Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "But we couldn't *possibly* have gotten single payer!" [View all]Zorra
(27,670 posts)370. Check out this great post from David Swanson, Dec-24-08 11:18 AM
2009: Year of the Filibuster
Trying to squeeze any sort of peace on earth out of our government in Washington has been a steep uphill climb for years. For the most part we no longer have representatives in Congress, because of the corruption of money, the weakness of the media, and the strength of parties. There are not 535 opinions on Capitol Hill on truly important matters, but 2. Our supposed representatives work for their party leaders, not for us. Luckily, one of the two parties claims to want to work for us.
When the Democrats were in the minority and out of the White House, they told us they wanted to work for us but needed to be in the majority. So, in 2006, we put them there. Then they told us that they really wished they could work for us but they needed bigger majorities and the White House. So, in 2008, we gave them those things, and largely deprived them of two key excuses for inaction. We took away the veto excuse and came very close to taking away the filibuster excuse, and -- in fact -- the filibuster excuse could be taken away completely if the Democrats didn't want to keep it around.
This is not to say that either excuse was ever sensible. The two most important things the 110th Congress refused to do (ceasing to fund illegal wars, and impeaching war criminals) did not require passing legislation, so filibusters and vetoes were not relevant. But the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans, and the media, and the White House all pretended that wars could only be ended by legislation, so the excuses for not passing legislation loomed large. The veto excuse will be gone on January 20th. The filibuster excuse could be gone by January 6th if Senator Harry Reid wanted it gone.
The filibuster excuse works like this. Any 41 senators can vote No on "cloture", that is on bringing a bill to a vote, and that bill will never come to a vote, and anything the House of Representatives has done won't matter. Any of the other 59 senators, the 435 House members, the president, the vice president, television pundits, and newspaper reporters can blame the threat of filibuster for anything they fail to do.
Now, the Senate itself is and always has been and was intended to be an anti-democratic institution. It serves no purpose that is not or could not be more democratically accomplished by the House alone. The Senate should simply be eliminated by Constitutional Amendment. But the filibuster is the most anti-democratic tool of the Senate, and can be eliminated without touching the Constitution, which does not mention it. If you take 41 senators from the 21 smallest states, you can block any legislation with a group of multi-millionaires elected by 11.2 percent of the American public. That fact is a national disgrace that should be remedied as quickly as possible.
The filibuster was created by accident when the Senate eliminated a seemingly redundant practice of voting on whether to vote. Senators then discovered, after a half-century of surviving just fine without the filibuster, that they could block votes by talking forever. In 1917 the Senate created a rule allowing a vote by two-thirds of those voting, to end a filibuster. In 1949 they changed the rule to require two-thirds of the entire Senate membership. In 1959 they changed it back. And in 1975 they changed the rule to allow three-fifths of the Senators sworn into office to end a filibuster and force a vote. Filibustering no longer requires giving long speeches. It only requires threatening to do so. The use of such threats has exploded over the past 10 years, dominating the decision-making process of our government and effectively eliminating the possibility of truly populist or progressive legislation emerging from Congress. This has happened at the same time that the forces of money, media, and party have led the Democrats in both houses to view the filibuster excuse as highly desirable, rather than as an impediment.
Were the Democrats serious about eliminating the filibuster excuse, they would either take every step possible to get 60 senators into their caucus, or they would change the rule requiring 60 senators for cloture. Possible steps to reach that magic number of 60 would include ensuring the closest thing possible at this point to honest and verifiable outcomes in the Minnesota senate election and every other senate election of this past November, immediately seating replacement senators for Obama, Biden, and Democrats appointed and confirmed for other offices, appointing Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to key jobs in the Obama administration and immediately seating their replacements, and providing Washington, D.C., with a House member and two senators (this last approach changing the magic number to 61 and potentially providing the 60th and 61st Democrats). Simpler and more certain would be simply changing the rule, specifically Senate Rule 22, which reads in part:
"'Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."
This would seem to suggest that it takes 60 senators to block a filibuster and 66 senators (if 100 are present, otherwise fewer) to end the power of 60 senators to block filibusters. But that's not the whole story. William Greider recently explained:
"In 1975 the filibuster issue was revived by post-Watergate Democrats frustrated in their efforts to enact popular reform legislation like campaign finance laws. Senator James Allen of Alabama, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate and a skillful parliamentary player, blocked them with a series of filibusters. Liberals were fed up with his delaying tactics. Senator Walter Mondale pushed a campaign to reduce the threshold from sixty-seven votes to a simple majority of fifty-one. In a parliamentary sleight of hand, the liberals broke Allen's filibuster by a majority vote, thus evading the sixty-seven-vote rule. (Senate rules say you can't change the rules without a cloture vote, but the Constitution says the Senate sets its own rules. As a practical matter, that means the majority can prevail whenever it decides to force the issue.) In 1975 the presiding officer during the debate, Vice President Rockefeller, first ruled with the liberals on a motion to declare Senator Allen out of order. When Allen appealed the "ruling of the chair" to the full Senate, the majority voted him down. Nervous Senate leaders, aware they were losing the precedent, offered a compromise. Henceforth, the cloture rule would require only sixty votes to stop a filibuster."
If Vice President Biden's assistance appears needed for this, it can wait until January 21st. If it waits longer than that, the credibility of the filibuster excuse will collapse, because the Democrats will be publicly admitting that they prefer to keep that excuse around.
If the Minnesota election remains undecided, cloture may require one fewer vote under current rules, but the Democrats will have one fewer senator. The outcome of that race will only be decisive if the Democrats refuse to change the filibuster rule and pursue other attempts to achieve a caucus able to vote for cloture.
If, through one means or another, the Democrats eliminate the filibuster excuse, our job will be to organize and agitate immediately to take full advantage of this rare opportunity for actual representative government. Greider proposes reducing to 55 percent of the Senate the number of senators needed for cloture. I propose reducing it to 50 percent plus one. Either way, nobody is proposing that a minority be empowered to decide anything, only that a majority finally be permitted to (even to the extent allowed by an anti-democratic body like the U.S. Senate in which both Wyoming and California have the same number of senators). Should that happen, all I can say to Wall Street and the military industrial complex is: get ready to be shocked and awed!
If the Democrats choose to keep the filibuster excuse around, our job will be to overwhelm them and the media with our refusal to believe it. Yes, we'll also want to lobby for peace, justice, jobs, green energy, and health care. But we'll never get them unless we insist on pressuring the Senate on this seemingly arcane little matter of passing bills, or what we might call a campaign for "No taxation without representation."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4711992
Trying to squeeze any sort of peace on earth out of our government in Washington has been a steep uphill climb for years. For the most part we no longer have representatives in Congress, because of the corruption of money, the weakness of the media, and the strength of parties. There are not 535 opinions on Capitol Hill on truly important matters, but 2. Our supposed representatives work for their party leaders, not for us. Luckily, one of the two parties claims to want to work for us.
When the Democrats were in the minority and out of the White House, they told us they wanted to work for us but needed to be in the majority. So, in 2006, we put them there. Then they told us that they really wished they could work for us but they needed bigger majorities and the White House. So, in 2008, we gave them those things, and largely deprived them of two key excuses for inaction. We took away the veto excuse and came very close to taking away the filibuster excuse, and -- in fact -- the filibuster excuse could be taken away completely if the Democrats didn't want to keep it around.
This is not to say that either excuse was ever sensible. The two most important things the 110th Congress refused to do (ceasing to fund illegal wars, and impeaching war criminals) did not require passing legislation, so filibusters and vetoes were not relevant. But the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans, and the media, and the White House all pretended that wars could only be ended by legislation, so the excuses for not passing legislation loomed large. The veto excuse will be gone on January 20th. The filibuster excuse could be gone by January 6th if Senator Harry Reid wanted it gone.
The filibuster excuse works like this. Any 41 senators can vote No on "cloture", that is on bringing a bill to a vote, and that bill will never come to a vote, and anything the House of Representatives has done won't matter. Any of the other 59 senators, the 435 House members, the president, the vice president, television pundits, and newspaper reporters can blame the threat of filibuster for anything they fail to do.
Now, the Senate itself is and always has been and was intended to be an anti-democratic institution. It serves no purpose that is not or could not be more democratically accomplished by the House alone. The Senate should simply be eliminated by Constitutional Amendment. But the filibuster is the most anti-democratic tool of the Senate, and can be eliminated without touching the Constitution, which does not mention it. If you take 41 senators from the 21 smallest states, you can block any legislation with a group of multi-millionaires elected by 11.2 percent of the American public. That fact is a national disgrace that should be remedied as quickly as possible.
The filibuster was created by accident when the Senate eliminated a seemingly redundant practice of voting on whether to vote. Senators then discovered, after a half-century of surviving just fine without the filibuster, that they could block votes by talking forever. In 1917 the Senate created a rule allowing a vote by two-thirds of those voting, to end a filibuster. In 1949 they changed the rule to require two-thirds of the entire Senate membership. In 1959 they changed it back. And in 1975 they changed the rule to allow three-fifths of the Senators sworn into office to end a filibuster and force a vote. Filibustering no longer requires giving long speeches. It only requires threatening to do so. The use of such threats has exploded over the past 10 years, dominating the decision-making process of our government and effectively eliminating the possibility of truly populist or progressive legislation emerging from Congress. This has happened at the same time that the forces of money, media, and party have led the Democrats in both houses to view the filibuster excuse as highly desirable, rather than as an impediment.
Were the Democrats serious about eliminating the filibuster excuse, they would either take every step possible to get 60 senators into their caucus, or they would change the rule requiring 60 senators for cloture. Possible steps to reach that magic number of 60 would include ensuring the closest thing possible at this point to honest and verifiable outcomes in the Minnesota senate election and every other senate election of this past November, immediately seating replacement senators for Obama, Biden, and Democrats appointed and confirmed for other offices, appointing Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to key jobs in the Obama administration and immediately seating their replacements, and providing Washington, D.C., with a House member and two senators (this last approach changing the magic number to 61 and potentially providing the 60th and 61st Democrats). Simpler and more certain would be simply changing the rule, specifically Senate Rule 22, which reads in part:
"'Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."
This would seem to suggest that it takes 60 senators to block a filibuster and 66 senators (if 100 are present, otherwise fewer) to end the power of 60 senators to block filibusters. But that's not the whole story. William Greider recently explained:
"In 1975 the filibuster issue was revived by post-Watergate Democrats frustrated in their efforts to enact popular reform legislation like campaign finance laws. Senator James Allen of Alabama, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate and a skillful parliamentary player, blocked them with a series of filibusters. Liberals were fed up with his delaying tactics. Senator Walter Mondale pushed a campaign to reduce the threshold from sixty-seven votes to a simple majority of fifty-one. In a parliamentary sleight of hand, the liberals broke Allen's filibuster by a majority vote, thus evading the sixty-seven-vote rule. (Senate rules say you can't change the rules without a cloture vote, but the Constitution says the Senate sets its own rules. As a practical matter, that means the majority can prevail whenever it decides to force the issue.) In 1975 the presiding officer during the debate, Vice President Rockefeller, first ruled with the liberals on a motion to declare Senator Allen out of order. When Allen appealed the "ruling of the chair" to the full Senate, the majority voted him down. Nervous Senate leaders, aware they were losing the precedent, offered a compromise. Henceforth, the cloture rule would require only sixty votes to stop a filibuster."
If Vice President Biden's assistance appears needed for this, it can wait until January 21st. If it waits longer than that, the credibility of the filibuster excuse will collapse, because the Democrats will be publicly admitting that they prefer to keep that excuse around.
If the Minnesota election remains undecided, cloture may require one fewer vote under current rules, but the Democrats will have one fewer senator. The outcome of that race will only be decisive if the Democrats refuse to change the filibuster rule and pursue other attempts to achieve a caucus able to vote for cloture.
If, through one means or another, the Democrats eliminate the filibuster excuse, our job will be to organize and agitate immediately to take full advantage of this rare opportunity for actual representative government. Greider proposes reducing to 55 percent of the Senate the number of senators needed for cloture. I propose reducing it to 50 percent plus one. Either way, nobody is proposing that a minority be empowered to decide anything, only that a majority finally be permitted to (even to the extent allowed by an anti-democratic body like the U.S. Senate in which both Wyoming and California have the same number of senators). Should that happen, all I can say to Wall Street and the military industrial complex is: get ready to be shocked and awed!
If the Democrats choose to keep the filibuster excuse around, our job will be to overwhelm them and the media with our refusal to believe it. Yes, we'll also want to lobby for peace, justice, jobs, green energy, and health care. But we'll never get them unless we insist on pressuring the Senate on this seemingly arcane little matter of passing bills, or what we might call a campaign for "No taxation without representation."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4711992
If only...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
455 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Let's be clear: you asked a question, got no answer, and loudly determined my answer for me.
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#16
e.g., "By not answering it demonstrates you did exactly nothing to promote single payer at the time"
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#99
Why ask questions? If you have a point, spit it out without Just Asking Questions.
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#188
Sure it is.I get accused of it here all the time. Bring up one point thats not the majority opinion
7962
Mar 2014
#304
No, he is working to make the Democratic party accountable to the needs of the people by
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#15
And who DID you vote for because YOU didn't vote for a public option because NO one ran on that///
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#48
Which part of "But he touted the public option on his campaign website" are you unclear on?
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#73
but he didn't campaign on it....even I knew that....please tell me you are smarter than I am!
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#76
He didn't campaign on it....I have said that all along.....I told you that is WHY I supported
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#161
It was in his platform, he mentioned it in campaign speeches and he touted it during his first year
cui bono
Mar 2014
#328
Insurance and health in the same sentence does not compute, does not compute ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#97
So you think there is no insurance in countries with Single Payer healthcare?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#170
they do not sell basic health insurance of course there is property insurance and life insurance ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#187
Yes I am saying he IS smarter than I! Could I have gotten the Affordable Care Act passed...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#336
You ignored the entire substance of my post. He DID mention the public option while campaigning
cui bono
Mar 2014
#345
Mentioning it...supporting it....and running on it are very different things aren't they...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#348
I am not missing anything.....he also put common sense-gun control "out there" after too....
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#359
I wasn't DEMANDING it.....I was for Hillary at first because I believed she was closer to it than
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#384
Look, I agree neither is what you and I want, but the way you're going about is not just wrong
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#402
Funny I voted for Barack Obama....and he won and not by a "tiny fringe group"
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#420
No what is YOUR problem...I wasn't the one that asked that question now was I?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#442
Okay, we're on the same side. :) I live in North Florida. I've reached my limit of Repukes
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#443
I know what you mean. It's HARD living surrounded by Repugs and teabaggers. I can't stand it.
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#445
and they are like an anchor around our neck...they are not going to move "leftward" easily....
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#447
And the thing is, they've tried it already. It failed more than miserably, but they want it again
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#451
You can just feel the hypocritical mysogyny heating up...its already palpable...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#418
supporting it and believing it and campaigning on it are very different things...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#313
supporting it ....and belief that you can pass it through both the Senate and the House...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#301
he was brought in to quell the disrupters ... and proved a point, that this government is totally ..
MindMover
Mar 2014
#75
we are still able to converse instantaneously on this medium which certain oligarchs ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#86
that might be your method, while others around the world are changing their world ....
MindMover
Mar 2014
#93
First, the will of the people should be how our representatives vote, not the will of someone who ..
MindMover
Mar 2014
#101
You said we lose to the oligarchs if we communicate thru this medium to our reps
MindMover
Mar 2014
#120
The right's leaders get a message out though. They know how to frame things so that they
cui bono
Mar 2014
#207
Yes, and the R's come in with their crazy demands and Obama meets them halfway
cui bono
Mar 2014
#338
24,000 posts in 2 years. I'm glad to hear you're not sitting around and surfing the web. nt
DisgustipatedinCA
Mar 2014
#392
If Democrats had gotten the job done in 2009-2010, we'd have elected more of 'em
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#142
Yes they gerrymandered the hell out of varies states but thats our own fault really.
cstanleytech
Mar 2014
#186
I don't agree that gerrymandering is just an excuse. Yes, it can be overcome considering the number
cui bono
Mar 2014
#324
Gerrymandering doesn't keep people from turning out, it makes the district unbalanced to
cui bono
Mar 2014
#329
No, actually, he's whining and wanting 1 person to reverse the damage done over 33 years by him (the
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#381
I read the OP as a reminder that we have to put more pressure on our elected officials.
A Simple Game
Mar 2014
#332
Single payer advocates were plentiful. They asked to be seated at the table during the
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#355
No, but people who figure that Democrats don't respond to their interests, their problems, their
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#431
The public option was in Obama's platform and he "touted" it during his first year as POTUS.
cui bono
Mar 2014
#327
Look, Manny, you're talking to the wrong group. And, as you know, what Americans want means nothing
NYC_SKP
Mar 2014
#2
Totally agree. Although in matters of military might and natural resources, we
truedelphi
Mar 2014
#218
nothing funny about an oligarchy unless you are on the inside .... looking out ...nt
MindMover
Mar 2014
#61
Yeah, but that kind of blunt political analysis doesn't get a bunch of recs and attention. nt
redqueen
Mar 2014
#257
I believe this would be one good example of statistics and representative forms of government
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2014
#423
And what makes you think we are doing what YOU described? You don't know that to be the case do you?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#424
Okay true...but still we only had that filibuster proof majority for about 2 months....
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#37
Harry Ried HAS changed the filibuster rules....or did you miss that fact?
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#51
and all those bleary lying eyes lining up to tell us we had to do it or else ....
MindMover
Mar 2014
#53
"they implored LBJ not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since "
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#98
Well, at least you don't call him a piece of shit used car salesman who sits on the couch muttering
BeyondGeography
Mar 2014
#173
So, LBJ Worked Hard, Very Hard, Huh? Guess You Think Obama Isn't "Working Hard"? Then? So, He's...
Skraxx
Mar 2014
#183
Wow, that post is full of dog whistle, even if you didn't mean for it to be.
phleshdef
Mar 2014
#194
You are exactly right. That was my first thought as well which the OP conviently overlooks
Number23
Mar 2014
#364
And you are overlooking that in both cases the majorities were with them
nadinbrzezinski
Mar 2014
#367
yeah, we need to knock on doors and get the vote out and change this country ....
MindMover
Mar 2014
#69
NEWSFLASH- this is a Representative Democracy. But when your goal is to be divisive on a
KittyWampus
Mar 2014
#28
OK, so if two-thirds of Americans want X, then our representatives should
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#31
good luck getting the Teabaggers on board to only vote for YOUR favorite Representatives...
VanillaRhapsody
Mar 2014
#54
Ugh. Don't worry kids. Tomorrow Manny will watch "I'm just a bill up on capitol hill" and will
Squinch
Mar 2014
#32
toooo many have drunk the kool aid Manny, and on this board they have tooo ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#104
get to universal HC would require more politcal courage than exists in the dem party.
KG
Mar 2014
#45
Actually, Medicare is not really single payer - - it's part government, part insurer, part
Hoyt
Mar 2014
#127
We couldn't, because we needed a super-majority to get anything through the Senate.
pnwmom
Mar 2014
#62
My guess is that those who vigorously supported single payer were a small minority
Kaleva
Mar 2014
#124
We couldn't have gotten it, but it still should have been part of the discussion.
DanTex
Mar 2014
#84
What did two thirds of the .01% of the world want? They're all that matter. nt
valerief
Mar 2014
#89
I say we organize an internet voting that anyone with voting rights and computer access
MindMover
Mar 2014
#125
now how long did that take you to type, an intelligent response reflecting your heartfelt feelings .
MindMover
Mar 2014
#149
the blog bully tries to limit discourse by contributing nothing but bullyisms ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#209
Yup, remember when it was a private investment mandate with a tax credit to help the poor offset
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#193
There was more than two-thirds who wanted background checks, did it pass?
Thinkingabout
Mar 2014
#134
Boehner and others can yell "do what the people want", who is the people
Thinkingabout
Mar 2014
#155
Not at all. You were stating that it is the Congressional representives
GreenPartyVoter
Mar 2014
#372
There are benefits to taking the initiative, framing the debate and putting one's opponents
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#343
It's not because he wanted a PO: "I never campaigned on the Public Option."
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Mar 2014
#164
A little from Column A, but overflooding from Column B. This is all fun and games to this poster
Number23
Mar 2014
#366
cmon madem, the rubber has not been meeting the road for many years now ....
MindMover
Mar 2014
#211
70-90% of Americans (ultimately) want peace, gun control, HSR, Medicare for all,
MisterP
Mar 2014
#191
Yeah, and Kucinich was "unelectable" so we went with the black guy with the Arab name.
Spitfire of ATJ
Mar 2014
#215
President Elizabeth Warren. Yeah, that was awesome.I loved it when Patti Smith sang at her inaugural
Kurovski
Mar 2014
#220
Kucinich supported the Redistricting plan , but the district he ran in was still Dem
JI7
Mar 2014
#375
It's the POLICY of the US to support CAPITALISM no matter which party is in power....
Spitfire of ATJ
Mar 2014
#393
We have the best government corporations can buy. The majority of people want marijuana
B Calm
Mar 2014
#224
For the 2014 election and the 2016 election all Democratic candidates should
Enthusiast
Mar 2014
#225
Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
ProSense
Mar 2014
#249
If you have 10 fingers, i demand that you play Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #3 by lunch.
yodermon
Mar 2014
#251
If I run for the office of Concert Pianist at the BSO, and claim I'm the greatest pianist available
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#254
too simplistic. the left allows 1200 rw radio stations to yell over that majority
certainot
Mar 2014
#279
The companies know what's best for the rest! 99% Austerity Baby, and good times for all! nt
adirondacker
Mar 2014
#303
Unless you explain how you get Lieberman to vote for it, you don't have a point.
jeff47
Mar 2014
#326
I read it. David Swanson did a lot of whining. The first person to respond at least had a solution
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#383
I didn't see anything about a third party in that post. What I saw was accurate analysis
Zorra
Mar 2014
#389
I have noticed one thing about the anti-Obama, so-called libs. They sit on their fat asses and do
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#403
That's Swanson's career. It's how he puts food on his table, how he buys his suits, how he pays for
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#436
Start explaining how you would've gotten single-payer if you'd been president. I await impatiently
Sarah Ibarruri
Mar 2014
#379
C'mon...everyone knows Elizabeth Warren could have won in Arkansas...Alaska...Louisiana...Montana
brooklynite
Mar 2014
#405