Ready for Hillary? How About a Mass Populist Party Instead?

[RiverLover]

Ready for Hillary? How About a Mass Populist Party Instead?
4/14/2015

Following Hillary Clinton’s long-heralded announcement Sunday that she’ll be “Getting Started” on a 2016 run, American progressives are facing a tough choice about who, if anyone, to support in the next presidential fracas. Thankfully, there are more choices available to today’s movements than might seem obvious. With relatively little federal electoral promise in our own backyards, those interested in contesting for power and an unapologetically left-leaning agenda can start looking abroad.

Certainly, a mass populist party along the lines of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain — each of which has already or is poised to take over their country’s top office — is not on track to appear here, in the United States, before 2016. That said, Americans grasping for a third way can learn important lessons from the recent successes of Syriza and Podemos — lessons that point to more than a totally marginal Green Party candidate or centrist Democrats that say but rarely do the right things. No, Syriza and Podemos show that it’s possible to mount a real, fighting challenge to the political establishment....

...As liberal-left media jumps at the chance to lampoon Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, movements interested in engaging with a broader base might take inspiration from European populists’ commitment to meeting the needs of working people, and their ability to rally masses around it in the streets and at the polls.

Plenty of great articles have been written over the last several weeks — and many more over the past couple days — on the flaws of positing Clinton as a hopeful or even liberal candidate for Commander in Chief. In short, there’s plenty left to be desired: Her ties to Walmart and Wall Street, her not-so-secretly neoconservative foreign policy agenda, and concerted efforts to scale back welfare for the “working families” her campaign is now targeting. The debate over Clinton’s liberal credentials is already being had. A topic that has graced relatively few headlines, however, is how progressive movements can respond with a real alternative....

...As Jeb Bush seeks out the Republican nomination, voters in 2016 might face the unprecedented dilemma of deciding between the heir apparents to two of America’s most powerful political dynasties, each directly related — by blood or marriage — to at least one former president. Even if the storied Bush vs. Clinton showdown doesn’t come to pass, the fact that it’s possible illustrates the simple, eerie reality that our country’s electoral process was not designed to represent the interests of its population.

So what is to be done short of half-hearted calls for “the revolution”?

As Syriza’s ongoing battle with the Troika has proven, according to Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias, “It is essential that we understand that winning an election does not mean winning power.” There will be no revolution in November or in any ballot contest — only an opportunity to use the race to further a vision of real hope, from grassroots movements fighting for justice on a number of fronts. Therefore, movement practitioners who choose to throw their hands up at, or, alternately, get them entirely too dirty “Readying for Hillary” will be choosing options that cede too much ground to an elite political class who would like nothing better....

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/14/ready-hillary-how-about-mass-populist-party-instead

Posting more to show we are not alone in our frustration of not being represented by our party. This OpEd doesn't offer any concrete solutions, but I believe it does point to the fact that our numbers are greater than DLC/Third Wayers/DU admins would have us believe.

[marym625]

1. yes!

[JoePhilly]

2. So where are the candidates for this movement?

Back in 2010, the site you reference called for a progressive primary of Obama. How did that turn out?

The idea that you are going to generate an acceptebly liberal candidate a year or two out from a general election won't work.

Complaining about Hillary now, is about 4 years too late.

If this movement wants to have their own candidate, they need to get busy building one for 2020 or 2024.

This silliness of complaining about the choices 2 years out, when its too late, is not working.

Not that I think pointing this out will change anything.

I said this back in 2010 too.

[RiverLover]

3. Read the article, then post.

Maybe what you write will actually make sense & be relevant. Maybe.

Otherwise for certain, you're just wasting time & space.

[JoePhilly]

5. I did ... But I don't see any candidates named .... Who are they?

From what I read, the article is focused on 2016, and names no real alternatives to evil Hillary.

What did I miss? I am reading this on a phone, so maybe my skimming on the small screen is hurting me, but I don't see anything realistic here about some one better than Hilary in 2016. So what does "instead" mean.

And they don't mention anyone to focus on past 2016.

[RiverLover]

8. The author doesn't suggest having a third party by Nov 2016. It says we can't in fact.

Read it again.

Certainly, a mass populist party along the lines of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain — each of which has already or is poised to take over their country’s top office — is not on track to appear here, in the United States, before 2016.

And while you're at it, read my comments after the article.

[JoePhilly]

10. The author decided to make this an either or proposition.

And their reference to European efforts nails my point. Where is the US effort? Where has common dreams been on this since 2010?

They've been too busy complaining about Obama. And this article is more about complianing about Hilary than anything else.

[cui bono]

21. Says the person complaining rather loudly.

The more you try to squash the left the more we will feel the need to get our own party. Complain about us until you create your own demise of the Third Way. Please continue. I really want a viable populist party. Tired of the two corporate ones.

[Thor_MN]

13. Snark isn't particularly Populist...

Besides, it helps to have candidates that are actually interested in running, rather than hounding people who are not interested.

[Thor_MN]

12. Ralph Nader probably has free time on his hands...

[cui bono]

22. Ralph Nader is an American hero. n/t

[Thor_MN]

28. I imagine that GWB and the GOP agree with you on that. n/t

[cui bono]

32. Why do you say that? n/t

[Thor_MN]

33. Really? Think about it. n/t

[cui bono]

34. I don't need to. I know what happened. Not sure why you brought it up. n/t

[Thor_MN]

36. Not sure why you had to ask then. You replied to me, not the other way around. n/t

[cui bono]

38. I asked because I wanted to know why you said that. You never answered. n/t

[Jim Lane]

45. I agree with the comment so I'll answer, uninvited.

If Nader had chosen not to run, Al Gore would have become President.

If Nader had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries instead of in the general election, Al Gore would have become President.

In the real world, in which Nader chose to run in the general election, George W. Bush became President.

And, please, if I read one more Naderite response to the argument that Nader didn't have the right to run, I'll lose it. I am not arguing that Nader didn't have the right to run. I have never seen anyone on DU argue that Nader didn't have the right to run.

He also had the right not to run, or to run in the primaries.

As for my first two propositions, we cannot know with certainty the truth of a hypothetical, but the statements are accurate based on polling data that Nader himself released.

[cui bono]

49. Florida chose to not count all the votes.

Gore chose to not ask for the whole state to be recounted.

SCOTUS took a case they had no business taking.

The list goes on. Those things had nothing to do with Nader. Gore won. Gore won even though Nader ran. Nader has done more for this country and been right about more things than most Dems. Nader actually cares about the people of this country.

[Jim Lane]

60. Ah, yes, "Gore won." The other rote response.

You'll note that, in deference to the tender sensibilities of the diehard Naderites, I avoided saying "Bush won." In the ordinary English sense of the word, he did win, but I've seen this "Gore won" response once or twice (or twenty or thirty times) before.

I worded my post so as to preclude that response by anyone who read my post with an open mind before regurgitating the old talking points.

Let me take the liberty of quoting myself:

In the real world, in which Nader chose to run in the general election, George W. Bush became President.

See what I did there? I accommodated you. You want to keep telling yourself that Gore won, fine, I won't get into a sterile semantic argument about it.

I can forebear because, about the fact that's crucial to my thesis, there can be no reasonable dispute: Bush became President.

As for SCOTUS and whatnot, the obvious response is that an event can have more than one cause. If Nader had chosen to run in the primaries and not the general, then it's almost certain that SCOTUS would never have gotten its grimy paws on the election in the first place, because Gore would have carried Florida by a cheatproof margin, despite Katherine Harris etc.

[cui bono]

65. Yes, same can be said of the Nader is to blame response. Rote.

Nader has done a lot for this country and has the right ideas about a lot of things, especially globalization. He warned us about that a long time ago. I will not throw all of that away because of many other factors that contributed to the stolen election. It was stolen. And it wasn't Nader who did the stealing.

Also, all the election fraud happened... and Jeb was involved in some nefarious goings on. But yeah, let's blame it on the guy who was trying to fix this country. He was the only factor in that mess where it was actual democracy in action. Do you want people to not believe in our democracy?

[Jim Lane]

66. Why I'm done here.

What I actually wrote: &quot A)n event can have more than one cause."

What you say I wrote: "But yeah, let's blame it on the guy who was trying to fix this country. He was the only factor in that mess ...." (emphasis added)

Just to clarify: Harris's illegal purge was a factor. Nader was a factor. The butterfly ballot was a factor. SCOTUS was a factor.

The Naderites always bring up SCOTUS but never argue, for example, that the role of SCOTUS is a counterargument to the criticism of Harris. When it comes to SCOTUS and Harris, Naderites understand perfectly well the common-sense proposition that an event can have more than one cause. The implication to the contrary is dragged out only in the context of trying to deflect criticism of Nader's decision to run.

At any rate, I'm done here. You may now have the last word. (Well, the last word in this thread, anyway. In the real world, the last word belongs to Nader's voters from 2000, more than two-thirds of whom realized their error and abandoned him in 2004.)

[cui bono]

88. You are doing what you blame me of doing.

What you say I wrote: "But yeah, let's blame it on the guy who was trying to fix this country. He was the only factor in that mess ...." (emphasis added)

You left out what I put after that... my point was not what you seem to think it was, that you said he was the only factor. If you didn't selectively quote me, it would have shown that I said he was the only factor in that mess that was truly democratic action (or something to that effect).

I never said, and didn't mean to imply, that you said he was the only reason that happened. But I'm so sick of people blaming him and saying he shouldn't have run. Why not? That's democracy. If people don't like democracy then they need to change our country's system or go somewhere they like. But why should we resign ourselves to the two party system when neither party is speaking or acting in support of our needs and desires?

Or maybe Dems need to figure out that they've left their principles behind and get back to fighting for the people.

Democracy is broken. We need to figure out how to fix it instead of blaming those who embrace it and speak truth to power.

[AuntPatsy]

101. Interesting

[aspirant]

69. "became President"

I support passing down to our great grandchildren the whole truth, not a cheery-picked portion.

The correct language is unjustly became President. See how I included all those other relevant factors by just adding one word and giving our descendants a complete view of what happened.

[aspirant]

52. I disagree so I'll answer uninvited

If Jeb didn't knock off (purge) thousands of voters Gore would have won.

If SCOTUS wouldn't have stuck their nose in and said this is only a one time event and not setting precedent, Gore would have won. A follow-up total state recount showed that Gore won.

Is the comment that Bush Jr and the GOP think Nader is an American Hero an unprovable, hypothetical proposition?

If Nadar is the hero, is Jeb and SCOTUS just irrelevant bystanders?

[Thor_MN]

47. Apparently, the context eluded you, despite your claims. Jim Lane for the win. n/t

[cui bono]

50. No, the content eluded me which is why I asked you to elaborate, which you failed to do. n/t

[Thor_MN]

51. I told you to think about it and you claimed you knew, which you didn't. n/t

[cui bono]

89. How would you know what I know? All you've done here is evade a simple question.

Do you think your last post was elaboration? Seems to me it was just an incorrect and illogical accusation/presumption about me, nothing was said to explain your previous comment of which the question was asked.

Again, care to answer yet?

[Thor_MN]

93. If you chose to read, you would have the answer you missed.

Since you don't, have a nice life.

[cui bono]

96. I've read your replies to me and if there was an answer to my initial question I guess I missed it.

Could you be so kind as to provide a link or even just the post #?

Thanks!

[aspirant]

39. I thought about it

If the repukes thought he was an American hero, why didn't they adopt his policies?

[Thor_MN]

48. Because they could just do what ever they wanted.

[aspirant]

53. Why ignore an American Hero?

Heros aren't to be set aside, their suppose to be cherished and honored. How did the GOP do this?

Since you can imagine how Bush Jr. and the GOP think, did at any time they consider putting this American hero in their cabinet?

[Thor_MN]

54. Context is everything.

And apparently, you have missed it. Sorry that you either don't get it, or choose not to.

[aspirant]

55. I choose to understand, really I do.

How did you conclude Nadar is an American Pepub hero?

Did they personally tell you that? Are you privy to the inside Repub World of heros?

Do you communicate regularly with the Repubs?

[Thor_MN]

56. Here, let me do the work for you.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=imagine+definition

Note that it's possible for different people to think the same thing, but for different reasons

[aspirant]

57. So it's just your assumption or guess.

So in reality Bush Jr and the GOP could look at Nadar as a schmuck, an ignorant fool they could blame.

When you told us to think about it, why do you think we would think the same thing as you if your thought is merely an assumption or guess to begin with?

[Thor_MN]

59. Wow, you really have a talent for missing the point.

I never thought you would think the same thing as me. And I didn't ask you to think about it. You waded into to this all an your own.

It's apparent that you believe Nader is a hero. Which is completely fine, he has done some good things.

In the limited context of who could run for an imaginary party that doesn't exist and which would probably help the GOP if it did exist, Ralph Nader doesn't seem to be committed to any endeavors.

Sorry that I had to spell that out for you in detail, I don't have any more time tonight to teach you to fish, so enjoy the salmon.

Have a good night.

[aspirant]

62. Nadar lives forever

I'm just matching your talent for evading the point.

In this discussion group do YOU determine who and where a DU member can post?

How do you know what I believe about Nadar? Is it just that wild imagination of yours that likes to guess what Repubs think?

Why is it important to be concerned about Nadar's commitments if he is an American hero

Why are you always so sorry about things? Don't you enjoy being my teacher?

[Thor_MN]

64. You misunderstand. I brought up Nader.

Therefore the context under which I brought him up is my domain. You keep asking questions of me, which indicates you wish to discuss things under my context. The point is mine.

"Why ignore an American Hero?" "Nadar lives forever" ""Why is it important to be concerned about Nadar's commitments if he is an American hero

Do those words sound familiar at all? I don't need imagination to see what you APPEAR to think (there's that pesky context thing again)

Have a nice night, I'm done. Feel free to ask some more questions so you feel that you got the last word, I'm going to bed.

[aspirant]

67. This isn't your domain,

it is PRG and Riverlover's OP, did you forget or are you just being silly?

YOU said he was an American Hero to the Repubs and YOU said "Ralph Nadar doesn't seem to be committed to any endeavors". (post 59) Could you have forgotten YOUR words already

"what you APPEAR to think" Why do you use APPEAR if you think you accurately know my thoughts?

Is this the real bedtime for you, because your last post said you were going to bed then? You didn't tell the truth so how do I know when to believe you?

[Thor_MN]

76. Have you noticed that no one is challenging your love for the man?

I never claimed that the entire OP was my domain, I claimed that the context under which I brought up Nader was mine. You are fully free to make any statements you wish concerning your apparent undying admiration. And you have. And no one is arguing against that.

But when you continue to ask questions of me, those go towards the context under which I brought him up, which I have explained, several times, is very narrow. And yet, you are unsatisfied.

No, I never said that "he was an American Hero to the Repubs". I said I imagined that the GWB and the GOP would agree with cui bono. It's entirely possible that they are fond of him for a completely different reason than cui bono likes him. I know that grates against conservative binary thinking, where there can only be one answer, that completely, 100% solves the issues, but the real world is messy and gray and full of partial answers.

Yes, I did say that "Ralph Nader doesn't seem to be committed to any endeavors." Please cite any endeavors to which which Nader is currently committed for the time period up to 2020.

Why do you assume that I can accurately know your thoughts? Do you understand that APPEAR can mean "It looks like you..."?

Really? Please cite where in my post 59 that I said I was going to bed.

If you spent a little more time trying to comprehend what I wrote, rather than attempting to inject your thoughts into my posts, we might be in agreement that you apparently love the man and believe that nothing he has ever done has had any negative consequences what so ever. We would probably still disagree that in the real world, his run in 2000 did have negative consequences (the very narrow context under which my original comment, and every question that you have had towards it, goes).

So that you understand, I'm going to spell out that I going to go work now. I wouldn't want there to be any object permanence issues where my leaving for a bit looks like I disappeared from existence.

[aspirant]

80. How do you know that I love the man

and not just like him?

I still want to know why you assume that "GWB and the GOP agree with you on that." (post 28) This is your response to " Ralph Nadar is an American Hero" (post 22). Please cite any polls, GWB quotes, registered Repubs statements and/or any on-the-street interviews with only Repubs when asked who are your heros in the GWB 2000 election win. If you can't you should think about your post.

The problem we're having here is your imagination, Did you get it from a dream, do you have inside Repub contacts or did it come into existence from info you encountered. You came on a Populist group and spouted GOP imagined viewpoints without an ounce of back-up.

Now you state " entirely possible that they are fond of him". How do you know that the GOP is fond of him?

"it looks like you" How do you know what I look like?

: I don't have anymore time tonight...Good Night" (post 59) + " have a nice night, I'm done" (post 64), See how you didn't tell the truth so maybe your memory is fading. I hope you get it fixed.

Now you know my beliefs on all of Nadar's actions too? Are you sure your not in the Psychic business.

[Thor_MN]

87. OK, you have descended into "I know you are but what am I"

If you have an intelligent question to ask that I have not already answered, ask away. Otherwise let's just let it go that you appear to be extremely passionate about Nader and all things related to him.

You are picking random bits and pieces and trying to splash them out of context.

Bottom line, Nader would be available to run as a hypothetical candidate for a non-existent party. The GOP probably are thankful that Nader ran in 2000. All other things being equal, if Nader had not run, or run in the Democratic Primary, They probably would not have gained the presidency. Refute those statements or all you have is you undying admiration for the guy. Which is fine, and doesn't involve me.

[aspirant]

91. I have risen above the muck here

and tried to find your source of GOP imaginations. Do GOP assumptions come to you on a regular basis?

Is extremely passionate less than love but greater than like and equal to undying admiration, just trying to find out how I feel about the man according to you?

Your GOP context is not my context because I've left GWB behind years ago and don't understand why you haven't too.

First you say GWB and the GOP agree that Nadar is an American hero and now you say they are PROBABLY thankful. This is a huge turnaround from a cherished and honored American hero to sending a thank you note.

I'm still trying to find the truthfulness in your words as you didn't provide any GWB and Repub Quotes citing Nadar as an American Hero and your bedtime miscalculations.

[Thor_MN]

94. No, you have ranted on and on about your fascination with Nader.

Which is perfectly fine. Please stop trying to rephrase what I did say into your fantasies about Nader.

You haven't bothered to cite where I said I was going to bed in post 59, you haven't bothered to refute that Nader is available to run for an imaginary party. You seem obsessed with the fact that the GOP might like Nader for his role in their gaining the White House with a lackluster candidate. Does it really bother you that much that your hero might have had a chink in his otherwise stellar resume? No one is perfect, it's OK that something bad might have occurred due to one of his actions.

[aspirant]

100. No, you have evaded again and again

about your GOP imaginations and insight.

Why does GWB and the RW'ers still swirl around in your mind?

Let's dissect Post 59, " I don't have anymore time tonight...Good night" If you are out of time, how did you find time for another response? When you say "Good Night" do you mean time to wake-up?

"GOP might like Nadar" You've gone from GOP's American hero to the GOP sending a thank you note to GOP might like him, this is getting laughable.

"something bad might have occurred due to one of his actions" you mean like HRC's Iraq war vote where millions were maimed and killed?

I'm still waiting for GWB or Repukes quotes that Nadar was an American hero.

[Thor_MN]

102. We are stuck on your fascination and fantasies.

The swirling is all in your head. Nader is the bestest guy ever, yet you haven't said one thing that he has done.

Let's dissect Post 59 indeed. Where does it say that I am going to bed? Must one go instantly to sleep when one says "Good Night" in your little slice of the world? Is it a local law that one must proceed directly to bed if the phrase "Good Night" is uttered? Or does one just instantly lose consciousness? I'll give you some little hints, it's best to not interject one's ramblings into other's words and then try to use them as if they were quotes. It makes one look quite foolish. If one can not back up a claim with a direct quote, it's a utter failure to keep rehashing the point one has already lost on.

So your assertion is that the GOP hates Nader with the force of a thousand galactic core black holes? (See, I gave you the option to deny that, I didn't claim that you said it)

Yes, your obsession with one sentence is quite laughable.

Not sure what the Iraq war vote has to do with Nader running for an imaginary political party... It is quite ridiculous to ponder if a single vote by HRC could have changed the outcome as it passed 296-133, with 96% support from Republican representatives. Only an idiot would posit that all things being equal, had HRC not voted yes, the Iraq War would not have happened. Especially when it's tied to the concept that the GOP wouldn't have been in the White House. As an analogy, it's not the worst I've ever heard, but it's among them.

You will wait forever for your obsession, there are no quotes that I know of that GWB or Repukes believe that Nadar was an American hero. That extreme passion for him appears to be yours. Your fanatical analysis of that single sentence is flawed. There are no universal truths, no looming fate, no mind blowing outcomes hanging on whether or not I think that the GOP is grateful for the assist in 2000. The only thing breathlessly hanging on that is your swirling mind.

That being said I think you should do an OP to profess your admiration for Ralph Nader. You could do more than make unsupported assertions that he is an American Hero and is immortal. You could even cite some of his accomplishments, rather than highjack an OP about a hypothetical political party.

[aspirant]

103. No it's your GOP crystal ball imaginations

that have control of you

Did you forget "I don't have anymore time tonight" yet you found the time for another response. Is not telling the truth habitual for you?

"only a idiot" are you calling me or implying I'm an idiot?

HRC says IWV was a mistake, do you make mistakes too? How about assuming GWB and the GOP think Nadar is an American hero with no quotes to back it up, is that a mistake? Truth is universal and if you realize you have told or implied an untruth, it is only an amoral person (or most Repubs) who won't correct the situation.

Why are you obsessed with how the GOP thinks. Do you adore and admire the GOP thought process?

I'm waiting for your OP on YOUR admiration of GWB and the GOP for calling Nadar an American hero. Your ASSERTION(didn't say you said it) that Nadar is an American hero would immensely add credence to your soon to be released OP

[Thor_MN]

104. I make statements of fact.

One would have to be an utter fool to claim that HRC's Iraq War vote alone sealed the fate of millions of Iraqis. I'm pretty certain that you could not have actually intended to make such a ridiculous claim.

In this neck of the woods, telling someone that they don't have time for something does not imply that they are going to bed. Maybe it's a regional difference. OTOH, you still have not (and can not) cite where I said I was going to bed, as you claimed I did, in my post #59. It's not healthy for you to keep bring up your failures, so maybe it's best that you let that go?

Again, you are the one obsessed with the GOP and Nader, I've already said numerous times that no one gives a shit about what I think. That is, except, perhaps for you. What drives this compulsion to keep bringing it up? I've been ready to let it go for over a day now, this discussion is continuing solely on your drive and passion.

I never claimed that the GWB and the GOP believe that Nader is an American Hero. That is your fetish. I said that I imagined that they might. Which you have erroneously conflated into a giant conspiracy about which you appear to be extremely passionate. I have no admiration for GWB and the GOP, so atgain, you have made the mistake of interject you thoughts into my words. If you don't beleive that, please cite where I have expressed (anywhere) that I admire the right wing.

Could you please expand on your claim that Ralph Nader (or some entity called Nadar, as you spelled it) is immortal?

[aspirant]

105. In the rest of America

saying Good Night is supposing that you are going to bed, just like you suppose GWB and the GOP think Nadar is an American Hero. Still waiting why you shamefully lied about not having anymore time.

HRC is a warhawk and that is a huge problem.

"no one gives a shit about what I think" Then explain posts #33 ("Really, think about it&quot and #51 ("I told you to think about it&quot . If everyone considers your posts shit, why would anyone think about it.

"let it go for over a day now" Is there someone forcing you to the keyboard, if so could you send me a subtle message and I will call the police.

"I imagine that GWB and the GOP agree with you on that" That written statement is an unverifiable lie and the problem is you won't retract it.

Do you hate Ralph Nadar?

[Thor_MN]

107. Hmm, now you are so worked up you are doubling down on your posts.

In reverse order.

No, I don't hate Nadar, I don't even know who that is (is he/she that immortal person that you talked about?). I don't hate Ralph Nader either, in fact, I've already said he has done some great things.

Why would I retract what I think? Why are you so hung up on demanding that I retract what I think? I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you on that subject.

Nope, no one is forcing me to do anything (including you). But I will let you continue your series of blunders.

I don't believe my posts #33 and #51 were in response to you, so you have fallen off the context train yet again.

You keep bringing up HRC... Not sure why. Do you have an obsession with her as well?

Ah, I see. In you world, if one says "Good Night" one must proceed directly to bed. Is that local law or just the rules in your house? What are the penalties for an infraction? Is it just a fine or does it involve time in prison? Just to enlighten, I don't think that regulation exists in many places, much less "The rest of America" I have not encountered it anywhere but in your mind, but it's entirely possible there are Special Sleep Security forces somewhere in the world that crack down on any one who doesn't instantly go to sleep upon saying "Good Night." I feel no shame in exchanging polite farewells with you, in fact, I'd find a final one quite pleasant.

[aspirant]

108. Why are you obsessed with Nadar?

If you don't know who Nadar is, how do you know he has free time?

"don't have anymore time" a proven lie. Are things like this why people don't give a shit about what you think?

Your posts #33 and #51 are fair game for all, since your comments tell an outrageous story of inside all Repukes minds that you unkindly shared on this OP.

HRC makes mistakes just like you, common ground here.

Polite farewells come with pleasant posts.

[Thor_MN]

109. I haven't invoked "Nadar", you have.

In fact, you claim this "Nadar" is immortal, i.e. "lives forever." I've been assuming that that you simply don't know how to spell Ralph Nader's name, but maybe you are talking about someone other than the person that I brought up, such that it is another mistake on your part?

I have no obsession with Ralph Nader, I'm just replying to your passionate posts.

It must be nice to live in your world, where nothing ever changes in time and one can accuse a person of lying for not immediately going to bed when one says good night...

You can quote my posts all you want, as long as you quote them in context.

What is you obsession with HRC? Maybe you should do an OP on that as well?

[aspirant]

110. How does Nader come into your imagination?

What sparks the visions or voices of GWB and the GOP repukes?

Do you have control over this?

Is TIME is your enemy since it made a liar out of you? Give yourself more time, it can be a pleasant experience.

I can quote your posts any way I choose. If you had an understanding of context you would know by now I don't take your orders.

You and HRC are much better match since Repubs exist in both your minds.

Maybe we can find a way for your GWB OP, but it will be a challenge on DU

[Thor_MN]

111. Please stop accusing me of lying

[aspirant]

112. I am so glad

my MIND has much LESS Repub influence than yours.

Just streaming away to nowhere, waiting for GWB and the GOP to appear

Oh, a little switcheroo now. No more cute energizer bunny with mindless, clapping hands. So now you have erased and substituted a new request.

[Thor_MN]

113. I agree that your mind has less...

Keep waiting, as I wait for your immortal "Nadar" explanation.

[aspirant]

114. And I agree your mind has more repub content than mine

Why did you erase your energizer bunny comment , it was cute.

[aspirant]

115. A second response to a brand new post#111

Just retract your words and all is well.

[Thor_MN]

116. You actually think I'm going to retract my thoughts because you demand it?

[aspirant]

117. No, just your written words

You can keep all your Repuke thoughts to yourself.

[Thor_MN]

118. Are you trying to boost your post count?

[aspirant]

119. If I were I would be seeking you out on a regular basis

[Thor_MN]

120. Sorry to disappoint you.

[aspirant]

121. No disappointment at all

[Thor_MN]

122. Glad to hear it.

[aspirant]

123. Happy Trails, Mr. Thor

[Thor_MN]

124. Goodbye.

[cui bono]

129. Really? You posted about 10 replies to me yet none of them answered my initial question.

Instead of answering directly you kept making little snide asides and then tried to insult me.

Who is it that's trying to boost post count? I don't know but I sure know who I would suspect of that if it is happening.

[Thor_MN]

130. I answered you, after you claimed to know what I was talking about,

and then admitted you didn't. You missed my answer, multiple times. Try post #47.

[cui bono]

131. Um no. I said I knew of the situation. I have yet to be told what you were talking about. n/t

[Thor_MN]

132. I'm sorry that you don't get it, but I've given you your answer.

[cui bono]

133. Then I'll ask again for you to point me to the post that has the answer to my question.

Thanks!

I looked up #47 that you mentioned above but all is says is this:

Thor_MN (7,610 posts)
47. Apparently, the context eluded you, despite your claims. Jim Lane for the win. n/t

Was that your answer to my initial question? Here is my question and the exchange leading up to it:

My post you responded to:
22. Ralph Nader is an American hero. n/t

Your post:
28. I imagine that GWB and the GOP agree with you on that. n/t

My question:
32. Why do you say that? n/t

How does #47 answer that? I really don't get it.

[Thor_MN]

134. Exactly how many times do you need me to tell you #47?

[cui bono]

90. +1 Excellent.

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[Jim Lane]

58. There are Republicans who feel about Nader the way I feel about Palin.

"I don't agree with this person's policies and I certainly wouldn't implement those policies, but s/he helped our candidate become President."

I wouldn't be completely comfortable using the term "American hero" about Palin, but I can't deny that her overall impact on national politics was positive. With a more conventional running mate, like Romney or Ridge, McCain would have had a better chance of winning -- and, despite my disagreements with Obama, a McCain victory (even with a more qualified VP) would have been a disaster.

[aspirant]

61. So my question is;

if Palin caused McCain to lose and you, as a Dem, don't consider her an American hero why would avid, rabid Repubs consider Nadar an American hero?

[Jim Lane]

63. Because I'm a temperate person, cautious in my statements, and they're not. (n/t)

[aspirant]

68. As a temperate person

why would you agree with a poster's comment that Bush Jr and the GOP think Nadar is an American hero.

Then you state to me that avid, rabid GOP'ers are not temperate thinkers but they honor Nadar as an American hero ( by supporting the poster) and Palin to you isn't?

Temperate thinkers = no American idols

Non-temperate GOP thinkers = American idols

I seem to have some problems with this logic.

[Jim Lane]

70. I really should stay out of these threads, but I'll try to explain.

GOP attitude toward Nader and Jim attitude toward Palin: "I don't agree with this person's policies and I certainly wouldn't implement those policies, but s/he helped our candidate become President."

Interviewer (maybe Bill Moyers, I like him): "So, on that basis, would you say that s/he is an American hero?"

GOP: "Hell, yeah. Anyone who helps us win is a hero. We don't do nuance. Leave that to wusses like Kerry."

Jim: "Well, her overall effect was positive, but still, 'hero' is a little strong... It seems to imply virtue as well as good effect... but there is some difference between her and someone like Reagan, whose overall impact was negative...."

Moyers turns back to the GOP spokesperson to ask a follow-up question, but finds that the GOP spokesperson walked off the set halfway through my answer. They just don't do nuance.

[aspirant]

72. Why should you stay out of these threads?

We often read your headline that you are gone on a discussion ending post , is it just too much to teach the huddled masses?

Do you seriously want us to believe all Repubs are nuance-free and all Repubs think of Nadar as an American hero.

Maybe Bill Moyers could do on-street interviews and ask only Repubs who are their heros in the Bush Jr election victory of 2000.

[Jim Lane]

73. Partly because I spend too much time on them.

Partly because the huddled masses don't pay enough attention to what I actually write -- that's certainly their prerogative, and it doesn't bother me, but when they "answer" things I didn't actually write I get unduly agitated.

In my defense I'll say that I often do think better of it. There are many times when I outline a post in my mind and then say "Screw it." DU and I are both better off for it.

[aspirant]

74. Jim

I think you are a valuable member of DU and my only suggestion is to talk with us and not above us.

Trying to be humble is a ongoing quest for me and sometimes I fail, but with each failure I get a little better.

Sometimes I plan my posts and there are others where I just let things come to me in the moment and massage the keyboard.

There are many posters here that truly enjoy a good two-way discussion and the real pleasures that result.

I wish you well, I truly do

HAPPY TRAILS

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

126. I agree he is for his work in consumer protection. As to his running for president,

well, let's just say I could have done without that.

[cui bono]

128. Yes, the results weren't desired, but it's not like he made that happen.

And as I mentioned in another post, he was the only outcome influencing factor that was actually democracy in action. So I just don't get why people have to keep bringing that up.

He ran because no one else was speaking truth to power, no one else was concerned about globalization, no one else was worried about trade agreements. He ran because he wanted to help the country, help the people of this country, the working people.

There were about 6 other factors involved that were acting against democracy but people still have to malign Nader even though he was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing in this democracy.

[cheapdate]

15. I'm with you, JoePhilly.

Common Dreams has some good stuff that's avidly consumed by probably 0.2% of the voting public. I'm all for radical change, but my friends and neighbors in Middle Tennessee aren't there yet, and I strongly suspect that's true of most of America. Greece isn't the United States. The history, culture, and politics are very different.

I'm all for building a movement. I work with a group of community organizers here where I live. But while we're waiting for the spark to catch fire, it's important to elect the saner of the two parties, which is the Democratic Party -- so there'll be something left to preserve when the revolution takes hold.

[rhett o rick]

78. How long are you willing to wait for the revolution? How many American children have to

be living in poverty before you figure it's time to stand and fight. The Oligarchs have already broken the backs of the 99% and another 8 years will finish us off. I personally think we've gone past the tipping point but willing to stay and fight.

Let's not wait "for the spark to catch fire" let's get out our Zippo's.

[cheapdate]

95. I'm not waiting.

I devote considerable time and resources to fighting for what I believe in. Empowering the Republican Party is counterproductive to the things I value most. Most of my activism is outside of the party political system. A part of it is inside the Democratic Party. They are two different tracks for what I want to accomplish.

[rhett o rick]

99. Those that advocate for HRC and the 1% do so for one of two reasons IMO. One they honestly

believe the wealthy are special humans and they will take care of us if we only give them the proper adulation. Or two they are authoritarian followers, afraid to stand up to the powerful.

[cheapdate]

127. False.

I've explained to you (I'm pretty sure) more than once before that I have a host of reasons for wanting to see Democrats rather than Republicans elected to public office. I've also explained to you that the above preference for Democrats vs. Republicans is not the "end all" of my political vision or involvement.

Your either/or choice above is a false one.

[sheshe2]

135. I know I am in a group, so can't say to much.

Your two scenarios are wrong. I will leave it at that. However, I must say, you are posting in a thread that depicts Hillary as an ugly aged crone. A woman, a woman.That is what we are now? That breaks my heart. What ever she is to you or others that is just not right. I am so incredibly insulted.

I posted this here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11074084

Us ugly old crones matter too. I am so very tired of being beaten and abused. Hey Rhett, guess what pushed me firmly pushed me into Hillary's camp. That picture.

[zeemike]

40. It is not too late.

It is not over till the convention elects a candidate...just because you see just one now it is not over by a long shot.

And by 2020 it won't make a bit of difference...the damage will be done.

[JoePhilly]

75. So if I have this right ...

... if Hillary wins, we're all doomed, because she'll have destroyed everything by 2020.

Unless some savior appears before the convention.

[zeemike]

77. No you don't have it right.

Hillary or any president does not have that much power.
But another 8 years of doing nothing but giving corporate control of our government and avoiding change will produce the tipping point, not only in climate change but in the ability to change.
Putting off reforme never leads to something better...the time is always now...and the change has to take place in us first...we have to recognize and stop playing this game of divisive politics and we have to start now, not 8 years from now.
And we do that by rejecting the old and embracing the new...that is what change is.

[rhett o rick]

98. Strawman!! No one is saying that H. Clinton will "have destroyed everything by 2020".

What most of us are saying is that we don't think she will advocate for the 99%. Her and Pres Clinton's wealth puts them in the top 0.02% and they have always closely associated with the big money Oligarchs. Can't see her turning things around in our favor.

[WillTwain]

4. Oregon's governor and legislators are pushing 15/hour minimum wage right now.

A minimum wage increase way above $10.10 is a good first issue to fight for.

[RiverLover]

7. That's for sure. Its needed.

So sad that so many people can't survive on what companies pay, and the taxpayers must subsidize their survival, while corporate executives & majority stockholders are living like kings. Or lords & the mass of people are their serfs.

We need a livable wage. Good for Oregon, leading the nation! I hope

[Binkie The Clown]

6. It's a real horse race. Which one will happen first?

A successful third party, or global warming melts both poles and sea level rises 250 feet flooding Washington D.C.

I'd say it's about a toss-up.

[mwooldri]

16. I know you're joking but the global climate change is happening now.

Sadly, it's also very successful. Though 250 feet sea level rise is a way bit too much.

[Binkie The Clown]

20. Actually, I wasn't joking.

I suspect that there are people alive today who will die as a direct result of catastrophic ecosystem failure. I don't rule out the possibility of near-term human extinction.

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!!

[RiverLover]

11. Thanks WillyT!

[DeSwiss]

14. I see you have no respect for a superior species:

- Awww right!!!

K&R

[RiverLover]

18. ha!

[zeemike]

43. We all will be one with the Borg.

[djean111]

44. IMO that is kinda tacky.

I do not like what she stands for, not one bit, but I think this is not what I would want this group to be known for.
Not that it is my group, of course.
So far, most of us here dislike Hillary's policies, and Hillary supporters dislike us, and accuse us of not liking her because of trivial shit. Evidently her policies are superfluous to the campaign. But still, that is sinking to a low level. IMO and all that.

[DeSwiss]

71. And why is it ''sinking'' to a low level? Exactly?

We've been told that there is no other choice for us than Hils, she's the heir apparent. I beg to differ.

We've been told if we don't want a Repuke clown in the WH, we'd better get in line. Again, I beg to differ.

And tell me how we can get any lower than we are now in this country? With the likes of the nimrods and pols we've been enduring? Exactly?

- How the hell is it possible to get lower than: ''We came, we saw, he died.''

Exactly?

[stevenleser]

84. More than kinda. nt

[one_voice]

82. Oh damn, I had to look again...

thought I took a right turn.

[Historic NY]

17. So are you going to dig up Wm Jennings Bryan...??

[eridani]

19. Dems already have the infrastructure. Why not make it the populist party again? n/t

[cui bono]

23. Because the ones on power are already beholden to big money.

How do you change that?

[eridani]

25. By having progressives run for school boards, water districts, city councils etc

That's how you get a farm team. And that's how the Birchers took over the Republicans. Why is it that when conservatives don't like what Republicans do, they react by becoming precinct committee officers and work to take over the Republicans? When progressives don't like what Democrats are doing, they run away from the Dems.

[cui bono]

26. Yes, this could work, but maybe it's too late for that?

I don't see how you get a populist for any major office now that money runs the elections. And who is going to vote to change that? Not those who win with big money. I fear we are stuck for the time being at least. Hopefully Hillary isn't our nominee and we do get someone who will fight for us. But I don't see TPTB allowing that to happen.

[eridani]

29. The conservatives take the long view. Why do we refuse that?

There are a number of elections where the money candidate didn't win--see Eric Cantor and Carly Fiorina. What do they have in common, and how do we duplicate that?

How in bleeding hell is building a new party from scratch going to be a faster process?

[cui bono]

35. Well I for one, would rather be in a party that appreciates liberals and progressives than one that

detests them. How do we get the centrists to get on board with this? When even on DU they tell us they don't like us and don't want us to have any power or control of the party, what can be done?

[eridani]

41. We don't get the centrists on board. We do to them what the Tea Party did to the RINOs

The only way to do that is to get more progressive into local offices. In my state legislative district, which has a very active Dem party organization, more than half of our PCO slots are unfilled. Percent unfilled is even higher in the less Democratic LDs. In WA State, elected PCOs vote on replacements for state legislative positions that become vacant when the office holders decide that they want more than a part time job which is really full time.

[emulatorloo]

27. You nailed it. It all starts at the local level and grows from there.

[cui bono]

24. I'm ready for that!

Especially when we have DUers telling us that the left has a 'high and mighty holier than thou attitude' and that progressives are 'welcome' in the Dem Party but are not to 'control' it. It's clear the centrists hate the left, so let's let them have the Dem Party and start our own.

[aspirant]

31. My concern,

if we create a populist party and the corporatist Dems realize they are on a sinking ship, some will return home to the repub party while others will AGAIN try to infiltrate our new Populist Party.

The big tent must become a thing of the past.

[cui bono]

37. But the only reason we have people from the Republican Party in the Dem Party now is because both

parties have shifted so far right. The Dem Party is centrist now. So what good does it do to have old Repubs in the Dem Party? We just get moderate Republican policy.

We need a New Deal again and that's not going to happen with the current Dem Party whose leader is a self-described moderate Republican. And Hillary is just going to be more of the same. It's simply not good enough.

[aspirant]

42. I totally agree,

just want some ways to rid ourselves of pretenders.

[zeemike]

46. I think we need to play the short game and the long game.

And if fact it is silly not to.
I think we have a champion right now in Warren and Sanders...and I am still insisting we can draft Warren...but both of them have the New Deal message that will strike home to millions of people who have just given up on voting because of the "inevitability" meme that we can't get anything so the best we can hope for is stagnation.

[Thespian2]

30. K & R, hugely

I don't know if climate change will destroy the planet before progressives get the reins of power. If any of the planet is going to survive, a new party will have to control America. That much I do believe.

[Cosmic Kitten]

79. A mass Populist Party needs a focal point

Wealth inequality is obvious.

The 99%, the deck is stacked,
the game is rigged, the fix is in...

Populism has a left-leaning bias.
Yet it has the ability to transcend
partisanship for the sake of
economic parity.

Economics is THE wedge issue
of all wedge issues.
It is the 50 State Strategy.
Frame the issue, sell the narrative.

[yallerdawg]

81. Another progressive populist position...

would certainly be raising that glass ceiling to include women in the ultimate political position.

Classical progressivism has always been about expanding individual rights and freedoms. We have given the world our first black US president, what a feather in our cap to deliver the first female president!

This is not a small thing. Look at our country and look at our representation in every field. If you don't think there is endemic gender discrimination, then math is not your forte!

My momma always said - "Don't ever throw out the baby with the bath water" and "There is some good in everyone!" Which of course leads to "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[aspirant]

83. Their have been

female leaders and Queens around the world for centuries.

The "feather in our cap" would be to elect the RIGHT female president, not just anyone.

[KamaAina]

85. Works for me!

[mother earth]

86. Absolutely! K & R, TY RiverLover!

That's why they try so hard to frame the race, frontrunners & all, oligarchy propaganda for the oligarchy election.

We are many! We need to realize that, no matter who the victor is.

[RiverLover]

92. We are many!!

Yes We Are!!

Thanks mother earth!!

[sabrina 1]

97. Excellent article! Greece's last election is a truly hopeful sign that the winds of change AGAINST

the Neo Liberal policies that have been enforced both here and in the EU, have begun to blow.

Those in power will fight back hard against Greece's new government. But if this spreads, I'm hoping Ireland and Portugal and Spain will be next, and the huge demonstrations in all those nations seem to signal it isn't a false hope, Syriza's Government will have more power, strength in numbers.

Exciting things are happening, it's easy to get depressed but when you see that people ARE getting engaged, and Globally, there really is hope that things can and will change.

Eg, I never thought Greece would manage to overcome Goldman Sach's hold on their government, but they did.

Thanks for the article.

[daleanime]

125. Sure!

[merrily]

136. I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot get on board.

It seems to me that the left always wants to start yet another new party, except no one can agree on the name or the platform. So either no new party starts or ten more parties start instead of one.

Look at this list of parties in the US. And even wiki, whose articles are updated within minutes after a death or other major event, says it can't keep the list current because there are just too many parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

The most successful movements in my lifetime have been the DLC within the Democratic Party and the Tea Party within the Republican Party. Both drove the leadership of the nation rightward. Both were well funded, well organized movements.

The left of the left always seems to lack (1) ability to agree on one course of action (2) funds (3) organization and (4) sustained action.

IMO, the left of the left would serve itself better by organizing and funding a left of the left version of the DLC movement within the Democratic Party. I think the seeds of that already exist. Though it will be very hard and expensive, it will still be much easier and much cheaper than establishing a successful third party.

[marym625]

137. We either take back our party

Or we start a new one that is our old one.

The difference between what has happened in the past and now is the democratic party is no longer what it was. It is the old GOP. Goldwater would have done well in it

[RiverLover]

138. I never said I wanted a third party. Ever. I posted an article that says one day

we might need one.

But that isn't what I want. I want Democrats to be Democrats, now. FDR Democrats.

[merrily]

139. That's great!