Soon-to-be Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn
My, oh my, how things have changed.
Just to give you an idea, here's an example of some headlines from earlier this year.
April 19: Jeremy Corbyn 'likely to stay on' even if Labour suffers crushing election defeat
April 24: Is it too late to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader before the general election?
May 7: Stephen Hawking says Jeremy Corbyn ‘a disaster for Labour’ and should step down
Now consider yesterday's NY Times headline: Get Ready for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn
If you wanted to write a spoof of Britain’s Conservatives, you’d struggle to do a better job than the real version at the party’s half-empty annual conference this week in Manchester.
Things hit such train-wreck levels that even the stage fell apart — during a speech by Prime Minister Theresa May, the Conservatives’ leader, letters fell off the party’s latest lackluster slogan behind her. That was just the final slapstick touch to a disastrous address, during which Mrs. May struggled with a fading voice and a spluttering cough, and was pranked by a comedian who handed her a fake P45 — a termination of employment notice.
It was a fitting close to a conference that highlighted the extent to which the Conservatives are in free-fall, and the degree to which Mrs. May’s days as party leader are numbered.
It's one thing to be dismissed and mocked, but it's something else to be pitied.
By the end, you half expected someone to rush on and wrap her in a silver foil blanket, like a marathon runner half-dead with exhaustion. But at least May made the finish line, when at times during this extraordinary performance one wondered if she even could.
... The audience attempted to support her – bursting into unconvincing applause whenever they sensed she needed a moment to clear her throat – but no party wants to be pitied. When even your political opponents are rooting for you to pull yourself together, because it’s just too agonising to watch, it’s game over.
As if things weren't bad enough for Theresa May, the sign behind her started falling down https://t.co/wLnZPrd2wp pic.twitter.com/nbaJPrDBcF
— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) October 4, 2017
Wow. If this was a boxing match someone would be throwing a towel by now.
Tories were already in trouble in the polls, but the real clincher is how the rest of the world is already preparing for Corbyn's ascendency.
The EU is holding private talks with Jeremy Corbyn amid fears Theresa May's government could crumble at any minute, according to The Daily Telegraph.
Sources told the newspaper that there has been a "significant change in tone" in Europe's dealings with Labour amid fears that a collapse of the British government could take Brexit talks back to square one.
The Telegraph said Labour leader Corbyn and shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer have held more than one meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, and Frans Timmermans, the first vice president of the European Commission.
Obviously this cannot continue. May cannot appear to be a leader if the rest of the world is negotiating with Corbyn instead.
Meanwhile, Tories are in open rebellion.
Which brings up the question of how Corbyn has managed this stunning turn-around.
The answer can be summed up in one word: socialism.
The Legatum Institute, a thinktank, and Populus have found levels of support for nationalising large parts of the economy that would have been hard to believe a few years ago.
The big four industries in the sights of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell should all return to public ownership, according to a strong majority of respondents. Water topped the poll (83%), followed by electricity (77%), gas (77%) and the railways (76%).
Nationalisation fever also appears to be infectious. Royal Bank of Scotland, you might assume, is not a powerful advert for the delights of state ownership but the country is apparently evenly split on whether all banks should be nationalised.
Labour only has a small lead on the Tories in the polls, but that's all they need. Labour has natural coalition allies, such as SNP and Green.
Comments
This is great, but it's sad
This is great, but it's sad to compare to how Bernie didn't win in 2016 when we could really use it.
He was kneecapped by Billary.
And the Democrats would rather let Drumpfkopf and his gaggle of corporate goons run rough shod over what's left of 'Murica than allow an actual left-wing movement to have any say in anything.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
@The Aspie Corner No, the Democrats would
No, the Democrats would have picked Bernie over trump - but they picked Hillary over Bernie, making a big mistake.
I find it hard to believe that assertion
Why on earth would you think the Democratic party would prefer Sanders over Trump? Sanders threatens everything they stand for and their spot at the feeding trough. Trump provides a convenient idiot to mock and is otherwise largely ineffectual.
I have no doubts whatsoever that the Democratic party would much prefer to see the status quo continue under ANYONE than see it changed under anyone else.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC We strongly
We strongly disagree about the Democratic Party overall. Perhaps you should take a look at the polls of Democrats in their approval of Bernie and trump.
How much is Kos paying you to monitor us?
Seriously. Your talking points read just like those of the usual suspects at Orange State.
The Gentricratic party leadership would rather let assholes like the Drumpfkopf shit all over us than allow ANY SAY from the left whatsoever. They are intentionally weak. Even when they have the numbers and the voters behind them, they roll over and play fucking dead, all while telling us we have nowhere else to go.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
How'd you get that from that comment?
I saw it as a fairly straight-forward miscommunication. See my comment below.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@The Aspie Corner Your 'paid by
Your 'paid by dkos' comment is offensive both in terms of dishonesty and smearing.
I have an opinion of the Democrats - some good, some bad - I am a Democrat, in the progressive wing.
Maybe it doesn't agree with your opinion. It doesn't agree with some on dkos, either.
That doesn't justify your comment.
The 'progressive wing' is just a whipping boy
for right-wing enablers like Clinton and Harris. That goes double for their propaganda outlets like MSNBC.
You're better off walking away from the 2-party bullshit. Hell, I only registered Democrat last year to vote for Sanders in the primary. Never again.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
@The Aspie Corner The
The progressive wing in my opinion is our only practical hope for the people.
And that would happen
How exactly? By voting? How quaintly naive of you.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
What is the appeal --
of Democratic Party sectarianism? On the one hand it seems de rigueur for serious politics in the United States, but that's only because all of the "serious people" accept it as such. Why I don't know. A party that loses more than 1,000 legislative seats to the Republicans out of its agreed-upon collective unwillingness to say anything new ought not to be so popular.
There's a Green Party here in the US, but there's no Green Party database, nor is there any sort of Green Party internal democracy or any sort of financial connection between the Green Party apparatus and its candidates, who must run entirely on their own shoestring budgets. It wouldn't be hard for a tiny portion of the Democratic Party faithful to change registrations and set things right with the Green Party. But no such tiny portion of the Democratic Party exists, because all the Serious People in the Democratic Party are totally wedded to a party concept that is not only undemocratic, but actively conspires against its rank-and-file, from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Tom Perez.
A fair number of people here at C99%, therefore, have concluded that the "Sanders wing" (never mind "progressives," a term appearing empty of meaning), unlike the "Corbyn wing" of Labour in the UK, is not serious. I think it's fair to assume that until they show they're serious, they aren't.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus I guess
I guess you're happy to play a fringe role with no one in office, throwing eggs at both parties.
Did I say I was happy?
as for "fringe roles," well, there's Bernie Sanders, whose idea of running for President was that he was playing a "fringe role" within the Democratic Party (thus rendering himself harmless to the elites in power), and who seems rather content to play that same "fringe role" today.
Or maybe it's the Democratic Party itself that aspires to a "fringe role" in American politics, having lost more than 1,000 legislative seats (and now the Presidency) to the Republicans.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Basically we need a Parliamentary system
but how we get from "stuck on two-faced monopoly" to multi-party is something I'm not at all sure of. It may have to be done one Congressional district at a time, maybe even starting on a state/local level (cities electing non-duopoly mayors, etc). And it will take time - maybe more time than we have.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
One problem
is that there appear to be a fair number of Democrats out there who have not yet recognized that something is wrong, and they're perfectly happy with a Blue Dog in the White House, Republicans in charge everywhere else, and general regression toward climate change neofeudalism.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus
Well, that and mentally trapped in the Two-Party Trade-Off box, having been assured by the perps who want to keep them there that more than two parties can never work only in America, which is so exceptional that it can't manage universal health care or anything else the country actually needs either. A country and people deemed by The Psychopaths That Be to be only existing to be drained by the billionaires and corporate interests intent on global domination.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@TheOtherMaven
Need a Fair Vote system - that the corrupt parties will never pass, being too busy keeping non-corporate-party choice from the people...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Ok.
You voted for Clinton? You regret she didn't win? You do not concede she is all over the fiction of "Russia did it!" annihilation mongering?
Democrats sound better than Republicans. Except Hillary, who one ups them.
The person most likely to cause a nuke to drop on my ass is Hillary, not Trump.
The party I devoted 50 years of my life supporting seem to be all for that nuke drop.
It is what it is, Craig234.
You vote for a Democrat who said the nuking of Iran was a good policy, but Trumps' nuking of North Korea is nuts.
We have to stop this right left fight, and fight up and down.
Before we all get nuked.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
She also said that
Universal health care will never, ever happen here.
Yet people still were going to vote for her instead of Bernie who was actually trying to bring us the things that the democrats used to do.
Why did people say that he would never win? Maybe if enough people did vote for him, he might have won. This would have made it much harder for the DNC to rig the primary.
If a person has to cheat to win, what does that say about the person?
This is what I'll never understand. It wasn't just her Iraq war vote that made me not want to vote for her, it was that she said that she had made a mistake for voting for it after she spent years defending it. But after she admitted that, her actions while she was Secretary of State showed that she would probably vote for it again. She was the one who encouraged Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan. I have no idea what she thought more troops would accomplish after they hadn't accomplished anything during the previous years except that soldiers were killed for some unknown reasons.
Then she pushed for us to overthrow Gaddafi because they told us that we had to protect them from Gaddafi's troops and that they had been given Viagra so they could rape women. This was false. He might have come down hard on the people who were protesting, but could she or Obama throw stones? Nope. This was happening during the time OWS was protesting the banks. Look at this video and see her and Obama's hypocrisy!
Then after watching a video of Gaddafi being tortured and then sodomized by a sword, she clapped her hands and cackled with glee . This reaction should have been a reason to disqualify her from running for any position except menial labor.
I don't understand why she thought that
this was so damned funny!
@snoopydawg She
She sounds like a sociopath, and there's no good answer to why she found it so funny. I cited that video to Hillary supporters repeatedly in the primary.
She may be a tad angry with men.
Bill is quite the boy.
Khadaffi was sodomized by bayonet,iirc.
believe you hear him scream on tape. didn't play it again,
wonder if hrc played it over & over.
always good for a chuckle.
"squeals like a stuck pig, don't he, Huma?"
Actually people who are morally challenged
always seem to end up as the nominees of both parties.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Steven D
Yup, corporations like psychopaths for that reason; they'll do anything to anyone for personal profit with no compunction and sometimes just for fun. Great for profits, even if they tend to ultimately steal from and run down the business itself.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Steven D
Yup, corporations like psychopaths for that reason; they'll do anything to anyone for personal profit with no compunction and sometimes just for fun. Great for profits, even if they tend to ultimately steal from and run down the business itself.
Said C-99 took too long to respond. Hope this isn't a duplicate post...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@snoopydawg
It took the DNC to engage in massive voter suppression, rule-changes, whiting-out of ballots, uncounted votes with Hillary declared the winner in the corporate media - sometimes even before the vote was held, never mind finished - and endless cetera to prevent Bernie from officially and obviously winning.
The level of cheating was epic, outdoing even that of the Republicans in so many elections; Bernie won, it was just buried.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@on the cusp The answers
The answers to your questions are yes and yes. I'm critical of Hillary but greatly prefer to Republicans (so did Bernie, who you voted for like I did).
I both feel some relief she lost - but a much greater concern for trump having won.
Progressives always have an uphill battle, and we still do.
My mistake. I should've been more specific
I usually talk about the "Democratic electorate" vs. the "Democratic Party". My commentary was meant to apply to the party establishment. I fully believe the rank and file would prefer Bernie over Trump. Heck, they've worked themselves up into such a lather I suspect they'd prefer ANYONE over Trump. I know they've been rehabilitating Bush so I suspect they'd readily prefer Bush over Trump.
I just don't think that the party is much concerned with what it's electorate wants.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Truer words never spoken
After the Democratic Party changes its toxic, filth-encrusted name to something meaningful like the "Human Rights Party" — I look forward to helping them achieve their vision of a better society.
ANYONE over Trump!
Anyone with a working brain would prefer ANYONE over either major party candidate for President in 2016!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Hillary was
Hillary was my last choice over ANY Democratic candidate - Bernie, Martin, Lincoln, am I forgetting anyone - but I'd take her over any of the 17 Republicans who ran, easily.
Why not vote
third party? Once Bernie was cheated out of the nomination, why stick with the duopoly? Her heinous is much worse than the 17 rethugs that were running, still. She keeps proving that every day. She keeps proving it with every book she writes, every speech she gives, or on every interview. If you cannot acknowledge that, you are not interested in real change.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
@Raggedy Ann If you
If you think Hillary was worse than the 17 Republican candidates, we disagree strongly. If you have criticisms of her but understand they're worse, we'd agree.
Trump is awful
but do you think that progressives would be mobilized today like they are if Hillary was in charge?
Not likely.
They sure weren't mobilized
when Obama was President -- they lost more than 1,000 legislative seats and nobody said anything.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@gjohnsit No. I
No. I think there is something to the backlash issue - but that it doesn't make it worth it.
We should make the most of the backlash - but we'd be better with a president who did not support taking healthcare from 25 million, withdraw from Paris, back more tax cuts for the rich, etc.
There's a misconception about backlash. When Humphrey narrowly to Nixon in 1968 and Nixon extended the Vietnam war by years (by committing treason as a candidate to block peace), the nation did not respond by turning back to a progressive the next election - McGovern - they handed Nixon a historic re-election from 49 states, and Nixon did a lot to get us started allowing money in politics.
Reagan didn't get us a backlash - he also got a 49 state re-election and has helped the country move to the right ever since, helping give us a more Republican-like Democratic Party and the radical right we have today, with the Grover Norquist politics still dominating the party, taking the country back to record inequality.
We'd be better even with Hillary - and Bernie knew that as well.
The responsible sat on their hands and did nothing
while legislature after legislature went from Democrat to Republican. All the nice Democrats were okay with this because there was a Democrat in the White House. It was a record-setting shift in power, and today there are all of six states (out of 50) with Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures.
That's what being "better off with a Democrat in the White House" really means.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus I
I strongly disagree with that. There are a lot of reasons why the Republicans are winning so much that are not that the Democrats are ok with it.
Billions spent on propaganda, a right-wing media system that's very powerful compared to a basically non-existent media presence on the other side (some great niche sources), Gerrymandering, voter suppression, weak leadership from the party on some of this, the sad effectiveness of Republican obstructionism in damaging Democrats politically, unlimited money in elections, and more.
@Craig234
Plus sometimes either no Dems running in Republican-held areas or little to no support from the Party when one does...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Ellen North I
I agree with that as well. I understand the idea of spending more heavily where it will make the most difference, but not abandoning so much of the country.
No, actually they're OK with it.
No, actually the Democrats liked things just fine as long as the "omigod first Black President" offered them the sort of symbolic fig leaf that adequately worked to cover their actual right-wing politics. I've looked through the other comments here, and it looks like people here are willing to challenge the actual right-wing politics of Democratic Party advocates, not just me. And you may have noticed that this comment of mine has gotten more than thirty "likes."
Nice Democrats like to say "omigod the Koch brothers!" when I mention their record-setting "losses" under Obama ("losses" is in scare quotes because the Democrats don't really care; who needs lower-class America when you have Silicon Valley, Beverly Hills, and the Hamptons?) But such arguments don't have very sturdy fig leaves. The Democrats in fact have more money than the Republicans; Clinton outraised and outspent Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. Rich people's money, moreover, doesn't buy elections -- it took election fraud to buy the primaries for Clinton as against a few $27 donations to Sanders, whereas the Koch millions didn't buy anything for Jeb Bush as against Donald Trump.
Media isn't an excuse -- the Dems have MSNBC as against the Republican Fox. Gerrymandering wouldn't have been a problem if the Democrats had bothered to stand for something in 2010, and wasn't a Republican advantage in 2008 when the Democrats took advantage of Republican weakness, nor in 2010, when the Reps won about 700 legislative seats.
This is like the big game here at c99%. Democrats put up tidy-looking fig leaves which are supposed to substitute for argument, and the rest of us spend our time tearing them down. Such a phenomenon points to another real reason for record-setting Democrat losses: the Democrats are not "for real." The idea of sincere dialogue (at least along the lines laid out theoretically at the beginning of Jurgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action) is as foreign to them as that war in Afghanistan they continue to cheerlead. Instead, arguments serve them as fig leaves so that Democrats can continue to "look progressive" while in deed they support what are essentially Republican political aims.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
37 likes
To your comment, which in addition to addressing the question of why we have Das Pumpkinfuhrer as President, also gives context to why so many former Democratic voters on c99 don't believe a fucking word the Democrats say anymore.
Thank you for articulating an argument that most of us here already "get". How unfortunate that we have to revisit the same tedious fig leaf "arguments" I thought we left behind over at TOP.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
It was just an awful choice that was forced on us
Obviously we can't know what a Hillary Presidency would have been like. I do know that Trump is awful. Every day there's more awfulness. Today it was Trump telling Pence to go to a football game and then to walk out when the players started kneeling, A totally fake and disgusting twisting of the narrative of what these player protests are about. Who the f**k knows what the awful thing tomorrow is going to be. Is it going to be the end of "the quiet before the storm"?. Is it going to be another outrage against people's healthcare? This is going to get worse and worse. I'm just hoping that because oligarchy has a face with the Trump administration, that after this awfulness has passed there will be a lot more enlightened and less gullible people. Maybe this is just necessary for us to learn and would have been delayed under a Hillary admin. But I think I would prefer Weimar over the Nazis.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@Timmethy2.0 I hope
I hope the backlash happens and is powerful. But history says that is a very dangerous and foolish game to play - that it usually strengthens the bad side.
That's what this lady said on a recent Tim Black show
She's saying that unless we get serious about fighting Trump instead of getting so wrapped up in the DNC shenanigans, we are doomed to repeat some uglier episodes of history.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLvWAM7UG7g]
Beware the bullshit factories.
Short-sighted strategy
Trump is the biggest symptom of everything that's wrong - he's not the problem by himself. Stalemate or get rid of him, and you'll just have the same (or worse) problems with different faces.
The DNC would LOVE it if everybody went after Trump and left them alone to finish their demolition of the democratic process.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Heh... Fighting Trump?
Why on earth would I need to fight Trump? He is a clown. He's barely competent to tweet much less accomplish anything as President. Sure, I suppose in some senses he is my enemy but he's certainly not worthy of much attention when the plutocrats represent a much more imminent and credible threat.
Anyone who thinks I need to focus on resisting Trump seems to be lost in the matrix war between Democrat and Republican. I'm more interested in the real war between 99% and 1%.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
They said similar things about Hitler and Mussolini
I've been watching Trump supporters in my neighborhood, in liberal Oakland, and there is some serious brainwashing going on. One friend who I've known for a long time, has changed drastically and now spouts these ridiculous things in a Trump like way that makes no sense. Just like Trump, he's trying to get visceral reactions from people, just to be an asshole. A friend of friend apparently has a higher up job in a federal regulating agency. He spouts Nazi shit and praises Hitler. According to the lady in the interview that I posted above (who was a Jill Stein supporter) there is an organized effort going on all over the Country and probably using big data, to get people into these information islands where they can not see anything but how right Trump is. The guy I was referring to above, told me the other day that Trump is God.
Beware the bullshit factories.
It was an awful choice
Forced upon us by Hillary & Co. herself. As in the one who held the gun to our heads after hatching the monster into being. Das Pumpkinfuhrer as President is simply a manifestation of the rotting carcass of our "democracy". That he is also a gas bag buffoon on the world stage representing our country seems darkly appropriate because it mirrors the farce of it all splendidly.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
The Clinton's plans backfired
I think we need to take more seriously the danger at hand created by that. If we don't deal with the current reality, regardless of how it came to be, we are not being realistic.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Deal with it?
How? By voting? And you consider that as being realistic?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I think getting completely behind Our Revolution
And the candidates that are put forward as well as the DSA and Democratic candidates they put forward and, yes, voting and being as vigilant as we can about watching the election process is one of our only options, unless, for instance, Jill Stein gets massively popular. Also, there are plenty of non-evil and even good Democratic politicians such as Barbara Lee and Tulsi Gabbard. I know this is going to get a rise out of people here, but I think Obama was a much better President than Trump. We were going over a economic cliff when Obama came in and he did pull us back. If not for Obamacare, probably a majority of Americans would still think that insurance companies controlling our health care is a proper thing that only communists would question. Just look at all the positive Obama things Trump is dismantling. Today, when the air here in Oakland is choking with smells from the massive fires (probably due to cliamte change), EPA Don, Scott Pruitt is dismantling Obama's clean power initiative. When tensions with North Korea are bringing us to the brink of nuclear war, Trump is trying to scuttle Obama's Iran nuclear deal. And the Paris climate treaty and other good things Obama has done. I blame Hillary for the Libya bullshit, more than Obama. The all or nothing mentality could kill us.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Since you edited your original reply
I'll answer the OP where you suggest we get behind "Our Revolution" and vote for legislators who represent progressive policies (ignoring the fact that any ostensible "people empowered" organization that BRANDS the word REVOLUTION in their marketing moniker, probably isn't), bypassing your added comments where you qualify the damage of Obama's presidency.
I'll begin by saying that you seem like a nice person. So, maybe you think it isn't polite to talk about the election fraud that was committed in last years election? Or maybe you're of the belief that there was no election fraud. Or maybe you believe that there might've been election fraud but since there was no "proof", you continue to believe the electoral process is intact enough for your vote to count.
I am under no such delusions. While I believe election fraud has likely been a factor in tight races, both locally and nationally for many years, I believe that the scope of election fraud and computer hacking reached its apex in the 2016 election. The nail in the coffin being when Obama signed over the entire electoral process to the Department of Homeland Security to oversee in the future.
Let that sink in for a minute...
The Department of Homeland Security will have control of all the polling places, election machines, voter databases, and all other information technology. No independent audits, then? How can any of us possibly reconcile this with any plan to move forward with or without "Our Revolution"?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I don't know how you can think this:
First of all, no one is going to rise against your opinion, and secondly if folks here had to choose, most would concur.
I certainly agree that Obama was far better. I appreciated the fact that he didn't nuke Syria after that sarin gas bomb false flag the Deep State tried to pull on him in 2013. He never again drew a red line in the sand. He was a frickin' fool for letting Hillary drag him into Syria in the first place, after her covert gun-running operation out of Libya blew up. But he did resist the Neocons once in awhile.
Folk's strong feelings about Obama come from the bitterness of his betrayal of their values, and his sociopathic disregard for human life outside of the US. Some globalist he is. Politics are fraught with emotion. This is all going to morph into something completely different, and it too shall pass.
I guess I don't really think that
I'm sorry I woke up on the bad side of the bed this morning and all the smoke from the fires around here was getting to me.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@Anja Geitz
Rather like a cruder version of that laughable buffoon, the Vice-President Dick Cheney/PTB-run President Bush 2, each successive US administration crushing more, and more freely, with the spikes on the initially less-noticeable-by-most jackboots sharpened by the exercise of every further step in the incremental PTB's plan.
And now - surprise! - Dick Cheney is advising the Trump administration and mentoring acolyte Pence, who wishes to model his Vice Presidency on Cheney's. They do like to recycle their tactics, don't they?
President Hillary would have 'gotten things done' far faster, of course, being one of the Nutty Global Take-over Club members from back when and having already received payment from billionaire donors to do Her warhawk number all over various targeted and fossil-fuel rich countries... and going by some comments forming a satirical article in Haim Saban's election-ready-acquired investment in The Onion, (he evidently using it as a proxy Hillary-related voice, using a flattering angle prior to Her loss,) at least one of those super-donors was a mite POed with Her for not being able to immediately bring Bibi into close consultation on policy advice, as promised...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I derive too much satisfaction than I know I should
At the thought of Hillary's face when she knew she lost to a pussy grabbing douchebag. But there it is. The Onion should really spoof HER at that moment when she pointed the blackmail gun to our heads and we said, "go ahead, you arrogant sociopathic liar, pull the trigger".
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
OK, though --
about 1% of them voted for Jill Stein, the superior candidate.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
there you go
@SnappleBC Yes, I posted,
Yes, I posted, I thought about the same distinction between the party leadership and the voters, and how the answer is different, but I responded to what you seemed to have posted.
I could have answered for each as well to be clearer.
I think we're largely in agreement then - while I still would say even the leadership would strongly prefer Bernie to trump mostly, I think they are very hostile to Bernie generally.
That's to be expected when our current system has gotten so corrupted.
It's both parties that have had to spend half the time of their members in Congress dialing for dollars - even if the Democrats aren't AS bad in some of who they dial, e.g., labor.
*nod* You are clearly more optimistic about the leadership
... than I am. I see them as corrupt through and through. To me, their behavior during the primaries so clearly demonstrates that that it is simply an article of faith with me now. If you still think that there might be some actual civic-mindedness somewhere in the Democratic leadership then more power to you. That means you probably align pretty well with groups like Justice Democrats.
Me? I go with Gilens & Page. Systemic corruption is systemic.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC I'm not
I'm not sure about being optimistic about the leadership, but I think voting them out if they don't do the right thing is our best shot.
They already haven't done the right thing.
And for their efforts they've lost more than 1,000 legislative seats to the Republicans under Obama. Their only remaining selling point -- one with maybe a little credibility now -- is they're "better than the Republicans."
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus And I'd
And I'd like to see more centrist Democrats replaced with progressives. And when enough are, they can change the leadership as needed.
Not gonna happen as long as the DNC has any say
We need to get rid of them, and the Clintons, and all the phony-baloney Pseudocrats - and they'll have to be forced out.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
polls of Democrats
And perhaps you should take a look at what successfully "elected" Democratic politicians actually do and compare it with what those selfsame polls clearly show Democratic voters want. I assure you, the contrast is day-and-night (with the pols definitely aligned to night!).
Most of us here have "DemExited". In most cases, the Dems left us first. We don't vote RePIG of any sort, whether it be Turd Way Clintonite "Democratic" RePIG Lite, or Trump/Ryan/McConnell RePIG Full Flavor. The Democratic Party many of us believed in as younger folks, the Democratic Party of the New Deal and the Great Society, is deader than door nails today, while Turd Way RePIG Lite rules the Democratic National Committee roost.
Those of us who ever were Democrats, myself included, insisted that Democratic politicians actually lived and worked as democrats (please note capitalization!). Those days have long gone, with exceptions so rare they make mention here at c99 because they are newsworthy. And we're not happy about it.
The main difference between us is that you haven't come to the breaking point yet. But if your political alignment is what you crack it up to be, you will.
Count on it.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides As I've said
As I've said before, I see a couple basic questions:
1. As bad as the dominant centrist faction of the Democratic Party is, is is still clearly better
than the Republican factions?
I don't get into that right now - I suspect feathers would fly.
2. More relevantly, is the way to get progressives elected more effectively through a third-party effort, or through trying to 'take over' the Democratic Party?
On that one, I don't see people with different opinions as 'villains', but I do think some who want good things can unwittingly be hurting the chances of winning.
I happen to have decided the takeover approach has a far better chance and the other is nearly impossible.
Without getting into a big discussion why, one big reason is simply the split the vote issue.
As a third party grew - and obviously it'd have to grow to win - most of its votes would come from the Democrats, splitting the vote, handing elections to Republicans.
Republicans could win with 40% of the vote with the rest split between progressives and Republicans of 15-35, 30-30, 35-15... they'd have to get enough votes to beat BOTH major parties.
An analogy from history I've mentioned before on how hard this is, is how FDR's VP Henry Wallace Wallace went from being the #2 man in American politics in terms of not only office but fame and popularity, the clear first choice of the American people to follow FDR, to where the next election after the Democratic leadership forced him off the ticket, he ran as the nominee of the Progressive Party. And it sounds pretty damned good especially for 1948 - from Wikipedia:
And - he got 2.4% of the vote and zero electoral votes (he came in fourth after racist Strom Thurmond).
In other words, great candidate for the country - terrible result in the election.
But people who argue about which approach is better should remember they agree on wanting a progressive to win and not attack each other excessively for disagreeing on that.
In the 2016 primary I felt Hillary supporters were making a historic mistake in costing us the chance to elect Bernie and told them that, but respected their right and that they were doing what they thought is right. The same would apply to this disagreement over whether to try to take over the Democratic Party or to go third party - even if the wrong choice could cost us the elections but is made by people who are doing what they think is right.
I see them as mutually supportive
In my mind there is zero hope of an internal takeover without external pressure for change. That pressure can only come in the form of losing elections since they don't really need anything else from me but my vote. So I see myself as applying that pressure. I see people like you as providing one possible path for relief. It's not the path I think most likely but it is a path. Either way though, the institution is going to need to break before it can be reformed -- either internally or externally.
Insofar as lesser of two evils, that thought pattern only works for me when you have a slightly evil vs. a heavily evil choice. When you have two INCREDIBLY EVIL choices then neither choice is anything other than evil. At that point, I feel compelled to start searching for other solutions.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC I think
I think history shows us that Democrats losing elections only strengthens the Republicans, rather than fixing the Democrats.
I am horrified by some things about a Hillary presidency, but find her a thousand times better than a trump presidency for reasons I've summarized before.
There's no convincing people against their will
If you stop trying, so will we.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
History does show that
Which is why I believe the party must be totally razed and replaced with a new one. These people have power and money right now. They will NOT relinquish that. They would much prefer to ride the entire Republic down into the waves than give up even 10% of their privilege and power. They are sociopathic monsters. I'm not sure how you intend to reform them or work with them but good luck. You'll need it because, as 2016 showed us, you can't even work within their rules to implement change because they will cheat.
That all being said, I completely agree that the political calculus of repair/replace is complex. It's too bad in my mind that so many are so wed to the Democratic party since that draws off the strength we need to just make a new party which doesn't have these problems. But I'm sure you see it from the other way around. In the end, that division may be the thing which empowers Republicans. And therein lies the other difference between you and I. I don't see the Democrats as substantially better. As people die in droves, they just put a nicer face on it.
Good luck in your efforts. I think they are misguided and I'll be working aggressively to counter your efforts since I'm trying to draw votes away from Democrats to the Green party. But still, if you succeed then I win so I'm all in favor of your success. I just think you cannot win because you don't really know your enemy.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
What SnappleBC said.
Since they enable each other, this isn't a real choice. The Republican Party didn't need the help of the c99% faithful to win more than 1,000 legislative seats from the Democrats under Obama. Since this isn't a real choice, no, no feathers are going to fly.
You are trying to terrify us with the "prospect" of a phenomenon that has already happened. The elections have already been handed to the Republicans. The only thing that didn't happen was that nobody created a party to stand up for the public interest to "split" some vote that at present isn't being cast for any candidate at all.
This, then, is the idea of a "Third Party" -- picking up Democrats will change nothing, while at the same time there is an enormous bloc of former voters to be courted.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Cassiodorus If you were
If you were right that the non-voters would rise up for a progressive candidate and they'd defeat both the Democrat and Republican - great.
Where's the evidence of that being remotely possible rather than the vote-splitting helping the Republicans, which is what the evidence points to?
I'm not trying to scare you; I'm trying to identify the way progressives can win.
Non-voters rose up for
Obama - only to be shown he was a neoliberal and not a progressive, and they voted for Bernie only for it to be stolen by her heinous. You really don't get it. The system will have to be taken down. There's no fixing this one.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
@Raggedy Ann I
I always suspected Obama of being a centrist with phony marketing, and feel I was proven right. Hillary obviously the same on that.
But there is no 'tearing down the system' as a solution. The solution remains to win elections and try to fix the systemic issues.
The right has been effective at getting things like money in politics locked in by a corrupt Supreme Court. 'Tearing down the system' means what exactly?
Starting over.
Don't play dumb. You are using dkos tactics.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
@Raggedy Ann
That's a very poor quality post - and a smear.
Try to discuss the issues - rationally.
It's difficult
to be rational with someone as irrational as you, Craig.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Heh... take a deep breath
You're running into the one area of serious bias on C99 and you can expect critical thinking skills to... suffer. Take heart, on DKOS you'd be banned and here people just get testy.
That being said, I agree with RA's assessment. The things you are worrying about have already happened. People haven't done anything different because they are confused and lost and subjected to the 24/7 propaganda that tells them they can't do anything. You know, it's a two party system and doing anything else is "wasting your vote" right? So instead, they give up on politics entirely and seek to save themselves and their family (direct from my two son's mouths by the way).
You're asking where are these people and why aren't they "rising up". The answer is that we are trying but it takes time to sort through the miasma of lies cast by the entrenched parties and then it takes time to formulate a new nation-wide party and then it takes time to beat the zillion hurdles that the two parties have put in place to protect their own power and privilege. Surely you don't think the Democratic party believes in Democracy, right?
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
have to side with Craig234 here.
I heard a lot of "burn the mother****er down" talk back in the day.
I am as destructive as the next guy,and want to help, but I still don't know what to do. So "how" looks like a fair question to me.
btw,I am not playing dumb- this is what you get.
I personally could never vote for HRC, voted Green in 2016 first time.
!% from the 99%!
Do we do the same in 2020? I don't think we have all the answers here.
Indeed - we are all entitled to our opinions.
Thank you for yours.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
snark ?
hard to say. anyway.
my opinion is that the dem chiefs do not want to give an inch to progressive wing.
this seems to be a matter of donor money, rather than philosophy.
can they be taken down and the party reformed? I don't know.
will there arise any credible alternative? I voted for Stein and would do it again, but we achieved nothing that I can see.
people talk about going past the electoral process, but law will be made by those elected to congress, imo. Do not think people are ready to chuck the constitution.
so it seems we either have to elect people we can trust or find a way to pressure the corrupt into doing the right things.
"the system must be taken down" alone means nothing more than the situation is intolerable.
I agree with that, but it does not help me.
Is craig234 a fake? I don't know. maybe I give people too much credit. not a biggie.
Vote in 2020?
You say that as if our votes will actually count. I hold no such assumptions.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Voting seems to be working for Jeremy Corbyn
Who is taking over an establishment party.
Beware the bullshit factories.
You do know that
Britain isn't the U.S, right?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz
Thank you for yet again saving me making a comment!
... oh, wait... never mind!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
we do pretty well here, imo.
@irishking Good to
Good to hear:) I've seen a little 'you are paid' garbage sadly, not much.
@SnappleBC
Not so much ineffectual. Pushing policies that please both their masters.
Pages