Are We Recreating Daily Kos?
It saddens me to see some of the comments and essays here by people trashing candidates other than their preferred choice. In my view, it makes us little better than the bottom-dwellers slithering about on Daily Kos.
For example, recent comments regarding Pete Buttigieg claim that he is a drug dealing scumbag white boy. Other comments regarding Kamala Harris (a sociopath that does not care whether or not she lies) and Amy Klobuchar (Klobuchar is Kambama's twin) and Elizabeth Warren (a bomb dropping regime change neoliberalcon) are just as repulsive.
Are we not true Bern Believers unless we denigrate and libel opposing Democratic candidates?
Do we really want to be like Daily Kos, with purity tests and roving attack gangs and a pronouncement that anyone not supporting the preferred candidates (seemingly Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard) can leave?
I hope not. Repeating nasty memes and mischaracterizations of candidates we don't support isn't something I like seeing on this site. If our preferred candidate so lacks merit that we can't support them without bashing others, why are we supporting them? In the immortal words of c99 member Alligator Ed:
This tolerance for non-uniform opinions, coupled with mutual respect is what makes c99 great. We couldn't do this without JtC and Joe but here we are. Disagree if one must, but do so with rationality. If a decision is based upon emotion, say so. Alligator Ed
Comments
That's not exactly accurate
They were not run off bc they expressed anti establishment views. Some of the people who no longer participate were either kicked off the site because they were belligerently insulting to JtC, or they lurk here but don't comment anymore, or just gave up politics and poltical sites bc there didnt seem to be much point talking about the elections if they weren't going to participate electorally.
I am very anti establishment and no longer believe in our electoral process, have been very vocal about it, and no one has ever put pressure on me, or tried to run me off this site. That is just not happening as far as I can tell.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
users run off
It is my understanding that the only folks who were "run off" were those belonging to a certain subset of the "elections don't matter" crowd: the ones who advocated violence. As JtC avoids penitentiaries like all sane humans do, there was really no choice here as the Federal authorities take a seriously dim view of such things.
And, again, you've never recommended violence here, at least to my best knowledge.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Pitchforks, Torches, and Guilliotines
You're right, I did not include that "advocating violence" would be considered undesirable topics on this site. And, although I have made a sardonic quip or two about pitchforks and the like, I have never seriously advocated for a violent overthrow of our government.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
There's no point in attempting a violent overthrow
of the government. For reasons I've said elsewhere. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. We'd be bringing a spoon to a bomb fight.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good causes that start out non-violent—then one day, they’re not
The German anarchist left scene in the city of Leipzig is concentrated in a part of the city called Connewitz. The fight against gentrification there has already seen arson attacks with damage in the millions.
Now just this last weekend, two masked figures invaded the apartment of a real-estate brokerage employee, a 34-year old woman, and beat her up. A radical left group later claimed responsibility on Indymedia.
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/panorama/leipzig-connewitz-immobilienfirm...
Back in the 1980s, a huge environmentalist movement with broad support had formed around opposition to expansion of the Frankfurt airport. The movement collapsed after two policemen were shot dead and several more wounded in November 1987.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_18_West#After_Construction
Please don't refrain
If there's some candidate you like or maybe just one thing that candidate says that you like, it's valuable to share it.
ok then, I am sick and tired of all the candidates,
I vote for nobody. So, there you are./s
https://www.euronews.com/live
Not Bernie
The thing that gets me about the anti Berners is that he is almost running on Obama's first platform that everyone went nuts over. Single payer. Helping the middle and poor classes, but now all the things that were in Obama's platform and now Bernie's are unrealistic to many people. Even anti war has gone by the wayside and we have to stay in Syria and arm Ukraine and even let them into NATO. All because of the Russian phobia that too many people have swallowed. And because Obama made it cool to go to war.
I can't understand why Moulitzas hadn't sent
10000 roses to Hillary Clinton. That may have been a major mistake ... /s
https://www.euronews.com/live
The problem
isn't that so many regulars here who are still involved in the electoral system, who haven't gone full Timothy Leary, are for Bernie. I like Bernie too. He has some great positions and has been consistent over the years.
It's that such a high percentage of the regular posters are Bernie backers, many Bernie or Busters. I would guess 90% of the political posters. Another 9% for Tulsi. That's about it, except maybe one poster occasionally with a good word for Yang. It all adds up to a narrow slice of the left, making for a very constricted conversation, and likely not as full and robust a discussion as could be had as some understandably seek not to offend the vast majority here and become unpopular.
So it's long been frustrating to not be able to get a witness when I have a non-hostile word to say about the despised alleged warmonger, sellout, corporatist Liz. And I'm just making a fair case for her, hearing the silence on this board for her defense, as she's just in my top 3, not my top pick. Frankly, the rhetoric I've seen directed at her is so extreme as to be beyond extreme, beyond reasoning. It's certainly not remotely representative of the roughly 97% of lefties out there in the real world who would accept her as the nominee as their 1st, 2d or 3d choice.
It would be an improvement of the situation to see more diverse views from the left on this board, which as I recall is what the site proprietor seeks to achieve. Such diversity would open things up here and make it safer for dissenters and minority voices to speak without fear of being dog piled or characterized as a shill for the DNC or Hillary.
Part of the appeal of this site
For many here is to be in the company of people who aren't interested anymore, after years and years of participating in the narrow field the DNC is giving us, in "strategizing" within that artificially constructed paradigm.
Yeah, there's a real irony in bringing up the "narrowness" of discussion here over candidates who won't talk about the majority of things that negatively affect our lives.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That’s what drew me to stay here
That’s what drew me to stick around here. I came in the great migration of Bernie supporters who left dKos. I was all in on Bernie in 2016. But over the next two years my views changed radically. I found common ground here among the “fringe radicals” who said the whole system was bogus, and I saw that the evidence supported that viewpoint.
But as election season heated up over the past year, there has been a shift to the “horse race” as the number one interest of most here, and people who are not into that have been much more in the background. I’ve personally felt that my views are unwelcome, which is why I’ve written only about 10 comments in the past few months.
But yesterday CStMS published an essay that really nailed where I’m at, in so many ways. I’m not going to go into it more here, but this part is sticking with me:
Hoo boy... this is it, the reason I’ve been pissed off for so long. The reason I used to push back on this message, this socializing, this pressure to conform. It’s everywhere, like the air we breathe.
Those types of essays and discussions are what keep me coming back. I’m not very interested in the horse race discussions, even though I read them, because I’m interested in hearing what people think regardless. But I would love a more diverse set of perspectives and topics.
What keeps me coming back
C99 hit the jackpot when some of the best writers and thinkers from TOP migrated over here. I agree, CStMS piece hit on so many truths, I bookmarked it for closer and repeated readings.
I'm glad you decided to comment on this topic, in this essay, especially.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Great comment. n/t
Speaking of horse races,
there's an election tomorrow. Are you in city limits ?
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
No, I'm in unicorporated Marana.
I don't get to vote in any city or town elections out here in the boonies, just county and above. On the bright side, the sales tax here is lower than in incorporated areas. I pass that on to customers of my online store.
Well I knew you were up in Marana somewhere.
I was asking CS if she was in the city.
Are you in Pima or Pinal county ?
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Oops, sorry. Thought your ? was aimed at me.
I'm in Pima County, a few miles south of the Pinal border, and just down the road from the Pinal Aircraft Graveyard.
Hope you will
feel free to initiate a discussion in some of these other areas that are of interest to you. You might find that some of us who comment a lot in politics also share a few of those less-discussed interests. I would begin a few discussions myself, except for the small fact that my interests are so off the beaten path that bringing them up would probably not improve my popularity rating here.
Meanwhile, though a few have dropped away, I still hear plenty of voices here for those who no longer have an interest in the political contests. That's fine. Understandable even. It's not my choice as we do have more than the usual Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum choices this cycle. And I've been around long enough to be either depressed enough to want to go Timothy Leary or to suck it up and remember that sometimes the seemingly impossible becomes possible, and for now I'm taking the slightly more difficult path.
You should feel free to comment.
I'm not part of the Kool Kidz Klub here, either. But I still throw in my 2¢ occasionally and take my lumps. Unlike other sites, you won't be banned or have your posting privileges revoked just for expressing non-mainstream opinions.
Thanks for the
encouragement. I do offer plenty of views in comments here, often against the grain of the prevailing majority and getting considerable grief for my efforts. But thick skin and all, I soldier on, fighting the good fight as I see it.
And as an evidence person, I appreciate your push back on the bizarre charge against Buttigieg, even as I'm not remotely considering voting for him or having to decide whether to do so. Bald assertions with no proof or sound reasoning -- that's the stuff that got us Russiagate and the New McCarthyism.
Thanks again for the (mostly) excellent discussion you started here with your thread. And a hearty high-five for also not belonging to the Kool Kids Club.
Wow, thank you.
I was really uncertain as to whether I wasn't just stating the obvious in that essay.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Narrow field?
What was it, 24 candidates for a while? From a broad spectrum of Democratic and progressive viewpoints? Okay.
Hmmm...
24 candidates that reflect a constituency drowning in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, with a retirement plan that includes a gun to their head? I'm sorry but I didn't see a wide open field of those candidates on any debate stage. Ever.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Hmm?
Universal basic income. Medicare for All. Free college tuition. Wealth tax. Student debt forgiveness. Increase social security benefits. And many other things near and dear to progressives and of benefit to the 99%. It surprises me that you didn't hear them.
I believe all those issues originated from
One candidate the DNC did everything to destroy in 2016 so that he would not have a voice for the rest of us. Now, miraculously, 23 other candidates came forward during this election season saying, "Hey, I believe in those things too! I just never thought saying them outloud could win elections".
Like my original comment stated, there are a lot of us here who are no longer interested in discussing the merits of an artificially constructed paradigm.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I'm lost here. Help me out.
I don't understand what you mean by "artificially constructed paradigm". Granted, I've mostly tuned out the campaigning thus far and haven't watched any debates or read any DNC strategies. But what do you mean by this in concrete terms even a dodo like me can grasp?
Neo-liberal Politics
Masquerading as electable progressive-isms
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I'm afraid I'm not in the know.
Perhaps foolishly, I believe the 2020 candidates fall along the spectrum described in this Business Insider poll. Most of the candidates express views that are more progressive than average Democratic politicians and far more progressive than neoliberal/DLC/DNC "new" Democrats.
It's a tough job appealing to all the diverse interests under the Democratic umbrella, far tougher than Republicans have. As far as I can tell, the current crop of candidates are threading the needle to the best of their ability and none of them are as chameleonic as Hillary Clinton.
At some point, practicality must and will rear its ugly head. There's no way to fund the out-there MfA dreams of those that want to extend and expand Medicare to 2 or 3 times its current cost. At least not without canceling all military funding and significantly increasing taxes, and no politician will ever win election by supporting those positions. We'll see who's left in April or May after things shake out a bit.
Bringing me back to my original point
Of why a lot of people here do not want to participate in discussions surrounding the subjective and nebulous notion of electibility, and the pragmatism of "winning". Winning? Winning what? A policy that conveniently proves untenable to implement, as it always does when the politician gets elected, but also an entire electoral philosophy fed to us by years of civic indoctrination that has not benefited the 99% in either of our lifetime?
Boy, I admire your ability to take your lumps in electoral politics and still advocate "electibility"
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Ah, no.
I'm not advocating electability. I support the big dreamers. My last paragraph is just saying that whoever's elected will run into the brick wall known as Washington DC.
I predicted Trump would win in 2016 even though nearly everyone said he was unelectable. So in my view, "electability" is nonsense.
I didn't think he could get the nomination.
Once he had it, I was telling people that HRC was just about the only person the Dems could have nominated who might actually lose to him.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
As has been made very clear, time and again, by
every serious attempt at analysis: Yes, taxes will go up, but healthcare expenses will go down. For almost everybody who actually has healthcare now, their net income will go up. For almost everybody who doesn't, their net income will go down -- but they'll have healthcare.
We can do this without even touching the military budget -- although one excellent way to lower our overall healthcare costs would be to stop sending people all over the planet, and then bringing them home in pieces (physically and psychologically).
Your argument boils down to this: The people are stupid, and the politicians know that the people are stupid, so the politicians daren't run on a policy that's just too darn smart for the stupid people to get a handle on.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
That's not my argument.
That may be your interpretation, but it's not my argument. I wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid spending was about $1.35 trillion in 2018 and is projected to reach $6 trillion by 2027. Covering everybody and adding vision and dental and the other enhancements wildly tossed around will likely cause that to triple to $18 trillion. GDP is projected to be $28.5 trillion in 2027. Show me the math that allows 2/3rds of total national GDP to be spent on just Federal healthcare.
Unlike your claim, I don't think voters are stupid. I think the math doesn't add up.
yet mysteriously, every other civilized, developed
nation on earth can do it.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
No dispute.
I acknowledge that many other nations do it. I fully support government funded medical care for everyone. My sticking point is that currently announced MfA plans are unsupportable for these and other reasons:
It’s a system with interlocking parts.
You seem to be saying that we can’t get to MfA like other countries have by changing only one or two things. There would have to be a path or plan where a whole lot of interrelated things are changed at the same time, particularly cost reduction.
You’re getting a lot of pushback, but that’s a valid argument.
As with the climate crisis, realistically, what is the avenue for making so many simultaneous changes, aside from the government simply seizing control of big parts of the economy and society, as FDR did during the Depression and later during World War II?
Doesn't look like a particularly broad spectrum to me.
If people here are nicer to Bernie, Tulsi, and Andrew Yang than the rest of the candidates, perhaps it's because those three candidates are the only ones who advocate for ideas outside the Democratic norm--by which I mean, the policy ideas and political practices that the Democrats have been feeding us non-stop for about 25 years. There have been a few exceptions over that time, most of whom have been shouted down and stood in the corner, like Howard Dean. The only time that a successful candidate advocated for policies outside the Democratic norm was Obama (in his campaign speeches). Sadly, those speeches were mostly lies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
irony
So much irony it sticks to my magnety!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Bada bing!! n/t
Then there is this must read article by Hedges
The Enemy Within Is Deep Indeed
As stated here numerous times we cannot vote our way out of the power the 'deep state' and the corporations have over us. We cannot even make sure that our votes are counted correctly or that people will even have the right to vote. Not with gerrymandering and all the other roadblocks people have to vote.
The whole article is excellent, but as usual Hedges doesn't offer solutions. Will we see a yellow vest movement met with martial law and the full power of the militarized police? My guess is yes we will. That was why they were militarized in the first place. Can't have the military patrolling the streets, but we can have cops with military equipment doing it.
Excellent comment. Thanks. n/t
You keep bringing this up
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about Warren or any other candidate, but you seem to have a problem that people on this board don't agree with them. Can you make a case for your candidate without putting those of us who don't agree with you down? And honest criticism of someone is not unacceptable as long as it's honest.
Read what Anja says here:
If this place was representative of the “mainstream” left
it would be Daily Kos.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Spot on, Dr. John. n/t
Cheers Snoopy
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
workamile's stated candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. n/t
Yep, that little fact
which I've stated here clearly several times previously tends to get lost in the shuffle of folks taking my occasional defense of Warren as promoting her as my top pick. She's not. She's only just recently entered my top 3 -- 1) Tulsi 2) Bernie 3) Warren. She does have an Up arrow next to her name in my book -- someone whose candidacy has been rather solid over this long slog, and who may have a better ability to unite both wings of the party. Tulsi I back with my voice and pocketbook for her courageous stand on FP, alone among the candidates.
Re Bernie, I'm closer to him on DP than any other candidate, but figger no one needs to hear a 61st voice cheerleading for him here, while there was an obvious opening for someone to marshal some thoughts in defense of Liz.
Cheers .
Similar
I haven't really narrowed down yet, but if forced to choose, my top 3 would probably be the same as yours. I think Bernie with either Tulsi or Liz would make a good team irregardless of whether the boy or girl was top of the ticket.
This.
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about Warren or any other candidate, but you seem to have a problem that people on this board don't agree with them
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Has anyone been banned?
I'm thinking it's not likely.
What I want to read is here -- people thinking out loud and writing about essential matters.
A few, but not for their politics.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Who determines what is trashing
as opposed to legitimate criticism? I have a problem with everyone running inside the democratic apparatus, but that's my problem and I try not to put others down for voting for whomever they want. I have been burned too many times to put any stock that voting will change anything until we get money out of politics. You can't vote your way out of problems when your party doesn't listen to you. But if some candidate does something I don't like I feel free to call them out on it. As long as you aren't putting people here down when you want to post something go for it.
YES
especially scumbag white boys and lying sociopaths. Also neoliberalcons. Or anyone who, instead of saying war is bad, says Saudi Arabia should do more of "the fighting", meaning bombing and killing.
lol
All excellent points. Especially being kinda anti war, but asking another country to pick up where you left off to you know keep the killing going. I groaned when Bernie said that.
Mayo Pete said that the best way to change something when you're president is to be deserving of winning. Yeah he's getting lots of crap for that. Naturally I thought of you.
Duplicate. Sorry.
I think that people who shelter in the Democratic Party
...probably legitimately belong there. They may feel they were damaged by the Party, or feel betrayed or misunderstood, but they have unfinished business with the Democratic Party. Perhaps they see a way to clear up the disharmony and regain their sense of belonging. The current Party leaders will move on soon enough, and then erstwhile Party Members will once again find solid, common ground.
I see the Authentic Left as the coalition that never really belonged in the Democratic Party. The long evolution of the Left in America is ongoing and it has occurred outside of the two establishment Parties. The Left has a comprehensive vision, which can no longer be diverted, repackaged, or encapsulated into either Party. When Bernie Sanders ran for President in 2016 0n the Democratic ticket promoting a vision for fairness in America from the perspective of the Authentic Left, people listened. What they heard fundamentally changed American politics. His Presidential campaign actualized a profound self-recognition among, perhaps, one-third of eligible American voters. For the first time, this Coalition could see each other, and they knew they were vastly different from the Republicans and Democrats. For the first time, the Authentic, socially-oriented Left had a role to play in guiding American politics.
Having never organized, and without a single national discussion of their existence — this large, self-funding coalition of like minded-voters popped into existence as a cohesive group. This disrupted the political landscape and made everybody a little bit crazy. Now the Coalition is back again, quietly biding their time until they step up and show their strength in their State Primary. I do not believe the Democratic Party plays a significant role in the identity of those in the Bernie Coalition, but I think members of the Left who are currently sitting in the Democratic Tent strongly identify with the Coalition. Furthermore, I don't believe this Coalition shares an ideology with Democratic Party Progressives, who seem compromised at this point. The Party's methods and its demonstrable objectives are in direct conflict with the Coalition's vision for America and the American People.
Now that the Left has solidified and offers new ways to solve the problems that the nation faces, and at the same time elevating the restoration of fairness and justice as national priorities, the Left Coalition will not be going away. They are large enough to sway the 2020 election, whether or not they have a candidate in the race. They will not be absorbed into any other Party. They are free agents and currently, they have the ball.
Yes, Bernie is running as a Democrat. Thanks, Democrats! That's what crashing the gates looks like.
I'm doubtful.
I think Democratic apparatchiks will stop at nothing to stop Bernie from being the 2020 candidate, just like they did in 2016. In fact, I think 2020 will make 2016 (Bernie Bros, rigged caucuses, etc.) look like the good old days.
I value your perspective
...and often share your cynicism. However, I think my narrative has legs.
The Democratic Party may produce a candidate who wins over the hearts and minds of voters in the Primaries. That's a fair win. But if they rig key primaries or eliminate Bernie at the convention against the will of the people.... The Coalition has sufficient numbers to decide who wins the Presidential election.
That may be.
But it doesn't mean that the organically created Left "Coalition" described by Pluto'sRepublic will just go away if and when the Dems manage to cheat their way to the general election again. I'd think the opposite is more likely, in fact. Every corrupt move by the Dem establishment will just invigorate the left "coalition".
For a good analogy, think of water flowing downstream. As it moves along, it picks up speed. Tributaries feed into it. It gets bigger and more powerful.
Someone comes along and drops a big rock into the stream. If it's very close to the headwater and the stream is still small, that big rock might be capable of damming the stream. But the stream is still being fed by its source. It may take a while, but the flow will eventually resume.
Once the stream reaches a certain size and strength, however, if a boulder gets dropped into the stream, the water will just flow around the rock and keep on going. It will create a new path and keep going.
I think the Dem establishment is in for an unpleasant realization. For decades, they've been able to dam up the stream. They've gotten used to getting away with it, to the extent that they believe getting away with it is the normal state of affairs.
No more.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Trump
I agree with you in the longer-term sense. But Trump gives Democrats the opening they need to manipulate the election. They'll pull out "Trump must be stopped at all costs" and "We must save the Republic". Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've been through quite a few election cycles and political parties will do and say anything to keep or gain the power to enrich the wealthy.
I think we’ve been seeing that
With Russiagate all the way up through impeachment. I can’t imagine what’s next if they can’t remove him from office and lose in 2020.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I'll take tea with my arsenic, thank you
If Trump wins in 2020, maybe the Dems will come out with "conclusive proof" that Trump was, all along, really Bigfoot.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Or...
he was really Putin wearing a blond fright wig.
Tiny hands but big feet?
lol
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
That was really mean
to put that image in my mind
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
And in part we owe that to the Climate Emergency.
Greta's question is real: What future do people my age have?
I agree with you on this part
I think many people stay with democrats for who they used to be, but don't see them for who they have become since the Clintons were in the WH and they started taking money from every one who threw it at them.
True. Bernie opened a lot of eyes that got shut after Obama decided not to be the president for the 99%. And especially after people found out how they rigged the primary against him. Pelosi has been making the rounds and saying that she is not on board with MFA and thinks that making the ACA better is the way to go and unfortunately too many people agree with her after forgetting that they once wanted something much better. It will be interesting to see what Bernie does if he gets cheated again. People say that he stayed in the party and supported Hillary so he could run again. But that means he would have had to know that Hillary would have lost. But this time it's different. Time is running out for many people and if he is serious about changing things he should run 3rd party. There were more people who didn't vote than people who did. Lots of people got tired of voting lesser evil and just stayed home. I think he would win by a lot if he did. Maybe pick Tulsi as his VP. This would be a winning ticket in my opinion.
@snoopydawg I think for many
I think for many people who supported Sanders in 2016 and then felt betrayed, let down, or whatever you want to call it, Sanders will not resonate with them until he runs third party. And it seems like he is getting less traction in 2020 than 2016 and I think that is the reason.
Yes I agree with you on that
So many people dem exited after he dropped out before the convention and said that they were done with the democrats period. I'm seeing lots of comments asking Bernie if he will fight for his supporters this time if he gets cheated again. But I do think if he runs 3rd party he might just win. 60 odd million voted for Trump and Hillary each while closer to a hundred million did not vote for president.
I have said before, if Bernie really wants to help the underclass then he must go 3rd party. Time is running out for so many of us and after reading the Hedges article I think it's imperative that he does. For us and his grand kids. What does he have to lose at this point in his life?
ETA hundred.
What's Old is New, ad infinitum
This sentiment is not new. Here is an article written by the God Father of the New Deal from 1931 making a similar point:
The Need for a New Party
The Progressive Left Coalition has indeed weaved its way through both parties and has had unsuccessful attempts at forming a party of its own. What is important now is that we continue the march toward real policy that helps everyday Americans despite the desperate and now increasingly ham handed efforts to thwart us.
(Edit for reply title)
Good article
This
Reminds me of this..
After Bush wrecked the country people looked for someone who would help put it back on the path to sanity and so we bought into what Obama sold us. Then Trump out left Hillary and talked about economic pain and he promised to help us only to have kept draining our wealth and giving it to the 1%. I'm afraid to imagine who will come after him and what they will do. The GOP drove the car into the ditch and Obama sent them a tow truck to pull them out. The democrats of congress were driving it.
This article is close to 80 years old and yet here we are repeating its main points. Who here has the sigline about trying to change the mafia from the inside? It can't be done. We need a third party or even more. Maybe?
money
And out of all the politicians as well. The uber-filthy rich have had a monopoly on elected power long enough. It's time that the sub-degreed working class ran this country for a while. As in: sufficient of the Congress and the Senate to overthrow a Presidential veto shall have obtained a minimum 25% pay raise with respect to their best year's income beforehand, upon being elected to Congress for the first time.
Back to our topic: do not post that last paragraph on Kos! Large amounts of useless pain will result! (The voice of experience)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Exactly
Thanks for fleshing it out better than I did. Our government has been captured long enough and congress members have gotten very rich because of it. That corporations can call up any person in congress and tell them what they want them to do has to stop. Don't know how to fix this, but somehow...
I don't comment there on anything that has to do with Russia, Tulsi or how Nancy has got this! It's not worth getting banned because it wouldn't change anyone's minds there. Trump is bad as are the republicans and democrats are not. No matter what. It's just funny how they skip over the things that democrats have done or won't do and everything that is wrong with the country wasn't because of the democrats.
Ten minutes
scrolling through the comment boards of Breitbart or Zero Hedge will change your mind about the discourse here, I guarantee it.
Relax. Drink in the civility.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
OTOH
The message boards of Breitbart and Zero Hedge contain similar name calling and aspersion casting as can be seen here at times. I don't understand why the otherwise intelligent people on c99 feel a compulsion to label candidates with denigrating nicknames. It seems rather infantile.
infantile
Here's why: These people (the candidates) want to run all of our lives in various important ways. The denigrating nicknames are an ancient political tool to ask the honest and necessary question: "Do we want someone with this shortcoming bearing authority over us?" It is an occupational hazard of public political life (even the courts have said so). And yes, if one reads or writes on a free-speech blog with an honesty-based community, you will see these nicknames used. And you should see them. The blog's not doing its job if you don't see them.
Most occupations have associated hazards. When I repaired CRT-based TV sets, the biggest such hazard was the 30,000 volts DC in "The Big Red Wire" connected to a lone spot on the picture tube. I will give you this, edg: compared with the above discussed hazards faced by office seekers, I'll happily face that 30,000 volts any day of the week!
(That's a hazard that one almost never sees today as CRT TVs are dinosaurs.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I agree
and if nothing else some of those nicknames are pretty damn funny imo.
Me, too!
I just do not have a problem with casting aspersions on anybody that has no compunction with doing me harm.
What else do I have?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Exactly.
If someone wants to destroy you, your family and your whole world should you treat them with civility? Are THEY being civil to you? And when they laugh in your face while lying to you once again, apparently you are supposed to just take that, accept that is how the "real world" works and drive on, regardless of the damage that real world does to you or anyone you care about. Just accept that your very professional and rational betters know what's good for you whether you agree with that vision or not and get on board. One could almost say "love it or leave it" in that respect.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Exactly?
How are Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Yang, etc. seeking to destroy you and your whole world? I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.
Any centrist Democrat
who will not disavow our wars is, IN MY OPINION, working hand in hand with our owners to destroy this country and the entire globe, period. They have NO business at all talking about Trump while they not only go along with that but cheer it on. The idea that we can keep all the wars and have more perhaps while this country is hollowed out from within is toxic idiocy, and the truly sad part is it is talked about as the "real world" from which we cannot hope to deviate, at all. We're told we need to be pragmatic, not so demanding, and yes, extremely civil and professional while criticizing and we are not supposed to criticize too much either since that real world demands practicality, professionalism, and above all, tact. Civility.
That is how we got here, accepting incremental piece meal tweaks to policy and then watching even those become fully corrupted and in some ways worse than what they were supposed to solve, I'll just point to the ACA here as a small example of how "good" policy can go awry in the hands of our bought and sold politicians, but there are plenty more.
And so yes, while we are told to be practical, patient, that if we just try a bit harder to hold their feet to the fire we may finally get what we need, and if WE don't try hard enough, then that is our own fault as the idiotic American voter, real people get hurt over and over again. How many die while waiting, and I'm not just talking about healthcare or wars either. How many end up homeless due to staggering debt taken out for mere survival? How many ramifications are there for that waiting? Will the problems only get worse during that pragmatic patient wait? If the answer is to just keep waiting and waiting while people die waiting, then yes, our owners and those who work for them are destroying us, a little bit every day. While that may seem hyperbolic to us out here, I would be willing to bet for the people on the front lines of all that death, they could give two shits about what words you or I use, their lives have already been destroyed.
As one of gjohnsit's latest essays ended with, "if you're not angry, you're not paying attention" I am quite obviously extremely angry at what I see today. It gets harder every day to tamp that anger down while watching this circus of an election. As if it would change anything. Didn't Mark Twain say if it did they'd make it illegal? And how many years ago was that? As snoop would say, ooops, went off on a rant. So be it.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Thanks for responding.
I agree wholeheartedly with your anger at senseless wars. Democrats historically were the War Party -- Woodrow Wilson, WW1; Franklin Roosevelt, WW2, Harry Truman, Korea; JFK/LBJ, Vietnam. But then Vietnam protests happened, and Democrats became convinced that being antiwar was a great electoral strategy. Unfortunately, it didn't pan out, as Republicans clubbed them over the head as being wusses and unpatriotic. Thus were spawned tough guys Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, with their no-fly zones and execution by droning. And thus spawning the current Democratic Party, a group clawing itself to shreds to see who can take the title of biggest, badder warmonger of them all. None are immune; it's only a matter of degree.
Anger is warranted. Hopelessness may not be. I still hope that things will change. The world is changing. The days of the United States being the world's bully may come to an end sooner than the warmongers realize.
I guess that Princeton study
that showed the majority of people never get what they want in government policy. And have almost no effect on the direction our government takes. No matter who is in office.
But the oligarchs do.
And the planet is burning, and our wealth is being swept every upwards, never ending wars, and we are getting shot by our own police routinely. We can't afford food, shelter, or health care. And our taxes increased.
The elected officials that do absolutely nothing for the 99
% are actually responsible for our demise.
They can all kiss my ass, and if all I can do is make them the butt of a joke, a gallows humor, I intend to do that.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I can't go there.
I respect that you feel that way. But with depression and suicide being part of my family history, if I give up hope, I give up my reason to live. Why would I want to be part of such an awful world?
I am sorry this triggered ...things.
I am from that family that prepared to die every day. Nobody was depressed. All of us on were on a mission to make every day, possibly that last day, mean something.
Close, tight family of four.
Fight, die trying literally meant nothing to us.
It was what we were supposed to do. Just a thing.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
My reality.
My great-grandfather committed suicide. My uncle committed suicide. My cousin I was named after (Ed) committed suicide. My little brother committed suicide. My mother attempted twice. Not a suicide, but my big brother was murdered. I'm glad you had such a happy childhood. Not all of us did.
You have misunderstood.
You must have missed OTC's little bit of autobiography in the last week or two. It wasn't a happy childhood, it was almost literally a desperate one.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Perhaps
I don't know his background. I grew up in a housing project in Detroit. I was around gang members and killers and thieves and drug dealers until I was 17 and joined the Army. My father was an abusive SOB. Three of four of the boys in my family were drug or alcohol addicts. Three of four served time in prison. One was the president of a motorcycle gang and was murdered at age 20. Another laid down on railroad tracks, also at age 20, and was dismembered by a train. Also, typical litany of shoes with holes in the sole, hand-me-down clothing, yada yada. Yet I'm still an optimist. I really don't understand people that believe their current existence is in some dysfunctional, dystopian, zombie apocalyptic world. Sure, there's bad things. But focusing exclusively on the bad leads to madness or suicide in my family. YMMV.
What a curious conclusion to draw...
Why do you assume that because people who don't believe in the electoral process must also view "their current existence is in some dysfunctional, dystopian, zombie apocalyptic world."?
Life, as well as how we filter information in our life, is not an either/or proposition. Each of us can create value in this world in many different ways and live a fulfilling life. Just because I no longer have faith in the electoral process does not preclude me from adding value to the world around me and deriving immense satisfaction from my efforts.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Pages