..

"In 2015 the way to begin to go down that path is to nominate someone for president who can bring together voters from the whole spectrum of our party not just the left."

So instead you want to nominate someone who won't bring in voters from the left at all, except with the threat of what might happen if they don't fall in line? I can't help but feel like I'm detecting a pattern here..

[pinebox]

17. Then explain to us HOW COME you support the status quo?

You go on to cite "In 2008/09 millions of people lost their homes and jobs and not a peep except for Occupy and they were shut down I think because of their apolitical methodology." Yet the housing crisis was partially caused by the Clinton administration with Factcheck.org saying;

The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

The only reason that Occupy didn't get a big boost is because the MSM refused to carry their demonstrations and protests and THAT is IT. The public did identify with them however it was an exposure issue and MSM vilified them quite often.

So tell us, why are you supporting a candidate who isn't really offering a damn thing that's new and that will actually help people who are suffering? Show us ONE THING Hillary has proposed that will actually help someone who makes ends meat and lives paycheck to paycheck. Tell us. Give us something. And don't even cite minimum wage because her plan IS NOT A LIVING WAGE! You want to cite her for strengthening the ACA? Go ahead when millions are still slipping through the holes and fall in the donut hole of making too much to qualify for Medicaid and yet can't afford monthly premiums.

You cite SCOTUS but yet the truth is any Liberal elected is fine with that, all of them. The only thing I'd worry about with Hillary is her ties to corporate America and we wouldn't see Citizens United. To me that's a huge issue.

As far as Bernie not getting his movement going, I'll disagree and cite you that Republicans helped elect him in VT. Bernie's revolution has been on the ground for many years and honestly people are sick and tired of politics and politicians, not just Republicans BUT Democrats as well! Case in point--yesterday with Dems siding with Republicans on Syrian refugees and the 80s some Dems who voted to cut SNAP.

People are starving in this country, literally working their asses off and can't even live on their wages. This is who WE as Sanders are fighting for! The millions of students who are wrapped up in student loan debt and will never even be able to own a house or get on their lives because of it. We've ruined generations due to it. Wall Street got a bailout, where's the American people's?

THAT is the defining ideology and what makes Bernie's campaign so different than Hillary's.
We've tried the other ways, they haven't worked one damn bit.
It's time for a change.

[floriduck]

93. Kudos to you, pine box.

You presented many of Bernie's supporters thoughts quite clearly and logically. That just doesn't guarantee the Hill people will understand you. Their thought process seems to run perpendicular to ours.

[Ron Green]

19. You REALLY don't get it.

President Bernie Sanders would be one small but very important first step in turning this thing around, turning away from Empire and toward a real community based in human values rather than profit and exploitation.

Read David Korten, Gar Alperovitz, Gus Speth, Wendell Berry, Pope Francis, T.R. Reid, Naomi Klein, Charles Marohn - the list goes on - these thinkers have written extensively about exactly what we must do to continue human life on this planet, and NONE OF IT includes the kind of "business as usual" that your candidate or any of the Republicans will allow.

The one thing we would have in President Bernie Sanders is a message from the White House that the oligarchy is no longer in unexamined control of our political economy. As I said above, his election is just a first step, and it's not just about, as you say, "the whole spectrum of our party." it's about the whole spectrum of ALL THE PEOPLE, and it's up to them, not Bernie Sanders, to make this shift happen.

Look, I get that you want Hillary and that's fine, but please don't post bullshit about a "revolution" you don't understand.

[jkbRN]

20. Did you just write a post

About how you won't vote for a candidate without offering any better solution? To me, this post comes off as a bunch of complaining.

My advice: make the change that you want, don't complain about it.

[HerbChestnut]

21. You heard it here, Bernie folks.

Give up. Don't bother. Support the establishment because it's the only thing that works.

[DaveT]

22. I am glad we won't be turning our country over to them.

You give yourself away here. Once again treating a prediction as though it were a fact.

Elections decide whether the people will support an idea. Let's count the votes before we decide who won, or what people will vote for. Repeating your opinion as though it were some sort of natural law of the universe shows your real agenda here.

I certainly agree that asking whether the majority is in favor of Sanders proposals is a good question. I say let the voters decide -- because they are going to do so one way or the other. I have no interest in deciding for the people what they will vote for, which is in a nutshell your argument here.

[mahina]

24. I've listened to almost every one of his speeches, and this is the revolution that he's about:

making our electeds represent the people and not just the 'millionayas and billionayas".

Overturning Citizens United.

Inspiring young people who saw what's been gradually happening, our democracy changing to an oligarchy, and bringing them together with the rest of us to huli this corrupt sad farce, this permanent war machine that would grind them up and take everything from them.

I definitely want the revolution because this is not America any more, and it has got to be.

[upaloopa]

27. How does that get done?

See it isn't only nice words and phrases we are voting for.
We need to understand how getting there effects our lives. The majority want to know HOW!
You can't tell us can you.?
Idealism isn't good enough.

[mahina]

43. Condescension aside,

let me remind you of how the people overthrew the Pinochet regime in Chile.

How the Danes defeated the Nazis.

How the South Africans huli'd apartheid.

How the Solidarity defeated the Soviet communism.

You turn out the people, win elections and bring people back to civil engagement, and change the laws.

I will work my heart out for Hillary if she wins, but unless and until that happens, I am voting for and supporting Bernie. I don't expect to ever change your mind.

For more complete perspective, here's a little reading list:
A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
http://www.amazon.com/Force-More-Powerful-Non-violent-Conflict/dp/0312240503

From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp
http://www.amazon.com/From-Dictatorship-Democracy-Conceptual-Liberation/dp/1595588507/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=41ChtIG8xqL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR109%2C160_&refRID=15ZJRTDAMCKMGKGMPTV3

The Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Nonviolent-Action-Part-Two/dp/0875580718/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=41JTGJP3FZL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR101%2C160_&refRID=0SXYRYJ8PDZNSMW86C4J

A clip from A Force More Powerful on the Chilean huli. The whole film is on youtube.

People do have the power. I'm not on Bernie's staff so I don't know their campaign strategy and even if I did, I wouldn't post it here. The bottom line is you win elections by bringing people back to the process, and that's what is happening.

Peace to you.

[Chico Man]

55. Some waves are better than others

And you can't ride them all.

Bernie's is medium at best.

[mahina]

61. Not perfect, but he'll do.

I think we're extremely lucky he's willing to run.

For what it's worth, I think the same of Hillary.

[appalachiablue]

59. Well said.

[mahina]

62. Thanks mate.

[Autumn]

25. That's the beautiful part. You don't have to support it

Just like I don't have to support a candidate who gives more of the same old thing and turn the country over to her.

[DianeK]

29. Nothing like Status Quo ..

to get the blood stirring, eh?

[rogerashton]

33. I have said that I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee

and I remain committed to that. But her supporters -- and to a lesser extent, Hillary herself -- keep making it more and more difficult for me.

[rosesaylavee]

34. I do respect your vote for Secy Clinton

This is why I am voting for Senator Sanders. He will have my vote because he has framed the Climate Crisis as a moral crisis. I volunteer as a presenter for climate issues, I work as a volunteer on climate issues in my local community, at the state level and again at the federal level. There are plenty (thousands) of us doing this work -- it will take a leader who says this is of vital importance for us to move forward in a meaningful way that will secure our future as one that includes water (for all to survive), sustainable jobs in an economy that will allow us to thrive -- while moving us away from fossil fuels.

I am not hearing this same sense of urgency from Secy Clinton. I understand that she is now against the Keystone Pipeline that her department gave the green light to when she was in charge. I applaud that. Unfortunately, there are other pipelines scheduled that will carry that oil out of the country -- that will wreak the same devastation to our land, water and eventually the air we breathe. I am not hearing that this is a concern of hers at this point.

I do believe we will need to have a revolution -- at least in ideology -- to survive the next couple of decades. We do no have a choice. The science tells me this -- I have hope that the many of us who are dedicating all our volunteer time to this effort will be able to persuade those not yet understanding what a dire crossroads we are standing in at the moment.

I do not mean to argue with you, or denigrate your choice of nominee. I just wanted you to know where this one individual stands who posts here on DU and who supports Senator Sanders candidacy.

[ismnotwasm]

36. My politics are feminist politics

All I needed to see were the sexists and misogynists embrace the "revolution" to know it was bullshit. I did look at Sanders, closely. He sounds good. He may *be* the good man his supporters claim, I have evolved from thinking he's a typical con artist politician.

Revolution was electing an African American liberal Democrat. Revolution will be electing a woman liberal democratic. I don't want to parse terms--revolution starts with the basics within the political system we have

[randys1]

40. Your last comment is important for people to understand.

You and I may disagree how to get the revolution we need, the non violent, political revolution, but that you are looking at a big picture does mean you have a valid point.

Can the revolution occur, given our current situation, from the outside i.e. Bernie?

Good question

[MoonRiver]

44. Can it occur after 8 years of a Hillary Clinton administration

preceded by 8 years of a Barack Obama administration? Yes it can!!

[DianeK]

52. revolution is never about one person ... eom

[Starry Messenger]

60. You said everything I was thinking.

The violent response to the interventions from BLM pretty much sealed it for me. Revolution is intersectional or it is bullshit.

[Romulox]

69. You support the grotesquely wealthy white woman--water carrier for Wall Street and a war monger.

That's not "intersectionalism".

[Starry Messenger]

75. This is what I hear when I read posts like that:

[Romulox]

77. Perhaps you meant "Inter-rationalization"?

[Starry Messenger]

78. Slow day at the hipster coffee joint, eh?

I'm sure things will pick up for you this weekend.

[Romulox]

80. That's not even a rationalization for your support of the Center-Right. It's just lame. nt

[Starry Messenger]

83. It will all be ok.

You might want to make the next latte decaf, though. I worry about your stress levels. xo

[Romulox]

84. You are unhinged in your desperation to make a point. Just incoherent and bizarre.

Frankly, I was much more devastated by your insinuation that I live in (gasp!) Hamtramck. That one still hurts, sometimes.

[Starry Messenger]

87. Definitely too much caffeine, Rommy.

It can make your vision blurry when your heart races like that. When things slow down, try reading my posts again. I'm sure it will go better the next time.

[Romulox]

88. "Please don't address me like that. We aren't friends."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=788179

[Starry Messenger]

89. Poor thing, so confused and incoherent.

Maybe you need to seek medical attention? Could be serious, you know?

[Romulox]

94. No, "Socialists for the Center Right candidate!" is incoherent.

I've always been against rightwing warmongers. Have you?

[Starry Messenger]

96. *Yawn*

Brocialists are a dime a dozen in my neck of the woods. I guess some people just need to feel unique for some reason.

[Romulox]

97. I think your responses here and elsewhere speak for themselves. I don't need to insult your gender.

ZzzzzzZZZzzzzz

[INdemo]

38. If you brought this script over from the Clinton

Campaign you just might want to tell them you failed miserably with your BS.
When Hillary supporters post shit like this it is a sure sign Hillary is nervousness and fears she is heading toward another 2008 all over again. Do you realize that your rethoric is just like a damn T-nagger Republican?

[bravenak]

39. I agree. The more I see of the revolution, the more I know I was holding Hillary to extremely

high expectations in a way I would never do to a man. She can get things done. The other side cannot even explain how to get started. No revolution for me.

[femmedem]

41. One way a Sanders presidency would be effective in accomplishing its political goals

It would demonstrate to other politicians that it isn't political suicide to vote for progressive legislation.

[Sheepshank]

42. lookin up thread...these revolutionaries

stink.

[liberal N proud]

45. It's similar to the marijuana legalization in Ohio recently

Many were for the legalization, just not in the way the bill was written.

If the methods to get to the end result are not good, it would be better to wait for something that will be right. Change for change sake is not always good.

[plus5mace]

46. You are quite happy with things the way they are.

You sell that next November. I won't.

[Maedhros]

49. Thank you for your defeatism.

Now get out of the way so we can get some work done.

[DonCoquixote]

51. no it won't

In 2015 the way to begin to go down that path is to nominate someone for president who can bring together voters from the whole spectrum of our party not just the left. It will take that to win the White House, gain seats in Congress and to put a liberal Supreme Court in place.


If that were true, we would not have lost congress, bled senators, and lost governorship under the tenure of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The numbers cannot lie.

[Demeter]

53. Revolution is like an avalanche

The scenario builds slowly, quietly, and then suddenly

BOOM!

Change happens. Bernie is a direct result of the President that failed (Obama) and Occupy Wall Street, and Ed Snowden, and 9-11, and everything else since the assassinations of the 60's and J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, the Dulles Bros., the Koch Bros.....FDR and WWII....

You want to sit out the greatest thing since the Revolutionary War, and play BDSM with Hilary? Be my guest. Please don't bother telling us about it. We aren't interested or titillated.

[Javaman]

56. translation: get off my lawn!

[Bluenorthwest]

58. I don't get why you would try to pawn off the idea that you had been considering anyone but

Hillary. You have been actively promoting and endorsing her here for months and months and also slamming Bernie and his supporters for months and months, as your Journal so proudly displays. All of that is of course your perfect right to do, but having done so why try to claim you are in a thought process, listening and suddenly deciding you don't like Bernie? It's disingenuous, it's just you reaching for another theme and opening for yet another Bernie bashing session.
I don't get it. The frothing aggression for months, the bogus claims of current deliberations when your views are long settled and regularly proclaimed to us all. It's a pretense, an affectation that suggests an unspoken motive to the materials.

[navarth]

63. Is this kind of vitriol supposed to change minds?

I'm kinda doubting it will.

[azurnoir]

64. so once again we hear Republicans who now rule both houses of Congress will follow Hillary

but not Bernie, how's that work, I've asked before but no one seems to able to answer

[zalinda]

95. If you think they hated Obama

wait until Hillary. I hear they are trying to think of a way to impeach her on day one.

Z

[jalan48]

65. I think if you were around for the 60's that will give you an idea of what is coming.

It doesn't matter if Hillary becomes President, just like it didn't matter that Johnson was President and Humphrey his establishment heir. After the euphoria wears off about the first woman President, people still have to eat and pay the rent. Continuing trickle down and Wall Street policies just won't cut it. Unfortunately, Hillary is the wrong person for the job at this time in our history.

[upaloopa]

86. When I was born Truman was President.

When I grew up life was good for White men. But as kids we did not like being told we had to emulate the establishment. There was intense pressure to conform to white male dominance of everything.
We began to listen to other voices in music and underground media. The civil rights movement inspired us. Women's liberation inspired us. We had lot's of hope. All was dashed when John Kennedy was killed. Then the draft took me and others to war. Dr King was killed, Bobby Kennedy was killed. Students at Kent State were killed. The country was tearing itself apart. Inflation was 12%. Riots and campus unrest was opposed by those White males from earlier.
They elected Reagan. You know the rest.
So we find ourselves here today.
Bernie lived through all that as I did.
He says what you want to hear but I want to hear how we get to where he wants to take us. He has no idea. I can't vote for that.

[jalan48]

100. We come from the same time.

And after all that idealism of the 60's here we sit today after decades of right wing bullshit telling ourselves we can't be too progressive because we may lose the election. I think that's why we are where we are today-because we have been falling for that line for 40 years. What has it got us? An oligarchy, that's about it. My point is that Hillary is like Humphrey-she's the Democratic Party Establishment candidate. I feel for her if she wins. The honeymoon will be a short one, and unlike Obama she won't be able to say she inherited a mess, which he actually did.

[yardwork]

66. Thank you for this thoughtful post.

[mmonk]

67. I don't your rich derivatives trader

that screwed me and the rank and file.

[Romulox]

71. You support the Status Quo. All the rest are excuses. nt

[fbc]

72. We no longer want your revolution

The progressives are the ones standing for the traditional values of the Democratic Party. The "New Democrat/Third Way" wing is the relatively recent revolution in the party that has cast away these values. We no longer want your revolution.

[restorefreedom]

76. honest question

do you really think the obstructionist gop will work with hillary any better than they would work with bernie

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. Change is slow...

Social Security was not so good when it passed, but it was made better over decades.

The Equal rights act of 1964 was the culmination of at least five previous acts, and we improved that over time.

Our system was not created for revolution. It requires compromise, and compromise is the slow path to making things better.

The ACA needs improvement, and to do that we need a President who will not sign a bill to repeal it an a Congress that will work to make it a little better.

I intend to vote to keep what we have and make it better because I am a liberal.

[Armstead]

82. And while we're at it, Screw This Guy too

" target="_blank">

[ibegurpard]

98. He's Public Enemy #1 right now

For Camp Weathervane. Hillary doesn't stack up so well to him.

[Scootaloo]

85. You don't actually support your thesis

They are incapable of making real change happen

You don't provide any argument to support this claim. Nor do you provide an argument as to how someone else will accomplish htis. Your points amount to "progressivism is an uphill climb," which it is, and then you just sort of drop off. it ends up just looking like you're trying to score points rather than make points.

[Thinkingabout]

90. For the OWS forces, study the union movement, the organized, had terrible things happen to those who

Walked on union lines, these was strong good people trying to make the lives of others better. It was day after day of protesting in bad weather and it went on for years. They knew how to boycott and they knew results came after electing Democratic congress, president, governors, state houses, etc. Unions was able to get changes in laws which made it easier to organize. Staying home and not voting does not accomplish our needs, the place not to boycott is the voting booth.

[Persondem]

99. Nice post. Thank you. K & R nt

[Live and Learn]

101. I don't want your status quo or continuing path to Oligarchy! nt

[blackspade]

102. You'll get it anyway.

[eridani]

103. It's th HRC supporters who are keyboard activists

They talk of nothing but polls and name recognition; zero vision, zero hope that anything can be different. Sanders supporters are phonebanking, doorbelling and doing other voter contact work.

One thing I know for sure is that you change the political climate by advocating for what you want, not for what you think you can get.