Someone didn't get the lesson in 2010

[joshcryer]

111. Absolutely.

I agree perfectly with that framing. What we need are politicians who support the 99% who actually are bipartisan, but simply elucidating the necessary conditions. Most Americans are not the 99% and therefore should agree with it. Sadly our politicians are 1%ers, or at least, live in a mindset where bipartisanship that acquiesces to the 1% is necessary (Obama is the perfect example given his upbringing, his life was in the bottom 5% at most, yet here we are with a politician that is giving in to the top 5% at minimum! How did this happen?!?).

We need to primary politicians who are against the 99% and we need to make it abundantly clear that they don't represent the American population as a whole. If we can't do that a third party is the only way to break out of this cycle. I hope one day to be posting in not-democratic-underground if that ever happens. Either way the Democratic part must absolutely evolve and stop pandering to the elites if it's ever going to save the country. As it stands now my vote for the Democratic Party is to slow the ultimate decline of the United States.

From my point of view, then, the only way for the Democratic Party to move forward is to end the bipartisanship. A simple metric. Don't vote for those in the Democratic Party who are bipartisan or who use that as their platform. Fuck it. 'Unity' candidates "for the lose." That's how I'm voting next go around in the primaries. If our next candidate is for unity, they can suck it, as the GOP as proven itself, especially as our President has compromised after compromised over stupid shit, allowing the people, to lose, in the end.

I mean, seriously, had the President let the tax cuts expire he'd have had glorious powers to demand whatever he wanted. Even a 1% tax break would've been glorious. But no, he allowed the GOP to own it and frame it and get what they wanted.