If elected President, which of these Democrats...

[MannyGoldstein]

would be most likely to really turn things around?

47 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Time expired
	Hillary Clinton
	9 (19%)
	Martin O'Malley
	1 (2%)
	Bernie Sanders
	30 (64%)
	Elizabeth Warren (who's NOT running, Manny!!1!)
	6 (13%)
	Other (please name below)
	1 (2%)
	Oh @#$% you Manny you @#$% hater
	0 (0%)
	Turn things around? Why? They're fine now!
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Hillary because I think she has the best chance to bring the house and senate to the Democrats.

I think she has the better chance for coatails and you need the house and senate to do things.

[joshcryer]

19. This is precisely why I voted for Clinton.

Sanders can't get anything accomplished without winning back Congress. We should get the Senate back in 2016 and we have a shot of getting the House back maybe if not in 2016 definitely by 2020. By then we'll have laid a roadmap for Julian Castro to be a very popular President with super majorities.

All Clinton has to do is not fuck anything up, not trying to downplay her Presidency as I'm sure she'll do some good stuff, but it's all about the long plan. Nothing comes easy or overnight.

The question was specifically about turning things around, and I don't see Sanders as able to do that, unfortunately.

[Tommy2Tone]

24. Sanders can't get elected

Anyone voting for him should realize he has the potential to be another Ralph Nader. How did that turn out in Florida?

[cui bono]

54. What Nader did was true democracy in action.

What the GOP did was the antithesis. They are the ones who stole the election that Al Gore actually won. Gore made a big mistake as well.

Why do so many people want to just blame Nader for that debacle when he was the only factor that was actual democracy? He saw there was no one speaking for the working people and ran so that he could represent them.

I hope someone who will represent us runs this time as well, preferably as a Democrat, but I doubt any who are not corporate centrists will be allowed to become the nominee.

[hrmjustin]

93. Nader had the right to run but he was a contributing factor to Gore's loss.

[Tommy2Tone]

96. Exactly my point n/t

[One of the 99]

111. Thanks

Too few are willing to admit that.

[cascadiance]

127. The system is more to blame for our loss then...

... which didn't allow for the votes for Gore to be counted properly that have been shown to show that he should have won, whether the votes for Nader were counted or not.

And if we would put in place Instant Runoff Voting, then third party "spoilers" would no longer be a problem for us. The only problem would be candidates that aren't really appealing to voters they are supposed to represent, which might allow a third party candidate to win in some instances or even Republicans on some rare occasions.

Blaming Nader is not understanding and ignoring the real problems with our party!

[hrmjustin]

129. Nader was not the only reason but he was a major factor.

[cascadiance]

131. But focusing on him to blame makes it harder to fix the system properly...

... because make no mistake about it, this is a systemic problem.

When you had Katherine Harris with Jeb Bush who were consciously trying to break it by throwing out tons of voters votes through their vote matching schemes with Texas firms, etc. THEY were trying to manipulate the election to subvert Democracy.

Nader wasn't trying to subvert the process. He was trying to have other voices being heard that were being lost in an electoral process that is increasingly making it harder for other voices to be heard and measured. That is why I continue to advocate instant runoff voting as the thing we should all be ranting FOR, and not continuing to rant AGAINST someone like Nader as the reason for the problems with that election. We will never fix the system to work for us if we only just focus on blaming Nader, who we forget has done so much for our country in terms of the regulatory efforts he put in place to protect many people's lives from the auto industry not paying attention to safety standards, etc.

Now, I have said and will continue to say that in today's environment, that third parties would be better served by uniting and becoming "single issue candidates". Not so much that they only talk about a single issue, but that one single issue would govern whether they continue to run and who they might endorse in a general election. And that would be instant runoff voting. If a third party sees that another candidate in the race helps influence and leads his party in that locale to put in place instant runoff voting, that they would pull out and endorse that candidate to win the election. That way, even if that candidate isn't addressing all of that party's concerns that election, they would have in the future a better system to run a campaign and not hurt the third parties or the better of the two major party candidates running as well.

[hrmjustin]

132. I am sorry but he had the right to run but his running helped cause Bush and he deserves to be

blamed.

[cascadiance]

133. No, you're blaming continues to keep a corrupt system in place!

I'm sorry, but I want more democracy, not a system that takes it down and blames those wanting more democracy for the problems with a messed up system that elites are using to set up an oligarchy over the rest of us!

[hrmjustin]

134. I have no problem with third parties but they are not immune from criticism.

And criticism doesn't hurt democracy.

[cascadiance]

136. But criticize their policies, not that simply running helps the Republicans...

Because that is a very simplistic criticism aimed at third party candidates that they don't deserve, when it is a systemic problem that is to blame for that problem.

Now if you don't like some of the policies that Nader was advocating in that election, sure, speak up and criticize them. That is what a democracy is all about. But that is not why people have been criticizing him, and THAT is why I have a problem with it.

[hrmjustin]

137. With respect I think he can be criticized for running as well.

The republic and Nader will live.

[cascadiance]

138. You are criticizing democracy then too...

Thanks for confirming that you don't want to have citizens have the opportunities for choice other than a two party system that has been bought and sold and think that we only have to be thankful that we can "live" in such a system.

[hrmjustin]

139. Damn i hate myself!

[MADem]

152. Post 151.

He didn't run in aid of democracy, he ran in aid of his own aggrandizement. Had he been sincere, he wouldn't have taken GOP cash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6569829

[hrmjustin]

153. Agree 100 percent. I don't look on Nader as a positive force after 2000.

[cui bono]

149. No. He should not be blamed as he was the only determining factor that was democracy in action.

There were about 6-7 other factors but he's the only one that continuously gets brought up as if he is some evil guy. He's not. He speaks truth to power and he really wanted to fix things. He has been speaking about the dangers of globalization since before it was a common expression.

The problem, as the other poster has addressed in detail, is with our political system. Not with Nader.

To demonize him with such a simple response to a post that went into detail about the realities of that whole situation is... well... simplistic. It would be nice to actually discuss how to fix the system rather than a simplistic "Nader bad" response, especially when it just isn't true. Gore actually won. So how is it Nader's fault that he didn't get the office?

[cui bono]

150. +1 - That's my point.

All the other factors that led to Gore not getting the office - when he actually won - were subverting democracy. Nader was democracy in action. Yet on a political message board he gets the blame and is demonized.

[Tommy2Tone]

144. Agree..The SCOTUS stole this election n/t

[MADem]

151. Yes, taking all that GOP money for his campaign was "true democracy in action....?"

More like being a useful tool for the powers-that-be, while stoking an insatiable need to hog the spotlight.

Ralph Nader is a PHONY. He wears old clothes, old shoes, affects a pauper's demeanor, but he's a multi-millionaire. Under that "poorman" exterior, he's farting through silk. Now, there's nothing wrong at all with being rich (given his book deals and other investments, he'd have to be classified as an idiot if he hadn't made some money by now), but he acts like he gives all his money to "charities," when they are in fact entities that are under his full control and he retains dominion over the expenditure of the funds.

He runs a really great con, though--a lot of people buy his utter bullshit! They actually think he lives in a shitty one-bedroom apartment, and not the massive mansion he's got stashed in his brother's name!

Ralph and the Republicans:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.php

"Poor" Ralph Nader:

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/20/nader_10/

The Skeleton Closet nailed his ass years ago....

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm


It is, though, as I said, a great con. A LONG con. And some folks STILL eat his shit up with a spoon!

[joshcryer]

56. I think Sanders could win if he was the nominee.

The Republican brand is garbage. He should throw his hat in there and see what happens (a Clinton implosion should never be ruled out). But the OP was about who could turn the country around, and Sanders would be unable to get the Congress back in Democratic control. He doesn't have that name recognition, he doesn't have that power ability.

All Clinton needs to do is reinstate Dean's 50 state strategy. If she is afraid to do it because of the circles she hangs with they can compromise, and do targeted elections during presidential cycles and use the 50 state strategy in off-season cycles. It's a win win and it will work.

Of course Dean's 50 state strategy did elect blue dogs, which many find unsavory, but they vote with other democrats on the important stuff, so it's OK. Getting Congress back is the important challenge.

I think that's one reason Dean is supportive of Clinton, he knows that with the right structure we can take back control.

[Tommy2Tone]

95. Sanders can't be the nominee since he is not a Democrat

but good try.

[cascadiance]

126. There's nothing in our system STOPPING him from being a Democrat to do so...

... and he's indicated that's the path he'd take in our system that, without Instant Runoff Voting, forces us to vote between the two major party candidates in the general election. If we had instant runoff voting he might run as an independent, but he's smart and he knows that a Republican would be worse than a Democrat, which is why he'd run as a Democrat.

Now, some may try to say that he isn't really a Democrat even if he's registered as one, but there are just as many if not more of us traditional Democrats that would also claim that he's far more of a traditional Democrat in what he stands for on issues than so many of the Third Way DINOs that call themselves "Democrats" these days too.

[Tommy2Tone]

143. I have no issue if he runs as a Democrat

My issue is if he runs as a independent candidate because all the votes he gets would be taken from the Dem candidate.

If he was the nominee I would vote for him with joy.

[cascadiance]

146. I think he's given strong indications that this is the way he'd do it.

He doesn't want to put a Republican in by splitting votes any more than we as Democrats want to have happen.

[Jim Lane]

57. Sanders=Nader only if he runs against the Democrat, which is highly unlikely.

Sanders understands that the United States is not Vermont and that a third-party or independent candidacy would have virtually no chance of winning. He also recognizes that such a run would merely split the vote, a la Nader, and benefit the Republicans.

[onyourleft]

82. Why do you...

...think Sanders cannot win? How does he have the potential to be another Nader? Just because he is an independent? Working class people in this country need a champion at this point.

[cascadiance]

135. I think that many here underestimate the capability of either Sanders or Warren winning...

... since they are constantly spoon fed the corporate media's lines that they can't, when they support many issues that really more universal in terms of how they help most Americans compared to the 1% that really aren't biased on party lines.

Now that media manipulation is something that a candidate like Sanders or Warren need to overcome, but I think in an election where a lot more people are paying attention to what candidates say than what the media says about them in the heat of the battle, there's far more of a chance for that message to be heard by all Americans than people might be aware of.

Now, I think Warren has emphasized these more populist issues a lot more than Sanders has over social issue stances, which I think helps her appeal more to independents than perhaps Sanders could, but I think both still could appeal a lot more than people give them credit for. It would be harder for the corporate media to go after Warren, where you know that the corporate media and the opposition will be going over every Friday Thom Hartmann show to try and dig up controversial comments from Sanders if he were to run.

But I do still think he could overcome a lot of that, as he still speaks truth to power, and people can tell that he's one of the most honest politicians in Washington these days and will give him credit for that.

Sanders or Warren will be that voice that many have waited so long for, but feel controlled and silenced in not having a choice for voting for in past elections.

[Ken Burch]

65. So we have to settle for eight more years of center-right nothingness

Just to EVENTUALLY get a progressive president...maybe in 2024, when it will be too late to matter? When Social Security and Medicare will have been "reformed" on corporate terms(which will mean ever last remnant of the New Deal and Great Society will be gone?)

Why should we assume that our politics have to be so passive and defeatist for such an extended period of time? Why should we have to settle for, as Steve Earle put it "four more years of 'things not getting worse'"?

The country isn't THAT far to the right, and we aren't that weak. Have some faith in our side's ability to actually win the argument.

[joshcryer]

66. You need Congress to do anything.

Literally. You need Congress. How would Sanders win back Congress? He doesn't have the name recognition, he doesn't have the historical vote.

[Ken Burch]

69. I know we need Congress.

But we can't GET Congress back if our presidential nominee triangulates and runs away from her own party. We can only get Congress if we nominate a presidential candidate who gets out there in the fall and says "there's nothing wrong with backing workers and the poor and I'll fight for them, and for peace, as hard as the GOP fights for corporate power and for war".

We can't get Congress, or even be sure of winning the White House, most likely, if we have a nominee who lets right-wing attacks on our core values go unchallenged or tries to find "nuanced middle ground" between her party and the right.

As Jim Hightower pointed out, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos".

The majority of the country gets screwed by ALEC economics-we can win if we stand up and fight FOR that majority-rather than treating it like a red-headed stepchild.

[joshcryer]

70. Where has Clinton run away?

Where?

[DonCoquixote]

88. All Clinton has to do is not fuck anything up

Well, that depends on who she keeps at the helm of the party.

In other words, if you want someone to NOT fuck anything up, when is she going to make Debbie Wasserman Schulz walk the plank?

Obama could not get rid of her because she planned to cast Obama's decision as racist and sexist.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz-sexist-semitic-obama/

In other words, despite MAJOR foul ups in two straught mid terms, including the whole Alison Grimes fiasco (remember, that good old girl from Kentucky that broke out the lawyers so that she would not even admit she voted for Obama?) she planned to go to the big wallet donors and say "wahh, that scary man wanted to hurt me, waaah!"

Clinton is the only one that sadly, would not have the sexist nor anti semitic label stick (though Debbie would gladly get out the tar and feathers, especially if her friends Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio are Hillary's opponent.) However, she is embracing Debbie, hoping Debiie can get those Florida voters, you know, the ones that voted for Charlie Crist. NOT the Democrats that kept Alan Grayson in office, no, she does not want their votes.

[Ken Burch]

38. You're assuming she wants to regain the House and the Senate.

She and Bill were just fine with leaving the GOP takeover unchallenged in the Nineties.

[hrmjustin]

39. Really? Was she president in the 90's?

[Agschmid]

40. Marionette...

[joshcryer]

53. No they weren't.

Why do you say they were "just fine" with it? You should see Clinton: American Experience.

[Ken Burch]

59. Because they almost never said the words "we need a Democratic Congress"

When Bill was campaigning for re-election in 1996-despite the fact that there was no significant number of voters who were ONLY going to vote for the guy if he distanced himself from his party's downticket slate.

They triangulated in that re-election campaign right up to the end-and the way he bested Newt in the government shutdown of '95 should have at least made a Democratic re-take of the House a certainty. Newt only kept his party's majority because Bill and HRC left him unchallenged on that.

The stupid part is, if Bill had campaigned hard for a Democratic House and managed to get it in '96, the whole damn impeachment thing would never have happened(I still remember his arrogance in making the House and Senate Democrats wait a half and hour for him to show up when they came to the White House to show solidarity with him after he lost the impeachment vote in the House. The only reason he could have made them wait was that, even then, even when he no longer had ANYTHING to gain from it, Bill Clinton STILL couldn't stop with the damn triangulating. There's no excuse for dissing people who have come to show support for you in your most desperate hour of need, and that's exactly what he did that day. I've never forgotten it.

[joshcryer]

60. Have you watched it?

Be honest Ken. It's free on PBS. Have you watched Clinton: American Experience. It's actually to my mind pretty negative against Clinton.

But the reality is that Bill Fucking Clinton was channeling shit such as pre-school childcare as far back as the fucking 1970s. And people act in shock with Hillary announces support for the same thing in 2015. It's so absurd as to be a joke. Actual planks of the Democratic party bemoaned as new positions the Democrats never held. It's literally revisionism to win points on internet forums. Literally.

Bill's "trangulating" as you call it was him playing the best hand he could. He didn't have Congress. Everything he did was with a Republican congress. There's no Democrat who had to deal with that BS. Yes, he did make some mistakes (NAFTA, Glass-Stegal), but that doesn't mean he's some evil corporate overlord. It means he's human.

[Ken Burch]

61. He COULD have flipped the House back to us in '96, but he didn't even try.

I haven't watched the "American Experience" episode you mentioned yet, but I lived through the Nineties. I remember how little the guy did to help Dems down the ticket after he got elected.

And he could have let the welfare bill become law without his signature. He didn't actually have to have a damn signing ceremony and act like it was something to celebrate. There was no excuse for a Democratic president to ever collude(not just accept, but actually collude)in gutting programs for the poor. Everyone who wanted people on welfare to be punished just for being on welfare was going to vote straight-ticket GOP no matter what. His signing that bill didn't gain him ANY votes in the fall.

Yes, the welfare system needs changes(as the New Left had been arguing as early as 19 freaking 65-read Tom Hayden on the subject) but we never needed to have a Democratic president, especially the first president to be born in poverty and to benefit significantly from Democratic social programs himself as a child and young man(those programs were the only way he could ever have had a chance to become a Rhodes Scholar) to join forces with poorbashers like Newt Gingrich and deliberately make life worse for people who already had nothing. He had a moral obligation to stand with the poor, and he betrayed them. And HRC never said anything, publicly OR privately, against the signing of that bill, and still essentially defends it today(which still makes me furious that, in her 2008 campaign, she actually used Bobby Kennedy quotes and images after devoting her whole political life to ideologically pissing on Bobby's grave and on all that he stood for).

The message on welfare from the Clinton Administration should have been"switch from the dole to federal jobs programs and put the poor to work rebuilding their neighborhoods", not "just go work at McDonald's because that's your station in life,k peasant scum". There are some things that are just never ever supposed to happen when a Democrat is president. Kicking the poor off of the ladder is one of those things.

And there is no reason to think that nominating HRC won't mean going back to those exact same policies and all the old betrayals. And a return to D.C. for Rahm in the bargain, most likely.

[joshcryer]

62. He ran on welfare, Ken.

He literally ran on welfare reform. It's what the people who elected him wanted to hear. It sucks. This was a Regan-era ALEC dominate world. Those are things he ran on and won on. He ran on deficit reduction (and managed to be the first President in decades to have a balanced budget). It sucked. But it was simply better than Regan-era policies.

If you think he could've flipped congress I believe that is absolutely delusional. This was a country running against everything progressive. The baby boomers wanted their cake and wanted to eat it too. Gen X'ers couldn't vote yet. It was literally an ALEC controlled environment.

The irony is that even to this day we see ALEC's power, with congress being run by Republicans. It is a disaster. And we're still in denial.

[Ken Burch]

63. welfare could have been reformed WITHOUT punishing the poor.

He could have moved on that at the start, taken it in a progressive, humane direction(based on pushing for a federal jobs program when he still had a Dem congress in 93-94). He could also have de-racialized the debate on the issue(most people on welfare are actually white, and Clinton let the slur that welfare is "a black thing" go completely unchallenged) and reminded the country that he started as a welfare child and managed to become president. Reform didn't have to be "let's stick it to 'Shaniqua'", for Goddess' sakes.

[joshcryer]

64. How? He ran on cuts.

He literally ran on cutting welfare. What was he going to then do, increase welfare spending with a congress that literally held the purse strings? What universe is it that Clinton could've increased welfare spending? That universe didn't happen. We are where we are thanks to Regan-era policies and ALEC.

[Ken Burch]

67. He ran on "ending welfare as we know it"-not on throwing poor people to the wolves.

He could have interpreted "reform" to mean that we would make the programs better, that we would actually listen to the poor and what they say they need to get off welfare(almost all of them have wanted to get off of welfare, and most aren't on it for all that long), and he could have pushed to replace simple benefits(most of which were too small to help anyone)with free job training, with jobs programs that put people to work rebuilding their neighborhoods, and with lower-cost access to higher education.

The voters wanted to fix a broken system-they weren't baying for the blood of the poor. The things I've talked about in the first paragraph would probably have saved money, and brought in more revenue as well, since they would have resulted in many of the poor getting into work in which they'd have actually earned enough to pay taxes.

And Clinton could have used his own story to change the debate on that issue. As president, he had the visibility and the capacity to alter the terms of the discussion. He didn't have to assume that most voters hated the poor and wanted them punished.

The lesson of the Nineties was that Democrats have an obligation to stand with the powerless, and cannot prosper when they refuse to do so. Yes, Clinton was elected as a Democrat...but in the end, he pretty much did what Bush would have done in his second term(other than on reproductive rights and...well, that was pretty much it-he created a few national parks, but that was trivial. And even on reproductive rights, Clinton then-and we can assume HRC would be the same now-still bought into the narrative that women who had abortions should be shamed for doing so and that, in general, wealthy white men are perfectly entitled to judge and condemn the morality of women, especially poor women, and especially especially poor women who happen to be guilty of CWB-Conceiving While Black).

A vote for HRC is a vote to go back to all of this. There's no excuse for that kind of a program of retreat.

[joshcryer]

68. You are simply wrong.

Watch Clinton: American Experience, it's the best documentary on the Clinton administration. Hell, even Robert Reich was supportive of Clinton's decisions, recognizing he had his back against the wall. Clinton had his hands tied the entire time.

Congress is where the power is.

[Ken Burch]

72. He could at least have shown the stones Harry Truman showed when he vetoed Taft-Hartley.

That veto helped lead to a come-from-behind victory(AND a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate)in 1948.

He'd still have been re-elected(and could have flipped at least the House back to us at the time)if he'd vetoed the bill and let Gingrich override it if he could. The voters were not insisting that Clinton punish the poor just for being poor, when the fact was that they were poor because there wasn't any freaking work, not because much of any of them were lazy. We weren't a nation of total sadists in the Nineties.

[joshcryer]

73. Sure.

But he felt to gain political capital by not bothering. He got his budget passed. Compromise confirmed. Mistake? To you, yes, probably. To the people who got benefits, welfare, food stamps? Hardly.

[woo me with science]

79. +1000 Third Way politicians seek divided government, not majorities.

Both corporate parties prefer closely divided government most of the time. The goal is to continue the corporate agenda, and they will use both parties (now both purchased by the same corporate interests) to accomplish that goal.

[font size=3] Corporatists depend on the illusion of gridlock to sustain the excuse of being unable to stop the corporate agenda. A party with strong majorities cannot continue to claim to be unable to respond to the will of the People.


[font color=red]***************************************************************************************
We misunderstand our corporate politicians in 2015 when we assume that their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In the new system, oligarchy, the goal is to use the two parties you own in whatever way will best protect and advance the corporate agenda. [/font size]
***************************************************************************************[/font color]

The con game is very familiar by now:

Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

For so long we mysteriously fell short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

Closely divided government gives both parties an excuse for failing to serve the will of voters. Right now corporate Democrats have been in power for nearly eight years. Eight years of defending, entrenching, legalizing, and expanding the most malignant policies of the Bush administration have opened too many eyes to the fact that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB. That's why we now see both corporate parties setting us up for a Republican win next time:

How corporatists on both sides are working hard to alienate the Democratic base and elect a Republican
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6508212

From the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign of the midterms, to the relentless stream of deliberately baiting, blaming messaging like this, I don't think we have *ever* seen such a transparent and relentless campaign by corporate politicians and their mouthpieces to depress Democratic enthusiasm for the party and suppress Democratic turnout.

Corporate politicians want a Republican in next time. It is becoming increasingly clear that the plan of corporatists in both parties is for Hillary to lose. This is why:

IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6229978

...
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 the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB.

They NEED to alienate the base and get a Republican in office for awhile so that corporate Democrats can pretend to be against corporate/warmongering/police state policies again. They hope that the country will forget all this silly talk about oligarchy 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.

They are TRYING to demoralize and alienate the base. We saw it in the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign. We see it in the gratuitous attacks on traditional Democrats every single day by supposed Hillary supporters. Corporatists in both parties are doing everything possible to enable a Republican win....The truth is that we live in a post-partisan, united oligarchy now, not a democracy...

[font color=red]***************************************************************************************
[font size=3]We misunderstand our corporate politicians in 2015 when we assume that their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In the new system, oligarchy, the goal is to use the two parties you own in whatever way will best protect and advance the corporate agenda. [/font size]
***************************************************************************************[/font color]

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.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. I think she has the worst chance for coattails.

Especially if it's 'Clinton vs Bush', in which case I predict the lowest turnout ever, which benefits Republicans up and down the ballot.

[hrmjustin]

89. Well we disagree.

[LuvNewcastle]

162. Agreed.

Unless we see a strong independent run, I think a Bush v. Clinton contest will see lower voter turnout than we've had in decades. People are already expecting it, and they are disgusted.

[Logical]

94. Hillary tied for 2nd! nt

[zappaman]

2. Turn things around from what?

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

[MannyGoldstein]

10. I tried to be gracious.

There's a choice you could have picked, but you had to slight me.

Hmmmph!

[jwirr]

3. Voted for Bernie because as you said Elizabeth is not running.

[Agschmid]

4. Bernie isn't a Democrat currently so...

[Autumn]

5. I want to pick Liz who isn't running or Bernie but I'm ignoring Manny so I can't vote in the poll.

I hate it when that happens but it is what it is.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Me too.

Let's start a group on DU of like-minded people.

[Autumn]

9. Like an ignore Manny group? Awesome! May I be co host host?

Cause I will @#$%ing block anyone from our group who doesn't ignore you and they had better be willing to sign a pledge. In blood. That will be a real non negotiable point in the SOP.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. We can co-host.

I promise not to post.

[Autumn]

92. I can get behind that, the promise not to post

could make hosting the Ignore MannyGoldstein Group much easier. But on the other hand it might be better if you do post. A lot. Otherwise DUers can't ignore you and make your threads so very very interesting.

[Ken Burch]

71. If you're ignoring Manny, how is it you're able to post on this thread? n/t.

[Autumn]

87. It's a special new DU feature. I can say I ignore Manny and still give him crap

for posting. Would you be interested in an Ignore MannyGoldstein group? So far, including Manny we have two members showing interest in one.

[Ken Burch]

141. No...but I would be interested in a "Ignore the Ignore MannyGoldstein group". n/t.

[Autumn]

142. It's not up and running yet but in the meantime you can still join us in the Elizabeth Warren

group where we all ignore Manny to our hearts content because he does crazy stuff like this. I tell you the man is an incorrigible person
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12653658#post1

I hear tell that they ignore him in the Populist Reform of the Democratic Party group also.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12773857

[Ken Burch]

147. I'll give those a look. Cheers. n/t.

[JaneyVee]

155. Im not ignoring Manny and I still can't vote in the poll.

Which is hilarious because this poll is skewed to obviously only reflect the OPs bubble, not DU as a whole. It seems anti-progressive to restrict one from voting.

I have zero people on ignore.

[Autumn]

156. No one is restricted from voting. You can chose Other if you like no one listed in the poll

[JaneyVee]

157. No, it won't let me vote because poster must have me on ignore.

Unless DU is messed up, all options to vote are un-clickable. Im not sure how ignore works because I dont use it.

[Autumn]

158. The time has run out on the poll that's why the options to vote are un-clickable.

[JaneyVee]

159. Ah, ok. I learn something new about DU every day.

Still don't use all the features. Tally another vote up for Bernie from me. Maybe next time. Thanks for the info.

[Autumn]

160. It took me a bit to find it. I looked twice for your name to see if you had voted

and overlooked at the top that it had expired.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. http://www.dumblittleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Change.png

[Reter]

8. How in the world can anyone seriously vote for Hillary in this poll?

Even if you like her, she's a Wall Street establishment hack. She won't turn anything around.

[Agschmid]

12. You voted for the one person who isn't a democrat, just FYI.

[truebrit71]

28. Ironic how he's the one acting most like a Democrat though....

... right?

[haikugal]

55. Well done, and very true. nt

[onyourleft]

84. Yes, indeed. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

122. There's no ideal/perfect Democrat that everyone can agree on

If there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"No True Democrat"="No True Scotsman."

[Agschmid]

130. Except he isn't...

He is acting like the socialist/populist independent that he is. Bernie isn't a democrat, when I voted for him I knew exactly what he was and I'm okay with it.

[treestar]

112. If you are not being facetious and/or pointing out Manny messed that up

How do we define Democrats outside of who is a Democrat? The idea Bernie "acts more like a Democrat" doesn't fit because he is not one. The Democrats end up defining who is a Democrat, so it makes no sense that a non-Democrat has anything to do with the definition.

[Agschmid]

114. I was pointing out that it seemed like a flawed poll.

I've live in both VT and MA and I've been lucky enough to be able to vote for both Bernie and Elizabeth.

I think my point that I am trying to make is maybe just voting "democrats" isn't enough for some of us anymore. That being said the purpose of this board is to get democrats elected, and Bernie isn't currently a democrat. But I sure as heck voted for him in VT.

[treestar]

110. She has actual supporters

not everyone sees her as a "Wall Street Establishment hack." And people who talk in terms of upsetting the Establishment are not as prevalent as they were in the late 60s, and indeed then did not succeed in undoing the Establishment.

[Aerows]

11. Elizabeth Warren

is a freight train of change. Whether she runs for President or not, she has absolutely changed the conversation on wealth inequality.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. +6.02e23 nt

[Aerows]

42. Give me a hug

Avagadro's mole number!

[BainsBane]

13. I'm still waiting for an answer on what we can do about TPP

that I posed in your thread on that issue. I was hoping since you host the Progressive Reform of the Democratic party group, you might have some ideas for how we bring about progressive reform.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Face it:

whatever I say will either be worthless or offensive. So why ask?

[BainsBane]

16. Because I was hoping you'd have ideas

As I said in the other thread, criticizing is the easy part. Anyone can criticize. What really counts is what we do to change things. Do you have any thoughts on that? Isn't that part of the mission of the group you host?

I share your opposition to TPP. You have no debate from me there. My question is what next? How do we act? What can we do? Isn't the cause important enough to set aside any personal disagreements?

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Nah, sorry.

Not a clue.

[BainsBane]

22. So what does progressive reform consist of

Because if it's just ragging on Dems, that's what the GOP does. They aren't exactly progressive.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Good point.

Thanks. You've given me some things to think about.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. AFL-CIO Day of Action to Stop Fast Track- Today, April 18 2015.....Do something about it!!!!

Actions all over the country today. The link will lead you to a map of events, sign up or just show up at an event near you if at all possible!!!!!!

"Working families across the country will be out in the streets on Saturday, April 18 to tell their Congress members to oppose Fast Track. Fast Track allows massive trade deals to be negotiated behind closed doors, and tips the balance toward a deal that sells out U.S. workers in order to pad the wallets of corporate CEOs. If Congress passes Fast Track, it would virtually guarantee the passage of trade deals that ship jobs overseas and give corporations more power over our lives.' "
https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/day-of-action-to-stop-fast-track

Union people take action, if you are looking for methods and support for opposition to Fast Track, look to labor.

[BainsBane]

119. Thank you! nt

[Scootaloo]

34. What can you do about anything, BainsBane?

For starters, there are Democrats in office who oppose the TPP. You can call or write them to show your support, and ask what you can do to help.

Encourage others to do the same. Organize a protest or seven - or find someone who is, and see what you can do there.

It's the same as it's ever been BainsBane. We have not entered a magical new realm where everything is new.

[BainsBane]

36. I understand that

I just was wondering if there was some sort of organizing going on around it, given the interest and the fact there is a group proposing progressive reform.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. This is a big Day of Action on Fast Track, there are events all over the country today.

I posted some information up thread for you. AFL-CIO sponsored actions listed at the link, anyone, Union member or not, can sign up or just show up.
I'm surprised that the folks who post so much abut this are unaware of these events and actions.

https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/day-of-action-to-stop-fast-track

[BainsBane]

15. How would a president turn things around?

How? That's the crucial question. Do you think she can do it all on her own? What mechanisms could a president implement to "turn things around"? Isn't congress necessary? If not, what can be done without congress? That, I believe, is a more important question than who.

If we're throwing around names of people who aren't actually running: I vote for Salvador Allende. He would work to dramatically change the country. He is (well, he was) far to the left of anyone on your list. Back when Warren was voting for Nixon, he expropriated US copper companies in Chile and established workers cooperatives, all while respecting a free press and the Democratic process. Unfortunately, the administration your hero Warren voted for had him murdered in a coup they mounted to overturn the democratically elected Popular Unity government.

I have great respect for Warren's efforts today. Her longer-term record, however, is less impressive.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. IIRC, Warren herself did the killing

With a little help from some Bosnian snipers.

[BainsBane]

23. Nope, she just voted the administration that killed him into office.

No answer as to how any of those individuals could "turn things around"?

[MannyGoldstein]

27. I really have no idea.

You've made your point. No need to rub salt in my wounds. Himalayan salt, like Sir Edmund Hillary himself must have used to amp up his victuals.

[treestar]

76. Nobody knows where to draw the line

It appears Kissinger and Nixon are totally guilty of these murders - no Chileans were involved apparently. So why can't it be extended to those who voted for them? And once you vote for a murderer, there should be no forgiveness ever right, no matter how many years have passed or what the people at the time wanted. That's the standard for other Democrats.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. Good point

[treestar]

99. Hillary never voted for his appointing POTUS

So I'd say she's only guilty of patting the murderer on the back. But the people who voted for his appointer are murderers also.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. I really don't know what to say

[treestar]

103. Hillary is a murderer of Gaddafi?

She and Obama also murdered bin Laden.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. I'm curious: did you vote for John Kerry?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

[treestar]

109. Yes.

Another murderer of Iraqis and Vietnamese.

guess what, it is starting to appear that to be an American President you have to be a murderer. Who knew?

[leveymg]

115. You're right. Kissinger is only an accessory to murder. But, there's no statute of limitations

to that crime, for good reason. What Kissinger, Nixon and Helms helped murder was the world's second-oldest democratic government, not to mention 3,000 innocent people. Not to mention the 30,000 who were tortured, most of them for the crime of being on the Left of Pinochet, Nixon and Kissinger.

[treestar]

116. What is the second oldest Democratic government?

What is the first?

So people who voted for Nixon are they accessories too?

[treestar]

77. They are still doing it

In spite of the past three midterms.

I was right here on DU for each of those.

Always the President. If only the President had all the power without the other two branches.

And I bet the same people complain about Obama using Executive Orders aggressively.

[840high]

17. Kick for Bernie.

[Fumesucker]

18. I'm of the opinion that anyone these days who would make a great POTUS for the 99% ...

Would have to be literally dragged kicking and screaming to the job because they would know deep in their bones how difficult, thankless and indeed dangerous a job true change would be.

Anyone who truly wants the presidency is suspect in my view, they are either too thick to be President or too power and status hungry.

I also think a lot of people realize this subconsciously and that's one of the reasons Warren and Sanders are so popular, neither really wants the Presidency.

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert

[Agschmid]

25. Love that the person winning isn't a democrat...

Way to go Manny.

[truebrit71]

31. And yet Bernie acts more like a Democrat than the rest....

... weird isn't it?

[Agschmid]

33. I agree it's interesting, but realistically he is acting just like he is...

There is a difference between a socialist/populist leaning independent and a democrat, maybe we should all re-examine our own affiliation.

[truebrit71]

35. Wait, he's just acting that way?

He doesn't really believe the things he's saying?

[Agschmid]

37. Where did I say that?

[Autumn]

105. Sorta how Hillary is talking "just like she is" a socialist/populist.

Only it's just campaign talk. Thing is, most politicians have records to look at. Bernie talks, walks and acts the same running for office or working for the people while in office. I see him as more of a Democrat than a lot of Democrats.

I did re-examine my affiliation. Right after the Omnibus vote when Jamie Dimon was whipping votes at the behest of Obama I changed my lifelong party affiliation from Democrat to Unaffiliated.

[Agschmid]

107. Good post.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. My fault.

Sorry.

[Aerows]

45. Don't apologize

to someone that is stirring up shit WAY WORSE than even you do. You at least have a grain of truth to you!

[MannyGoldstein]

48. I suck less?

Alright!

[Agschmid]

49. To be fair I don't think you suck at all...

Not sure where that came from, I think your poll actually makes an important point.

[KMOD]

52. Nah. I think you win!

[Aerows]

44. Are you determined

to put down every DUer today, or is that just a skillset?

I've seen you make a lot of posts that discuss issues... Oh wait I haven't. Contribute something beside nastiness why don't you.

[Agschmid]

50. I do on a daily basis.

[treestar]

75. so now you are being open about

dislike of the Democratic party? You don't want Democrats to win?

[Agschmid]

97. Try again...

[treestar]

100. You said that you loved that the winner of this poll was not a Democrat

So I assume you are not a Democrat and are against Democrats. That's logical to follow.

[Agschmid]

106. Lol.

[winter is coming]

30. It's going to take more than the Presidency to turn things around.

A better question might be, "Who will try to turn things around?"

[Major Hogwash]

58. And yet . . .

. . . most of them don't think both houses of Congress will be held by the Republicans in 2016, for some odd, unknown, mysterious reason.

I've got to get my Ouija board back out of the attic soon.
Maybe then I can divine how they came to that conclusion.

[Aerows]

43. Elizabeth Warren

has already started the conversation of inequality of wealth, and has stated that it is at the root of our country having more hungry children than any industrialized country.

That's a shameful fact, folks.

[KMOD]

46. Any of them would make a huge difference

than what a republican winning would do.

[hrmjustin]

47. Well said!

[Agschmid]

51. Yup!

[treestar]

74. None without Congress

3 bad midterms and people still haven't learned. They still think the POTUS does it all.

[JoePhilly]

102. Correct answer ... and it is instructive that the OP did not include it.

It reflects the desire of some to have a magic progressive arrive and perform miracles.

[YoungDemCA]

123. Or the desire for a dictator who will be obedient to their own purist demands

Careful what you wish for, though. Because dictators-by definition-aren't accountable to anyone.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. How much does Bernie owe Corporations for his Campaigns ?

He raised it from the people he'll owe, the People .

[polichick]

80. Bernie fights for Democratic principles better than most card-carrying Dems...

So he has my vote.

[SidDithers]

81. I'm just surprised that President Kucinich hasn't fixed everything...

in the six years since DU elected him President.

Sid

[treestar]

104. It's always said a person lost for not being progressive enough

And the right wingers say it too. Mitt was not conservative enough. Both sides think the populace will be immediately swayed by the arguments of those who make it most strongly.

Wonder how they never get the illogical nature of that premise.

[Zorra]

117. If your 1% allies, the MSM, would have allowed Kucinich some press, maybe he would have.

The 1% owns the msm, and they ensure that their chosen candidates to get maximum press, and all others minimum press, ensuring that only their candidates get the recognition necessary to get a Presidential nomination.

It's not rocket science, Sid, and this tired old Third Way line gets more tired and old every time all y'all use it. This must be around the 500th time, I reckon.



"None but ourselves can free our minds" ~ Bob Marley

[MADem]

154. He's too busy collecting his check from his good buddy Rupert, and playing the

"Lefty Buffoon" role over at Fauxsnooze, to care what a few DUers might think. He's in the Big Money now!

I mean, hell, everyone's gotta eat, but it's not like he couldn't have found a nice teaching gig, or something. Might not pay as well, but at least he'd have retained his integrity.

[rock]

85. I'll pass

The last president to really turn things around was george w* bush! Though he was not a Democrat, he really did turn things around.

[ann---]

86. No one

All politicians are alike. They promise and promise and deliver
little or nothing to those who really need it. Obama included.
Will be writing in Dennis Kucinich's name every time for president
because I think he would be the most honest and peace-loving.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. I voted, "did not wish to select any of the options provided" ...

For the simple reason that none of these people can "turn things around", without a willing Congress; or, without establishing a dictatorship that disbands Congress.

[YoungDemCA]

120. You mean we can't have a STRONG LEADER that can "turn things around?"

Like that guy in Russia?

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. I'll go a step further ...

We can't have a "strong leader", when Democrats seem have a genetic need to oppose any and everything, just to prove our independedness.

[MannyGoldstein]

125. Good point.

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act

Days after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.”

...

Lyndon Johnsons, of course, do not come along every four or every 40 years. Even if they did, Johnson brought plenty of darkness (election stealing, a credibility gap, Vietnam) along with the light (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Great Society). Moreover, not every president needs to be a legislative genius in order to pass laws. Obama, after all, gambled big on the Affordable Care Act, investing the same type of capital in health care that Johnson invested in civil rights. It is now the law of the land. But the energy and purpose that Johnson brought to the Civil Rights Act struggle remains inspiring, and is a model for all presidents. As Richard Russell, the South’s leader in the Senate during the 1960s, put it to a friend a few days after Kennedy’s assassination: “You know, we could have beaten John Kennedy on civil rights, but not Lyndon Johnson.”

There was also this FDR guy... whatever...

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. Did you read the part about ...

"A willing Congress"?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

118. As I've noted in my thread, Hillary isn't interested in changing trade or campain finances

She's gotten a lot of good press for her "constitutional amendment" and TPP position this week, but they are idle words, polictalspeak for, Hey, I finally said something!

I lay it out here in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026527724

So my vote goes to Bernie since he's going to run and Elizabeth isn't.

[YoungDemCA]

121. In case you haven't noticed, both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP

As are many if not most of the state governments, and countless local governments around the country.

Plus, there's a little thing called the US Supreme Court, which last I checked, is controlled by right-wingers.

But please, continue to pine for a "Strong Leader". Just don't act shocked when you discover that many of us don't want a dictator, thank you very much.

[daredtowork]

140. Draft Barbara Lee! nt

[mvd]

145. Would be fine with Sanders or Warren

I think they would both change the system to be more fair to the middle class and poor. Hillary would just nibble at the edges again. That said, I plan on voting for Hilllary in the general election. It really is not a scare tactic to say how harmful a Repuke President would be and we have to choose who can beat them. I mean, Hillary wouldn't be sacrificing my principles as much as Jim Webb would.

[Liberal_Dog]

148. No One Will "Turn Things Around"

Voters are the ones who must decide to turn things around. No single politician, however well-intentioned, can do it by himself or herself.

Sadly, American voters seem just fine with the way things are. Repubs shut down the Government and get rewarded in the next election.

I simply don't see any real changes coming anytime soon.

[L0oniX]

161. We need to beg the 1% to at least let us live in poverty and give us just a few more crumbs.