2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI'm beginning to see the gap as unbridgeable.
All the corporate and dark money flowing into Clinton coffers is fine with Clinton supporters. I don't know if they believe Hillary will do anything or not if she became president. The point is, I've had it with this shit, and hillary Clinton is neck deep in it.
I believe money, flowing into the parties and to politicians- big money, corporate money, dark money- is the most urgent problem we face. There is so much evidence piled up proving how corrupt our government is because of it. It's like the emperor's fucking non-existent new clothes. We have built a culture around pretending our government isn't really corrupt.
And trusting Hillary on this issue? The cognitive dissonance it takes to do that is beyond me. Just can't do it.
And I know Hillary supporters have a totally different perspective. I just don't think it adds up.
In short, we are talking different languages.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
daleanime
(17,796 posts)true.
I thought this meant the gap between Democrats and Republicans since, you know, this is a Democratic site.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)My other guess was the gap between pragmatic Democrats and idealistic Democrats. Didn't know pragmatism automatically transformed you into a conservative.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to fix the country starting with curbing the influence of money on elections.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)controlling none of the three branches of government, which is what happens if Sanders wins.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Sanders is a better general election candidate. If you haven't heard, most people outside of the Democratic party have a pathological (and generally unfounded) hatred of Hillary Clinton.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)You may disagree with mine, that's fine. I'm simply explaining why some of us believe HRC is the pragmatic choice.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)No, I have not heard that HRC is most despised outside of the Dem Party. In fact, even here in SC I know several Republicans who have said they would either hold their nose and vote for her or a third candidate if Trump or Cruz gets the nomination.
Beartracks
(12,801 posts)That CAN'T be a widespread sentiment among Republicans, I wouldn't think.
But then, I generally assume all Republicans think like Sean Hannity. lol
=========
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ever...
cali
(114,904 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)rather her than Bernie Sanders.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They are comfortable with social changes like LGBT marriage (which I supported long before Hillary did) and the end of racism, etc., but they are financially pretty comfortable, don't recognize how damaging the poverty around them is, probably don't even see it, don't know it is there, so they'd rather not have any economic change.
That is how I view Hillary voters.
They are social issues voters. They don't understand the link, the inextricable link between the social issues and the economic ones.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Your priorities don't stand a chance either. Nobody's priorities will stand a chance.
If big money keeps winning, big money will have exclusive access. Big money will have all three branches and we will officially cease to be a democracy.
Furthermore, you'd have to trust a con to change the con game that benefits them. This is what people don't understand about your position.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)The combination of greed from the PTB and the logic of the political situation (as you've described above) points to an effortless conclusion but NO! I have never heard a reasonable answer that completely refutes my 1st sentence.
To not see the connection must take effort, or maybe not.
Remember to save your energy.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)if I agreed with you, I'd be a Sanders supporter.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)wrong candidate.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)It's not pragmatic when it would result in Dems
controlling none of the three branches of government, which is what happens if Sanders wins.
Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
If Sanders wins (the primary)
I guess I should've spelled that out for those who don't understand context. Then again, everyone but you understood.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If the label "Democrat" no longer corresponds with "liberal," then I could give a shit if a politician wearing it wins. Branding is irrelevant.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)Bernie would annihilate Trump and the poll numbers back that up, but Hillary is the one that has much more trouble with them.
We must keep fighting TPTB and recruit true Progressive candidates so we can eventually throw off the shadow government we have today!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The Clintons crossed that line many years ago.
Opportunistic cynicism should not be rewarded. We get enough of that from the other side.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... financing this nation has ever been given. It has brought us to our knees, and it has lined up the people who are WILLING to go along with it, with an ever-increasing distance from those who WON'T.
That is the NUMBER ONE problem. It has blinded follower of the oligarchy. You want to take the blinders off? That's up to you.
Once you understand that this can NEVER lead to any meaningful change in this oligarchy nation, you'll understand what the gap is all about.
Until then, you might mind the gap.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,165 posts)Bernie is trying to lead the country back to the Democrats FDR roots. That IS the moderate view. Back before the Greed is Good mantra was adopted by everyone else and the worshiping and lathering on of the "job creators" another way of saying "those 1%ers that fund my campaigns". Before Bill Clinton's cowardly and sleezy behaviour (and I'm not talking Monica). The Third Way approach to out-Republican the Republicans. To give in on right wing monopolization of the radio airwaves, three strikes, welfare "reform". Glass Steagall to name a few.
I guess as a Canadian, Bernie seems more middle of the road. Maybe slightly to the left. Hillary is much closer to the the far right. And the GOP is way off in crazy land where the only thing that comes out of their mouths are blatant provable lies.
So yes, if you take party labels off all the candidates, this is a fight between moderate liberal values vs a right wing multi-billion dollar machine with Hillary as the front running face, but the GOP a big part of that tent standing just behind the curtain.
JohnnyRingo
(18,619 posts)If you aren't with them, then you must be with the Republicans.
The poster makes the assumption that the political spectrum goes from liberal Democrat straight to Glenn Beck as if there's no such animal as a moderate leftist. It's just wordplay to avoid being labelled as fringe.
As for the OP, I have no use for anyone who uses this forum to promote electoral non-participation in protest. I often wonder if Reince Preibus has an account here for that purpose. There has to be at least a few new members who only slime Clinton without posting one good word about Bernie.
I'm supporting the Democrat who wins the primary.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)on the issues."
"Idealism"="Wanting what the rest of the industrialized world has, and some of what the U.S. used to have, but allowing the extreme right to dictate that it's unattainable, because they like things just the way they are."
You really can't see the man behind the curtain, can you?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)poverty.
"The choice is stark, keep living under corporate rule under Hillary and watch things get worse, or go with Bernie and fight TPTB to regain our Representative Democracy!"
Those that support Clinton dont even try to explain how she will fix the mess we live in. They worship the rich and powerful.
applegrove
(118,501 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)This isn't a team thing; it's a country thing.
A politician shouldn't instantly become untouchable by adding a D after his or her name.
Many of us who remember the Democratic Party before it sold its soul to corporate interests barely recognize the party anymore. It's very sad. And deeply disturbing.
The obvious fact that the other guys are even worse is hardly a ringing endorsement. And it certainly isn't a source of inspiration or a recipe for meaningful change.
Furthermore, there are things that Democrats have done that we'd be apoplectic about if they had been done by Republicans.
Make no mistake: Party loyalty can be important, but shouldn't our principles take precedent?
It's bitterly ironic that Ronald Reagan, one of the most destructive forces of the 20th century, said it best:
"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Most Democrats apparently prefer Hillary to Bernie, so not sure why people are complaining that "the party left me."
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)They've redefined not only what's important but also what's possible.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Considering there have been three state elections thus far with Hillary winning Nevada by 600 maybe a little more. Hillary winning Iowa by a much slimmer margin than Nevada, and Bernie crushing her by 20% in New Hampshire, I doubt I would attempt to speak on who more democrats voted for. I am a lifelong Dem but more of the FDR - Kennedy type than the current sell out crowd we have now. We must admit we sold our principles down the road in hopes of winning more elections and it still rarely happens. Why? Because you are not going to win over independents and new voters acting like a republican. Given the choice they will vote for the real republican 8 out of 10 times. And yes the Dem party did leave a lot of it's former supporters if you can not acknowledge that then you are being dishonest in your examination over the years.
tonybgood
(218 posts)Furthermore, Sanders is crushing Hillary in the under 45 vote. That is the future of the party. You lose them and you'll look like the GOP demographic. The Democratic Party left the people a long time ago. The people are waking up!
Skittles
(153,113 posts)and it is SICKENING to witness
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Is far greater than the gap between Dem establishment and GOP establishment. Congratulations on moving the party so far right wing that many Sanders supporters are looking at supporting Jill Stein in the GE if Hillary gets the nomination. That's entirely on the DNCs shoulders.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)To the growing number of DUers who are willing to accept a GOP victory in November in order to stay philosophically pure.
It sure worked out nicely for all those Nader voters in 2000.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Keep it up, hope you're satisfied with the republican victory. This was your choosing...running a candidate so RW and corrupted by corporate backing that half the party can't even hold their noses and vote for her the stench is so great.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)I absolutely will vote for the Democratic nominee; you say that you and "half the party" will not support one of the two candidates as nominee.
Please answer: who would be responsible for a GOP victory?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)However, it is a simple fact that a sizeable number of voters in the left wing of the Democratic Party will just no longer hold their noses and cast a vote enabling further corporate control of the party and government. Your threats of republican victory are useless...they see no difference. But keep on driving that wedge...it'll make the divorce a much easier decision.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)Same exact thing Nader voters said in 2000 concerning Gore and G W Bush. They couldn't have been more wrong, and we are still paying for their errant thinking.
Only difference this time around is that Trump or Cruz will make W look like a reasonable moderate.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Ignoring the left for 4 years, then demanding they vote for you, then blaming and insulting them for your loss, is not a healthy marriage. There has to be an equal partnership. Demanding every single item on the RW of the party, while conceding no issue to the left is not a partnership, it's an abusive relationship. It should have ended before now, but it does appear to be ending now. The Greens would welcome the left with open arms, as ideologies are pretty close, and it would help the Greens become a viable party. I dont think there's room in the political spectrum for two corporatist parties, so I assume if the corporatist Dems are no longer viable they'll rejoin the GOP from which they came.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)You get the last word. Suggest we put each other on Ignore; don't think either of us are going to be swayed.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)When will democrats stop blaming Nader for Gore losing? Gore lost because he ran a shit campaign and let Bush define him. Al gore could not wait to say " me too" enough in agreement with his opponent. We actually see this with Hillary regarding her "evolutions" that directly coincide with Bernie's platform. You guys are all smart enough to know the reason these big banks donate to the GOP and Hillary is they are hedging their bets. They get the result they want if either one wins. What makes one think when the GOP takes the money it is bad, but Hillary will take it and it will be a beacon of sunshine and she is beyond basic instincts of helping those that helped you?
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)Without Nader in the race, Gore wins easily. Same as '92 when Perot gave Clinton an easy victory.
If enough disgruntled Sanders voters don't support Clinton(if she gets the nomination) we will likely have the same outcome.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)The fact of the matter Gore ran a shit campaign do you disagree with that? You can't blame Nader for Gore not winning his home state. You can't blame Nader for Gore losing Arkansas, Bill Clinton's home state. That was a problem back then gore blew his chances not Nader blew Gore's chances. I blame Gore for being the " me too" candidate. The only thing you are remotely close to being correct about is that Hillary is likely to lose a general election. That is because she is a terrible candidate with terrible favorability numbers that you avid supporters tend to ignore. Do so at your own peril but don't expect independents and other disenfranchised dems to rally around Her Corporateness. people have been explaining this for close to a year now but her supporters love to stick their fingers in their ear and sing lalalalala can't hear you.
SCantiGOP
(13,866 posts)Has disagreed that without Nader in the race Gore would have won Florida easily and thus won the election.
That is a fact based on numbers. "Gore ran a shit race" is a subjective assertion that is impossible to either quantify or prove.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)You can't counter he couldn't win his home state or the state of the then popular president. But then again I do not perceive you as being willing to truly examine Her Corporateness' record, so in fact it will be you who is complicit in her losing the general. Stop attempting to blame others when you will not examine your candidate. It will be very hard for me to vote for Hillary, considering her husband referred to me and other Bernie supporters as "the tea party of the left". With that insult you can just about count on not getting support you may have once had.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)I will caucus in WA for Bernie. If Hillary is the nominee, I will write-in Bernie in the general election. No way will I vote for her or any republican.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)It is against the house rules here to say you will not vote for the Democratic nominee and you will be banned if they wish to do so. I want you to stay, so please consider.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Washes hands, walks away.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wealthy 1% and the 99%. The Wealthy 1% (the Clintons actually are in the top 1% of the top 1%) sponsor the Republicons and the Conservative Democrats like HRC. They have given the Clintons between 100 million dollars and 200 million dollars in what looks to me like GRAFT.
You have to choose whether you want to help the 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty or help the Clintons gain more and more personal wealth.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)republicans
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Our party. It's been a subject for sometime if anyone has been paying attention. I know many of us have, but have others? Or was any moderate outrage, quickly distracted by some other faux new scandal of the day? For the past couple of years I've made a point not to watch news, instead opting to read news. It's amazing how different it is, even when you factor the opinion pieces.
This is a couple years old now, but highlights how far to the right our party leaders have shifted. But each of us need to ask ourselves, do they continue to represent our party values, or are they attempting to change it? I am a democrat. I didn't sign on to the Third Way Pledge. And I question the party loyalty of anyone that has.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/the-democrats-third-way-q_b_4410394.html
freebrew
(1,917 posts)if HRC wins, nothing will change. TPP will fly through, Keystone - no problem - done, Wall Street problems - no problem it's just the poor bitching, jobs - the Rs don't care so ?
Social Security cuts, ACA gone.
Do they really think Hillary will be any different? She's a 1%er, seems like there must be more of them than I thought.
I guess I'm just not seeing the big($$$$) picture.
RKP5637
(67,088 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)My candidate is so much less evil than the other candidates. It's important we elect my candidate. If we have to look the other way, make some excuses, overlook some compromises, and so on, we will. Because my candidate will take office and change things so all those excuses, compromises, character issues, etc. are no longer problems. My candidate will get in bed with everyone, then kick out the bad people after taking office. My candidate has been working toward this moment for a lifetime, taking money from bad people, doing their bidding, in anticipation of getting elected and putting an end to all the corruption and dirty dealing that got my candidate to this place.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's really simple: Hillary exemplifies the most urgent problem we face. Bernie is all about fighting it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to cali (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Vote for HRC or else. Hmmm, I don't care for that. I'd rather cast my vote for principles I believe in. I see a vote for HRC as a vote for the 1% and that ain't good for the rest of the 99%. She loves the TPP and that spells the end of human rights whenever they interfere with profits for the wealthy so all her other talk about social issues would mean nothing. Sorry. No protection racket for me. I ain't buying this old hurt and rescue routine.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)How dare you vote your conscience! How dare you insist that your vote really
means something more than supporting a "slightly-lesser-evil". These are quaint
notions left-over from a bye gone era, before the Clintons et. al. 3rd Wayers
co-opted the Democratic Party, so-called.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Now, THAT, will be a good day!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This is RIGHT out of a scene .... except YOU have turned into Libby Holden...
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Plenty for all of us to chew on. Thanks for posting.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Except the different language part. I leave it at, "cognitive dissonance".
TDale313
(7,820 posts)You won't persuade them on policy matters, and they don't mind the shape shifting, cause that's not what they're voting on. They've decided she's the candidate (because they believe she's electable, because she's a woman, because she's been part of the Political scene for decades) And they want the win. Nothing else matters.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)both Clintons have this capacity to project themselves as benign and caring, when they're so far from it...Maybe some just perceive this more than others...
KPN
(15,637 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)When the plutocrats say jump, she asks how high.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)She no longer works for the oligarchs, she works with them now. She's been a "made man" for a while now.
Response to TDale313 (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Merryland
(1,134 posts)& it's discouraging. BUT we need to keep our eyes on the prize, and we know that supporting Bernie Sanders and doing our best to elect him President is the RIGHT thing to do, no matter how blind - or ignorant - others may be.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)KPN
(15,637 posts)they are too busy trying to survive.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and too overworked to dick around at a 5-hour caucus? who RELIES solely on everyone not hearing that there's someone else running? who RELIES on carefully-crafted untruths and hopes that they spread further than the retraction?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Certainly not someone who believes in Democracy
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beating the opposition -- GOPers -- require adequate financing. The same companies contributing to Clinton are probably giving even more to GOPers, so there is no reason to believe Clinton has to, or even will, repay them. Darn, I'd take their money too if it helps beat GOPers.
cali
(114,904 posts)Clinton in the primary. And I don't believe you really do care about it, because you have clearly not informed yourself about it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm sorry, some kind of moral refusal to take corporate money is not going to beat a well financed GOPer in November. Again, I'd like to see the money out of campaigns when it applies to both sides. The quickest way to do that is to not appoint right wing Justices, as a GOPer Prez would do, and/or enact laws to that effect, which a GOPer would not sign.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)You are a republican.
The money wing of the republican party would be very happy with a Clinton presidency. Problem is, thanks to the Clintons own behavior and the fact that the public is sick of them, they can't sell the idea of her to the Tea Party faithful that make up the republican base.
So where do they have to go to sell this shitty candidate to enough voters to get her elected? If I answered that question honestly, my post would be alerted on and probably hidden. So I'll leave it to you to figure out what the game is.
You should probably just go back to posting silly stuff in the RKBA group. You're over your head here.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Guy named Nixon.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)lapfog_1
(29,193 posts)I think we could safely refuse big donors this election cycle... but only if the candidate takes a principled stand on the issue.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Instead of shaping the Democratic Party to be a funnel to siphon in Corporate Cash, why not shape it to actually excite people who will give what they can.....A lot of littles makes a whole lot.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)That will put a crimp in your fuel line.
cali
(114,904 posts)history of feeding from that trough.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)People like Bernie and Trump who pop out of nowhere and manage to be funded is what that Chutzpah have been fighting to keep out since just about forever.
And look out for that kitchen sink 
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)in office in spite of his newness.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Without him we would have been way down the crapper. Unfortunately, it looks like some that encased him in that bubble had a lot of moves already mapped out for him before he even got there. We can only learn from where we were, not from where we want to go
ThreeWayFanny
(80 posts)..... unilateral disarmament. NOT.
Let's disarm the gop first. Then we can lay down our weapons .
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)It does us no good to really like the level playing field around the corner if the game is being played on the field where we are standing.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)jump with joy when they think she doesn't have enough money to compete with Bernie.
CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)Yeah, cuz when someone pays you a quarter of a million dollars for a 20 minute speech, they don't expect anything in return.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)from Bruce Rauner's firm for a speech, then turned right around and endorsed and worked for Pat Quinn when he ran against Rauner for governor. That proves to me that the money didn't work with her.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)seems simple. Do you want corruption and warmongering or do you want integrity and progress?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)No one who is in on corruption ever really bothers to change things back to a more honest system.
Though they may spend a lot of time spinning how removed they happen to be from the corruption.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)about his character. Goldwater girls (like leopards in the old cliche) don't necessarily change their spots.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)How long it will take a majority to get fed up with the Rigged Society, who knows. Maybe it will take another 4 years, but it's like a bad marriage...once acknowledged, denial is no longer an option and the divorce will likely proceed.
So, I'm still in it to win it with Bernie. If he's not nominated, I hope The Revolution continues. We've already won the "new" conversation and Trump will hammer it home from now on. The word of this election ...Rigged. Funny, he may cause a shift towards Bernie. HRC says little of substance, IMO, and Trump is shouting all kinds of things all over the place and the people (Rs) love it.
Also, I'm pretty sure Trump is sexist, and will not hesitate to use her gender against her...along with all the other Clinton Baggage.
It's going to be an election season to remember, regardless.
Uncle Joe
(58,298 posts)Thanks for the thread, cali.
oasis
(49,334 posts)'nuff said.
cali
(114,904 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)his gun fights with congress.
democrank
(11,085 posts)It was so disheartening.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The best ya got, go home and play there not ready for the big people games...
oasis
(49,334 posts)By the way I'm already at home so I don't have to "go home" as you suggest, big person. 
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Get the point, I guess you need it spelled out to get it through the mist.... That was a pretty childish remark.... ... that was my point .... Now do you get it???
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)It was put in motion in 2000 or maybe even '92. As good of a President as Bill was, it was always more about him and Hillary more than it was about a progressive party. I thought Obama had written the final chapter of the Clinton story, but sadly, the egos are too big, the grasp and favors owed too deep.
In the same way the Bush family 'killed' republicans and made them radicalized, the Clintons are going to do the same thing to us.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)They're growing state by state but mostly just endorse candidates. They've only just recently started running their own down-ticket candidates in some places.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)and I think you are correct.
democrank
(11,085 posts)I`m voting for the continuation of big money influence....and probably another war.
840high
(17,196 posts)I can't vote for her.
onenote
(42,602 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter but if he doesn't get the nomination I will work just as hard to defeat the repub candidate as I would if Bernie was the nominee.
Because turning over control of this country to the likes of one of those three maniacs is something none of us should be able to live with.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)I'll either be writing in Bernie's name or voting Green Party.
onenote
(42,602 posts)then we are in fundamental disagreement about what is worse for the people of this country.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Or a Trump plutocracy,
Or a Rubio idiocracy.
And then report back to us, if any of is survive, that is.
I whole-heartedly support Bernie, but the Hell if I am going to throw my vote away and let one of the GOP clowns gain the Oval Office. I am voting Democratic Party in November no matter who gains the nomination.
Any other strategy is one that loses in the long run.
Get this straight. If one wants to change the Democratic Party, one does not start at the White House and work down. That would be a fool's errand. One has to do it like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did for the GOP in the 70's and 80's, from the bottom-up.
Once one runs like minded people for precinct delegates, one can control the county party. Then, one can take over the district delegations. Then, the state delegations, resulting in -- Ta-Daaaa! -- an entire national party. Many of us here watched it happen before our very eyes. It was slickly done, with the help of fundementalist pastors who ignored IRS guidelines, almost universally ignored.
If one wants to take over a party, that is the way it can happen, not with just an Oval Office. That the Oval Office is necessary but insufficient is something too damned many people here do not recognize.
Help organize at the local level. Run for precinct delegate and get like-minded people to do the same. Once one has the precincts in a district, one has the district, etc. Repeat as necessary and replicate everywhere.
In the meantime, do nothing to allow the crazies in the GOP gain total power.
It is simple; it just takes some coordination and effort beyond screaming at a DU post.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)nomination I won't vote for Hillary. End of discussion. I'll vote down ticket only.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)indivisibleman
(482 posts)If Hillary is the nom and if I don't vote for her I will vote Green.
For a long time I believed I had to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils if that was the choice I had.
No longer. Now the lesser is so evil, she's unacceptable.
If we keep voting that way, we are guaranteed to only have that choice.
onenote
(42,602 posts)Voting rights will continue to contract, making it harder for a progressive to win in the future.
There is no "victory" in allowing one of the repub maniacs become President and control the Supreme Court nominations that will inevitably be coming.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Or perhaps making an already existing party grow
Working Families Party
Nacho-_-Bandito
(8 posts)This scare tactic doesn't work anymore because we HAVE ALREADY reached the point where we can't get a real progressive in office.
We're there already, Cochese. The boogieman is here already.
We have a choice between the status quo in Clinton, who is already a moderate Republican and pantsuit deep in money from the people who have turn the country into a Plutocracy, and Donald Trump. At least with Trump, we can let the right go full derp off the cliff and...establishment Republicans seem to be just as terrified of him as establishment Democrats are of Sanders.
The real problem is that the two party system means that we're locked into what the powers at be want us to have, because it's completely rigged to keeping the establishment in place. Until and unless we can blow up the system as it is, nothing is really going to get better.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)......where we can't get a real progressive in office."
People need to step back and look at all problems our country has due to Republican policies.
But those policies only got made into laws due to the conservative Democrats pushing the GOP written bills through Congress, and/or being signed willingly by a Democratic President.
Think Bill C. and the vast number of items from the 80's GOP wish list he promoted.
Having voted since 1976 I have come to realize that no matter how badly the base of the GOP wants something they prefer to have a conservative Democrat take the heat by never passing their own draconian bills, they will wait for a (conservative) Democrat to be President.
If people REALLY dont want GOP policies enacted they should vote for ANYONE but Hillary.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,757 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Scraped plate or scraps and bones - you starve both ways, one is just slower.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Which it won't be...
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)The General Election goes to the Republicans as many believers that all things establishment politics is over - will just likely sit at home the first Tuesday in November.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)Like I say, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who I've supported. Sounds like I'm the grown-up in the room; hope it's contagious.....
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Medical Science Makes Remedies to Ensure It Is Not Contagious To Others 
.
bhikkhu
(10,713 posts)and for the Democratic party platform. It has its flaws, and a "big tent" necessarily includes some things I don't agree with, and doesn't put all of my priorities in the same order as I would. But for the most part it is good.
That said, I am voting for Sanders in the primary because he is better on the issues. I'll still happily vote for Hillary in the general because she is good on the issues. I don't have to demonize her to support Sanders.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)and is willing to risk losing even though the Democrats have been losing (proportionally) members and will continue to .
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)mainer
(12,018 posts)I suspect a whole generation of young people will be so disillusioned by what's obviously a rigged primary that they'll skip the GE and never re-engage with politics.
frylock
(34,825 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Will Vote Local (where the decisions made directly impact life) and State (where the same happens), but skip the Federal as this Gen-Xer is sick of the BS at the Top -- if Bernie is not the nominee.
ThreeWayFanny
(80 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)
..... don't bother with all that voting nonsense ! Your elders will take care of this for you! Trust us on this!
frylock
(34,825 posts)ThreeWayFanny
(80 posts).... "Retire or DIE, boomer ! !!!"
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll either be writing in Bernie's name or voting green in this election. I won't sit out this election. But if she only gets the nomination by way of superdelegates who choose not to honor the will of the voters, that's it for me. I may never vote again either. I've been voting, protesting, writing and calling my reps, etc. my whole life.
At this point, I'm a divorced female in my mid-50s trying to find some other career to transition into (medical transcription is going the way of the dinosaurs). Since I never had kids, I'm thinking my time will probably be better spent just trying to survive.
Very depressing.
For now, we fight on, though.
indivisibleman
(482 posts)In 50s, voted every year but very disillusioned. Bernie or bust.
ThreeWayFanny
(80 posts)..... those of us who will be voting will be more than glad to take care of everything for you! Lay back, relax, an Enjoy your new found peace of mind!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)Skittles
(153,113 posts)Y'ALL HAVE IT COVERED!!!
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Like I said, if that comes to pass, I'm done with politics, political message boards, voting, etc. I'm in a rural area of a blue New England state, so I'll just concentrate on the rest of my own quiet life here. I'm already kind of a homebody except for the internet, so I'll just graduate to full recluse and stay off message boards, I guess. I doubt I'll make it to retirement age anyhow and I have no children to worry about. I'm just really, really tired so if after all this, we end up without a President Sanders, those who still have decades ahead of them can do the fighting.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I have a friend, age 73 who has started back to work full time at the age of 73. The only upside is that she has a Masters Degree, so she is being paid nicely. But she certainly didn'[t think this was what her life would be.
When I think of all the suffering due to how Wall street screwed this country over.
But the folks on Wall Street won't have to work until they are seventy something. They have a multiplicity of retirement plans and the money they make on their insider trading, government bail outs, bonuses and other perks.
We need someone to set the system right.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Free chicken dinner (that you provide)! My son (32) refuses to ever discuss politics because he firmly believes our votes don't matter at all. Ever. He's not alone and Sen. Sanders recognizes this. Can't say that I blame him, either. Look at gun control and back ground checks. The NRA's money wins every time. Voters? Fuck 'em.
pengu
(462 posts)I also think the lesser of evils argument isn't going to work very well anymore.
840high
(17,196 posts)early - evil is evil.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I think it's even worse than that. I think we have built a culture where to half of our party and all of the other party we accept corruption as an acceptable cost of doing business.
logosoco
(3,208 posts)big money in politics is a biggie! It makes the government not one of the people.
I think it is Bernie's stance on ending Citizens United that makes him so unpopular among others in Congress. Not because he is not a good guy, but he wants to end their gravy train!
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Well said, and if Hillary gets the nomination many a bridge to us wacky Sanders supporters will have been burnt to a crisp. They started the fires a few weeks ago and now are dropping gasoline just to up the ugly, ensuring the Republicans a win or a much closer fight than need be.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hillary has burned the remaining bridges to the party's left. I think this may be permanent.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)indivisibleman
(482 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)mts....
griloco
(832 posts)(vocals around 1:22)
Merryland
(1,134 posts)and Ben Selvin's grandson was there! Love FDR, love this wonderful song...
griloco
(832 posts)
Merryland
(1,134 posts)The grandson was totally surprised - and so were we, the organizers. Just one of those cool synchronicities.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)Corporate money is not my biggest issue. Abortion, racism, education are my issues. To me, the candidates are about equal. And the Republicans are the anti-thesis of what I want for this country. So, I step aside in the primaries and let the two candidates duke it out. Whoever wins, I vote for. To protect abortion rights, to protect African-American issues, to protect K-12 education - not everyone is going to get to college.
I think Bernie supporters don't understand that different people have different issues that they prioritize. For example, I saw a list of the things that Hillary does or doesn't support and I was okay with it. Because the list was all negative, and didn't address what she DOES support.
Not to say I'm for Hillary, although I'm leaning Hillary. I'm leaning Hillary only because I'm overwhelmed with the bombardment of "only ignorant people vote for Hillary" that I hear in DU.
If Hillary doesn't float your boat, that's fine. Support Bernie. But understand, MY issues are at stake in November. And I will fight for them then.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)If it's true.... or remains true in the future?
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)I can't see her all of a sudden becoming pro-life. I don't think she's going to flip-flop on voting rights. I don't think she's going to flip-flop on childhood education.
Again, it's a question of what matters to you.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That children should be educated?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Trump would lead to the deaths of innocent Hispanics and Muslims. We have to stop him.
Cruz embraced people who advocate killing gay people. If we don't stop him, it's my blood on our hands.
Rubio seems a bit saner, but he'd still cut spending and lead to people dying because they lose health insurance.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Noam Chomsky even said he would vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the Republicans -- any of them -- out of the White House.
Noam. Fucking. Chomsky.
I want a candidate for president who doesn't exist. Abbie Hoffman for president with Captain Paul Watson as his running mate. Abbie Hoffman was an anarchist and he's dead. Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and he's Canadian.
That's not gonna happen.
What is gonna happen is a choice between a Republican and a Democrat.
I know what choice I'm making.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)... but knowing that he said that validates that decision somewhat for me.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)ms liberty
(8,558 posts)And I see no way Hillary would or could win this state. I could go in to town right now and find anti-Clinton bumper stickers on at least one pickup truck that have been on it since Bill was in office. Hillary is despised as much or more than Bill by all but a small percentage of democrats in our area, and none of the Independents would cross over for her, and she'd get no disaffected republicans. She might win a primary here, but I don't see a chance for her in the GE, and I think that is true of SC as well.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I've seen two Hillary bumper stickers, and one Hillary yard sign, but I've seen probably a dozen Bernie bumper stickers. Sanders can win NC, if enough people know about him.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)wouldn't alter the election, or help the Republicans.
I'm in a hopelessly red state (Tennessee.) I could vote Green, or I could once again vote Justice Party.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I will be voting my conscience. I have to live with myself after Election Day.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I feel obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I don't know if I can bring myself to do it anymore. Hopefully Sanders will be the nominee, so I won't have a problem voting this November.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)like this one from Rove's SuperPAC?
http://www.AmericanCrossroads.org
No? Why is that?
cali
(114,904 posts)level at which Clinton supporters want to converse.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)SuperPacs. Both are filthy reflections of a corrupt and broken system.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Have they ever systematically ratfucked and swiftboated the left over the entire year leading to the GE, and managed a win?
Because I just don't see it. It seems insane.
So, vote for a Dem nominee for POTUS, because you agree that universal health care will never, not ever, happen. You'll fight for the right of private insurance to play their parasitical role forever, because single payer (the only way to guarantee any degree of universality) means taxes?
Is that it?
Vote for the Dem nominee because you want to carpet bomb even more countries in the ME and around the world, because that's where the Dem heart is at? Because you think cluster bombs are a good thing? Because you're fine with Kissinger's exterminations of whole populations, his overthrow of democracies - and you're fine with the overthrow of democracy in Honduras? Because that's where your conscience has brought you to?
Vote for the Dem nominee because you think all politicians are corrupt and on the take to the tune of 10's and 100's of millions, and that's where you think Dems should be at too - in fact paving the way, in the lead?
Vote for the Dem nominee because she promises that she can get things done with the Republicans, and by pissing on the left?
I think the Dems running behind Hillary Clinton will be blown right out of the water. It'll be a joke.
A turnip could beat such a party.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)they ran away from Obama two years ago...that worked out real fucking nice...
but now, NOW, he is the touchstone for all things good, no exceptions allowed...
when your campaign(s) are all about guile, cleverness, tailor-made positions per audience, intimidation, and misrepresentation of not only your opponent's BUT YOUR OWN programs and positions...
well, here we are...if it works one more time I can only hope it is the last hurrah...
there isn't room for two Republican Parties these days...
DhhD
(4,695 posts)now agreeing to pay a several thousand dollar deductible for the 2016 Clinton HMO-limited Health Management Organization of the 1990's Clintoncare. No wonder Clinton does not want to change ACA 2016 Clintoncare in 2017. She and Bill have been working for 20 years and it was just accomplished on January 1. 1990's Universal Clintoncare was through and is again through, HMOs.
I have to pay for my first doctor visit this year in the amount of $150.00. Then I get only two more visits. The doctor provides an office visit for 137.00 without insurance. 2016 Clintoncare is more expensive and with less medical services than 2014-15 Obamacare. And who is benefiting? insurance companies. They get about $700.00 a month for my two visits per year. Single payer would mean that my three visits would be paid for at, 3 x $137.00.
Hillary Clinton continues to piss on the Left.
McKim
(2,412 posts)Thank you for summing up what Hillary stands for. I cannot vote for her after noting that about 500,000 people are dead in the Middle East. And Hillary wants even more "enemies". War and more war. To me Arab lives matter. This Evil of war is too deep and too wide to ignore. It hurts my soul. We laid in our beds the night of Shock and Awe and we cried. I will never forget that obscene fireworks display....then yesterday the bombs in Libya that killed 40 civilians and a couple of Serbian diplomatic corps hostages. Can't do it anymore. No more lesser of two evils. The evil is just too evil.
LiberalArkie
(15,703 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they would rather throw it to a republican than see bernie stop the corporate gravy train.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and carrying away bales of money even if a Repig wins. And THAT is the important thing. In fact it's the ONLY thing that matters to them.
dinkytron
(568 posts)She is up to her neck in it.
mckara
(1,708 posts)Bernie should still keep fighting! Maybe Clinton will be indicted, and the party will have no alternative!
Beowulf
(761 posts)The concluding paragraph is stunning.
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in
previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy,
our analyses suggest that majorities of the American
public actually have little influence over the policies our
government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features
central to democratic governance, such as regular elections,
freedom of speech and association, and a widespread
(if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if
policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then
America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously
threatened
So the power elite allow elections to be held, grant us a degree of free speech and free association, and allow many of us to vote. But shaping policy - not a chance. And then ask me to like it.
To me this means all other issues are secondary, because whatever your issue is, it's not going to be addressed, not in any meaningful way, because only the concerns of billionaires and corporations are seen as worthy of the political leaders' attention.
Some people are noticing this, some have read and learned, others just feel that something is wrong but can't name it. Roughly, that's the difference between Bernie's supporters and Trump's.
In such a political climate, the best the DNC can do is offer a candidate who most epitomizes the influence of money and pay to play in the political system.
cali
(114,904 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)not recognizing that she represents so much of what we feel is wrong about our country and has never shown herself to be anything other than an impediment to the aspirations of the 99%. She's not the answer, she's not even a transition towards the answer.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's not that they don't want, refuse, ignore or even think belligerence is way to live one's life. It's noting like that, some of these folks you would think to spar with just don't think like most of the normal people. They winnow their way up there because genetically they were kind of set up that way. I would say to anybody who might be involved with such, don't get too up or down and stay on the narrow, otherwise you will not be able to out think them (which other wise, mostly a normal can do).
Another hint, when the world goes crazy, the crazies go professional.
cali
(114,904 posts)used in this context is both reductive and ultimately kind of pointless.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It seemed you were posting with a frantic type persona and it from what i can understand from some of the characters who mostly are only observable from afar in most political milieus, it makes hard to deal with most any of it, other than in generalities.
But then on the other side of the coin, if you were to ask someone from the Aspie community about some people who not like them they would just call them "neurotypical". Maybe a my post was a little over the top but was meaning no malice. Everybody has different viewpoints and they got there from a multitude of reason. At any rate putting any person any specific category is dangerous thinking but understanding an archetypal pattern and how it operates in particular groups is what i was getting at. It's not pin the donkey. It's how others have been trained to react to it. I could be outraged that someone said i was a such and such but they are telling me more about how they see things then anything about me. There all kinds human traits that some will do that others wouldn't touch or even feel devastated by.
Recently i had a friend and roomate pass away at in our home. My other room-mate and i helped him a lot with the hospice details when it got nearer. I felt pretty bad about the whole thing yet was amazed at the bussiness as usual from the hospice. When the zero hour passed, that hospice that was supposed to help was no help at all at the end. I had to call my sister, a retired Convalescent nurse who lives in another state for advice on what to do and how to help in our dilemma in helping the man to pass. This reminded me that most anybody is only slightly expert when they come to having someone else do something that they can do with ease.
You might find something i posted as offensive but others who might not be as keen to the narratives of what is taking place might be befuddled to what is going on. If you find what i have posted despicable or outrageous, i apologize, and was attempting no malice
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)FWIW, borderline (high-function) sociopath here...something I don't actually mention much (people don't understand, and they start being leery of me 
).
Paladin
(28,243 posts)Back whichever Democratic candidate you prefer. If he or she loses, then vote for the Democratic nominee. The worst Democratic candidate is light years better than anybody the republicans are going to come up with. Everybody grow up a little, mend your hurt feelings, recognize how the game is played, and move onward.
indivisibleman
(482 posts)One astronomical unit perhaps. Bernie on the other hand is at least one light-year.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)And Not Working. Enjoy the General Election and support YOUR candidate. She'll need it.
CanonRay
(14,085 posts)if we don't get rid of big money in politics, we don't fix much else.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)entire debate into knots going forward as they squirm for room. They just want a breath of air. Give them no quarter.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)I'm home alone doing housework. :'(
But we need to get someone elected first. And we need a moderate or liberal on the Supreme Court. Then start to address the money issue!
As it is now, virtually ALL politicians get money from corporations and Pacs and help from PACs.
Even Bernie is getting unwanted help from GOP money.
You ain't gonna fight a billion plus with a few million.
I'm sorry. But it's math.
Lucky Luciano
(11,248 posts)Bernie gets a huge discount for his ads as do others using money from their campaign coffers. Superpacs get no such discount. A nice twist to the math!!
Yuugal
(2,281 posts)There are 2 candidates in Nov. Both are suck-ass corporatists and both will be horrible for you. You vote for one of the two. How many votes in your favor did you cast?
I understand for people who "got theirs" already there is always tomorrow. For people like me tomorrow needs to actually happen real soon. I've been walking in the desert for well over 30 yrs as a voter. In my 50's, I realize now that all I was ever running for was a carrot on a stick. The party has told me the same thing for over 3 decades, "we'll get around to your labor issues someday."
The DLC/Clinton gang has been playing one long con on us our whole lives and now they want their queen anointed. We are always told primaries are when us little people can have their say but what they don't say is that if your name is Bill Halter, Meek, Lamont.....then HAHAHAHAHAHAH! And those guys are just the few who ever made it past the DNC dirty tricks always played at primary time.
If the party doesn't see how powerful Bernie's 4mill contributions is, it is because they don't want to see because they are paid not to see. That means they are no friends of mine. Bernie is my last hunt for the Dems. If they fuck this up they can crash and burn for all I care. This country needs a worker's party anyway, not the 2 republican parties we have now.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I didn't feel this way at the start of the primaries. But increasingly team Clinton's tactics are disgusting me.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I've heretofore believed that her supporters supported her despite the fact she's a third-wayer corporatist. Now I'm beginning to wonder if these same people support her because she's a third-way corporatist.
Yes. I believe the corporatist-to-populist gap is unbridgeable.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)that her campaign has to pay 'social media managers'.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bangbangdem
(140 posts)There really seems to be a disconnect here with those That support her.I can not understand the motives behind it. What do these people hope to gain? I have no deep conclusion to offer. It just perplexes me. What does it mean to be a Democrat and support corperatism over worker's rights? I hear no substantive plan from her to bring jobs back to the U.S. My union endorsed her, and I feel she is anti-labor. The skirmishes that have ensued are wild. Near revolt among our membership. I just sat in a jury for DU concerning a hillary supporter basically calling any Sanders supporter stupid. I voted to hide it because I thought the ensuing arguement and name calling would escalate and the whole thing would be counterproductive. I gotta say, I don't understand what's going on.are her supporters white collar types who believe in deregulation and the elimination of taxation for corperations? This seems insane to me. She's willing to find middle ground with the pro-life movement? Fuck that shit. Seriously, I just don't get it.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I feel just the way you do, just as perplexed, but that's because we're thinking that we want the same total as them, but it's just the differences on how to get there. Like we say it's 2+2 is the best way to get to 4, and they say it's 3+1. Well maybe they don't want the same we do.
"What does it mean to be a Democrat and support corperatism over worker's rights? I hear no substantive plan from her to bring jobs back to the U.S. My union endorsed her, and I feel she is anti-labor."
" I gotta say, I don't understand what's going on.are her supporters white collar types who believe in deregulation and the elimination of taxation for corperations? This seems insane to me. She's willing to find middle ground with the pro-life movement? Fuck that shit. Seriously, I just don't get it."
In their stations in life they see their view as win-win: They get to play social do-gooder, and the conservative economic policies are good for their portfolios.
It may be this: Bias against working class "union democrat" types because they have a stigmatized image of them as benighted socially conservative hardhat types. "Reagan Democrats" if you will, and so they don't hold us the working class in very high regard. Really, they don't like us. We have it too good, they say. This seems to be the overtones I've sensed from many third-way types here.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)The Democratic Party left me in 1993.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, don't forget...next time will be different. Well...someday...maybe...a little bit...when convenient.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)makes me want to stick pins in dolls. 
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)She doesn't deserve it.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Sancho
(9,067 posts)and it's complex causes, possible solutions, and barriers to change. You say, "I believe money, flowing into the parties and to politicians- big money, corporate money, dark money- is the most urgent problem we face." I disagree. Even though money as political influence is certainly an issue - it's not the primary cause of economic inequality, social injustice, or world instability.
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/external?link=http%3A%2F%2Finequality.org%2F&prev=http%3A%2F%2Fscalar.usc.edu%2Fworks%2Fgrowing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality%2Fdifferences-that-matter
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Inequality-Thomas-Piketty/dp/0674504801/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456088308&sr=8-1&keywords=economic+inequality
It's simply not accurate to claim that Hillary or even political money is the primary cause of many of the woes people face; nor is it possible that a new President or government will fix everything.
It's easy to shout about economic problems and money influence, but some new regulation alone or breaking up a few banks would really disappoint people who assume that's the key to life as it was in some imaginary time in the past. It took Obama years to make a difference in health care and economic recovery - and it was a fight to do what he could. If nothing else, Democrats need to continue the fight, be creative with new solutions, and work hard to elect a better Congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)You are hardly the last word. I don't have think you understand the gravity of the problem. At all.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)in any way suggest that money in politics is not the culprit. How do you explain bills
not getting passed when Americans overwhelmingly approve their passage?
It is literally impossible to split the affect of money from social issues as well.
Poverty and racism inextricably linked, says UN expert
http://www.socialwatch.org/node/16324
Nearly every issue we face as a nation is caught in the grip of corruption
http://www.globalresearch.ca/study-congress-literally-doesnt-care-what-you-think/5466723
Sancho
(9,067 posts)In the US alone, it's easy to see that metrics of inequality have gone up and down for the last century. Also, the metrics of money influence on political candidates have not been constant.
Even in times of less inequality, there was plenty of social injustice. Thom Hartmann likes to cite one popular example of the increase of swimming pools as the American economy prospered, but it was accompanied by pools that were off limits to minority and created an new issue of desegregation.
Some of the most influential laws (special education and the ADA come to mind) had nothing to do with less influence of money on Congress, and in fact occurred despite a war in Asia and Bernie (new to Congress) complaining about the same government bribery that he complains about now. Somehow, some good legislation got passed because enough people wanted it to happen and it was the right thing to do.
There's no question that good times help people, but there's also no question that money influence on Congress has been a problem forever and will continue to be a problem in a Democratic government. It will always be a fight to elect better people, nominate fair judges, and pass good laws. Money influence has it's limits, and that has been proven many times too.
Good legislation can occur during tough times. Also, bad legislation can occur during good times. There is no magic President or regulation that will fix things - it's a constant process that requires people to elect the smartest and best candidates that we can.
If enough voters want to raise tax rates on the wealthy and raise the minimum wage, then get out and elect a different Congress. Only 40% of those eligible voted in the last elections. The primary numbers are actually down so far compared to 2008. Right now, I don't see enough people in the streets to make a change - but I see a lot of Trump supporters. We need ALL Democrats to GOTV. It would not matter who the President was without more voters if you want to make a difference.
Most inequality is a global problem that the US alone can't control, but voters have proven many times that they can ignore the money influence and pass whatever they want; locally and nationally. Right now, there are not enough Democratic voters to do much except complain. We'll see next November if it changes.
The problem is not simply the influence of money. The problem is that Democrats don't get out and vote in large enough numbers to elect better people.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Racism is sustained in many ways due to a profit driven impulse, not all, it also
thrives in the heart of too many Americans because it is handed down from
one generation to the next..some subtle, much not so subtle.
Our trade policies and our foreign policies which are at their root established
by design to dominate and to profit for private corporations..these are
not conspiracy theories. You can see these realities often in the business
section of the NYT...look at Lybia and oil contracts reported mere days after
the "help" we allegedly gave them. They hardly even hide it any longer.
You and I want the same things, how we get there and with who as the
best placed candidate to achieve these goals is where we differ.
Thank you for the civil conversation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)andrewv1
(168 posts)re evaluates running as an Independent.
I think he has plenty of justification to renege on his promise from the knives in his back from the DNC all the way to Harry Reid with many in between.
He would need to make a decision I think by late March to get on the ballot in every state, but if he is going to have the party basically rigging the vote against him as they have in Iowa & Nevada & lose from it, why go on to Philly?
And Yes he can win a General Election this way.
Not even considering Bloomberg, we will see at least another viable third party contender in the GE just because of Trump's status whether he stays in his party or not.
Hillary Clinton is un electable whatever the MSM says & I wouldn't vote for a Neocon anyway who is as much a threat to World Peace as the other side.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)but I wish he would.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,088 posts)It's the sort of wanting something now and not dedicating to the cause. Conservatives take the long view - granted because they can afford to - and we libs tend to drown our sorrows and walk away from the fight rather than join together for a long slog.
That was always going to be the case whether Bernie wins or loses. We need a more liberal Congress. That should be the goal of everyone in here. Find candidates and get them on the ballot. Then put the same level of energy Bernie generates into electing them.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)mts....
Duval
(4,280 posts)And I'm not sure what to do about it, except keep up the fight for Bernie. The thing is, no matter who is the Republican nominee, Hillary is going to be taken to task big time. It won't be pretty, and I don't know if I want to watch it.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)....from a Hillary supporter saying that they have to get the younger people to register and vote for Hillary. My first thought was that they just don't get it. It is not going to happen.
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)the country is divided up into as many factions as possible. If the Soviet Union had only had a U.S. as divided as it is now....
The fat cats and the corporations have pretty much won, there are only isolated pockets of effective resistance left.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)How does anyone, with any kind of foot in the real world, think that taking tens of MILLIONS of dollars from Wall Street will have NO influence?
Especially when FACTS show that it has. Let's see, you say single payer is the only thing that will save our health system. . .then take tens of millions from that industry and all of a sudden, you "evolve" and now, we will never be able to have single payer.
It seems like every issue is like this and yet, they convince themselves that there is no influence . . . . GET REAL!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If you're a beneficiary of her connections to WS, then yea, I get it.
If you prefer her hawk policies, then ok..she would be the one to vote for.
If you're not involved in politics and not paying attention to why so many
goals Americans want to see achieved in the congress fail due to lobby
money..then I guess she seems like an experienced politician to vote for.
For those who are politically aware I don't ever hear a coherent reason why her
connections to WS are reasonable nor understandable and how she should be
trusted over Sanders. The most disconnected from rational I have read here is
he is not good enough due to anonymous online bad Bernie supporters..whatever
that means.
onenote
(42,602 posts)I'm supporting Bernie. I want him to get the nomination.
But if it doesn't happen, I sure as hell don't want one of the repub maniacs to get elected.
I have too many friends: gay, African-American, Muslim, Jewish, disabled, etc. that would be harmed if that was too happen to simply say, let it go to hell and eventually we'll recover.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)not over yet.
But yea, no one here wants a Republican in the WH and I am not confident
Hillary can pull it off should she win the nomination. Obama should be able to
get a justice on the SCOTUS just in case, it is a very wild election period.
I appreciate your thoughts, the last thing I want is to see any vulnerable
Americans hurt.
blm
(113,015 posts)Perhaps, now, some Republicans will even see its the best way to go, too.
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)Everything else is just bread and circuses.
DemocraticSocialist8
(396 posts)Within the Party is problematic. It means a lot of people either don't care or don't understand the extent of the problem.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Do they side with Labor? No - they condone the TPP and support its proponents.
Do they side with the Anti-War Movement? No - they condone the Iraq War and support the proponents of numerous current wars.
Do they side with the Pro-Democracy Movement? No - they celebrate a candidate soaked in corporate money.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)And you're just beginning to see that?
TrueDemVA
(250 posts)After everything we have witnessed from the Clintons over the ears, how can anyone have confidence in her to do what is right for me, you, our families, our neighbors, everyone not disgustingly rich? None. Sadly I think she is no different than any one the fools running on the right when it comes to protecting us or our interest. I can't vote for her. I have never in my life felt that way about a democrat, but she is not a member of the party i believe cares for all.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Yes, it's oversimplified but the gist of it is this:
"It's like the choice between a definite slow death by poisoning or a possible quick death by gunshot."
Which is the better choice? A lot of people have chosen poisoning.. I don't understand it either.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)We Sandernistas see something fundamentally wrong with the American political system (i.e., "it's broken" . Democrats, and coincidentally Democrats from the corporatist wing of the party, gladly take money from Big Banking, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Defense, etc., and go out and vote for their interests on the House or Senate floor. Before they do that, they make sure their asses are covered along with their benefactors' asses and pass a law that distinguishes a campaign contribution from bribe. That's very important, mostly because our broken system wouldn't work without making that distinction. Did I just say that a broken system works? How does that happen? Well, making a distinction without a difference is one way.
For us, we are involved in this process to fix what's wrong with it. Over at Camp Weathervane, they seem to think that only Republicans are corrupt and any Democrat who takes money from banksters just can't wait to get into office and stab them in the back. Just like Bill Clinton did when he signed banking deregulation, just like Barack Obama did when he appointed an attorney general who treated Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd with kid gloves instead sending them to prison where they belong.
This seems to be a good place to remind everyone that a study from Princeton University concludes that American is now an oligarchy and not a democracy. The politicians we vote for to represent us in legislative bodies at all level listen not to the voters b the donors who contribute bribes to their re-election campaigns. That is a succinct description of how the American political is broken. Until we change it, it's broken.
There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, but it's not a significant difference at this moment in history. Democrats are more likely to support marriage equality or abortion rights or to decry a cop who blows away a black teenager because . . . well, just because. President Hillary Clinton can fix those problems, but if she doesn't take on Wall Street banks then American will almost certainly be worse off when she leaves office than it is today. The gay couple that gets married today won't think it's as much of a blessing if they can never afford a house together. The woman who gets 100 cents for every dollar a man with a similar job descriptions gets won't really care if her job and the man's are shipped to China.
However, the residents of DU's Camp Weathervane won't be concerned when the income gap widens under President Hillary Clinton because they will still the election of 2016 as a great success as long as she wins in the end. And that's part of the problem. For them, the election is an end. For us, it's just one of many events that will affect the outcome of the struggle to restore American democracy from its destruction at the hands of corrupt corporate oligarchs and their political stooges. Like their candidate, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is only concerned about the next election. We are concerned about Americans' long term future. We will fight on, regardless of what transpires between now and November, long after to November to right the wrongs that have bee visited upon by every president starting with Reagan and the voodoo economics that each and every one of them regardless of party (yes, you read that right) has advanced.
We certainly cannot depend on our elected representatives, ordinary politicians who are as only worried about keeping their jobs as the rest of us. They're corrupt and listen to their donors, not to us. The prescription to change the system and restore democracy will involve direct action. I would like to emphasize that our foes are the oligarchs and not their political stooges. Once the oligarchs are defeated, all the corrupt politicians who have too little imagination to contemplate a world where they don't just take money from a Wall Street fraud monger or an industrial polluter and do as they say won't know what to do. Perhaps they'll just go away and spend more time with their families. That will be best for all concerned.
No, people. We are the Knights on white horses for whom we have been waiting. Now charge those monsters. You'll discover that they're only paper tigers and windmills.
[center]
[/center]
stopbush
(24,393 posts)A hammer where every solution is a nail.
Ultimately, it's just self-absorbed defeatism.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)To assume someone who supports Hillary is OK with her corporate ties is absolutely unfair.
It's representative of why I don't read or post here much anymore.
YOUR cognitive dissonance is just as much a problem.
People can make a judgement that her foreign policy experience or some other issue outweighs her corporate ties and is far superior to Bernie Sanders qualifications.
These are two imperfect candidates we are all stuck with, albeit both better than any Republican.
I wish all of you who have chosen sides would focus as much on what you have in common as what separates you.
I have not made my choice, but I sure wish there was a better door number 3.
Absolute certainty creates zealots, not advocates or new supporters.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)corporate money is exactly how we know they are ok with her corporate ties. It's not unfair, it's a valid observation. I have seen on DU several times members try to explain away how she takes corporate money. The fact that she takes the money hand over fist is what is sickening.
cali
(114,904 posts)don't see it as a major issue.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)RKP5637
(67,088 posts)of hundred thousand a year, one is kidding themselves if they think they are wealthy. I've been around some of the wealth in this country, and believe me, your couple of hundred thousand ain't even pennies.
Until Americans, many, WTF up, this will continue. FFS, just taking a peak at the wealth distribution in this country should wake someone up.
The US is really really really a stupid fucken country, many of the citizens. And then I know people that want a theocracy, like that's going to solve it all. Another total WTF.
Don Draper
(187 posts)How can someone say they are progressive, yet support someone who will at best maintain the status quo, and at worst destroy the country with more horrific trade deals and further empower the oligarchy that are ruining our country.
We live in a critical period In America where democracy is hanging by a thread, and we are quickly descending into facisim. Our nation cannot take another third way democrat that is a free trader and accepts the paradigm of our broken system. We need a new FDR progressive like Bernie to actually fight to change the system.
ThreeWayFanny
(80 posts).....a progressive is someone who actually makes progress. Hillary actually is a liberal progressive, and is not an defender of a static status quo. She will make a difference and move our country forward.
As far as the doom and gloom end of the world as we know it apocalyptic wailing and gnashing of teeth goes, we aren't on the verge of wrack and ruin. So lighten up.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I particularly don't get the support for HRC in the black community, for reasons you state very well: ever-increasing economic injustice impacts that community disproportionately.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and that we all think alike?
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)My reaction to Nevada?
Got pissed and donated 50 to Bernie.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)Winning becomes the end all.
Hard for some to comprehend that winning is not the end all. Some would rather not win if dishonesty or cheating is required. It becomes justified by stating all sides do it. Bernie over promises so Hillary' outright lies are justified.
I had an OP yesterday trying to explain that if Bernie accomplishes nothing past getting elected we are still better off. This is about changing the course and long term wins, the negative responses were all challenging Bernie's ability to usher in change, much like Hillary does. It is a mindset and gap that likely is too large.
Response to cali (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)It is not the entire essence of the journey.
If you choose to not use a certain bridge, you better have some pretty deep waders.
McKim
(2,412 posts)I will not be voting for Hillary. It is about our wars. I can no longer stomach them. I can't condone spending trillions on wars abroad for resources while our people are hungry, schools crumbling and dumbed down, old people living in poverty and homeless on our streets.
I am done.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Just so ya know.
cali
(114,904 posts)The problem is big money influence, glaring conflicts of interest and corruption. But I get that you see the finest thread.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm with you, cali. How far is too far? This is too far. Way too far. Cognitive dissonance off the charts.
I only have one remaining question. Is this intentional?
People won't vote for this will they?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)…..something has really changed since the death of Scalia. If disenchanted and angry Democrats stay home, the Republican President will get two and maybe three nominees. A hard right court is terrifying. For voting rights, for free choice, for the ACA.
She'll at least appoint right of center moderates. Maybe replace Ginsberg when the time comes with a judge similar to her.
This is a serious question—because I had almost crossed the Rubicon about the election if HRC was the one left standing. I was too disgusted to vote for more of this—but the Scalia loss has really thrown me.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)but that's the thing: Hillary fans don't want to change anything. Not. One. Thing. They are fine with the wars, the inequality, the environmental devastation, that unaffordable higher education, the police State, the Wall Street corruption, millions going without healthcare, bankruptcies due to health care costs, homelessness, runaway climate change, bank bailouts, ALL OF IT! They're comfortable, so nobody else matters. And here we thought Ayn Rand's philosophy only played a part in the GOP! The rest of us are fighting for our lives, but they just don't care. Not one bit. It's a game to them; win one for team blue, then go back to your usual schedule programming. America is screwed, and the rest of the planet weeps for us.
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)A lot about it. In 2008 I thought I'd hold my nose and vote for her if Obama didn't win.
Then in the interim years I pushed my distrust of her to the back of my mind and thought I would actually have no problem voting for her if Sanders didn't win. Then she got desperate and all the nasty lies she says and the divisiveness she encourages became apparent again. Even worse than 2008 because I really believe we have an opportunity to transform our political vision and get back to the roots of the Democratic Party.
My dilemma is I think if Hillary wins the nom and progressives like me fall into lockstep and help her win the GE, we will not see another opportunity for real change in a very very very long time. The corporatists will win, the lobbyists will win and the people will lose. And Third Way Dems will stay in control and the beltway pundits will push the center right story as gospel. Dems will continue to run as Republican lite and nothing changes except the middle class continues shrinking and the poor get poorer.
But if Rubio or Kasich win - or Trump - the country will be reeling. Dems will fight most everything, Congress approval will go further into the toilet and nothing much will get done. Some bad shit might pass and the country will reel from it. And a real strong progressive movement will grow from it. Younger less establishment politicians will know that Third Way Dems are not the answer and stand up again for real small "d" democratic values. Maybe we have to hit the wall to dare to break it. Maybe 4 years after a Republican president, a real progressive has a chance and there will be no opposition from the usual suspects to keep them down.
I know I want something different. If not for me -- then for the young who deserve a country that is standing up for them.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)IIRC 89% of Bernie fans said trustworthiness was important. It was like 9 or 11% for Hillary supporters. That means over half the party doesn't care about trustworthiness. Made me wonder whether it's even worth participating.
The "lesser of two evils" argument was persuasive for a while. Now? Eh whatever.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)the Clinton people here patting themselves on the back with no push-back - facts mean nothing to them anyhow.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)
whirlygigspin
(3,803 posts)Keeps reminding me of the old Monty Python skit where one group identifies as an entitled elite and the 'other' as muck rolling rabble. Hillary and Bernie meet up on the way to the castle...
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)And one puts the needs of the many against the investments of the few. So many urgent problems to face that they have caused, from climate change to the collapsing of our safety nets and infrastructure. So of course all we will hear from 3rd way Dems is too hard! Too expensive! Think about the shareholders!
It is all financed and backed by every individual shareholder in the markets. We exist in the most democracy, the most honest representation they cannot financially block themselves. Alone, sure, they ain't much. But when they are added up together and thrown at the voices of change, of liberal morals, of democracy for all, they are devastatingly effective.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)our political system can recover from its systemic corruption--not just in the US but worldwide--or our planet can recover from our depredations.
We can't tax the rich, here or anywhere; we can't or won't pay for the things our people need and want; we can't honestly address the impending disaster of global climate change...and the "leading" candidate of our party is a staunch defender of the status quo who doesn't think she can do better than that (assuming she even wants to).
We--all--are well and truly fucked.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)be:
1. a UNITY ticket.
2. Someone has to step aside completely...
3. Superdelegates have to choose in overwhelming numbers one side over the other.
Hillary and Bernie both will have to decide how that plays out...
I am perfectly happy with either candidate... Depending on the issue, I like one, or the other.
I trust Hillary AND Bernie... at the end of the end, I trust either will do what is needed to win in the Fall. At the end of the day, neither Bernie or Hillary is the new Nader.
I don't seem to remember a lot of hand-wringing on DU over Pac and Super Pac donations for Obama 2008 and 2012...
Who I don't trust is Cruz, Trump, Rubio, et al.
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)I've never seen it summed up better.
K and R
cali
(114,904 posts)
randr
(12,409 posts)Anyone associated with the "establishment" will LOSE.
Make your choices wisely.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This is a battle for the soul of the party. I don't know if Sanders can win, but I know the battle will not be over.
TygrBright
(20,755 posts)Remember the truths of a big, complicated environment with many competing agendas, and the lessons of history, which include awarenesses like:
During the primary season emotions run higher and it's much easier to interpret everything everyone says through the lens of passionate desires for how I want outcomes to happen.
There has never, EVER been a "perfect" election process with complete honesty and every candidate making only keep-able promises and everyone being completely informative about their motivations- in part because we're all human and our perceptions and motivations DO evolve as circumstances and people around us change.
Traditional primary vicious infighting, nasty as it is, DOES decrease once the general election candidates are selected, and the contrast between the GOP candidate and the Democratic candidate becomes the focus.
And finally- real, sustainable change happens in many small increments, involving flawed humans, a chaotic decision making process, competing agendas, unintended good and bad consequences, and many factors beyond our ability to see and control. It has *always* been thus, it is built into human nature. What we *can* control, as individuals, is our own words, actions, and choices. And as a community of those working for a more equitable, sustainable human culture on this earth, the most important thing we can do is simply stay focused, be consistent, not give up, and keep making those choices, doing those actions, and saying those words that live our commitment.
hopefully,
Bright
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts) sammythecat
(3,568 posts)I think, can be explained by the fact that she is a woman. People are rightfully eager and impatient to finally see a female Democrat inaugurated as President. It's so close to happening now that they're willing to overlook her quite considerable flaws and see her as far more worthy than she is. If Hillary Clinton was a man, with her record of duplicity, I seriously doubt he'd ever have gotten the backing to even be in the primary race let alone still in it. Her gender is the one thing for which she truly does have a record of consistency.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)we see the world differently - the problems we are facing are different.
And I fear that no matter how long we talk there will be no understanding. No unity.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts).. or even, frankly, a dramatic shift in her policy positions.
She's tried that several times and whenever she does the changes ooze opportunism and insincerity.
People can and often should change for any number of reasons. But to take a line from the Obama campaign, it must be "Change you can believe in."