Winning control of Congress in 2014

The most important thing we can do for this country is work together and win full control of Congress in 2014. This would be seen as a final rejection of Tea party extremism.

There are a few factors that may work agaist us. The first is that the Senate map really favors the GOP in 2014. Moreover, the GOP did rake advantage of winning big in 2010 and gerrymandered many house districts. However, hopefully we will be in better economic times and we have a chance of taking the house and keeping the Senate.

I find this jury decision troubling...

I has a thread on www.thirdway.com. I have never hide the fact that I am a moderate democrat. However, hiding this thread is crushing debate and a free flow of ideas.

At Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:26 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Third Way (www.thirdway.org): What actual positions do you find probamatic?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021969568

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Third party advocacy. Read some of this guy's other posts and you'll see his is all over every center right republican position. TOS is checked so this goes to MIRT.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:43 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: In the TOS: "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground"

I think that is pretty clear.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 11:43 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=258114&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

President Obama is a Republican from the 1930s to 1960s

The spectrum has shifted to the right. By the standards of the 1930s to 1960s, Obama is a center right president. So what? We ain't living in the 1930s and today's political center is today's political center.

I would note that this is only a shift on economics rightward. However, Obama would have made a good moderate Republican in the 1940s, at least economically.

Is it immoral to make a certain amount or have a certain amount of wealth?

Simple question. Is it immoral to make a certain amount or have a certain amount of wealth?

Our future is center-left not far-left. The business community and DLC, not OWS

Mic Check....

At one time, OWS received a lot of love on DU. However, it wasn't a relevant movement. The last election wasn't won because of groups like OWS. The last election was won because we were the lesser of two evils, in many minds. The American people don't want radical change. They want moderate reforms. With moderate reforms, we are much more likely to find allies in the business community, then a group like OWS. In an age where the tea party is coming to dominate the GOP, the business community needs allies that can offer them stability. They are the natural organizations to work with to ensure pragmatic reforms for the future.

Protest movements are most effective when they use civil disobedience to highlight state polices that are not just. Two key examples of this are Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Gandhi with his Satyagrah and Martin Luther King with his nonviolence, practiced one thing that OWS never had: Discipline and leadership. OWS is a leaderless organization by its own admission. Nor does not it have a clear set of goals. As such, it does not have the ability to enforce behavior standards on its members, as both Gandhi and King did. Without discipline and leadership, OWS was quickly demonized as radicals. They were more effective for the right then they were for the left. In many ways, they are similar to the Tea Party. They are quickly denounced as radicals and more useful to the other side. However, OWS did of a core truth. The simple message that “this level of wealth inequality is unhealthy”, is a powerful message. To bring that message to bear, one has to be focused and disciplined. That is something the far-left lacks. Moreover, quick and radical change is often more damaging then good. Long-term pragmatic reforms are the way to help the whole of society.

We on the Left should not want the business community to fail. Their success should be rewarded and we should want American companies with American workers to succeed globally. That said, we should work with them to find means to address what is a fundamental weakness of the American system, extreme inequity of wealth. The American economy needs a strong consumer and a strong middle class is how an economy maintains a strong middle class. A government that has a safety net, a progressive tax system, and programs to build a middle class is good for everyone. Instead of demonizing the business world, we should be working with them.

This may seem odd to some. However, the Republican party is dominated by the Tea Party now. They favor an extreme ideology that will undermine the very system the business community needs to remain profitable. The fact is, no one has more to lose from another debt ceiling fight then the business. That is why Obama is reaching out to them now. That is why we should move to position our party as the moderate party. Yes, we believe in a solid middle class. However, we also believe in American business. We do not think that American business is our enemy.

Does the US need an Army, Air Force, Navy or intelligence agencies?

What sort of national defense apparatus does the United States actually need to protect its people?

Would you buy your way out of bad public schools by sending your child to a private school?

If you could afford it, would you buy your way out of bad public schools by sending your child to a private school? Or would you support the local public schools, no matter what?

How much money should the government take for income over 100K, 250K, and one million?

What should be the top tax rates? I understand that the top rates don't start at these numbers. However, as a hypothetical, how much should the government take for yearly incomes over the amount of 100K, 250K and one million

What tax system should America adopt?

Simple question with many different answers. You have a chance to totally resign the American tax system. What does it look like and how does it work?