2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
still_one
(98,883 posts)referring to, but the OP must be referring to someone other than a President because a President could not even do what the OP is suggesting without a majority in Congress, and in some cases a 2/3 majority.
It is fun to misrepresent and distort the facts
What is even more entertaining is that the OPs implication, that anyone who would vote for such a person "isn't really a progressive or liberal":
"AND she'll allow me to maintain my pretense of being a liberal by speaking out about social issues that have already been determined to be safe enough to touch?"
Not sure if this OP is the best way to win friends and influence people, if the intent is to dis anyone who supports this candidate who is referred to as SHE.
Obviously, the OP believes that those that support this candidate who is referred to as SHE don't matter.
We had a majority and they still did none of the things that needed to be done. Lip service is what we get, must be lip service is all we need eh?!
Enough is enough!
still_one
(98,883 posts)it would be nice if some understood that different states have different priorities. Red, verses blue, verses purple states. Let me take just one small, insignificant example. The affordable healthcare law. NOT one republican voted for it. There were Democrats who came out and made it very clear that they would not vote for single payer or Medicare for all. Here is just a few, but there were more: Bayh in Indiana, Nelson in Nebraska, Nelson in Florida, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and enough other Democrats, there would have been no healthcare bill.
It would be interesting if people recognized that a Democrat in one region of the country may have different views on issues than a Democrat in another region of the country
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Single payer was never on the table but Social Security sure was.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Social Security was NEVER on the table.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
jalan48
(14,914 posts)It's called educating the voting public. By keeping it "off the table" you allow the right wing to win the war of it's too radical to even discuss. That's the problem and also the strategy of conservative, Wall Street Democrats. Please, let's stop pretending it's something an Obama or or a Hillary seriously wanted.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)the blue dogs voted with the R's is simply wrong.
Of course if the reasoning is that the blue dogs lost was because they took a more conservative stand, rather than a more progressive stand on the issues, then why are folks like Cruz, Abbott, Beven, McConnell, and others where they are? I guess it must be because of their progressive agendas.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I can face myself in the mirror. I doubt any sellouts can honestly do that without flinching.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)even before I'd read it all. I knew it wasn't about Howdy-Doody, I knew it wasn't aimed at SpongeBopb SquarePants, I felt confident about dismissing Mitch McTurtle, and I was fairly sure it wasn't Bernie Sanders that was being detailed. No, as I read thru it, I gained confidence that the luminary being outlined is possibly a Debbie-Wasserman-"Sgt." Schultz - ("I know Nothing!"
- promoted candidate who's adept at shaking the index finger of one hand at Wall St., while grappling with wads of cash - from Wall St. - with the other hand. The candidate who, like Donald Dump, thinks working folks can do FINE with less than 15 bucks an hour (As I'm sure said candidate themselves does). The candidate who's also adept at amassing generous sums of Corporate Moola (other than Banking bucks) while assuring us wee ones that they'll have only OUR interests FOREMOST once we all do our good little citizen parts and give them our one precious vote.
Note that I've avoided actually stating the name of the person I feel confident the OP is about. I don't wanna come across as a show-off.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The big problem in the Democratic Party today is that we give only lip service to unions and workers' rights in the workplace.
Not only does our silence when it comes to improving the rights of workers in the workplace mean growing and dangerous growth in economic inequality in our country, but it also means that our Party does not appeal to working people and fails to represent their interests.
If a Fascist like Trump wins in 2016, it will be because of the failure of Democrats to stand up for our vulnerable working people. We have gone through a time of great change, of automation, in the workplace.
If you look back to the age of the industrial revolution, you will see the movement beginning of people from rural life to urban life. In the cities, people found themselves working in terrible, sometimes dangerous conditions. A workers' movement grew out of those terrible conditions.
So did machine politics.
In the 1950s and 1960s, working people belonged to unions and made, compared to the cost of living and the technology of the time, fairly decent wages and enjoyed job security including in many cases, pensions from their employers. Today, job security is rare. Many people are hired from the get-go for only temporary positions -- contract work, the modern version of say-labor.
The Democratic machine politicians -- the "machine" of the Clintons, etc. -- refuse to even recognize the social and economic problem that this new labor economy is presenting to working people. The conservative Republicans are allowed to present their view on it with no rebuttal from mainstream, machine Democrats like Hillary Clinton, et al.
Thus, of course, a demagogue like Trump who blames everyone who looks "different" from who knows what appears to be the person who might help all these part-time, contract, partially unemployed working people who have been abandoned to the insecurities of our rapidly changing labor market by people who sit in Congress year after year ignoring the real problems of working Americans -- that is most Americans.
The Blue Dogs are Democrats? I am not sure why they define themselves as Democrats. They don't care about working people. They don't care about criminal justice. They don't care about the environment. What in the world do they really care about? Certainly not healthcare for all.
If Americans are voting for people who don't care about these fundamental issues, it is because the Democratic Party leadership does not really talk about the issues that matter to Americans.
Bernie Sanders is talking about those issues. And he is beginning to succeed in forcing others to talk about them too.
Feel the Bern!
Talk about the real issues. Let's elect a candidate who will address what is ailing America and not just blame our problems on people who are "different" from us (whatever that means at the moment).
And let's nominate a Democratic candidate who dares to address the real problems we face and doesn't just point fingers at people in other countries and propose "no fly" zones and other cockamamie schemes, someone who is capable of recognizing and addressing our real problems and doesn't just point and say, "Look over there. See how awful they are!"
I'm for Bernie because I think he is challenging us to be better to each other here at home and stands tall for all Americans especially working people, the lifeblood of our nation.
Feel the Bern!
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It's because I'm not sending enough money.
That's the only message that I get.
George II
(67,782 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yep...Hillary is a sad sight.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)...who could get major legislation through a congress made up like the current one, why vote for anyone who isn't a Republican? I'm not sure that's your point, though.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Vote for someone other than Republican OR Republican Lite.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)a President need only do nothing to enact all of those things because they are already in place.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)Are you suggesting that where a candidate stands on important economic issues that affect people's lives should not be a factor in deciding who to vote for?
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Still looking for the pony.....
-none
(1,884 posts)They are more like a 'White Elephant' for most people anymore.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)The thing is, a pony is supposed to be the reward for dealing with so much shit.
I know who and what the 'White Elephant' is.....and it isn't the pony.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That makes a difference to. Yes 250K is a lot even for married couples, but if both work that would include a lot of the population.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is wreaking America
Armstead
(47,803 posts)they also receive a benefit from the modest tax hikes they might get.
For example, if Medicare were expanded, they could likely find that they are paying less for healthcare.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)that Clinton and others are basically saying that the affluent (not super rich but well off) would be punished if there were a tax increase on upper incomes that might affect them too. Which is a variation of the GOP mantra.
Nobody likes taxes. But if we are to live in a society with a safety net, public services, national defense and other public benefits and protections, then w all have to pony up to some extent. The possibility of offering improved services in exchange for small increases for some upper middle class shouldn't be used as a way to discourage progress.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What should be the appropriate cut off for raising taxes, where it wouldn't be a gop mantra?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No blanket statement can cover that (which is part of my point).
I think, for example, it would be appropriate if everyone (who isn't in the medicaid category) were to pay a supplement for Medicare for universal coverage replacing extortionary private health insurance, that would be appropriate, if it were on a progressive on a sliding scale that was neither a burden to the working semi-poor nor confiscatory to upper income)
Similarly, I think it would be appropriate to raise the cap on SS so that it at least is as painful for the affluent as it is for those of us with smaller incomes (especially the self -employed).
No ione size fits all answer. Which is why Democrats should not be using blanket statements and "promises" about taxes as an argument against progressive/liberal programs or candidates.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Who have fat investment portfolios. Because you are taxed on income not wealth...and not on gross income but net after deductions.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)I know it's not what you are saying but this whole "me and my wife make $250k so we are getting screwed" is such Joe The Plumber bullshit.
The real number before any increase is kicked in is probably more like $300k. And even then, the increases everyone is talking about is only on amounts OVER the AGI. So we really are talking about $350k before the increase starts to mean much.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those mocking HRC's promise are suggesting that the 250k floor for increasing taxes is too damned high. I suspect the appropriate floor is $10.00 more than what they make.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)"Does your family make over $232,000? Congrats, you’re in the top 5 percent" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/17/does-your-family-make-over-232000-congrats-youre-in-the-top-5-percent/
From 2012 but I doubt it's much different now, since the 2014 median HOUSEHOLD income was around $53,000.
So no, it is not "a lot" of the population.
And no, sorry, it doesn't matter if you live in NYC or some other high-dollar locale. The server at the Manhattan Starbucks might not live "in the city" but has to live somewhere near enough to get to work - and according to HRC does not need even $15 hr to survive - so I don't want to hear about the poor richies who can't get by on $250K
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)She is a CORPORATE SHILL!!! That is what she has become. They pay her from $150,000 - $250,000 per speech to her PERSONAL ACCOUNT!!! They fill her campaign coffers and tell her what is important to them.
Does ANYONE honestly believe she has not been influenced by this? Really?
Hillary is the poster child for why we need Publicly Funded Elections!!! We must end the bribery of all of our politicians and restore Representative Democracy!!!
THIS IS WHAT BERNIE'S CAMPAIGN IS ALL ABOUT!!! Our media conglomerates don't talk about this and many other issues. They are supposed to be the 4th Estate, investigating and reporting to keep government honest, instead the do away with exit polling and the like!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It's about ending the "greed is good" meme the entire USA fell for when they voted for Reagan. About time!
Besides, when Hillary says something, I don't believe it. She sounds and acts scripted and it all comes across as not very "passionate" about whatever she's going on about. Sanders sounds authentic and real. Is that an act? Not unless he's been acting for decades. He's still championing the things he was before anyone knew who he was.
She is not fighting what is wrong with politics, she is one of the many examples of what is wrong with politics.
azmom
(5,208 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Way to go, Third Way Bonobo!
Rec to the max. (nice homage)
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)
polichick
(37,626 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Somewhere along the line some people projected the mantle of "liberal' on him and he didn't object.
Now we have TPP to put the coup de grâce to US Sovereignty, our economy and democracy
Yee haw.
Autumn
(48,962 posts) chervilant
(8,267 posts)I see a sticky wicket coming down the pike...
hehehe
Dem2
(8,178 posts)Doesn't work, too much anger.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)in multi-national mega corporations which avoid paying taxes (to help pay for the wars) by keeping profits overseas.
Whats not to like?
TBF
(36,668 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) Duval
(4,280 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)liberal! It's a whole new ball game!
That's because people who are against the dp, in favor of wall street curbs (including Glass-Stegall), in favor of uhc, against eternal war, and in favor of a living wage are "fringe"