HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Laelth » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Wills Point, TX
Home country: USA
Member since: Sat Oct 16, 2004, 01:36 PM
Number of posts: 30,174

About Me

I am a native Georgian who's currently hiding out in Texas. I am a liberal, and I am extremely proud of the imperfect (but evolving) republic that we call the United States of America.

Journal Archives

Eliminating the Filibuster.

It is my sincere hope that Democrats will regain control of the Senate early next year. When that happens, I hope we will be able to forward a lot of new, liberal legislation to President Biden’s desk for his signature. In order for this to happen, the filibuster must be eliminated. It’s just a Senate rule. It can easily be changed if and when a majority of Senators agrees to change it.

If this hypothetical Democratic Senate tries to eliminate the filibuster in 2021, the Republicans, naturally, will raise holy hell. This is how I would respond to their objections (and this is the point of this thread).

If our esteemed, Republican colleagues are so fond of the filibuster, they will be welcome to restore it as soon as they re-take control of the Senate. If they do not restore it when they have the power to do so, it will merely prove our point—that the filibuster has outlived its usefulness and no longer serves the best interests of the American people.

What do you think?


Which of these old white guys can beat Donald Trump?

Joe Biden Age 77 (Joe is the youngest of this group!)

Bernie Sanders Age 78

Michael Bloomberg Age 78

Daffy Duck Age 82 (In all fairness to Daffy, he may not qualify as a white guy.)

I honestly can not believe that, in 2020, given the depth of our bench, the diversity of our party, and the obvious excellence of our candidates, my party seems determined to nominate one of these old, white guys. Admittedly, each and every one of them is far better than Agent Orange.

Blue no matter who.



I have to pull out the big guns, now.

The American people think they deserve what Bernie Sanders is promising to fight for:

1. Universal, taxpayer-funded health care for all.
2. A massive increase in the minimum wage.
3. Free college tuition at state colleges and universities.
4. Student loan debt relief.

Bernie is relentless in hammering home his intention to fight for these things for the American people. His message is focused, and it resonates. That's why he is winning.

The Democratic Party needs to get with the program. The American people don't give a darn about how we are going to pay for these things. They're just happy to vote for some politician who's willing to fight for what they think (rightly) that they deserve. I strongly encourage Democrats to listen to the people and follow them as Gandhi did for his own people. The cost to our party will be immense if we don't.


Does it matter to you (or to the electorate) that these two people are NOT married?

Michael Bloomberg and potential First Girlfriend Diana Taylor

Of our 45 presidents, to date, 44 have been married. James Buchanan, elected in 1884, is the only President who was not married when he became President. Does this matter to us any more?

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?


"What Obama Is Saying in Private About the Democratic Primary"

What Obama Is Saying in Private About the Democratic Primary

NewYork Magazine - By Gabriel Debenedetti - 02-17-2020

The truth of Obama’s silence on the 2020 primary is that it’s not just about his obvious wish to stay out of the spotlight, but it also reflects a choreographed strategy. With the race looking more and more likely to grow bitter and messy, and maybe even wind up in a contested convention, the former president and those around him are increasingly sure he will need to play a prominent role in bringing the party back together and calming its tensions later this summer, including perhaps in Milwaukee, where the party’s meeting is scheduled to be held in July. So he is committed to not allowing his personal thoughts to dribble out in the meantime, directly or via leaks, conscious of how any sense that he’s taking sides in intraparty disputes could rock the primary in the short run and potentially undermine his ability to play this larger role in the months ahead. “He says one sentence about being woke at some conference, and the Twitterverse freaks out,” recalled one of his friends, referring to the former president’s comments at an Obama Foundation meeting in Chicago that set off a firestorm. He and his advisors “are very aware [of the effect of] one word that Barack Obama says.” And he’s being careful to ensure he can be seen as an honest broker in June and July — a potentially necessary designation given both his status as the party’s most popular figure and the real possibility that Sanders, or another candidate, could enter the summer with a plurality of the delegates needed for the nomination but not an outright victory. “Obama is going to look at the [delegate math to determine] the outcome. If the math brings someone [to the nomination], he’ll back it in full,” one person who still speaks with the former president told me recently. “His biggest dilemma is if Bernie is at 35-40 [percent of the delegates], and no one else is [at] 20. Does he say, ‘You have to go with who won [a plurality of] the delegates, and who looks to be the true front-runner?’”

But Obama is hardly the only Democrat sweating that particular possibility, especially with Michael Bloomberg — who some in Obama’s orbit favor but many regard warily — poised to swoop in on the process in March. Sorting out that confusion might be the most complicated scenario for Obama, the person added. The reality might be more simple: “It’s not gonna happen before the convention, [but] he’s gonna be all-in for Bernie if he’s the nominee.”



Which of the following PROVES that Donald J. Trump TRULY IS "The Great Pumpkin"?



For only the third time in the history of our republic, a President of the United States has been impeached. In my opinion, no previous President has been more deserving of this dubious honor. Donald J. Trump earned it, and he earned it in spades.

It can not be acceptable for a President of the United States to solicit and encourage interference in our electoral processes. It can not be acceptable for the executive branch to stonewall the legislative branch and completely deny that the legislative branch has any right to conduct oversight of the executive. In our republic, the executive is not a monarch. He (or she) may not refuse to cooperate with a legislative branch investigation. The executive serves as the AGENT of the people, and he or she is subject to the oversight of the people as defined in the Article I LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of our government, i.e. Congress.

I wish to express my deepest respect and sincere appreciation for Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler, and all the other courageous members of Congress who stood up for the Constitution today. As Democrats, we can hold our heads high, now, and say that we did all that we could, and that we did what was right, in defense of our republic. Furthermore, we did so without regard for the outcome in our cowardly Senate which will, in all likelihood, rubber-stamp the authoritarian, repugnant, and unconstitutional behavior of our current President. I am proud of us.

Cheers, and Happy Impeachment Day!


The Democratic Party is FINALLY (once again) a LIBERAL political party.

Having watched two nights of debates between twenty people who seek to represent our party as President of the United States, I must admit that I wept tears of joy seeing how far our party has come since I first began following politics in 1980 when James Earl Carter, Jr. was running against Ronald Reagan for the presidency. We are now (once again) a truly liberal party. For years I told people that I was a Democrat, but that I voted for democrats only because the other alternative was more abhorrent. Today, I do not feel that way. With only a couple of exceptions (whom I will not name), I would be proud to have any one of the people I just saw debate represent me as President of the United States. They are all liberal.

Here's what I heard:

(1) Kamala Harris described climate change as an existential threat to the planet and to the human race. Nobody disagreed.

(2) Several candidates discussed the need to do something about the humanitarian crisis that the Trump administration has created on our Mexican border. Nobody disagreed.

(3) Several candidates re-dedicated themselves, publicly, to the concept that all people are equal under the law. Nobody disagreed.

(4) A couple of candidates had plans to address the student loan debt crisis that has economically crippled two generations of Americans. While the various candidates who addressed this issue had different plans to deal with the problem, nobody disagreed that it was a serious problem that had to be addressed by the Federal Government.

(5) Nobody questioned the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. We ARE the pro-choice party, and we are now universally pro-choice. This has not always been the case.

(6) Andrew Yang advocated a "trickle-up" economy. He would like to just "give money" to the people, directly from the Federal Government, to churn our economy. If the poorest among us have more money, they will spend it, and we will all become richer, he thinks. This makes sense to me, and while I don't see such a bill passing Congress in the near future, it's clear that the "trickle-down" economy that Republicans have been advocating for the past forty years has been a complete disaster. It has enriched the already-rich and further impoverished the already-poor. The point I want to make here, however, is that none of our candidates disagreed with Andrew Yang or even challenged him on his proposal. We are now, universally, as a party, the party of economic justice. Trust me. When I first encountered American politics in 1980, this was not the case. Our party has changed, and it has changed for the better.

(7) Bernie Sanders reminded us that if we are to achieve our goals we must have the courage and the strength to take on the moneyed interests in our country and fight for the people (and not just the rich ones). This is a tricky problem, but what I noticed, in particular, is that nobody disagreed with him or contradicted him on this subject.

(8) John Hickenlooper, perhaps the most conservative candidate on the stage, could point to the longest list of actual, real, liberal, legislative achievements of any candidate with whom he was debating--including the legalization of marijuana, and he is our most conservative candidate. Nobody argued against the legalization of marijuana or any of the other liberal achievements of John Hickenlooper while he was Governor.

(9) An utterly eloquent and obviously intelligent gay and married man was featured, center-stage, with the other party-heavyweights in the second debate (Biden and Sanders). Nobody had a problem with this, and I would vote for Mayor Pete in a heartbeat in a general election. Again, this is very different from the Democratic Party I first became involved with in 1980.

(10) On foreign policy, every single candidate on the stage--both nights--advocated for a strong global presence and expanded cooperation with our allies. All condemned wars of choice, and all condemned the Trump administration's coddling of dictators. There is not an isolationist among us. We are unified on this subject.

And that's my main point. I have never seen the Democratic Party so unified on so many issues. Everybody running for President agrees on almost all the important issues. The most severe intra-party conflicts in these debates centered on Joe Biden's long legislative record, but even Joe agrees with the party mainstream as it exists now. All Kamala Harris could do was ask Joe why he didn't agree with us 20 or 40 years ago. I say, who cares? He agrees with us now, and that is enough. I have never seen the party so unified.

And we are liberal--finally, and at last.

Please give me a k&r. Let us celebrate this day. I am astounded and amazed by what I have seen from the excellent people we have running for President in this cycle, and I am thrilled to have a unified, liberal party--at last.

Today, I am PROUD to be a Democrat.


Now we see an attempt to turn Democrats against Jay Inslee. WTF?

Dude, the more you pit Democrats against other Democrats--the more you attempt to turn us against one another--the more transparent you become. Jay Inslee is not a one issue candidate, and, even if he is, I suspect my children would appreciate his reminding the Democratic Party that climate change is the #1 threat to our entire species. Why attack him? Why bring this issue to our attention in the way you did in this OP? I have my suspicions about your motives, to be sure. After all, you and I have been reading one another's work (on multiple fora) for a long, long time.

Someone. Please alert on this post. I have had enough of MineralMan (one of the greatest concern trolls I have ever encountered on the internet), and I would be thrilled to have a jury consider this question. His latest OP, I posit, is a concern troll post, as is nearly everything else that MineralMan has ever posted on Democratic Underground.

So is this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=145229

I could go on and on ...


This is why we should IMPEACH!


"Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key -- the scandal key -- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000. The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination. Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge, a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim."

I say impeach NOW.

Recent history shows us that an impeached President is always followed by a President of the opposition party (Nixon/Ford—>Carter, Clinton—>Bush). Just impeach this monster and get it over with. I would much rather see our spectacular field of candidates talking about a positive vision for America than to keep investigating this scoundrel that currently occupies the Oval Office.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »