IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides. (Reply #6)

In the discussion thread: Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist [View all]

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:58 PM

6. IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides.

Red versus Blue is a scam, a propaganda act, with the purpose of keeping us divided and convinced we still have a democracy.

Corporatists on both sides are working hard to set the stage to elect a Republican next time, because eight years of corporate Democratic rule have opened too many eyes to the fact that we are an oligarchy rather than a democracy now, and that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB.

They NEED a Republican in office for awhile so that that corporate Democrats can pretend to be against corporate/warmongering/police state policies again. They hope that the country will forget all this silly oligarchy talk and go back to believing that the only thing wrong in Washington is that a Republican is in office and we need to rally to get the Third Way Democrats back in again.

We saw it in the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign. We see it in the attacks on the base every single day by supposed Hillary supporters. Corporatists in both parties are doing everything possible to enable a Republican win. The corporate elite needs *us* to care which party wins, because our caring shows that we still believe we have a democracy. But the truth is that we live in a post-partisan, united oligarchy now, not a democracy. The corporate elite own both parties, and they care only that the corporate agenda continues, along with the "democracy" scam.

Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

154 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist [View all]	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2015	OP
Suffocating?	GeorgeGist	Feb 2015	#1
It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party	Warpy	Feb 2015	#4
+1	daleanime	Feb 2015	#17
Ansolutely spot on.	hifiguy	Feb 2015	#25
And if she doesn't win, which I doubt she can, they still win.	A Simple Game	Feb 2015	#54
She's the Bob Dole of the Democratic party.	hifiguy	Feb 2015	#61
That is simply not true!	juajen	Feb 2015	#70
Of whom Andy Stephenson, who was a preogressive, anti-Wall Street Dem,	Ken Burch	Feb 2015	#150
I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest.	Scuba	Feb 2015	#32
Why do you use the word "allowed"?	cheapdate	Feb 2015	#34
Certainly.	Chemisse	Feb 2015	#39
True.	cheapdate	Feb 2015	#40
They have to have money to finance a campaign	INdemo	Feb 2015	#111
Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4),	cheapdate	Feb 2015	#118
Correct Only corporatists candidates need to apply	INdemo	Feb 2015	#146
Exactly, keeping libeals out of power is their sole reason for existing	Warpy	Feb 2015	#35
+1 an entire shit load.	Enthusiast	Feb 2015	#52
+100000 Party obsession is a scam for proles.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#37
Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries...	cascadiance	Feb 2015	#132
+1,000s (n/t)	bread_and_roses	Feb 2015	#47
Perfect response!	raindaddy	Feb 2015	#48
Silly	Egnever	Feb 2015	#147
Silly to count on her when she hasn't announced yet, you mean.	Warpy	Feb 2015	#148
I'm open	Egnever	Feb 2015	#149
READY to come off? The Hillary Express is already sitting up on blocks.	InAbLuEsTaTe	Feb 2015	#151
Not to me. Sounds spot on. Plus, there's more in the article if you read beyond the headline. n/t	cui bono	Feb 2015	#7
3rd Way does suck all the O2 out of a room.	Katashi_itto	Feb 2015	#16
Pissy and Snarky are The Economist's middle names.	forest444	Feb 2015	#33
They endorsed Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012 (nt)	Nye Bevan	Feb 2015	#84
Definition of PISSY	demwing	Feb 2015	#45
Pfft!	Enthusiast	Feb 2015	#53
Want proof?	RedstDem	Feb 2015	#140
I don't think of either Clinton or Warren as being too...	Mike Nelson	Feb 2015	#2
Nor do I but	Deny and Shred	Feb 2015	#5
Did you forget? Many thought he was too young and too inexperienced...	Phentex	Feb 2015	#9
I didn't forget	Deny and Shred	Feb 2015	#72
You don't think her candidacy would energize the women's vote?	George II	Feb 2015	#15
Intelligent women don't base their vote on genitalia.	Divernan	Feb 2015	#43
I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender.....	George II	Feb 2015	#49
It's good you refuted your own post's argument.	jeff47	Feb 2015	#125
No, I didn't refute my own post's argument, and what was "pointed out" to me was inaccurate...	George II	Feb 2015	#130
Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender.	jeff47	Feb 2015	#133
"Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender" Where?	George II	Feb 2015	#141
Excellent riposte. Yet men will vote	erronis	Feb 2015	#64
It would, but is that enough?	Deny and Shred	Feb 2015	#73
I do not. I don't think the majority of women support her hawkish, pro-war stances.	rhett o rick	Feb 2015	#110
I think a primary though with Warren would help focus an emphasis on issues...	cascadiance	Feb 2015	#134
All but 1 of the women in my immediate family are strongly anti-Hillary & refuse 2 vote 4 her under any circumstances.	InAbLuEsTaTe	Feb 2015	#152
warren will be 67 in 2016; clinton will be 69. reagan, the oldest president, was 69 (a few weeks	ND-Dem	Feb 2015	#30
Do we have any reason to believe they would have been better Presidents	winter is coming	Feb 2015	#69
well, reagan wouldn't have had alzheimers.	ND-Dem	Feb 2015	#75
I'm not sure that would have been an improvement, though. n/t	winter is coming	Feb 2015	#76
you may be right in reagan's case. fact remains, warren and clinton would be significantly older	ND-Dem	Feb 2015	#78
Jerry Brown is 76 (77 in less than 2 months), and just starting his second term as governor.	deurbano	Feb 2015	#104
Reagan was already an ass when he was governor of California	Art_from_Ark	Feb 2015	#144
true. but he didn't have alzheimers. that we know. and i'd guess that the reason whh & zt died	ND-Dem	Feb 2015	#145
If the Dems can't cough up an alternative to HRC's left,	HereSince1628	Feb 2015	#3
If it is the circumstances of the party then we are in a lot of trouble because not only do we have	jwirr	Feb 2015	#10
I'm not in wandering diaspora mode yet. June to Oct is typically the time for announcing	HereSince1628	Feb 2015	#13
If Bernie champions where you think the country should go you should vote for him anyway!	Dustlawyer	Feb 2015	#108
I will in the primary. But I will not help the Rs win in the general.	jwirr	Feb 2015	#112
what cannot be said	DonCoquixote	Feb 2015	#138
However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad	HereSince1628	Feb 2015	#142
IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#6
I would agree with you IF I thought that most peope in America even know what an Oligarchy is.	jwirr	Feb 2015	#11
This nation is learning about "oligarchy" whether people know the word or not.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#14
Really? So the 99% does not know who they are up against? What ever.	L0oniX	Feb 2015	#82
I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we	jwirr	Feb 2015	#88
Thanks, Woo. "Not as Bad" is losing its credence by its own acts.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2015	#18
An just listen to the language	demwing	Feb 2015	#66
Very depressing. Glad I don't keep guns.	rgbecker	Feb 2015	#41
Sure if the list was accurate but it's not, no big surprise there.	Agschmid	Feb 2015	#50
Surprise to me. Care to point out the inaccuracies?	Deny and Shred	Feb 2015	#80
Here we go...	Agschmid	Feb 2015	#89
Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#92
Notice that last one about "Senate Democrats"...	Agschmid	Feb 2015	#93
Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#94
This message was self-deleted by its author	1000words	Feb 2015	#42
It's hard to see it any other way.	Enthusiast	Feb 2015	#57
The ugly truth. But there it is.	Enthusiast	Feb 2015	#55
Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that.	InAbLuEsTaTe	Feb 2015	#56
I wouldn't go so far as to say it guarantees a GOP win. The GOP field	winter is coming	Feb 2015	#96
+1, it's a scam	harun	Feb 2015	#91
the differences are there to get people to vote for the similarities ...	MisterP	Feb 2015	#95
!	DeSwiss	Feb 2015	#103
I fear that's true and that the winner is Jeb -	TBF	Feb 2015	#106
^^^What. Woo said ^^^	hedda_foil	Feb 2015	#116
Award-deserving post, AFAIC	pablo_marmol	Feb 2015	#129
Elizabeth Warren is emerging as the soul of the Dem Party.	AtomicKitten	Feb 2015	#8
What's sad is they don't have 10 more like her	fbc	Feb 2015	#20
Well, if the "Oligarchy meme is correct,	juajen	Feb 2015	#68
Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC	cascadiance	Feb 2015	#137
Bernie Sanders 2016.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#21
I am with ya, woo.	hifiguy	Feb 2015	#26
'We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008'	Maven	Feb 2015	#67
There is no irony; it was a clear choice.	AtomicKitten	Feb 2015	#74
The Right is for rethugs.	RiverLover	Feb 2015	#12
Another anti-Hillary Clinton (aka Hillary bashing!) article appears!	George II	Feb 2015	#19
Hooray!!!	fbc	Feb 2015	#22
Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla.....	George II	Feb 2015	#24
I'm younger than Hillary by a few years..	Fumesucker	Feb 2015	#31
Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7.	Divernan	Feb 2015	#90
And none of the other candidates will have similar entourages if elected?	George II	Feb 2015	#122
I don't speak argle bargle.	Divernan	Feb 2015	#123
Ageism at its best.	Agschmid	Feb 2015	#51
Age can have a suffocating presence, can't it?	George II	Feb 2015	#59
Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for?	ND-Dem	Feb 2015	#79
It's sarcasm did you see the tag?	Agschmid	Feb 2015	#87
aka Republican bashing. nt	RiverLover	Feb 2015	#23
Pile it on!!!!	George II	Feb 2015	#121
and written by a Cato Institute creep	OKNancy	Feb 2015	#120
More importantly, a destructive presence for the 99%	LittleBlue	Feb 2015	#27
Absolutely.	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#29
Won't begin to be able to turn the trend around until '24 if HRC wins in '16.	stillwaiting	Feb 2015	#60
I'm still trying to figure out when it became acceptable for two families to monopolize the presidency	whatchamacallit	Feb 2015	#28
Shit is truly fundamentally broken.	Enthusiast	Feb 2015	#58
Very true	davidpdx	Feb 2015	#101
see my signature line	Man from Pickens	Feb 2015	#109
So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off	pnwmom	Feb 2015	#36
Just thinking about	Rose Siding	Feb 2015	#44
I know! Such AUDACITY from those proles	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#71
The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t	pnwmom	Feb 2015	#81
Really? How does that work, exactly?	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#85
Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization,	pnwmom	Feb 2015	#136
What a bizarre and disturbing argument	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#143
It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats	olegramps	Feb 2015	#114
Thanks for the very thoughtful post.	pnwmom	Feb 2015	#135
Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose.	blkmusclmachine	Feb 2015	#38
Warren is not remarkably younger and does not seem it.	hrmjustin	Feb 2015	#46
Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating".	libdem4life	Feb 2015	#62
Suffocating as in quickly and painfully extinguishing life.	F4lconF16	Feb 2015	#99
Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and	libdem4life	Feb 2015	#115
Point taken	F4lconF16	Feb 2015	#128
Oh, pleeeeeze. None of us are assured of waking up in the morning.	Thinkingabout	Feb 2015	#63
I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate	dsc	Feb 2015	#65
"insufficiently voted for"	wyldwolf	Feb 2015	#77
She lost to Obama. So she gets to run now? Dem's settle for a 2nd place looser as the front runner?	L0oniX	Feb 2015	#83
LOL. She's INEVITABLE!!!!!!	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#86
she's more inevitabler than ever	AtomicKitten	Feb 2015	#98
Of course she gets to run now.	winter is coming	Feb 2015	#97
Anyone can run.	joshcryer	Feb 2015	#100
While yer reading into what I said here's something that could help you...	L0oniX	Feb 2015	#107
There's also the issue of ascension.	DeSwiss	Feb 2015	#102
Petitions For 2016 Progressive Candidate For President TYT	RiverLover	Feb 2015	#105
Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one.	whereisjustice	Feb 2015	#113
yet another Republican from the Cato Institute being posted at DU	OKNancy	Feb 2015	#117
I'm Concerned About Her Viability to Win	ProfessorGAC	Feb 2015	#119
.	stonecutter357	Feb 2015	#124
Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources!	2banon	Feb 2015	#126
"dubious sources" are those that aren't "Ready for Hillary".	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2015	#127
For the record, the author who wrote this is not a Republican	dissentient	Feb 2015	#131
Was the writer of this article as concerned when Reagan ran?	Beacool	Feb 2015	#139
Why not jump over Hillary	JEB	Feb 2015	#153
kick	woo me with science	Feb 2015	#154

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.