I am so happy that Hillary plans to push a VERY Progressive agenda after her election

I'm sure she'll come thru for Progressives this time, and will prove the skeptics wrong by working super-hard
to be a true Progressive President---Far more Progressive than Bill ever was.

It's going to be fun watching her stand up to the bankers like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein and
persuade them that they MUST pay higher tax rates, and face new restrictions on some of their riskiest activities.
Hillary has the toughness, smarts, experience and resolve to do this better than anyone else on the US political scene.
And she WILL.

I expect Hillary to be the most progressive president since FDR, and to work tirelessly for the needs
of working people all over the US.

When she tells those big, greedy corporate donors to finally suck-it-up and make
some sacrifices for the majority of the American People, it will be a history-turning moment
for the country, and the Democratic Party, which will be reborn and re-invigorated.

I take her at her word, and I am counting on her to do these things.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would love to see a re-vitalized, new-millenium version of the New Deal's CCC ...

The CCC was gone by 1942 (WWII drained its manpower and fund$).
But much of its work remains.

We should try to bring it back, bigtime, IMO.

Among its functions, it could build/refurbish/maintain trails like this all over America.
The CCC, re-formed for this era and connected-together with social media and modern high-tech
communications, could be awesome!

It could provide decent jobs (some shorter-term, some longer) for people all over the country,
and protect, maintain and upgrade our Nation's natural treasures for the the present AND future.

That's my view.




Excerpt:
"... the CCC was probably the most popular New Deal program..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps



Here's what remains of CCC work in, just in California ALONE ...
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24878

Most Bernie fans will bite the bullet and vote 4 Hillary, **against Trump**

But we also are informed enough to know that after she gets elected, Hillary might make us very sad
by doing things like supporting fracking, changing her mind back on TTP,
and following the Neocons' lead into a war with Russia.

I will confess,
after I give her my vote, if she does those above things and doesn't at least ***fight*** hard
for Progressive change,
I, and the other Bernie-people who gave her our votes, in trust, may end up forcing a crisis for the party,
because we will threaten to leave.
I pray that does not happen.
I pray we are not betrayed by Hillary and the mainstream Party after (we help her win) the election.

The way I see it, the real crisis for the Democratic Party could be after Hillary wins the election
(assuming she does).

If the Democratic Party violates the trust given them by the millions of Bernie-folks
who voted for her, by going bigtime Neoliberal ib her direction
after the election, the big loser will be the Democratic Party.

In that case, and at that time, the Party will have to choose between
its Progressive wing and the corporatists.

That's not a threat.

It's what will happen if President Hillary does not push hard, post-election, for the Progressive agenda.
Not expecting her to win everything---Just to try sincerely HARD.

But don't worry----The above scenario will only happen if Hillary drops the Progressive ball after the election.


So it really is up to her.

So LBJ is a bigger "hero" than FDR now?

No one says The New Deal was great for everybody, and it is well-known some of its effects were mitigated
by racist southern democrats and others.
African=Americans did get the short end of much of the New Deal, due to the stifling climate of racism back then.
Yeah, FDR should have fought against it harder.
FDR also should not have signed-off on the Japanese Internment, or rejected the German transatlantic liner St. Louis,
with her 1000+ Jews aboard, most of whom ended up dying in concentration camps. (I'm Jewish, so that hurts especially).

FDR also should never have allowed corporate insider Harry Anslinger in his administration, who pushed for the illegalization
of cannabis, destroying the lives of millions via incarceratiion in the decades that followed, for smoking a flower.

But regardless, many of FDR's economic ideas are worth keeping, and adapting and improving, in our era, right now.

So now, instead of admiring what was good about the New Deal, and speculating about *how we could do it better now*,
we get a convenient new "Centrist" narrative
about how great LBJ was, and FDR wasn't really all that hot, etc.

Beware the coded message:
The New Deal wasn't so good after all, and should not be replicated.
A perfect GOP/Conservative/Reaganite opinion.!
And that's a fact, dear deFacto GOPers!

So this is how FDR's acknowledged failure to extend the New Deal properly to African Americans in a racist era
becomes a possible rationale (wait for it) for more corporate-leaning, Conservative fiscal policies (you, know, stuff that ain't the New Deal, maybe even more tax cuts and trade deals like TPP and NAFTA, more for-profit prisons, and other goodies).

Both men did good things, and both men had feet of clay and made some big mistakes.
That would be the realistic way to view history.
But that doesn't support some folks' agendas quite enough, does it?

Sounds like some folks are preparing themselves, after Dem victory, for a
scattering of a few shallow social programs, a bunch of investor-friendly policies and a great BIG war,
under Hillary (maybe Libya can be the new Vietnam under the Neocons, eh?).

That could well turn out to be what happens after 2016 (but I hope not).

This thread seems to me like one big rationalization for what is very possibly to come,
under the expediency of Democratic Party "centrism".
This is how people get led astray, little-by-little.

Sorry, JMO.


But I am really wondering about some of the things I've been reading on DU lately.

If you wanna' know the truth, I find it increasingly creepy.
Again, just MO.

BUT...
It is a fact that Democratic Party "Centrism" (as seen in the 1990s, especially)
tilts decisively towards corporatism. This is measurable and has been documented,
so I'm not going to list the pro-corporate policies that were passed then.
You probably know what they are.
If you don't, then you are not ready to form a respectable opinion on this topic.
Go back and do some reading.
I will respectfuly suggest refrences if you need some guidance.

Dem Centrism = pro-Corporatism.
It is all part of the "slippery slope" towards the corporate state.

Why are so many Democrats blind to this dangerous truth?

Important Info for those who are (some perhaps willfully?) blind on Globalization

The current brand of corporate Globalization is being orchestrated almost entirely by Bankers, investors and Corporate CEOs.
(Duh!)

Globalization has been recognized as an environmental and climate-change threat, worldwide.

Globalization makes countries dependent on the Top 1%, who are using it to control increasing
swaths of the world's economy, maximizing cheap labor, damaging the environment,
destroying labor unions worldwide, privatizing everything in sight (including public institutions),
leaving millions unemployed, destroyng the social contract
in the US and other countries where social programs were once strong and in-favor.

Globalization is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top all over the world.

All these things have been extensively explained and de-constructed by Chomsky,
Chris Hedges, Richard D Wolff and other smart, non-corporatized (i.e. non-biased) observers
and analysts.

TPP is a perfect example of the deception regarding Globalization.

One cannot be an honest, sincere environmentalist, and be for TPP, since TPP
will result in a LOSS of every signing nation's ability to enforce environmental laws
in the face of the *International* corporate tribunal TPP will form to resolve disputes in corporations' favor,
and to the extreme detriment of individual countries' ability to govern themselves
thru their own sovereign laws.

This is unequivocal, and has been known for years.
Globalization is a rigged game, as it now exists.

Eventually, there may be a plan for economic Globalization that is balanced, environmentally sound,
and fair and equitable for The People,
and not just a wealth & power-grab for top elites.

But the current strain of globalization ain't that, by a longshot.

Bam!!

If you could vote on TPP for America like UK voted on Brexit, how would YOU vote?

If all discussion is kept at a level of POLICIES, IDEAS AND LAWS, there should be no problems

Issues to stay focused on:

--The Drug War (i.e. ending it)
--For-profit prisons (i.e. ending them, once and for all)
--Police killings (disproportionally of people of color) and corrective Policies: Body cams, more citizen oversight, cops must be local residents, etc
--Militarization of Police nationally, getting inappropriate surplus military weapons, (stopping this trend)
--Voter suppression (i.e. stopping it)
--need for massive national Infrastructure spending, also creating jobs
--Lower college costs
--protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare
--Work towards Single-Payer Healthcare for all
--Keep corporations from shipping out more US jobs




Talk about actual issues.

Anything else (i.e. hysterical demonstrative behavior, emoting over painful issues without considering possible solutions, etc)
is just plain old BS.

Progressivism and Martin Luther King's Legacy are perfectly compatible because both are all about IDEAS.

I completely agree with your statement

It is an incontrovertible fact that many many people judge the validity of an idea by who supports that idea whom they happen to like, rather than actually trying to understand the idea in any kind of objective way.

So we get: "If So-and-so supports it, it's got to be good, so I support it too".


Using popular "leaders" to focus and guide public acceptance of a questionable new policy idea that might actually be a detriment, is the oldest trick in the ruling elites' book.

In fact, that is the entire story of the Reagan administration's success with the American working class,
whom his administration abused terribly and without respite in a series of hurtful policies
that people loved him for regardless.

A similar thing is happening here with Obama and TPP, I'm afraid.

Obama did say he admired the Reagan Presidency (for its effectiveness, I presume).
But with TPP, he's borrowing a POLICY and PHILOSOPHY page as well as a public relations one.

TPP is right out of the neoliberal U of Chicago/Milton Friedman's playbook.
But U of Chicago is Obama's Alma Mater, so maybe it should come as no surprise, eh?

Seeking "cat-whisperer" advice ---- RE: New Cat in the house, compatibility with my older cat, etc

Since my beloved elderly Ragdoll male died last December, my other cat (and longtime companion of the Ragdoll,
although not related), has been alone.
She and the Ragdoll were together for probably 7 or 8 years, and got along well.

She (Krishna) is a non-dominant-personality Bombay cat, around 10 years old or so.
Since her companion's death, she seemed lonely, but has adapted somewhat, and is closer and more affectionate to us than she was before (the Ragdoll was always the more outgoing one).

Anyway, I miss having two cats, and after a time, I desired to find a reasonably compatible companion for Krishna, especially
when we are out of the house for a few hours.

I know it is impossible to "replace" the Ragdoll, and his wonderful personality, but I felt that if I could get a mellow,
un-dominant-seeming male, they might get along OK, even if not necessarily as well as with the Ragdoll.

Last monday, after checking this cat out over a couple earlier visits to Good Friends adoption center,
I brought home a 6-year old male, black and white domestic shorthair, named Opie.
He is affectionate, seems pretty mellow and non-aggressive, and had no problem being around other cats,
as I saw at the adoption center. His apparent mellowness won us over.

My preparations:
He's been here for 4 full days now, holed-up in the den, with full supplies (his own separate water bar, food bowls,
scratch post, litter box, window to look out of, jazz radio station on softly in background, plush pet bed, soft lighting, comfortable furniture to lie on, etc. I even have a Feliway (commercial product) "cat-relaxing" pheremone dispenser on in the walkway
right outside the door of the den where Opie is.

According to advice and readings I have done, I have isolated him from the other cat for now.
They have yet to meet face-to-face, although they have caught a couple quick glimpses of each other through the open door.
They both know the other exists, I am certain.

Here is where I'm stuck.

Now what?

How do I handle the 1st face-to-face meeting?

When is the right time? Are there more steps to follow first?

What if it doesn't go well?
Would a male and female kitty ever fight physically?
I fully expect some hissing and warning-sounds at first, especially from Krishna,
as she would feel invaded in her own home, I would imagine.
No problem with that. But could anything more serious happen?

My hope is that Opie will be wary and respectful of Krishna, and give her space (they have the most of the house to roam in),
while she gets used to Opie, and sees, after a time, that he is not a threat.

But to be honest, I have no idea what will really happen, and I'm kind of scared about "the moment of truth".
I want everything to go well so much.
I would be heartbroken if it didn't work out and I had to bring Opie back (although Good Friends is a no-kill shelter).

I apologize for going on so long, but there's the whole situation.

Help?
What do I do now?



Thanks in advance for any response.

Seeking "cat-whisperer" advice ---- RE: New Cat in the house, compatibility with my older cat, etc

Since my beloved elderly Ragdoll male died last December, my other cat (and longtime companion of the Ragdoll,
although not related), has been alone.
She and the Ragdoll were together for probably 7 or 8 years, and got along well.

She (Krishna) is a non-dominant-personality Bombay cat, around 10 years old or so.
Since her companion's death, she seemed lonely, but has adapted somewhat, and is closer and more affectionate to us than she was before (the Ragdoll was always the more outgoing one).

Anyway, I miss having two cats, and after a time, I desired to find a reasonably compatible companion for Krishna, especially
when we are out of the house for a few hours.

I know it is impossible to "replace" the Ragdoll, and his wonderful personality, but I felt that if I could get a mellow,
un-dominant-seeming male, they might get along OK, even if not necessarily as well as with the Ragdoll.

Last monday, after checking this cat out over a couple earlier visits to Good Friends adoption center,
I brought home a 6-year old male, black and white domestic shorthair, named Opie.
He is affectionate, seems pretty mellow and non-aggressive, and had no problem being around other cats,
as I saw at the adoption center. His apparent mellowness won us over.

My preparations:
He's been here for 4 full days now, holed-up in the den, with full supplies (his own separate water bar, food bowls,
scratch post, litter box, window to look out of, jazz radio station on softly in background, plush pet bed, soft lighting, comfortable furniture to lie on, etc. I even have a Feliway (commercial product) "cat-relaxing" pheremone dispenser on in the walkway
right outside the door of the den where Opie is.

According to advice and readings I have done, I have isolated him from the other cat for now.
They have yet to meet face-to-face, although they have caught a couple quick glimpses of each other through the open door.
They both know the other exists, I am certain.

Here is where I'm stuck.

Now what?

How do I handle the 1st face-to-face meeting?

When is the right time? Are there more steps to follow first?

What if it doesn't go well?
Would a male and female kitty ever fight physically?
I fully expect some hissing and warning-sounds at first, especially from Krishna,
as she would feel invaded in her own home, I would imagine.
No problem with that. But could anything more serious happen?

My hope is that Opie will be wary and respectful of Krishna, and give her space (they have the most of the house to roam in),
while she gets used to Opie, and sees, after a time, that he is not a threat.

But to be honest, I have no idea what will really happen, and I'm kind of scared about "the moment of truth".
I want everything to go well so much.
I would be heartbroken if it didn't work out and I had to bring Opie back (although Good Friends is a no-kill shelter).

I apologize for going on so long, but there's the whole situation.

Help?
What do I do now?



Thanks in advance for any response.