General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama gave the GOP the greatest gift of all
When he idiotically proposed to cut Social Security benefits by means of adopting a chained CPI, he gave away the Democratic Party's hard-earned 80-year-long status as the party which promised to protect Social Security against all attacks from Wall Street billionaires. Now, for the first time ever, Democrats seeking office or fighting for reelection can't really claim that their Republican opponents are seeking to dismantle or weaken Social Security without also being vulnerable to counter-attacks that it was the Democratic president himself who actually proposed similar measures to cut Social Security.
Have you seen much talk from campaigning Democrats on the issue of Social Security and how vital it is to prevent Social Security-hostile Republicans from getting into office? Not really. A massive weapon in the Democrats' campaigning arsenal has been surrendered -- by the party's own leader. It does not matter that Obama eventually dropped talk of the chained CPI; he never disowned it, and it's a matter of record now that the Democratic president supported it.
So, in sum, the New Democrats who have finagled their way into controlling the Democratic party have succeeded in giving away almost all of the Democratic party's traditional strength and appeal to the American people:
-- By enabling "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN for China, KORUS, etc. they have shrunk union membership -- a major chunk of Democratic support -- as well as giving away the party's claim to protect and strengthen the middle class.
-- By joining with Republicans to do away with things like teacher tenure, they have severely diminished support from another major component of the Democratic rank-and-file: the nation's teachers.
-- And by openly accepting GOP policies to begin the process of undermining Social Security, the New Democrats have toilet-bowled one of the defining differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.
Do you see how utterly important it is for the Democratic rank-and-file to once-and-for all remove the corporate Democrats and their flunkies from party leadership?
FSogol
(45,481 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)On Fri Oct 31, 2014, 12:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Only 3 more Ratfucking Days until the Midterms!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5740343
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling a fellow DUer a ratfucker is a personal attack.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 31, 2014, 12:45 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: i don't think they were calling the poster a ratfucker...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: FSogol is right.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He didn't call a fellow DUer a ratfucker. He called the remaining days until the midterms "ratfucking days" "Ratfucking" as slang has a specific definition with a proud and distinguished history. It applies quite aptly to politics in this midterm season.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think the intent was to call the poster a "rat fucker". Perhaps frustration in general, not aimed at an individual.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He did not call a fellow DUer a ratfucker. It looks like it was supposed to be an ironic comment to remind us of Rove's famous remark.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FSogol
(45,481 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Coupled with how you abused your role in the jury process should call into question your posting privileges here.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)election, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side." - Albert Einstein
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)his actions, it can be inferred that you believe Einstein would have believed Obama was actually rooting for Republicans.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)"Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention during the Watergate scandal investigation that during the 1972 presidential campaign the Nixon campaign committee maintained a "dirty tricks" unit focused on discrediting Nixon's strongest challengers.
According to Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon aide Dwight Chapin hired fellow USC alumnus Donald Segretti to run a campaign of dirty tricks (which Segretti dubbed "ratfucking" against the Democrats in 1972. The purpose of the operation was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible. One notable example of Segretti's wrong-doing was a faked letter on Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a fellow Democrat, had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old."
And I have to ask how old are you if you're not familiar with the term?
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)stop trying it on. (I believe it was Thom Mcan who said that.)
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)If someone alerts and it is over turned by the jury system
they lose their alert privileges ?
I have been on juries I think I even alerted once.
but I did not know this.
PatrickforO
(14,572 posts)I've never, ever been able to totally get my head around moderation rules.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)alert goes against you 0-7 in other words, the jury votes 7-0 NOT to hide, you lose your alerting privileges for 24 hours.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)the alerter won't be able to alert again for 24 hours. The idea is to discourage bogus alerts. It seems to be working pretty well, really.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)Rat-ophobia is a divisive wedge issue this close to the election.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)uneccessary.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Your own words. Is there something you want to get off your chest?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4591988
FSogol (21,783 posts)
95. All I hear is online malcontents that refuse to do the hard work of getting good people elected
in lieu of supporting mythical pure candidates that never seem to win or get their bills out of subcommittees.
Bonus points for working "third way," "rats," and "fascist" into your rant. BTW, "rats" is is what the RW calls Democrats. How did you ever pick up that?
There are no Democrats in my state that support privatizing SS. Do they exist or is that just the hair-on-fire reaction to offering something to start a dialogue with a party intent on gridlock?
LOL at the "in the know" crowd.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)Atwater's slur of "rat" in Democrat.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)in the 1960s. A famous "ratfuck" was changing the cards fans held up at the Rose Bowl back in 1961 played by Minnesota and Washington and hackng the scoreboard at the 1984 Rose Bowl:
Caltech has a long history of off-campus pranks, which are sometimes referred to as "RFs". (RF is short for "ratfuck", referring to the shattering of a frozen dead rat in someone's room.)[5] The most notable of these pranks include the 1961 Great Rose Bowl Hoax, where a card stunt was altered to display "Caltech" rather than the name of one of the competing teams.[6][7][8] Caltech students also altered the scoreboard display during the 1984 Rose Bowl to show Caltech beating MIT 389,[9][10] and in May 1987 changed the Hollywood Sign to read "CALTECH".[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltech%E2%80%93MIT_rivalry
PatrickforO
(14,572 posts)Wikipedia, it means political dirty tricks. So, the post was apropos, if a bit vulgar, and the jury made the right decision.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)It referred to pranking, usually another fraternity or another college.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Ratfuckers coming out of the woodwork.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there will be a post saying, {something to the effect: "DEMOCRATS DESIRE TO LOSE BECAUSE {insert reason here}, SO TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS NOT TO VOTE!"
Maybe, not that blatant, but still ...
mopinko
(70,092 posts)cant wait for wednesday.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)especially those that catch the gist of a situation so nicely.
Response to sharp_stick (Reply #54)
brentspeak This message was self-deleted by its author.
Can't wait to see the collective pout if we win.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Lame attempt at deflecting from the issues I raised in my post.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Takket
(21,563 posts)If Obama is going to lose a senate seat in a traditionally red state, like Montana for example, it is because people there are "buying into" the MSM idea that he is an ultra left wing tax-and-spender, not because he proposed a "right wing" idea on Social Security.
to be honest I have not seen or heard chained CPI mentioned on anything I have seen or heard about this election.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)GOP opponents are looking to undermine Social Security, either. That is the germane point of my post, which I think was made clear to begin with.
Nay
(12,051 posts)think that statement by President Obama has caused Dem candidates to stop talking about protecting SS, just because there does indeed exist clips of Obama saying the opposite. That's why he should NEVER have said it. It's still a mystery to me why he did. I'd hate to think he'd really do it. . .but how would you really know that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in the AZ market, Ron Barber's ads have stated that Martha McSally plans to "gamble away your SS" through privatization. So have Raul Grijalva and Anne Kirkpatrick.
As far as national ad runs, I am not certain but I believe I have seen ads stating exactly what you claim isn't happening.
justgamma
(3,665 posts)They are running on saving SS in IL. and IA.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Because the regular Joe's and Jane's ... the working families ... the providers of the daily bread for families everywhere - Have nowhere else to go ...
They have nowhere else to go, because the party that once defended working families, and protected them from the ravages of unregulated capitalism and rapacious corporate policies, have abdicated that position ...
Thanks to condescending attitudes like your own, it has been difficult to try and return to those values ...
You like conservative policies? ... fine - vote for the fucking GOP ...
randys1
(16,286 posts)If Joe and Jane either dont vote or vote Republican because Obama at one point in time when being obstructed more than any previous president in history, said what he said (to this day it makes me mad too), it wont be because they feel they have nowhere else to go, it will be because they arent paying attention and have bought the propaganda and lies of Rove and the Koch's.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)newspaper was wrapped around the food they got from the food bank.
They voted in the 2008 election for Democrats. They were one of 4 million families that were foreclosed on and thrown in the street, following the 3 million before them, and adding to the additional 10 million people who have entered poverty in this administration, or the one out of 4 kids who aren't eating because there isn't enough food for them for that meal.
Now Joe and Jane are in poverty, statistically will be the rest of their lives and so will their children. Among people who traditionally don't vote. Will voters who used to vote, who had the education and money and time and a job that would let them still vote if their economics have gone downhill? Will millions of them? Will the tens upon tens of millions who now live in near poverty, who didn't live in poverty, and were much more likely to vote, before?
We gonna see goin' forward how easy it is to motivate people to vote who have been waiting years, and who will continue to wait, for hope that is never, ever gonna come.
randys1
(16,286 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)find a Democrat to go to war on poverty instead of inflating bankster's pocketbooks with opportunities denied working people.
I don't mean to presume that I know better than you what to be concerned about, and if you want to live your life around K Rove, that's your business.
Seems like it would be more useful, however, instead of spending so much time worrying about what he thinks one might be in working people's homes (where the teabaggers organize, btw) finding out what THEY think. Me, I don't even think of him. I think about my neighbors and how we can find opportunity, since we all know the government that used to protect us now works for the banksters.
Btw - if you think that last paragraph is unsubstantiated, feel free to check out a copy of "Stress Test" by Timothy McVeig...I mean Geithner (I get my killers mixed up - the CDC, police departments, and hospitals have documents listing the reason for suicides and injuries as the very foreclosures that were not prevented, as well as a large number of disabling health issues, because of the actions of the banksters), the last Treasury Secretary - he explains in excruciating detail about how it was necessary to save the banksters at the expense of the lives of millions of people, for their own good. He explains how they came up with the plan and President Obama made the banks take it. For our own good.
Jon Stewart interviewed him about the book: said "The perception is that you went to hell and back for the banks, but not for working people". Geithner tried to spin it another way, but an entire audience of voters laughed - at him.
I would bet Karl Rove watched that and got an even bigger kick at the nationwide audience of voters who watched it with him. He's not reading my comments which are just simple, publicly available information provided by the government and competent authorities.
I suspect he has an autographed copy of the book, from the person appointed by this President.
Some years ago, years I lived through and remember very well, the governments were concerned about action, getting things done, concerned about the people, and worked on solutions. Sure they had to win, but the people knew who was on their side and responded. When the people thought they had been left behind, they went another direction. Just an aside - I bet most of them don't know who this Karl Rove thing is.
Like then...
When Poverty Was the Enemy, Not the Poor Here.
...
It has been 50 years since America launched the War on Poverty. The Economic Opportunity Act and legislation to outlaw racial discrimination were the centerpieces of President Lyndon B. Johnsons vision to create a Great Society.
Today, rather than a war on poverty, we seem to have a war on the poor. Wealth inequality is growing. State support for education is withering. Social safety-net programs are under attack in Congress. Many Americans believe that if people are poor, its their own fault. The only solution for poverty that many people advocate is allowing companies to create jobs offering wages too low to support a family.
...
Dad worked in the coal mines and did other jobs. He was a very hard worker, but he didnt have an education, said Darlene Sharp, 61, who was a teenager with six brothers and sisters when the War on Poverty came to Knox County. Her father managed buildings that housed the new educational programs, and her mother got a job at one of the factories West helped create. A lot of people worked there, she said. Im sure that every one of them was people who had no employment before. Without the programs, there werent very many jobs. It helped them be able to take care of their families and meet needs. I know
it helped my family.
At its core, the War on Poverty was not about a handout, but a hand up. It was about creating economic opportunity and giving poor people the skills and support they needed to take advantage of it. And it was about giving poor people a voice in decisions affecting their lives. A half-century ago, Americans made a commitment to fight a war on poverty, and we could do it again. Creating a society that is more fair, just, and prosperous for everyone is a fight worth winning.
...
I didn't write the plan that left all those people homeless or hungry, and I offer what I can to provide opportunities for others, because I think we all do better when that philosophy is followed. Maybe if more people were concerned about that they could quit obsessing about unimportant people with a serious deficiency in their humanity.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Even if they admit there is a difference they think that both parties work for the same 1%.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Amazing
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)evocative and deserves far wider exposure.
Here's what a radical had to say on these matters 100-some years ago:
Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread.
~Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays (1910)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)majority of them are Republican...
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Free Trade agreements are fucking killing us in them. Everyone hates that shit.
Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA never materialized, and now they're pushing worse stuff.
So you can laugh all you like, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Living, and having knocked on doors and phonebanking, in this Red state (a border state, at that) ... the Free Trade Agreements only comes up as a top 20 issue among progressives.
But maybe YOUR red state is different from mine!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Pretty much the only group that consistently support Free Trade Agreements are libertarian and their neo-con/liberal friends.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)and once the last red state democrats are defeated, then the republicans will allow all sorts of liberal goodies to pass through. Since red state dems are the problem.
but more like:
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You missed a step ... Once the last red state Democrat is defeated, then the red staters, Democrats and republicans, alike, will recognize the error of their way, and elect full-bore progressives!
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)Make them suffer. that will teach them! Then they'll know to never vote against liberals ever again.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Never-mind the apparent, thin bench of progressive candidates, waiting in the wings of the Democratic Party to lead this red state charge.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Issues like organizing labor, protecting and creating American jobs, investment in infrastructure and education, health care for all . . . .
But when protecting bankers, leaving unions to their own devices and not really supporting them, entering into trade agreements and protecting imports, privatizing education, neglecting infrastructure and failing to offer a public option for health care are what you focus on, then voters don't see the Democrats as being on their side.
Democrats have focused on social issues like discrimination -- gender equality, racial equality, etc. for the past 50 years. That is good. We need to have gender, race, sexual orientation equality. But discrimination issues focus on the things that separate people and should not separate people while economic issues focus on the things that unite us.
In other words, at this time, Democrats need to more strongly communicate the message that we want everyone to have opportunity and a fair chance. We care about discrimination because we want everyone to be able to do well. We need to be the party that unites and not the party that fragments.
I say this at the great risk of being misunderstood.
But it needs to be said.
Frankly, I think that we Democrats will do better on Tuesday than the pundits expect -- not a whole lot better, but better. I do think that the leadership of the Democratic Party is not presenting the Democratic message effectively. They are doing a bad job of it.
We need to be inclusive in our approach to discussing issues. We care about racial equality, about gay marriage, about public education, about unions because we are and INCLUSIVE party and we want an INCLUSIVE nation and not because we are just a bunch of separate interest groups that are trying to improve their lot at the expense of others.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It takes members of a given party to actually damage that party with voters. Let Republicans throw all the mud they want, but unless voters actually see that some of that mud really 'sticks', because there's a core of truth, it's not going to tarnish the party. What hurts Republicans with voters is what Republicans do and say, and what hurts Democrats with voters is what Democrats do and say.
You want to win, you've got to choose whose votes you want, and make sure there are more of them than there are of the votes you leave for the other person (people). If you take positions that alienate one group of voters, you better have other stances that pick up the slack in exchange of the voters you abandoned.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)And yes, those who have played footsie with Simpson-Bowles are being attacked from the left by Karl Rove, which is a pretty fucking dumb thing to leave yourself open for. That's a gift from them, not Obama.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)What the hell does that mean?
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)As well as having nothing to do with your statement, "attacked from the left by Karl Rove", which remains as weird as before.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)Hopeless.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)In fact, your link supports the OP.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)Candidates are paying for their own SS stances, not Obama's, which are misstated (and unsupported) in the OP to begin with.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)from the GOP.
EOM.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The GOP is running on "The Dems, lead by Obama, are a disaster!" Our candidates have, in turn, chosen to campaign while playing silly games where they refuse to say they voted for Obama -- which no one believes and take as further evidence that Obama is radioactive.
Was Obama's broaching of SS reform a strategic error? Yes. But that has no bearing on this election cycle.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)http://www.newsweek.com/joni-ernsts-big-gamble-iowa-279641
During the primary, (Joni) Ernst endorsed the idea of privatizing Social Security by shifting future contributions to personal accounts, called the idea of a federal minimum wage ridiculous (she later said she supports it), called President Obama a dictator who should perhaps face impeachment (she walked that back almost immediately) and appeared concerned about the Agenda 21 conspiracy that she described as a United Nations effort to forcibly move Americans into urban centers and confiscate their property (she later walked that back too). In 2012, she told a libertarian group that she would support legislation to nullify the the Affordable Care Act and allow state law enforcement to arrest federal officials trying to implement it. In 2013, she backed personhood amendment to the Iowa state constitution that would ban all abortions and some contraception and turn miscarriages into murder investigations.
justgamma
(3,665 posts)What's your point?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ad embedded after text.
But sense I doubt anyone will click, here's the text of the ad:
(Ron Barber, narrating)
"I am Ron Barber and I approve of this message."
(Narrator, speaking off camera)
"These attacks simply not true.
Ron Barber bucked party leaders, working to fix healthcare reform and to protect Medicare.
He even donated his Congressional healthcare subsidy to charity.
But Martha McSally supported a plan AARP said puts traditional Medicare at risk.
Shed cut Medicare, costing seniors six thousand more a year just to cut taxes for millionaires.
Martha McSally not for us."
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's a charge that will hurt-- a lot.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)(See downthread)
but to pretend its having an impact on the election is ridiculous.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)You're not the average voter who Democratic candidates are reaching out to. You're not the people who Dems need to convince will have their Social Security benefits cut/eventually eradicated by Republican policies -- should the GOP remain in power. And you're not the Democratic candidate who just had the traditional advantageous issue of protecting Social Security from Republicans taken away from him/her by Obama and the New Democratic flunkies who are advising him.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)It may slow the rate of future increases. It was only offered as a possible concession if republicans agreed to close tax loopholes.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Chained CPI is a cut to Social Security over time. Stop pretending otherwise-- people aren't that stupid and they'll only resent you for assuming they are.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Third Way hunger for Chained CPI is still a thing. It is one of their top priorities.
Marr
(20,317 posts)But right in line with the Third Way's *openly stated* commitment to moving away from the Democratic Party's traditional constituencies and pursuing more corporate funding.
still_one
(92,187 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You aren't hearing it discussed at all and no voters are talking about this as their reason for voting a particular way.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)This President has appointed more Republicans to his cabinet than any other Democratic President in history.
Do the research ..on the campaign trail stump speeches he said Social Security cuts and Medicare are off the table.
If Republicans gain control of Senate..Look out keystone pipeline ,net neutrality is coming and if passed this Republican will sign the bills
Republicans...
Ok Elizabeth Warren where do I send my campaign contribution
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)I will remind you again that Hillary is a corporate Republican lite. Not to be mean just stating facts.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)There is your problem..
I on the other hand provided FACTS!
staggerleem
(469 posts)... but I'm in New York, and I get at least a dozen "Protect and Increase Social Security" e-mails a week from Democratic candidates, and the TV ads for our local Democrats usually DO mention protecting Social Security benefits.
Obama had a brief flirtation with the chained CPI shortly after the Simpson-Bowles cat-food commission released their absurd report. It was something he considered when he still believed in the possibility of bi-partisan economic solutions. When the reality that there was no real interest in bi-partisanship from across the aisle, the chained CPI was the first thing he threw overboard.
wryter2000
(46,039 posts)And thanks for an injection of reason.
elleng
(130,895 posts)and WELCOME, staggerleem!
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)Welcome to DU!
geretogo
(1,281 posts)Republicans and Democrats " .
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)geretogo
(1,281 posts)spedtr90
(719 posts)The conservative Republican Study Committee Budget 2015 contains the chained CPI. About 70% of House Republicans are members of that caucus.
This budget would slowly phase in an increase in the Social Security full-retirement age. The full retirement age would continue the current-laws gradual increase of two months per year beginning in 2022 until the full retirement age reaches 70. To further strengthen Social Securitys long-term finances, this budget would change the formula for cost of living adjustments (COLA) by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation (chained CPI-U) that takes into account real-world choices consumers make.
They also favor a voucher program for Medicare:
Transitions Medicare to a solvent premium-support system, as proposed by the Republican House Budget. The RSC budget proposes making this transition in 2019, for workers born in 1954 and later.
In the years the House voted on this budget would have passed, except Republicans realized Democrats were only voting present, and then voted against it - some changing their votes to nay so it would not pass. I suppose if it passed it would have gotten some unwanted attention to what was in it.
MontyPow
(285 posts)Democratic politician when all your audience really cares about is the quantity.
And while the President may have been the first to voice the position, it was the support he garnered from the redder Democrats, not the better Democrats, that helped to make Social Security deform the new normal.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The optics on this were terrible and all of us 'lefties' that were shouting "NO!!!" and that the rethugs would beat Democratic candidates with it the next election cycle were told to be quiet, that the adults had this under control, and that it was only a proposal.
Well, guess fucking what......?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)eom
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)depend upon corporate money for re-election, we would have almost no Democrats left. We need to fight for Publicly Funded Elections and take all of the corporate money away. Our politicians would have a lot more time to learn about the issues facing the country if they didn't have to be at fundraisers year round being told how to vote and what legislation to introduce.
This is the only way to save our Democracy at this point!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The voters had resoundingly rejected them and were ready to send them to the dustbin of history. Obama and, to a lesser extent Reid and Pelosi, handed the country back to them. Besides offering to cut social security, there is more war, fracking, offshore drilling, austerity, school privatization, Bush tax cuts, siegelman, and of course heritage care. What a train wreck. We won't recover during my lifetime (15 more years or so)
polichick
(37,152 posts)but he capitulated to corporate status quo demands over and over again.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)I assure you, he's not on the ballot.
You're not going to like what the GOP has planned for us if they take the senate.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Presumably starting with the President -- the only person you call out?
Hey, maybe we could impeach him! You'd probably be able to get the Republicans to go along.....
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
pampango
(24,692 posts)Indeed trade plays a much larger role in their economies than it does in our.
They have strong unions because their governments enact legal support for unions. IOW, they have no "Taft Hartley" 'right-to-work' states or provinces among many other anti-union legal hurdles that the US has. Quite the opposite they have laws that support unions, not undermine them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We must get corporate money and power out of politics.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Every hour I spent at meetings and organizing to fight back against chained CPI was one hour less to devote to doorknocking for Democratic candidates.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)But FIRST we need to vote to start that process in motion! I must be a dimwit, but I haven't heard of it's passage, but I did hear he entertained the idea!
Just VOTE, AND GET EVERYONE else you know to VOTE! Who we have right now is all we have!
I need more concrete evidence that this is happening. Could have missed something along the way.
vi5
(13,305 posts)The "centrist" parasite has already eaten away at our party to an irreversible degree. The "bipartisan" very serious people who believe in Republican policies at their core but just think it's Democrats job to be nicer about lead and own our party. The chances of the Elizabeth Warrens of our party being anything other than a fringe at this point are slim to none.
maced666
(771 posts)President Obama has an EXCELLENT record on SS benefits. Benefits have increased during his tenure - not decreased.
National security, the poor economy, no jobs, open borders - these are things on the top of voter lists this election. I don't believe I've seen SS benefits on any voter list.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that Obama has made is Hillary Clinton.
More about this later.