We live in an oligarchy. Clinton/Third Way Dems might ignore it. But that's the truth.

[Armstead]

That to me is the basic problem that we have to contend with. It affects EVERY otehr issue, including the social ones.

And what happens when the "progressive base" no longer has to be placated in the primaries will determine whether or not
2016 will either be relevant or irrelevant.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[Robbins]

2. Clinton/Third way dems support it

That's clear.remember debate when her response was to tell wall street to cut it out.

[lewebley3]

39. If Hillary were part of an oligarchy, she would be a GOP person: She is in public service

Hillary and Bill don't own a large private firm, they have worked
for the American people most of their lives.


The only ones that can do something about Wall St are the GOP
people in congress, and they like the way Wall St works, they
get lots of money from Wall St.

[Phlem]

40. Total fail.

"If Hillary were part of an oligarchy, she would be a GOP person"

Even my 4th grader can figure out the glaring nuances in that statement with basic critical thinking.

my god.

[lewebley3]

43. Even third a grader, could see you just a are blind Sander supporter

[Phlem]

44. What an astute comeback.

I may have to laugh my ass off.

[PatrynXX]

46. yep that was like someone slipping on ice

face palm.

[sgtbenobo]

78. My sides are hurting.

And, I might have pee'd a little bit too.

[lewebley3]

96. Thanks, it was astute:You probably gave your Sanders poster a kiss

[Phlem]

107. Holy shit you're doubling down?

[lewebley3]

108. I am

[Phlem]

110. I guess life

is like a box of chocolates, huh.

Stupid is as stupid does.

You are the freaking poster child for Hillary Voters.

[lewebley3]

112. Hillary supporters are loyal Dem's, Sanders people are bashers of Dem's

[Phlem]

113. your freaking beyond ridiculous.

"Hillary supporters are loyal Dem's, Sanders people are bashers of Dem's"

Show me the data that supports this assertion?

What are you in fucking grade school?

[lewebley3]

114. Just telling the truth

[Phlem]

116. Uh huh. I know the truth and what your spewing is grade school material.

Reply one more time and you're on full idiot ignore.

[AgingAmerican]

51. Only GOP congressfolk can do anything about the banksters?

Seriously? You actually believe this? Do you know that when the banksters went crazy stealing over half of the wealth of the middle class, they were breaking the law? The Bush administration decided not to enforce banking regulations. Bush and the banksters should have been indicted for fraud.

All a Democrat has to do is ENFORCE the law. You think only Republicans can do that? Seriously? Wow.

[lewebley3]

56. The GOP are the only ones that can pass a bill: They are the majority: Just a fact!

[AgingAmerican]

62. And the attorney general does the prosecuting

Not congress. No bill necessary.

[lewebley3]

89. If the majority wants stop funding to attorney general they can!

[Paulie]

69. They can't even vote for a Speaker

And how many years have the appropriations bills actually passed or even happened? The GOP can't figure out how to pass gas!

[lewebley3]

101. Again: The GOP are in power, the Dem's are not!

[AgingAmerican]

102. So

The attorney general works for the president, not the congress.

[JRLeft]

99. You come off as a low information voter.

I'm not saying you are, but your post gave me that indication.

[lewebley3]

100. Funny your post do the same for me: You seem like an ideologue

[HooptieWagon]

52. Amazing the millions they've made fleecing,errr, working for the public good.

[lewebley3]

55. They left the White House in debt: They have earned their money by working hard!

Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Clintons money is chump change compared to the Dem's
GOP Foe's:

[HooptieWagon]

58. Dead broke, no less. 7 years later $100,000,000.

Who knew 'working for the public good' could be so enriching?...or maybe they got lucky on cattle futures?

[lewebley3]

90. They earned their money after they left White House:

Bill has started one of the most successful charities
in history: The Clinton's are not trust fund babies, they
did not inherit their money. People paid them for books,
did so knowing exactly what they were getting, and paid
happily: The Clinton's are hard working successful couple because
they are well educated and have their hearts are in the right place.
Democrat believe in working: not in freeloading, Clinton's have
made the most of every opportunity, as well they should, it is
the American way. (Dem's want to give opportunity to Americans
not welfare).
The Koch's the Clinton's foe's 40,000,000,000,000each: and that's just one of
foe: and the Koch's have annual income:
100m is what Clinton's are worth together and with all their assets melted.
The Clinton's don't have own corporation to fund their campaign like Mitt.

Like the in,The Lord of Ring, you don't know what the Dem and Clinton's
are up against if you are complaining up Clinton's money.
(or maybe you are just jealous of the Clinton's)

[HooptieWagon]

91. Book royalties donated to charity, iirc.

Hillary made a couple hundred thou a year as SoS. Are they paid a salary by the foundation? The same foundation that accepted donations from countries Hillary was approving arms sales to? Yea, they were also paid several hundred thou per speech to the same Wall St banks she says she's going to rein in.

[lewebley3]

92. Good, the Foundation had lot of money to help a lot of people

Three cheers for Clinton's': smart, successful and
they use their resources to help people.

[HooptieWagon]

93. Mostly it helped the Clintons.

A whole lot of quid pro quo cash got laundered through the foundation.

[lewebley3]

95. Mosty helped people: Quid pro: Is more GOP tash talk:

No different than the other GOP lies

[lewebley3]

97. The Clintons earned their money: It mostly to helping people

[senz]

104. Working hard to get support from the big banks, that is.

Since 2014, the Clintons have made over $30 million in speaker fees, mostly paid by foreign and domestic corporations, including big banks like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. What makes this especially shady is the fact that the Clinton administration was extremely friendly to Wall Street, signing the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 into law and refusing to regulate the dangerous and ultimately disastrous derivatives.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-hillary-clinton-run-populist-democrat-despite-her-elitist-ties

[lewebley3]

111. The Clinton's income was all accounted for on their Taxes!

Most of the money came books and speaking fees, and
they didn't have any income from banks. Left wring wrong
talking points are just as bad as right talking points.

Also, the Clinton's did not send money to an off shore
bank to avoid taxes, like Mitt. The American people
have benefited from the Clinton's hard work.

[lewebley3]

94. Yes, they left the White House: Most if not all American's were doing well

The Clinton's left a surplus, the middle class was being
rebuilt, they raised taxes on the rich.
In Short, The Clinton's Administration was one of the most
successful in American history. The Clinton's made promises,
and the delivered. (There was no fleecing).
The Clinton's no matter what they touch they seem to do
well for the American people or charity.

They are beloved couple to many: Bill, is still one of the most
loved American's. It is not a wonder at all that the Clinton's
books are successful, or that they are in demand for speaking
fees, and if they weren't you would be calling the losers, and
welfare drains..
The Clinton's are couple that Dem's can be proud of:
they came from a small state, talked American's into
letting the lead this country, and after leaving White House they are
still helping Americans

[Armstead]

105. The middle class was being gutted

Jobs were hemorrhaging, but the illusion was successfully being sold that "Evwryone can be a successful entrepreneur in the New Economy." and "Call-center jobs will replace those manufacturing jobs as a driver of opportunity." and "All you have to do is become an expert in highly complex computer code and scientific high technology."......Well turned out none of those were substitute for real jobs for average people -- and they and many of the high-tech jobs were shopped overseas anyway.

And communities that had been raped and pillage and left as empty shells were told they could all become the next Silicon Valley....uh huh

[lewebley3]

109. Not when the Clintons were in office: Bush Gutted middle class!

Bush reduced taxes without off sets, and its was Bush
that took the country from surplus to Debt, and it was
Bush that pulled back the SEC cops.

Happy days were here when the Clintons were in office!

[Jack Rabbit]

48. "Cut it out"

Sounds like a strongly worded letter from AG Holder to Legs Dimon or Pretty Boy Lloyd.

[Half-Century Man]

3. If the Oligarchy susvives the 2016 elections.

It will be crushed by it's own weight during the next financial meltdown. Most probably started by either the student loan bubble bursting or International markets collapsing starting with China.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/12/the_crash_of_2016_thom_hartmann
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20378-the-banksters-are-now-setting-up-the-crash-of-2016
https://www.thereadingroom.com/book/the-crash-of-2016/7393082

Until the American Oligarchy fails, there will be no real movement on climate change.
Fossil fuels are one of the legs holding up the Oligarchy.
Nuclear plants won't change, because the technology we use produces a product that can be refined into weapons, so no molten salt reactors, which produce power without bomb material.

The problem is, can the United States survive the unrestrained collapse of the Oligarchy? Do we chose to set it down and disassemble it to save all we can. Or do we just keep holding it aloft pretending we look good in it's glow, until we drop it and it explodes?

[JRLeft]

4. We are in a bubble and a crash is in the near future. Democrats better hope it doesn't happen

before the election 2016.

[LiberalArkie]

9. I think that is why the Republicans only have clown candidates. They know it is going to happen

and the D's are going to get that blame. Although I have a funny feeling when it happens it will be Wall Street that gets the blame. Hopefully.

[jwirr]

23. I think Wall Street and the banksters are pretty much already

seen as the problem along with the rich. And in a collapse they are going to be trying to safe their own a** because they have the biggest fall. Anger towards the top is going to explode.

[JRLeft]

32. The media will place the blame on the incumbent party and continue to rake millions from

oligarchs and multinational corporations.

[coolepairc]

41. If history repeats itself...

Black Friday 1929 was on Oct 24, the crash in 2008 intensified in the run-up to the national election. Markets don't like uncertainty (aka democracy).

[liberal_at_heart]

59. We now have a bubble and crash economy. I think we can expect to have recessions every few years

from now on. The people's frustration with both parties will continue to grow and eventually the people will demand something different.

[Vincardog]

6. we drop it and it explodes.

[jwirr]

20. Oligarchy = Too big to fail.

[Avalux]

5. You're right. Some are in denial this is the case.

Unless we can completely up-end the current system that only works for those at the top, nothing has a chance of making a difference for the rest of us.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[rhett o rick]

8. Until we fix this problem, all other solutions are at risk. nm

[JRLeft]

10. First step is money out of politics. Until then we are fucked royally.

[rhett o rick]

12. Yes, I agree, but we are stuck because we can't get our reps to stop taking money. nm

[JRLeft]

15. Wall Street owns a large portion of the party, but most voters don't know.

Unions continue to support corporate democrats, but complain when such candidate does an 180.

[leftupnorth]

16. Yes. We can't expect people who benefit from the current system to then dismantle it for us.

This is going to take a movement that overcomes money and puts people in office that will dismantle it.

[jwirr]

24. And then break up the monopoly in media.

[JRLeft]

29. We need to break up the monopolies on just about everything, including energy companies.

[abelenkpe]

30. +1000 nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. The 2nd thing we should do - WE THE PEOPLE take back OUR airways and get the MSM out of the hands

of the corrupt Corporations. WE MUST HAVE ETHICAL NEWS NETWORKS.

And get rid of FAUX NEWS! Abolish it!

Reinstate The Fairness Doctrine - which Bill Clinton got rid of - surprise, surprise.

[JRLeft]

67. We need to make it illegal to lie. (Hello Faux News)

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. It use to be unethical for journalists to blatantly lie. Until FAUX NEWS came along.

Now they all lie, spin, give us their opinions and feed us propaganda....according to what their Corporate Owners order.

[JRLeft]

70. Thanks to the courts this will require an ammendment.

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. We have the battle of our lives coming. The Corporations have bought us.

And our courts allowed them to. Now they control everything...including our politicians and our government from the top down.

Bernie took on Goliath.

[JRLeft]

75. And they're not done. They want it all.

[WillyT]

11. K & R !!!

[Zorra]

13. Recommend. nt

[JaneyVee]

14. You mean this Clinton?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

[Armstead]

37. Low hanging fruit

[MohRokTah]

17. Ridiculous.

People still elect officials. Until that stops, it cannot be an oligarchy.

[JRLeft]

18. WTF do you call the ruling class then?

[MohRokTah]

19. An internet myth. eom

[840high]

21. It's a myth to you - not to me.

[MohRokTah]

22. .

[treestar]

87. There are 454 people in the House, 100 in the Senate

9 Supreme Court justices.

There are 50 governors, and hundreds of mayors and thousands of state legislators.

There are thousands of country executives and county council members.

There are thousand of city councilpersons.

This adds up to at least 10,000 people. All elected.

How is this rule by the few?

[Fawke Em]

25. Hmmm... a couple of Princeton and Northwestern proffessors would disagree with you.

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[JRLeft]

28. The poster above lives in a bubble.

[TM99]

31. The facts are not strong with that one.

They only go on their own thesis!

[Fawke Em]

33. Yeah - Princeton and Northwestern. Pish.

Those schools aren't known for their intellectual prowess.

[TM99]

36. Those liberal elite universities

are full of extremists, commies, & hippies, not practical woodchuck centrist neoliberals like our poster.

[treestar]

85. We still have elections

We can always toss them out if we want to.

this stuff insults the voters, saying they respond only to slick ads or campaigns that spend a lot of money.

It is a complaint that the other voters are not with you and instead of convincing them, you look for scapegoats like "the oligarchy" "the banksters" "the corporatists" the "Third Way" or DWS and the DNC. Somehow these people and their money prevent voters from thinking like you want them to.

[pinebox]

34. Not really

If that was the case, third party candidates would be on the stage debating against Dems and Republicans. We'd have a president picked by a populace vote.

[Phlem]

42. Because we all know officials can't be bought.

Der duh der doh!

[kenfrequed]

84. Right...

Except that you run for office in increasingly gerrymandered districts arranged by a party that exists to serve the wealthy.

And then you have a media that judges a candidates worthiness based upon how much money that candidate raises.

And you have laws that are practically written by professional lobbying efforts.


While it may not be a Dejure oligarchy it certainly might qualify for that in fact.

[treestar]

86. Exactly. A real oligarchy does not have elections:

Full Definition of OLIGARCHY

1
: government by the few
2
: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3
: an organization under oligarchic control
See oligarchy defined for English-language learners
See oligarchy defined for kids

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy

Examples of oligarchies
Historical examples of oligarchies are Sparta (which excluded the Helots, who made up the majority of the population, from voting); the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in which only the nobility could vote); the English parliamentary system and execution of Charles I in 1649; and the restriction of the franchise to male property owners in young democracies, such as the early United States. A modern example of oligarchy, based on race, could be seen during the twentieth century in South Africa in the apartheid system, which became official government policy in 1948 and lasted until the democratic election of a government dominated by the black majority in 1994.

Russia has been labeled an oligarchy because, after the fall of Communism, political power became concentrated in the hands of certain individuals who amassed great wealth by taking advantage of the new system.

The social system of capitalism is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Critics argue that in a capitalist society, economic, cultural, and political power rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states are also perceived as oligarchies, ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Oligarchy#Examples_of_oligarchies

[DrBulldog]

26. If Hillary is nominated, 2016 becomes irrelevant to our country's future: oligarchy.

[SoapBox]

27. Kicked & Rec'd

[Enthusiast]

35. Kicked and recommended!

No question about it.

[Dont call me Shirley]

38. Especially the social ones, the oligarchs are masters of social engineering.

[bvf]

45. And the fact is apparently amusing to some...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=693494

[liberal_at_heart]

61. Oh, thank goodness I already have that person on ignore.

[Utopian Leftist]

47. One suggestion

People sometimes confuse the meaning of the word oligarchy. It technically means rule by a small group of people or a family. While our history of Clintons and Bushes certainly does merit inspection, the real problem is not so much an oligarchy as that America has become a plutocracy.

Plutocracy is IMO a more accurate description of the current state of affairs in America: it means government by the wealthy for the wealthy. I wish Bernie himself would start using Plutocracy over oligarchy.

[Armstead]

103. Good point but unfortunately ologarchy is becoming more accurate

The US is too big for a true oligarchy in the technical sense, and plutocracy is probably more accurate.

Howvever at the same time, with the increasing monopolization of the economy and concentration of wealth and power, the idea of oligarchy is also becoming more ingrained with the moguls and families and political dynasties like the Waltons, Kochs, Aldesons, Murdochs Clintons, Bushes (though the Bush dynasty has hit a pothole), etc.

[Thespian2]

49. Unfortunately,

most voters, at this way-station along the ginormously long path to election, have no idea an election is coming, unless they happened to hear it on the tv...

The most horrifying prospect is that the Oligarchs mean to control the entire economy through the TPP, TTIP, and TISA...this is the triangle of doom for all our democracies...

The 1%ers don't ignore the global take-over...they embrace it...they created it...

[RBInMaine]

50. Third Way DLC Third Way DLC Third Way DLC Third Way DLC bla bla bla bla bla...

[Armstead]

65. Nope. Oligarchy.

Can you provide contradictory evidence that we have not been moving in that direction for years?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

53. KnR! n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

54. I wonder if the powers that be will allow this kind of change of terms into our textbooks.

Will our children be allowed to debate what is happening in our country or will our textbooks go on calling it a democracy for decades to come even though it clearly is not?

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. There will be no Public Schools left, so no, the kids will get the new propaganda textbooks.

The kids will NEVER be allowed to know how bad their Government is.

It shouldn't take much longer to privatize the rest of the Public Schools. They're already well on their way - Democrats and Republicans BOTH are getting rid of Public Schools. Greedy!

[liberal_at_heart]

72. Sadly, I agree. Education is the issue that turned me from Democrat to Independent.

I will not sit back and watch the Democrats comply with the destruction of our public school system anymore.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. I'm finished with the Democratic party too. The real eye opener for me was when

Rahm Emmanuel stared privatizing Chicago public schools which disproportionately affected 90% AA communities. A DEMOCRAT who worked with Obama no less!

I am so over the so-called"Democratic" party. It's a farce.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. I have an autistic son and have watched the school system under the Race to the Top

policy try to force him to keep up with his general education peers. That was the last straw for me.

[in_cog_ni_to]

79. Unbelievable. That's outrageous. I would have done the same.

These days, I am just thankful my son is in college and I don't have to personally deal with the system anymore. I still get angry watching what's being done to our Public School system for the sake if money and knowing what other parents are going to have to deal with in the future.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. I think they inflate graduation rates by simply passing students through the system.

They tried forcing my son to learn algebra in middle school which he was not understanding and just passed him on to the next grade all three years of middle school. We moved school districts and got lucky. They evaluated where he was in math and went back and taught him addition/subtraction, and multiplication/division before they tried to teach him algebra. Now he is learning algebra in the 11th grade and is actually understanding it.

[treestar]

88. A mistaken notion of oligarchy should not go into textbooks either

The US is a Republic.

[edgineered]

60. All the razzle-dazzle of the primaries means nothing.

As you said,

And what happens when the "progressive base" no longer has to be placated in the primaries will determine whether or not 2016 will either be relevant or irrelevant.

Especially since our first debate aired some members have been bouncing every conceivable notion that crosses their minds here on DU. They are more determined than ever to find what policies and talking points they are successful with, using this forum as a guinea pig. They are extremely well organized and share strategies, techniques, common goals, etc. This is not a bad thing to do when you want to win. The goalposts will move and the strategies, etc will of course be different going into the general.

[frizzled]

63. Of course. It's really a lot easier on yourself to stop thinking of the US as a democracy.

That way you aren't constantly disappointed and maddened at how terrible the political system is, and more surprised and pleased on the rare occasions US politics does anything that helps normal people.

[liberal_at_heart]

64. on the contrary, it pisses me off that we no longer have a democracy and makes me

want to fight to get it back for my children and my grandchildren.

[Todays_Illusion]

74. This is why the Democratic failed, the stealth libertarians turned them into corporate conservatives

And created this new name, progressive and now try to call Bernie Sanders both socialist, and populist an impossibility;
being a Democratic libertarian is an oxymoron.

The Dixiecrats were populist, religious bigots, racist and all for socialism for the "right" kind of of people

[TumbleAndJumble]

81. Good post OP, I would add that to me anyone urging Democratic to move to the center is

very likely a third way, left libertarian pile of doo doo.

The Democratic must stop being Republican/libertarian.

[L0oniX]

82. Voting for Hillary is voting for the oligarchy ...IMO.

[PowerToThePeople]

83. Oligarchy approved.

[CoffeeCat]

98. They are a part of it--Clinton/Third Way Dems are not ignoring it!

All you have to do is listen to Bernie Sanders talk about the corruption in our government and how our democracy has been turned over to the corporations--who are in bed with our politicians.

Bernie is one of the handful of politicians who DARES to go up against the stranglehold of corrupt politicians in both parties. He'd definitely the only presidential candidate trying to stop it.

We're very lucky. We finally have a Presidential candidate who is speaking about and verbalizing the things that we write about on message boards like DU.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of complaining. I'm sick and tired of watching my country go down the drain. I'm sick and tired of fellow Democrats (including the politicians) who insist that those who are not on board with this corruption--are like kids who don't get ponies.

We are right. They are wrong. It's going to take a lot to bust up this corruption, and electing Bernie Sanders is a good first step.

[senz]

106. The Clintons ARE oligarchs -- and the data proves it.

From Counterpunch, May of this year:

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign is being financed by the same organizations that fund her and her husband’s charitable organization, and that list includes at least 118 individuals and companies that lobbied the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.

Mrs. Clinton either has, or is expected to raise, upwards of $2 billion dollars to purchase a four-year lease to the White House. She might wish the public to believe that hard-working United States citizens, toiling at the shop or office every day, are scraping together $5.00 and $10.00 donations, all of which, in total, achieves that $2 billion. However, such is not the case. Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign is being financed by the same organizations that fund her and her husband’s charitable organization, and that list includes at least 118 individuals and companies that lobbied the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. A look at some of them is more than a little interesting. Because the list is so extensive, we will just show oil companies and defense contractors. This list shows companies in those categories that both donated to the Clinton foundation (along with the amount given), and lobbied the State Department.

Defense Contractors:

• Boeing: between $1 million and $5 million.
  
• Lockheed Martin: between $100,000 and $300,000.

Oil Companies

• Duke Energy Corporation: between $1 million and $5 million
  
• ExxonMobil: between $1 million and $5 million.
  
• Chevron: between $500,00 and $1 million
  
• Noble Energy: between $200,000 and $500.00.
  
• Hess Corporation: between $100,000 and $250,000.

And, as a bonus, the top three contributors:

• Microsoft/Gates Foundation: at least $26 million
  
• Walmart: between $2 million and $11 million.
  
• Coca-Cola: between $5million and $10 million.

When looking at this list, Mrs. Clinton’s vote in 2002 authorizing Mr. Bush to invade oil-rich Iraq is not terribly surprising.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/01/hillary-clinton-elitist-imperialist-politician-extraordinaire/

[kelliekat44]

115. Since that is where we live..we have to deal with them at their level. Not by angst but by action!