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.

theresa may protestor.jpg
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.

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.

up
39 users have voted.

Comments

This is great, but it's sad to compare to how Bernie didn't win in 2016 when we could really use it.

up
19 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

@Craig234 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.

up
30 users have voted.

@The Aspie Corner No, the Democrats would have picked Bernie over trump - but they picked Hillary over Bernie, making a big mistake.

up
0 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

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.

up
23 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@SnappleBC 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.

up
1 user has voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

@Craig234 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.

up
11 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@The Aspie Corner

I saw it as a fairly straight-forward miscommunication. See my comment below.

up
2 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@The Aspie Corner 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.

up
0 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

@Craig234 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.

up
9 users have voted.

@The Aspie Corner The progressive wing in my opinion is our only practical hope for the people.

up
2 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@Craig234

How exactly? By voting? How quaintly naive of you.

up
5 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 @Craig234 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.

up
7 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus I guess you're happy to play a fringe role with no one in office, throwing eggs at both parties.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 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.

up
7 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

TheOtherMaven's picture

@Cassiodorus
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. Sad

up
6 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Cassiodorus's picture

@TheOtherMaven 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.

up
4 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@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.

up
1 user has voted.

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...

up
1 user has voted.

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.

@Craig234 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.

up
11 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@on the cusp

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.

up
14 users have voted.

good grief

snoopydawg's picture

@snoopydawg

this was so damned funny!

up
11 users have voted.

good grief

@snoopydawg 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.

up
3 users have voted.

@snoopydawg

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?"

up
2 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@snoopydawg always seem to end up as the nominees of both parties.

up
4 users have voted.

"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.

up
3 users have voted.

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...

up
1 user has voted.

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.

up
4 users have voted.

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 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.

up
2 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

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.

up
19 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

Pluto's Republic's picture

@SnappleBC

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.

up
10 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@SnappleBC

Heck, they've worked themselves up into such a lather I suspect they'd prefer ANYONE over Trump.

Anyone with a working brain would prefer ANYONE over either major party candidate for President in 2016!

"Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? I don't know about you, but I'm Grateful I'm Dead! Give me baby disputes any day of the week!"
-- Solomon ben David, King of Israel

Wink

up
6 users have voted.

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides 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.

up
1 user has voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
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.

up
6 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Raggedy Ann 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.

up
0 users have voted.

@Craig234
but do you think that progressives would be mobilized today like they are if Hillary was in charge?

Not likely.

up
6 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@gjohnsit when Obama was President -- they lost more than 1,000 legislative seats and nobody said anything.

up
5 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@gjohnsit 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.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 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.

up
6 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus 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.

up
1 user has voted.

@Craig234

Plus sometimes either no Dems running in Republican-held areas or little to no support from the Party when one does...

up
4 users have voted.

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 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.

up
1 user has voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234

There are a lot of reasons why the Republicans are winning so much that are not that the Democrats are 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.

up
6 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

zoebear's picture

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus

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.

up
5 users have voted.

@gjohnsit
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.

up
3 users have voted.

@Timmethy2.0 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.

up
2 users have voted.

@Craig234 @Craig234

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.

up
1 user has voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@Timmethy2.0

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.

up
8 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

SnappleBC's picture

@Timmethy2.0

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%.

up
5 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@SnappleBC @SnappleBC

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.

up
2 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@Timmethy2.0 @Timmethy2.0

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.

up
5 users have voted.

@zoebear @zoebear

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.

up
1 user has voted.
zoebear's picture

@Timmethy2.0

How? By voting? And you consider that as being realistic?

up
3 users have voted.

@zoebear @zoebear @zoebear

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.

up
1 user has voted.
zoebear's picture

@Timmethy2.0

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"?

up
3 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Timmethy2.0

I know this is going to get a rise out of people here, but I think Obama was a much better President than Trump.

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.

up
3 users have voted.

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic

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.

up
3 users have voted.

@zoebear

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.

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...

up
3 users have voted.

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.

zoebear's picture

@Ellen North

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".

up
3 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@thanatokephaloides

Anyone with a working brain would prefer ANYONE over either major party candidate for President in 2016!

about 1% of them voted for Jill Stein, the superior candidate.

up
8 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@SnappleBC

"Democratic electorate" vs. the "Democratic Party"

up
4 users have voted.

@SnappleBC 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.

up
2 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

... 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.

up
10 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@SnappleBC 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.

up
1 user has voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 @Craig234 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."

up
8 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus And I'd like to see more centrist Democrats replaced with progressives. And when enough are, they can change the leadership as needed.

up
1 user has voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@Craig234

We need to get rid of them, and the Clintons, and all the phony-baloney Pseudocrats - and they'll have to be forced out.

up
4 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Craig234

@SnappleBC 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.

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.

up
18 users have voted.

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

@thanatokephaloides 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:

Wallace left his editorship position in 1948 to make an unsuccessful run as the Progressive Party's presidential candidate in the 1948 U.S. presidential election... his platform advocated universal government health insurance, an end to the nascent Cold War, full voting rights for black Americans, and an end to segregation. His campaign included African American candidates campaigning alongside white candidates in the segregated South...

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.

up
2 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

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.

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.

up
12 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@SnappleBC 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.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@Craig234

If you stop trying, so will we.

up
3 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

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.

up
3 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 @Craig234

As bad as the dominant centrist faction of the Democratic Party is, is is still clearly better than the Republican factions?

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.

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.

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.

up
11 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus 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.

up
1 user has voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
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.

up
9 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Raggedy Ann 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?

up
0 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
Don't play dumb. You are using dkos tactics.

up
4 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Raggedy Ann That's a very poor quality post - and a smear.

Try to discuss the issues - rationally.

up
0 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
to be rational with someone as irrational as you, Craig.

up
1 user has voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

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?

up
4 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@Raggedy Ann

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.

up
1 user has voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@irishking
Thank you for yours.

up
4 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Raggedy Ann

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.

up
2 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@irishking

You say that as if our votes will actually count. I hold no such assumptions.

up
2 users have voted.

@zoebear

Who is taking over an establishment party.

up
1 user has voted.
zoebear's picture

@Timmethy2.0

Britain isn't the U.S, right?

up
3 users have voted.

@zoebear

Thank you for yet again saving me making a comment!

... oh, wait... never mind!

up
1 user has voted.

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.

@Craig234

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.

up
4 users have voted.

@irishking Good to hear:) I've seen a little 'you are paid' garbage sadly, not much.

up
1 user has voted.

@SnappleBC
Not so much ineffectual. Pushing policies that please both their masters.

up
2 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Craig234

to make sure that Hillary would be the nominee, not Bernie. Oh wait. The DNC has even admitted that they did that.
Sigh.

up
14 users have voted.

good grief

@snoopydawg

And in court the DNC claimed a perfect right to electorally cheat their membership and American voters in general, as one of two privately owned parties selecting the 'choices' for which Americans are generously permitted to vote to fill public office in their 'democracy'.

I do not think that that last word means what they seem to think it means...

up
12 users have voted.

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 To be fair, legally it seems they have a point - and also to be fair, it's worth nothing how much worse it used to be, before JFK made the primaries the norm for choosing the nominee.

But it does leave the noxious remains of the party leadership getting to put their thumb on the scale during the primary - in addition to the massive thumb of the money that's gone up so much.

up
3 users have voted.

@Craig234

Personally, I'd say not subverting democracy and meddling with the American people's elections would be fair, especially since both parties do it.

How is it that privately owned parties are permitted to control who the American public 'votes for' in a 'democratic election' while still claiming to respect democracy? And why should the American people stand for any more of this unconstitutional nonsense?

up
16 users have voted.

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 The answer, Ellen, is that it's because our system allows groups to organize.

The party doesn't 'determine' how the people vote, but they have some influence.

You didn't respond to a point I made, that at least it's improved from the days the party bosses simply chose the nominee for the people, until JFK did an end run using the primaries.

No one makes any voter support any party - you can start your own party if you want.

But there are simply benefits to organizing, and the two main parties reap those benefits.

And there aren't really great alternatives, though there are some improvements.

For example, California had an exception process where we had an 'open election' for governor after a corrupt recall - and over 100 candidates ran and split the vote every which way and the winner was the terrible but famous Arnold Schwarzeneggar. And before you take too much comfort from it being a one-off, this leading progressive state re-elected him to our shame.

These are problems in our system - trump obviously wouldn't have had a chance without his tv show and decades of media attention.

Those are things that are broken far more than and beyond any party leadership influence on things like debate scheduling.

up
2 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
Craig, the system cannot be fixed. It can only be replaced. That will only come about with upheaval. There is no chance of working within the system as much as you'd like to try and convince us. You efforts only show me how broken the system really is and how much it really needs to be replaced. You are here with the same lame arguments made at sites like TOP, of which we are refugees. We're beyond those arguments and you validate our position quite well.

up
8 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Raggedy Ann @Raggedy Ann I don't know what TOP is, but ok, we each think the other's plan won't work. Hopefully that split won't prevent something from working.

You get a progressive doing well enough third party to not just split the vote and I expect I'll support them. And if we get a progressive running as a Democrat hopefully you support them.

If we get an election like Hillary-trump again, it sounds like you prefer voting for neither to try to break things as much as possible to bring change - we probably won't agree on that scenario.

up
1 user has voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Craig234
Now you are understanding.

up
5 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

@Craig234

on the other hand, this is heaven.

c99
at the blue water pool
where truth is the rule
fools come to be schooled
all is kept cool
and everyone plays in the water.

up
5 users have voted.

@irishking

Nice!

up
3 users have voted.

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.

@irishking Thanks for the smile and the definition of top.

up
3 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234

But you should know that it's HARD. Because they run as a Democrat I have to assume that they are either now corrupt or will be corrupted shortly upon winning. So therefor I have to look at their back-story and character in GREAT detail and that takes a lot of time. Certainly the seal of approval from some group like JusticeDemocrats is not nearly enough. So yes, I would in theory support a progressive Democrat but in fact, I haven't done so since the 2016 elections when I supported Sanders and a few Berniecrats.

If you think you've got a winner, I can only suggest you remember that the people you need to sell are going to be very skeptical -- particularly after Obama. Harris is going to damage your cause quite a bit. So you need to prepare you're sales pitch thoroughly and it needs to be thoroughly documented with independently verifiable evidence. Things like, "Endorsed by " won't help. Facts, voting patterns, actual life deeds -- that's all I care about.

up
2 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

Pluto's Republic's picture

@Craig234

His television show and decades of media attention meant nothing compared to the gift the Democrats gave him: an opponent with massive negatives, even in her own party. The Democratic Party handed the Presidency to Donald Trump.

I do agree with your other points, though. The Primary is a straw poll. The outcome is not binding on who the Party selects as a candidate. It has always been this way and I don't believe there is a charter that says otherwise. Legally, the Party is not connected to the government, although the government picks up some of their membership polling costs. The Primary race is described as a "poll to ascertain voter preferences" before the Party officials make their selection. This reality is not popular, however, here or anywhere else.

...at least it's improved from the days the party bosses simply chose the nominee for the people...

Not terribly improved. Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line. I prefer it when the Bosses act without their proxies and henchmen. The Super Delegate kabuki is something of an intellectual insult.

Some of your arguments seem to assume that c99 was deeply committed to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, but that is just not the case. Such sites exist, but this is not one of them. This site's founders and moderators say that this is a non-partisan community. There is no top-down political philosophy or shared ideology here and there were no endorsements or voting guidelines leading up to the 2016 election. People here voted for a wide range of candidates. I'm sure quite a few voted for Hillary, for the reasons you suggest. And some didn't vote at all.

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.

I don't think feathers would fly. The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it.

That being said, maybe a few feathers might fly Wink

up
6 users have voted.

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic Hi Pluto, a lot of points to respond to. (It'd be easier if I could still see your post while I reply instead of having to find it again and scroll back and forth).

I agree with you that Hillary was an especially disliked candidate with the general electorate - the second most disliked apparently in modern history after trump.

It was a case of popular within the party (first woman president, experienced, etc.), and not without - sort of like Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972.

Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line.

This needs some clarification. As was noted last election, the Superdelegates have never overridden the voters. This doesn't make them a non-issue, but it is important to include in the topic.

You mentioned this to support a point that things aren't that improved from when the party bosses picked nominees, and I don't think that's the case.

There's still plenty to object to about Super-delegates, but it'd be wrong to imply they regularly ride roughshod over the voters when it hasn't happened.

I don't know the legal details of what all the party has the legal right to do on this, but as I understand things did take a big change toward the democratic when John Kennedy wanted to run and didn't want the bosses picking, and he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states on his airplane building support with local party officials and then he used the primaries to secure delegates which has been the norm ever since.

I did not mean to imply c99 was 'deeply committed to' or endorsed Bernie's candidacy. I suspect many people supported him, not all. I'd guess more than most sites. I wasn't reading the site then.

The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it.

I consider myself an opponent of those 'centrists' within the party, but it didn't help the clarity of our discussion for you to twist my word 'better' around to 'better at bad things'.

They weren't 'better' - or more accurately worse - at the things you listed than Republicans would have been.

There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq.

While Hillary voted for the authorization - a long topic - a majority of Democrats voted against it, despite strong political pressure to vote for it, two weeks before mid-terms.

While Democrats were too pro-wealthy, it wasn't their massive tax cuts for the rich the Republicans passed. Republicans wouldn't have let those cuts expire for the top 2% as Obama did.

Republicans just voted on a horrible budget - and didn't get a single Democratic vote.

Just as the ACA didn't get a single Republican vote.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Craig234

I notice that we speak in measurements of emphasis rather than disagreement; there's a focus on granularity and tiny details and subtle spin. All to gain very little for ourselves or the issues. It's sort of a time eater, don't you think? These pointless little exercises come about because we have not declared our current goals. In doing so, we might discover that we are not really getting anywhere.

I assume your goal is to get as many people-who-say-they-are-Democrats elected to office as possible so that Democrats control what is legislated in DC. That's a goal with a long and noble history.

My goal is to see the Democratic Party burned to the ground, never to exist again. It is a goal I holdc in the interests of peaceful and humane Americans. I believe it will give them a voice and bring them a just society, perhaps during their lifetimes.

Both are process-oriented goals. We are moving in different directions.

up
5 users have voted.

@Cassiodorus @Pluto's Republic Well, I accept your statement about your plans, even if I think you will not get the result you want by destroying the Democratic Party.

You will find yourself simply having to do a lot more trying to get any power than you would if you had tried to take over the Democratic Party instead.

As for my position, it's incomplete to say I just want to elect Democrats. I want to elect more Democrats as part of also taking over the Democratic Party by progressives.

But until that happens - unlike some others, I do support the 'lesser evil' approach for the most part and voting for candidates I really dislike over those who will be much more harmful than them.

up
0 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234 j

There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq.

Did you miss both Libya and Syria? Yes, Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton in particular have lied us into wars resulting in mass death and suffering for political and economic gain. Yes, they are just as bad as Bush on that count. Of course, that makes them not much different than any American politician, neh?

up
3 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@SnappleBC @SnappleBC How many Americans, and how many others killed by Americans, were there in Syria and Libya compared to Iraq?

Democrats deserve that criticism - but they also deserve to have it recognized that the war Republicans started and they opposed DWARFED the others.

TO say otherwise is to dismiss the importance of the Iraq war and call it a 'rounding error' in a claim of false equivalency.

up
0 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@Craig234 @Craig234

But I'm not sure that I care about your relative degrees of evil. The issue, in my mind, is that they are all marching to the same drum. It occurs to me that you may not have done the research to understand WHY Bush lied and WHY Clinton and Obama lied. Why did they want those particular wars? I put together this story as a rebuttal to my brother but it lays out the historical context. There you find the actual motives and you also see that it is, in fact, all a part of the same plan... as is our incredible aggression towards Russia. The real motive here is global hegemony and the petrodollar. Both sides DO do it because they both share those goals. It's the combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism commonly called "The DC concensus".

That all being said, now I do want to look up the relative death tolls. What I remember is an article from gjohnsit here not that long ago showing human slavery in Libya. We did that.

up
3 users have voted.

I bet the pearly gates have some eloquent graffiti

@Craig234

Ummmmm, do you really feel it's OK to attack and invade other people's countries in order to steal and profit from their resources - even aside from the issues of loss of life in murderous attacks, if anyone does it?

up
2 users have voted.

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's picture

@Craig234

their charter says that they will be fair in their election process and they will be neutral and not push for one candidate over another one.

During the lawsuit against the DNC for rigging the election, even the judge told them that they were wrong for rigging it. One of the reasons he dismissed it was because he said that no one that were suing them had standing to do so.

Facts are facts and cannot be altered.

up
12 users have voted.

good grief

Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 The Democratic Party is not obliged to provide the electorate with fair primaries. So what do you think this says about promoting yourself here as a member of the "progressive wing" of the Democratic Party? Aren't you really saying, then, that "we're the people outside with the pompoms while the folks inside the smoke-filled room make the real decisions"? Intra-party democracy is dead, so join the Democrats? How does that count as an appeal?

up
8 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus No, I'm saying, vote for progressives, and that I think the way for progressives to win is to run as Democrats - and to vote against what the non-progressive leaders want.

up
1 user has voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 What we read is: "vote for Democrat progressives and then when the elections are rigged against them vote for the Blue Dogs that did the rigging in the first place."

Your party gave away more than 1,000 legislative seats to the Republicans under Obama. Care to confront that hard fact?

up
10 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus

just won't do that anymore.

they
are the people who brought us here.

no mas.

up
7 users have voted.

@Cassiodorus I think election rigging is hugely overrated as an issue. The problems are voters being wrong, the media, money in politics far more than any 'rigging' by the party.

Yes, I do think that electing centrist Democrats is better than electing Republicans, while trying to defeat them with progressives.

I think that advances the progressive cause more both in terms of policy - let's NOT repeal healthcare from 25 million and cut taxes on the rich by trillions more - and progressives' chances.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Craig234 to warrant an investigation, and all we got was some party lawyer's assertion that the Democratic Party is under no obligation to provide the voters with fair primaries.

People who think this is a non-issue are themselves part of the problem.

up
5 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus I'd say people who take a well-under 1% part of the problem and inflate it to the only/biggest problem are part of the problem.

up
0 users have voted.

@Craig234

Doesn't electoral cheating kinda defeat the whole point of voting and the notion of having a democracy at all?

up
0 users have voted.

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.

@Craig234 That is contrary to their demonstrated behavior.

Camp Clinton - DWS in particular - has a history of supporting Repubs over progressives Dems.

They have a history of abandoning progressives who win primaries. They did that numerous times in this off-season election: Thompson, Quinn, etc.

up
7 users have voted.

@nosleep4u I am with you on that problem. It's why I say progressives should be trying to take over the party, that there is a war within the party that needs to happen.

Some think the way to fight that war is as a third party. I'd say that's about as effective as the South trying to win the civil war by moving all their troops out of North America.

I'm all for trying to do it third party, in the primary phase. If you can get a candidate who can defeat both parties, great. But if you can't: support the 'lesser evil' rather than vote-split.

In the meantime fight for changes to make third parties more viable - things like ranked voting. That's a fight against the party leaders and that's fine.

up
0 users have voted.

@Craig234

(Emphasis mine)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-long-march-to-the-democrati...

CBS News July 26, 2016, 6:55 PM
Hillary Clinton's long march to the Democratic nomination

...When she clinched the nomination back in June, she called it a milestone, and posted to Instagram, "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want--even president. Tonight is for you. -H."

The truth is, the former secretary of state was always the favorite to become the Democratic Party's eventual choice for president, but it didn't come easy. She was, however, ready for the task after her 2008 loss to then-Senator Barack Obama in another race where she was the early favorite. ...

...The contest with Obama was ugly at times, but he would become one of her greatest allies, making her his secretary of state in 2009. After she left office in 2013, Clinton instantly became the early front-runner for the nomination, and her standing was such that only a handful of relatively obscure Democrats were willing to oppose her. ...

The following is an excellent and informative recap which is best read in full at source, especially for those who may have missed any/much/most of this as it occurred. (Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/

The Countless Failings of the DNC
The Democratic Establishment is shamelessly breaking their own rules and regulations to get Clinton into office
By Michael Sainato • 03/27/16

The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.

Hillary Clinton has known for years she would be running for president in 2016. Fundraisers were held on her behalf as early as 2014, before she announced her campaign, as it was well known throughout the Democratic establishment that she would run for president. Unlike Jeb Bush, also an establishment-backed Republican candidate with wealthy donors, no Democrats in office dared to run against Ms. Clinton. The DNC did not suspect an Independent and three virtually unknown former politicians would contend for the nomination. Aside from clearing out her competition in the primaries, the co-chair to Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign—Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is currently the DNC Chair—scheduled only six debates compared to the eight scheduled for Republican candidates and enacted a new rule effectively banning Democratic presidential candidates from participating in any unsanctioned debates.

In addition to a limited debate schedule strategically presented at times when viewership would be low, super delegates overwhelmingly came out to support Ms. Clinton—many before the primary elections even began. The DNC helped the Clinton campaign lure super delegate support through the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that received thousands of dollars in donations from wealthy and corporate interests. With the maximum allowable donation of $2,700 going to the Clinton campaign, after the DNC took their cut the Clinton campaign could choose which state Democratic Parties received which funding. In New Hampshire, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders won over 60 percent of the popular vote in the primary—yet Ms. Clinton received the support of all six of the state’s super delegates after the New Hampshire Democratic Party accepted over $100,000 in donations from the Hillary Victory Fund. The fund has allowed Ms. Clinton to significantly outraise Mr. Sanders, despite Mr. Sanders having nearly double the amount of campaign donors. ...

...The efforts of the DNC to suppress the vote in order to ensure Ms. Clinton wins more delegates may help her win the Democratic nomination, but it will backfire in the general election in November.

The DNC has bent their own rules and regulations to assist Ms. Clinton. In December 2015, Vice News broke a story that the DNC was allowing Ms. Clinton’s campaign to share offices with the Carson City Democratic Party in Nevada—a key early primary state. In the summer of 2015, a top DNC official, Henry R. Munoz III broke DNC rules by organizing a fundraiser for Ms. Clinton in Texas. When news broke of the infraction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz ignored it. ...

(Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help...

WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
Democrats expected the FBI investigation into Clinton's email server to be a major problem—which Donald Trump solved
By Michael Sainato • 10/10/16

...Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election. ...

...Jeb Bush, the initial Republican frontrunner, assumed what should have been Trump’s role as the Republican Primary novelty sideshow. Sen. Bernie Sanders was blacked out of media coverage, and during the rare instances when he was discussed in mainstream media reporting, it was always under the pretenses that his candidacy was a pipe dream. The media gave Clinton what she wanted; impunity for the corruption, lies, and deceitfulness rampant in her political record, and an opponent who divided his own political party while driving fear and anxiety into her own to the point where enough Democrats and voters would gladly vote for her just to avoid Trump becoming president.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

However, such information comes from the DNC's own words and actions, (and has been backed by those of others, such as Washington insiders and corporate media's,) not from Breitbart.
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hi...

H. A. Goodman, Contributor

WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders During The Democratic Primary
07/23/2016 02:39 am ET Updated Jul 23, 2016

... Like The Washington Post and ABC News, an Observer piece by Michael Sainato highlights potential election fraud on a massive scale:

Wikileaks Proves Primary Was Rigged: DNC Undermined Democracy

20,000 freshly leaked emails reveal resentful disdain toward Sanders, as party favored Clinton long before any votes were cast ...

...One email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.” ...

...“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” wrote DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in response to backlash over DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to voter database files.

Another chain reveals MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski’s call for Wasserman Schultz to resign.

Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and Miranda.

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast. ...

Faked elections/electoral cheating can no more produce valid results in democratic elections than in any other contest.

In any sport - from horse-races to Olympic competitions - any indication of cheating is investigated and the cheaters are disqualified to suffer consequences, rather than the cheaters being rewarded by keeping their win, with perpetual official mutterings every time about 'fixing it next time, because it's a done deal now'.

Only in politics, it seems, are those affected stuck with the results at whatever cost to themselves, in this case, with cheaters then taking power over those they've cheated in a perpetual cycle of ever-thickening and more blatant corruption.

The above article provides a link (given below) to a great resource for those unaware of the facts of this issue, including two indicative links on the first page to evidence of DNC spies planted in Bernie's campaign to help nobble the election to ensure a long-planned selection instead.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-direc...

WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, & Bernie

By Stephanie Dube Dwilson
Updated Jul 24, 2016 at 2:10am

Published Jul 22, 2016 at 7:22pm

...DNC Had Friends Inside Bernie's Campaign Providing Information

Another DNC Friend Inside Sanders' Campaign

Hillary ran on 'It's Her Turn' because those the Clintons served (and from whom I suspect much of their power was borrowed and through whom much of their vast wealth at least indirectly obtained) had promised that '8 years of Bill, 8 years of Hill' by arranging that the public options permitted would, like the Clintons, leave Americans thinking 'Who else are they going to vote for? Republicans?' in the incremental shift toward fascism desired by The (typically now-aging and tactically rut-embedded) Psychopaths That Be.

The Clintons had long been part of the plan - but Trump is still capable of 'holding a pen and signing' if properly handled - with the Dick Cheney acolyte, Vice President Pence, in reserve, with (I believe it was?) Dead-Eyed Granny-Starver Ryan next in line for the Porcelain Throne in the Fright House?

Voting for either wing of the Two-Faced Corporate Party is voting for worse of the same.

And until free and fair elections are held, with independent/citizen oversight and adequate polling facilities made easy of access for all, what makes anyone think that that their vote - or even their voter registration - is correctly counted/registered or will remain so without being mysteriously altered for demographics unlikely to vote for/ballots not made out naming The Right Corporate Candidates?

The entire governmental structure has been corrupted - having been made to be easily corruptible - and a pacific method of rectifying this must be found. Something that is a main purpose of this site: to brainstorm ideas which have the potential to improve life for all.

This necessarily involves government actually supporting democracy, so that Americans and America can truly have that freedom and those rights (of which the propaganda brags of bringing to once-independent and sovereign countries belonging to other people, in the form of the overthrow of even democratically elected governments, to be replaced by puppet-governments and corporate polluting parasitic overlords and abusers and/or via destructive military invasion complete with such as [Hillary-State-Dept-supplied] cluster bombs and even the unimaginable cruelty of also banned-by-international-law White Phosphorus, dropping such as these like candy-bars and nylon stockings on the civilian public generally claimed in the corporate media to welcome this 'rescue', if such for-profit military/corporate attacks are mentioned at all in these corporate publications), in a decent life with living wages, universal health care, publicly supplied education at all levels - and no psychopathic polluting military/corporate financial vampires sucking the life-blood out of their society, country or the rest of the world.

Voting within the pool of 'electoral choices' supplied/permitted by The Psychopaths/Parasites That Be can never achieve this goal, although supporting actual Progressives trying to crowd out the corporate Dems might be helpful in this desperate situation, assuming that any are allowed to win, even as token Progs, as some have.

I do believe that any chance of improvement must be taken, but not at the cost of supporting evil ever again.

Any chance for good over evil must be taken, as the pooling of minimal resources has already shown that the little power still remaining to the people, when exerted by sufficient numbers, can at least help in the further awaking of the heavily propagandized public, who are not nearly as helpless as they may have been made to feel they are, by those who fear their realization of their own residual power, in unified action against The Psychopaths That Be and their political lackeys.

Elections are supposed to be about who will be best for the country, meaning whose policies will best benefit the public good - not about who can cheat most effectively to further drain the country and public for private gain. The latter is not only a contravention of the Oath of Office sworn by those entering the public service - as is required to qualify to hold the office at all - to uphold the rights of the people while using the powers delegated by the people for the public good, but outright traitorous in its betrayal of the country, consisting as it does of the people inhabiting it, and being the overall possession of the public in perpetuity, as a Commons.

The same public ownership as a Commons is true of the government itself, intended to be of, by and for the people, to serve the public interest and, importantly, owning nothing itself, merely administrating and caretaking public property - including public funding - for the public and in the public interest.

A democratic government cannot 'rule over the people'; it serves the public interest or makes itself illegitimate. It's long past time that 'false advertising' was dismissed and a legitimate democratic government serve the American public interest in a sane, sustainable and reasoning manner. What's needed are ideas toward this goal which do not involve the disastrous cycle of voting for alternating evils.

I personally lean toward the identification/creation of a party standing for such basics as this, and a country-wide organization of a strategic vote not only for this party, but against the Two-Faced Corporate Party.

The turn-out needs to be visible enough to make cheating obvious, with citizens exit-polling everywhere. If Americans cannot stand together against the government-purchasing/infiltrating Psychopaths/Parasites That Be for their right of democracy and for their very health, future and lives, they might do so at the prospect of yet another election like this one just past.

And this needs to have been started long since, and organized while the internet might possibly still remain useful, but better late than never. At current rates and inflicted/incited hazards, never might be happening pretty soon.

up
2 users have voted.

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.

Creosote.'s picture

@Ellen North

Especially amid accelerating climate breakdown, the time has expired for trust in outright corruption.

up
1 user has voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

Needs are met socially - food (distribution, not necessarily production), medical (insurance, not providers), water, sewer, education, electric, telephone, network, money supply and retail banking services, security. For some things like clothing and shelter it's mostly a matter of access (money) not availability. Set up guaranteed minimum income to handle it.
Wants are met privately - if it's something you can live without let the private sector take care of it. Taxes are paid by the private sector to fund the public sector.
Over time wants become needs. Who would have thought indoor plumbing and electricity were needs 150 years ago? Who would have thought the Net was a need 30 years ago? This is known as progress.
The UK is leading. The zeitgeist is shifting. The future belongs to the far right and near left. The far right has funding, organization, and a head start, but not the numbers.
We have nothing to lose except a system that doesn't work for us.

up
25 users have voted.

The lesser evil is still evil. Vote your conscience, not your fear.

The Aspie Corner's picture

@WoodsDweller

The UK is leading. The zeitgeist is shifting. The future belongs to the far right and near left. The far right has funding, organization, and a head start, but not the numbers.
We have nothing to lose except a system that doesn't work for us.

The closest we had to even a fuckin' near left was FDR and the New Deal. But even then he didn't take it as far as he should have. The Economic Bill of Rights, for instance, was largely ignored because of the massive Red Scares that were happening back then.

Now? In America? There is no god damned left. And even when any left movements gain steam they're punched down by virtually everyone under the orders of the corporate state.

up
16 users have voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@The Aspie Corner
There are few or no near left organizations, and the whole system reacts to crush any that try to form.
And yet, Sanders managed to do amazingly well against the Clinton machine and it's corrupt Democratic Party. He managed to adequately fund a Presidential campaign, the most expensive kind, with primarily small donations. And perhaps most encouragingly, once he was no longer in the race the voters didn't throw up their hands and vote in the (perhaps) lesser evil.
The DINORINO candidates get all the media and all the corporate donations, but they just don't have the voters.
The near left voters exist, and their small dollar donations are adequate. They are showing encouraging signs of turning out to vote for the rare near left candidate, and to stay home and avoid voting for DINORINO candidates.
To the extent we have a future, that's it.

up
18 users have voted.

The lesser evil is still evil. Vote your conscience, not your fear.

@WoodsDweller I'd make one correction as I understand it - that Bernie did it not with primarily small donations but 100% small donations.

up
0 users have voted.

@The Aspie Corner It's not that FDR didn't take it - he had no choice. He advocated for more than he could get.

The Democratic Party itself forced his VP Wallace off the ticket...

up
7 users have voted.

@The Aspie Corner @The Aspie Corner

And the Red Scares have been re-activated by the nice warmongering sort of chappies who invented and are digging out the oh-so-lucrative-for-some 'Cold War' and are applying heat to it; their zombie moves among us via the complicit corporate media. Even though Russia isn't even 'Red' anymore, lol.

Edited for creative punctuation. I'm on a roll!

up
3 users have voted.

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.

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

right after the last UK election that there would be another before the end of the year.

Looking like a good bet.

up
11 users have voted.

I am waiting for you, Vizzini.

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger

Punters laid 11-8... right after the last UK election that there would be another before the end of the year. Looking like a good bet.

Now if Her Majesty's Electorate would simply punt the Tories and all their ilk (to use a metaphor from American gridiron football!)......

Smile

up
2 users have voted.

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

edg's picture

Russia, of course. Does anyone really believe that the deep state wouldn't have tarred Bernie Sanders with the same Russia brush they're using on Trump? They'd have had Sanders dancing to their tune in no time at all, with regime changes and terror wars sprouting all over the planet.

up
9 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@edg

Does anyone really believe that the deep state wouldn't have tarred Bernie Sanders with the same Russia brush they're using on Trump?

I, for one.

You seem to forget how willingly the Chump supplied our deep staters with that brush..... Bernie wouldn't have been such a fucking moron, to paraphrase Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.....

Wink

That's not to say the deep state wouldn't devise other kinds of skulduggery to try and neutralize Bernie. But the RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA stuff is tailor-made for Chump.

up
9 users have voted.

"Some members of the government are now investigating opioid pain killers but they are investigating the wrong thing. Despair-masking drugs are not the problem. Despair is."
-- featheredsprite

edg's picture

@thanatokephaloides

“The Guy Is Hiding Something”: Top Hillary Aide Suggests Bernie Sanders Also Colluded with Russia…

Bernie Sanders Is a Russian Agent, and Other Things I Learned This Week

Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump

Not Just Trump: How Bernie Sanders' Campaign Also Had Deeply Embedded Russian Connections

Etc.

up
8 users have voted.

up
4 users have voted.

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.

lotlizard's picture

@Ellen North  
puppets-of-Russia smear list included our “sister” site JackPine Radicals.

JackPine Radicals is our “sister” site in the sense that they stand in the same relation to the site “Democratic Underground” as we stand in relation to Soylent Orange / The Other Place. We’re both “those who walked away from Omelas” (DemExit <=> OmExit).

As we use the euphemisms “TOP” and so on, denizens of JPR refer to their former home using the abbreviation “SV” (Site Voldemort).

up
7 users have voted.

@lotlizard I found Democratic Underground and dkos both to have abusive moderation.

On DU, I was once involved in a 'did nothing wrong' interaction, and for some unknown reason, found I'd been put on 'investigation' while they checked on the issue - but they'd get back to me soon.

Figured there's nothing wrong here so it'll get straightened out. Wrote them a summary of the situation - no response.

Read the rules and they're very nice, promising to work on any issues and communicate - nothing.

Wrote them a number of e-mails, over weeks, over months - never a response.

So, wrote them off despite some otherwise nice posters and content.

up
3 users have voted.

@edg

It's not the reason Hillary lost states like Wisconsin, caring more about fundraising than campaigning is part of the reason, but Russian interference is looking more and more real to me as is Trump working with Russian money launderers. I think there will be indictments and our insane President will try to use pardon powers to get out of it. The fascist danger is real and it's not coming from Hillary at the moment. The misinformation is real and sinister and we need to pay attention to the real fake news. Watch the latest episode of HBO's Vice if you can. It talks about how big data is being used by billionaires like Robert Mercer to keep us divided in information islands. We need to wake up now, it's going to be too late. Here's an older Guardian article talking about Mercer

up
1 user has voted.
lotlizard's picture

@Timmethy2.0  
Do you believe they are correct in maintaining all those websites listed are tools of Russian propaganda? Including progressive sites Naked Capitalism, OpEd News, TruthDig, Truthout, and many others?

Who and what do you think was behind that article? What are their motives?

What do you think of Israel’s degree of influence over U.S. politics and elections?

up
8 users have voted.

@lotlizard @lotlizard

And the Washington Post was certainly complicit in pushing Hillary's agenda and smearing Bernie. But there are real reporters who work there, unlike say at Brietbart. I just think it's not an accident that everybody is so sure of their opinion here and everywhere else these days, when we could be just as manipulated as everybody else. Clearly the predominant opinion on Russia here, is of great help to Trump, who is the President. Hillary is not the President, a fact which is not fair compensation for the dangers Trump is putting us in. Also I think the influence that the right wing government of Israel and certain billionaires are having on our government is despicable. I think that's a big reason why Trump is planning to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal and why the oppression of Palestinians seems to be ramping up.

up
1 user has voted.
lotlizard's picture

@Timmethy2.0  
The Nation: Russiagate is more fiction than fact

up
4 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@Timmethy2.0
Who took a lot of money from the CIA shortly before buying the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos.
Connect those dots.

up
5 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Cassiodorus's picture

@Timmethy2.0 In a billion-dollar Presidential campaign they spent a few bucks on Facebook! Panic now and avoid the rush!

up
8 users have voted.

"Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment." - Donna Haraway

@Cassiodorus Saying Russia trying to get the candidate they want elected - and with the Podesta e-mails the hacked published a half hour after the 'Grab her by the P****' tape possibly having a pretty big effect on the election - is a mistake. There's plenty to criticize Hillary for, but it doesn't make Russia a non-issue and their efforts to get their claws into our president to change our policies in their favor. They're a corrupt and murderous regime we should not be accomplices with. We already have more than enough wrongdoing in the name of helping 'allies'.

up
0 users have voted.

@Craig234
I remember similar calumnies being hurled at Saddam, at Gaddafi, at Assad, and at Iran generally... immediately prior to us attacking them. But as far as I can see, Russia poses no threat whatsoever to the USA. All the aggressive posturing is coming from America, not from Russia. And most of it is being media-driven.

up
4 users have voted.

native

@Craig234 @Craig234

...but it doesn't make Russia a non-issue and their efforts to get their claws into our president to change our policies in their favor. ...

By which you mean the efforts of Putin toward diplomacy and normal relations with the USA, rather than the US PTB threatening to invade/attack/obliterate, and attempting to starve out, via 'sanctions', the citizens of yet another sovereign country for further enrichment and empowerment of The Right People And Corporations?

I'll admit that the bloodthirsty, fossil-fuel-income-dependent Putin devil did cut back on military spending in order to insure that his people got their pensions, this being guaranteed to enrage The fossil-fuel-controlling US PTB already intent on global domination...

The corruption, croneyism and authoritarianism claimed of Putin would be acceptable to the corrupt, croneyist and fascist US PTB, if it was all directed to benefit The Right US Business Interest People only, but improvements in living standards for the overall Russian people since he took over - horrendous!

Why can't there be international competitions around the globe to see which country can produce the happiest and least polluted public and environment, with the safest food and other product supply, and the most humane treatment of each other and animals generally, instead of this deadly farce of a race to the bottom?

Oh, right. Pathological .01% greed and control-freakery. Much better than Putin's treatment of his people, his actual foreign aid to the starved-by-US-PTB-decree citizens and his non-plan of global domination.

Edited due to my cleverly writing one word twice-running when I (duh) wanted another the 2nd time. Sigh...

up
1 user has voted.

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.

@Timmethy2.0 Thanks Timmethy - the Mercers are an important and quite evil family the country should learn a lot more about and they need to be opposed.

up
2 users have voted.

@Craig234
I worked with big biology databases for a website. The bigger the database the more they can be used for manipulation and power. It's something that a lot of people, not including the Mercers, don't appreciate enough.

up
1 user has voted.
edg's picture

@Timmethy2.0

So is US interference in Russia's elections. Pretty much every country on Earth interferes with every other country's elections, politics and policy. It's doubtful that Russia against the US is any worse than the US against Russia. We run ads on social media sites in Russia. We penetrate their computers and networks. We eavesdrop on their electronic communications. It's Spy vs. Spy, just like in Mad Magazine.

But it's silly to think that someone or some group in Russia spending $100 thousand on Facebook ads threw the election. American politicians and their supporters spent $275 MILLION on social media ads during the 2016 election. Russia's Facebook spending was equivalent to spitting in the ocean, and about what the US spends on Voice of America every 4 hours.

up
5 users have voted.

@edg

I don't think the indictments will be about Facebook posts.

up
1 user has voted.

Pages