WHOOMP, there it is.

[MadHound]

I've been reading several of the posts and threads by our fine, ever so sensible, centerist friends here who are admonishing us that a chained CPI isn't really that big a deal, that we have to give something to get something, that we need to turn out in droves for the Democratic party in 2014 and beyond, and that we should, above all, not hold the Democratic party responsible in any way for this, and certainly we shouldn't punish them by not supporting them.

The essentials of that message that they are delivering is this, the Democratic party above all, including the wishes of the people, or the best interest of the people. Just put the party above all that, and it will all be good, we promise.

In fact that has been the message of the Democratic party, and those sensible woodchucks, for the past twenty years(or more). Put the party above the people, never mind that President Clinton is flushing away the manufacturing sector, or turning Wall Street into a casino, just keep voting that Democratic ticket, and all will be good.

Well, all hasn't been good as we can plainly see, and putting the party's interest above our own best interest has gotten us what, exactly? The ability to say, "Well, it could have been worse, the 'Pugs could have been running things."

Sorry, but that simply isn't enough anymore.

We laugh at the Republican fools, the ones who vote against their own best interests, but have we taken a look in the mirror recently?

It is time that we all started voting in our own best interest, and start putting our own interest above the party. No more party uber alles.

Will that mean that the Democratic party will lose, and the 'Pugs will gain? Yes, but in exchange for that short term pain, we can get some long term gain, namely a Democratic party that is much more responsive to our interest, a party that puts the will of the people above the party. In the extreme case, yes, the Democratic party could go the way of the Whigs, but would that really be such a bad thing? Nature and politics both abhor a vacuum, and another party on the left will rise to power, and being fresh and new and more dependent on the good will of the people, it would respond to the our wishes first and foremost. The Republican party went from nothing to the presidency in less than eight years, is that such a sacrifice to make for a better future.

Either way, a more responsive Democratic party, or an entirely new party, we the people would win.

So the time has come for all of us to decide, are we going to continue to put the party above the people, and thus watch as we all continue to slide into oblivion? Or will we take action to force the good of the people to be placed above the party? The choice is ours, choose wisely.

[PeaceNikki]

1. That's a whole lot of words to say, "vote third party".

And I cannot support that sentiment.

[MadHound]

3. Keep on doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep on getting what you're getting,

It's that simple.

I simply saying that we the people, those of us who have supported and bled for the Democratic party need to stop blindly giving into their every whim, and start holding them responsible.

What, you don't think they should be held responsible for their actions?

[PeaceNikki]

6. Also, 1993 called and wants its witty cultural reference back.

Obama isn't running again and I want more Democrats in the legislature and state seats, not fewer.

[Marr]

11. The people who are about to endorse or reject his proposed SS cut are running again.

So I don't see your point.

[MadHound]

12. Nice sidestep, but the question remains,

Don't you think that they Democratic party needs to be held responsible for its actions? After all, Obama isn't going to get this abomination through Congress on his own, he's going to need the help of a significant number of Democrats, that is unless he's planning on enlisting the 'Pugs in consigning grandma to eating Friskies, they do so love to do such things.

[PeaceNikki]

14. No. I am in Wisconsin. I am a proud Wisconsin Democrat.

I will not hold my state candidates responsible for things the White House does that piss me off.

So, an emphatic "hell no" to your entire premise.

[MadHound]

18. So you have become that which you mock,

A person who votes against their own self interest. You know, around here we used to point and laugh at 'Pugs who did that.

So how do you think things are going to get better if you don't hold our leaders responsible for their actions? Seriously, it makes no logical sense.

[PeaceNikki]

20. bless your misguided little heart...

[cali]

43. bwahahahahahaha.

This post is representative of why I don't take you seriously.

As for not making any logical sense. MadHound, getteth thee to a mirror.

[loudsue]

77. I agree, MadHound.

In desperate hopes of avoiding having to see another takeover of all 3 branches of government by a bunch of loonies, we have been voting for the people the corporations are thrusting on us from the other direction. It's like ... "would you like chocolate or vanilla?" One flavor of the moment or the other. As long as this keeps up, we are never going to get America back on track. Western Europe is leaving us in the dust.

[Union Scribe]

27. And if they back the White House over the people's interests?

At some point you have to be able to make the powers that be concerned, because if they know they have your money and your vote no matter what they have ZERO motivation to NOT screw you over. That is true of all organizational dynamics, especially in politics.

[Mr. Evil]

62. You are right...

And that's why republicans can always rely on the evangelical Christian vote. All they have to do during a campaign is to throw them a bone like 'I'm pro life' or 'I'm for the death penalty' or 'abstinence is the best way for your children to learn about sex.' All nonsense but, evangelical Christians almost always vote for republicans no matter what else they say or do. Absolute party allegiance breeds apathy.

[rhett o rick]

21. Now the Democratic Congress-Critters have to decide if they are going to run

supporting the Democratic Party leader's proposed cuts to SS. Or they will have to run opposed to the leader of their own party. That's a fine mess.

If the president's budget had included a raising of the SS cap and a lowering of the Medicare age, IT WOULDNT HAVE GOTTEN ANY WORSE TREATMENT BY THE REPUBLICANS. The American people would have loved him for that. Democratic Congress-Critters could have run on that. And the Repukes couldnt point out that Pres Obama, a Democrat proposed cutting SS.

Maybe you can shed some light on WHY THE HELL DID HE PROPOSE CUTTING SS?

[PeaceNikki]

26. blah, blah, blah. I won't hold WI Democratic candidates responsible for this.

Democratic apathy got us Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, gerrymandering which will hurt for a decade, and lost us Feingold. I like WI Democrats very much and will support them.

[rhett o rick]

32. Did we change the subject when I wasnt looking? Doesnt matter. You have nothing but rudeness (blah,

blah, blah), therefore I am done. Have a good life (I am serious) but leave me out of your rudeness.

[MadHound]

35. This is what happens when the veil is stripped away,

Some folks simply can't handle the truth of what is happening, nor stomach the thought of what needs to be done, so they bury their heads and attack anybody who tries to shake them out of their stupor. The sad thing is, sooner or later they're going to wake up to just how they are truly being screwed over, but by that time it is generally too late.

[rhett o rick]

45. They wont ever "wake up". They live in a carefully krafted denial bubble.

"Pres Obama is a Democrat. Democrats are good. Obama is good. All is good." That's as far as they go. Sadly if you wake them, they probably wont be able to deal with it. Denial bubbles help maintain sanity. Dont ever tell them that all Democrats are not good. It might be too much. They have been brain washed to think that they can determine good from evil by whether a politician is a R or D.
If you tell them it might be a little more complicated and that they might have to think a little harder, actually evaluate the politicians principles, it will blow circuits for sure. So tread carefully.

[PeaceNikki]

52. dammit, this post convinced me. I'm never voting for Barack again.

Ever.

[CokeMachine]

139. That's not so hard -- He's not running! eom

[Jakes Progress]

116. Your position is

short sighted, undependable (unless winning is more important than principle), and as usual simply a snarky shot to defend an indefensible position.

I know that you will avoid actually discussing the topic (not your job), but if you were to screw up and actually make a contribution to the discussion, you would need to answer this question first: Do you support cutting SS? If so then we can discuss why you support the republican party's goal. If not, then why are you barking here?

[PeaceNikki]

117. Your inability to read my other posts in this thread is what's short-sighted. Spare me your total BS

Supporting DEMOCRATS in my state that are not IN ANY WAY TIED to the POSSIBLE SS cuts is not fucking "indefensible" on a fucking website called 'DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND'.

So... there.

[Jakes Progress]

134. Learn to read a thread and how to write on one.

You can't really think that your prose is so breathtaking that everyone will hunt down all your pearls in an unending search for more of your shit. If you say something that refers to another thread, you must cite it or quote it or just live with the consequences of being unable to communicate.

I responded to your posts. They didn't reference your giant desire to support local candidates - mostly they were just snarky shit covering up the problems of the kind of shallow thinking that leads Democrats to support right wing positions.

This whole thread is not about your little world. If you have nothing to contribute about improving the state of the Democratic party other than continuing to vote for candidates who support right wing policies, then this thread is over your head.

Please show me where the OP suggested that we should vote against local Democrats who vote against right wing policies wherever they come from. See. Your position is indefensible. Your bullshit is showing. (Usually when someone starts dribbling spit and throwing the f word twice in one sentence, his lack of "there" is made evident.)

[PeaceNikki]

138. Bless your fucking poor, sad little misguided heart.

eta: fucking

[Jakes Progress]

144. Still can't put a sentence together?

I get it that you don't really know what shit you are spewing. I get it that you want to duck away from your own flying crap.

I get it that you avoid saying anything because you don't have anything to say.

So again I advise you to learn to use the forum. Communication would be your friend if you had any thoughts that were worth hearing. Maybe you are bright enough to know that every word you write betrays your limitations and so avoid actually posting thoughts. Hiding yours is probably a good idea. And it would help if you got someone to proofread your posts. Just a little advice to help you not seem so lacking.

[PeaceNikki]

145. here's a sentence for you:

I don't give a shit what you and your seriously over-inflated ego think of me and my post content.

You really think your replies to me add value? They don't. You've gone beyond snark and have now entered into being nothing more than a bully. Kudos to you for that. Don't break your precious arm patting yourself in the back for being a total condescending asshole.

[Jakes Progress]

149. Ooooooh. I touched a nerve.

Love how you don't care.

[PeaceNikki]

148. And another to clear up your inability to read for comprehension:

I have never defended the cuts to SS or Obama's stance on it or any Republican ideals. My participation in this thread has been entirely on this premise: I won't hold WI Democratic candidates responsible for this.

Since you can't be bothered to read any of my other posts in this very thread, I will quote them for you:

"Obama isn't running again and I want more Democrats in the legislature and state seats, not fewer."

"Democratic apathy got us Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, gerrymandering which will hurt for a decade, and lost us Feingold. I like WI Democrats very much and will support them."

"No. I am in Wisconsin. I am a proud Wisconsin Democrat.

I will not hold my state candidates responsible for things the White House does that piss me off.

So, an emphatic "hell no" to your entire premise."


Tell me, oh wise one, what Republican ideals have I supported? What Democratic candidates who do have I supported? None. You pulled that out of your ass which, by the way, DOES stink despite your perception of yourself. You are nothing more than a bully who is unable or unwilling to read and simply using me as someone to lash out upon.

..|..

[Jakes Progress]

150. Still don't care? But you begin your continued defense

with a prevarication.

Tell me again you don't care about the cuts. That is what the thread was about. That was what the OP was about - the OP you trashed. And nowhere, until now, do you come out against the cuts. Tell me how you can defend the president's actions and not support those actions. You have some serious needs to put words on the screen without really having anything to say. It may not be your poor communication skills, but the lack of clarity in your thinking.

You then whine about someone calling your posts silly, when you don't mind trashing others for their posts. If you can't take criticism for your own words, then you should be intellectually honest enough not to criticize others. You could always find people who say things you like and praise them. Or even add to their ideas by expanding the theme. But to jump on a post so quickly to criticize it when now you say you really don't disagree or that you had another, unrelated concept in mind all the time, and then cry when your silliness is slapped down is disingenuous.

Now you can post another four or five times about how much you don't care and about how much you think about my ass.

[DonCoquixote]

83. Like we did in 2000

It is one thing to take back the democrats, especially as ther eis nothign that says we cannot form superpacs...but until a third party has Governors, Senators, school board members and dogcatchers, they are a joke.

[NV Whino]

8. It might be time to reconsider that thinking

Te Democratic Party sure as hell hasn't served our best interests lately.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Bullshit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2650293

[rhett o rick]

13. S T R A W M A N !! nm

[PeaceNikki]

16. Bullshit

The OP replied and made it clear my Cliff's notes summary was correct. They want us all to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

No thanks.

[MadHound]

22. No, the OP wants the Democratic party to fucking sit up and pay attention to us,

And apparently, writing, protesting, calling, emailing simply isn't doing, so more drastic measures must be taken. If we don't hold our leaders responsible for their actions, if we don't force them to start putting people above party, then we're going to continue this slide into oblivion as the middle class disappears and we all become corporate serfs.

Stop putting words in my mouth just because you don't like what I actually say.

[PeaceNikki]

23. back atcha, chief.

[MadHound]

30. Chief?

I'm not Native American, and that sounds just a tad racist.

[PeaceNikki]

33. oooo, someone should tell corporate America their "executive officers",

"operating officers", etc need to be renamed.

Oh, and the term "commander in chief" is racist, too, I guess.

[MadHound]

39. LOL! But you didn't use any of those term,

Simply the mocking derogative "chief". Telling, truly telling.

[PeaceNikki]

40. bless your misguided little heart...

[rhett o rick]

28. Your response smacks of desperation. You cant defend why the Pres proposed cutting SS so you are

content with just saying bullshit, hopping your rudeness drowns out intelligent discussion.

I support Democratic principles and those Democrats that support Democratic principles. I will not support Democrats that dont support Democratic principles. I imagine you support anyone with a &quot D)" behind their name, irregardless of their principles.

[PeaceNikki]

29. whatever...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2650479

[rhett o rick]

36. So your response is "whatever"? Add that to your "bullshit" responses. You dont seem to have

a decent argument. I am betting your denial bubble is limited to "I like Democrats, all Democrats, regardless of their principles." I have to admit, it sure makes life easier.

[PeaceNikki]

38. my response is in the link, but it's cute how verklempt I'm making you.

[rhett o rick]

109. Ich denke, du meintest verklemmpt. What is cute is your attempts at

provocation via rudeness. Best of luck to whatever your goal is here.

Lebewohl

[Skittles]

124. it's not all Democrats, it is one

[uponit7771]

102. Not considering the fudr here it isn't

[Zoeisright]

60. Voting third party destroyed this country.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[sabrina 1]

80. How about voting for a Second Party?

[noiretextatique]

132. sorry, but that's complete bullshit

voting, for any candidate, did not "destroy the country." the rw in america systematically destroyed any semblance of reasonable government.

[rhett o rick]

136. You say that those that do not believe as you are fools. I guess there is no reason to discuss

anything with you. You already have your mind made up. Not a good characteristic for a "liberally minded person."

[sabrina 1]

79. I think he's saying we need a Second Party.

[calimary]

131. Also known as "We divide, THEY conquer."

Sorry. Can't do it.

[upaloopa]

2. Funny you advocate short term pain because Dems are causing pain.

It is in your best interests to vote for the lesser of two evils. There will never be a chance to vote for what you really want if you throw yourself under the bus.

[MadHound]

4. Well, that's a logic salad,

And makes absolutely no sense. Try restating that sentiment, whatever it is, in more coherent terms, thanks.

[upaloopa]

17. Your damn smart how does it feel to be so

superior?

[MadHound]

24. Not superior,

And no need to be snippy. I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out what you were saying in your original reply to me, which is why I asked you to restate it. Sorry if that all came across wrong, but that sometimes happens when communicating on a chatboard.

[upaloopa]

31. Me snippy? Is that being worse that what you

said to me?
I don't give a shit whether you understand me or not,

[MadHound]

34. Alrighty then,

Have a nice day.

[Mr. Evil]

67. Voting for the lesser of two evils

Is still voting for evil!

[mike_c]

5. excellent OP....

Kicked and recommended.

[tokenlib]

7. I remember wanting Gore to best Perot on NAFTA...how STUPID OF ME..

..thirty years of compromise with Reaganomics have brought us to THIS!!

[Go Vols]

50. +1000

[KG]

10. a deeper problem is, losing elections has no real adverse consequences for dem party

careerists; losing two elections in a row to a dimwit like shrub, and 8 years later, the same old faces pop-up and it's a bi-partisan deja-vu all over again...

[MadHound]

15. Oh, I think that if there was a massive loss of support, it would make a huge difference.

When Democratic office seekers from dog catcher to president suddenly find themselves without money, workers or votes, they would perk right up and pay attention. Do that twice in a row, and the Democratic party would probably just fold up its tent and move on, leaving a vacuum for a truly left party to fill.

[Summer Hathaway]

68. Yes, it makes total sense to

stop supporting Democrats with our votes and our money.

"Do that twice in a row, and the Democratic party would probably just fold up its tent and move on, leaving a vacuum for a truly left party to fill."

That'll learn 'em. Just let the Republicans win all over the place, have complete power. It's a grand idea. And the years that the GOP have that power they'll destroy every gain we've ever made in the areas of GBLT rights, women's reproductive rights, minorities' rights, etc.

So what's a few years or so under GOP governance? So what if they use their power to overturn Roe-v-Wade, educate our children with textbooks that ignore science and rely on the Bible, or even rewrite history altogether (as we've seen them do)? I mean really, so fuckin' what? How bad could it possibly get? What could possibly go wrong?

It won't matter, because if the Dem Party winds up folding its tent as a result, a "truly left party" will spring up like a phoenix from the ashes and put everything to rights.

Do you have ANY idea how long it would take a new party to even get a foothold in US politics, no less get to the point where it is a recognizable brand that attracts voters? DECADES, that's how long. And in the meantime, while we're all waiting for this "truly left party" to be a viable contender, the Republicans will continue to change the direction of the country in the most destructive ways imaginable.

"So you're happy with the chained CPI? Happy with no public option, happy with our never ending involvement in Afghanistan, happy with the upcoming Keystone Pipeline, happy with our disappearing civil liberties, happy with what NAFTA did, happy with what the '96 Telecom Act did, happy with welfare "reform", happy with the repeal of Glass-Steagal?"

Given the time it would take for your mythical "truly left party" to have a political impact on elections, chained CPI won't matter, because SS will have already been gutted, privatized, and/or totally destroyed. Involvement in Afghanistan will be replaced with more wars being begun elsewhere. The Keystone Pipeline will be an environmentalist's dream as compared to what the GOP would allow.

"The rest of us out here in the real world ..."

Those of us who ARE actually here "in the real world" recognize REALITY. And your pipe dreams about teaching Democrats a lesson by allowing the GOP to regain power border on insanity, along with your pipe dreams about a "truly left party" emerging full-blown in the aftermath, somehow miraculously uniting all those who were once Democrats - a party that will, of course, go on to being swept into office, from whence they will undo all the damage the GOP has done in the meantime and right all wrongs perpetrated on the citizenry.

And let's not even consider that many traditional Dem voters are centrists, who tend to vote for Dems that represent THEIR more perhaps more conservative values. There will be no place at the table for them in your "truly left party" - or should I say your "my way or the highway party"?

It has been obvious from your many posts here that you think a Third Party or a 'replacement party' is the way to go. To that end, I would suggest you spend the time you now devote to posting on a Democratic site would be better spent setting up your own "truly left party" website, where you can preach to your own choir, and organize them into the party of your dreams. According to your calculations, you should be able to get that party up-and-running, and able to garner the votes necessary to put them into power, in very short order.

[PeaceNikki]

70. .

You said everything I was thinking and then a ton.

And well.

[Mr. Evil]

76. What's the solution?

I for one understand what MadHound was trying to convey. Its based on frustration and I too, am frustrated. A third party would instantly need very deep pockets to prevent what you put forth as to what the republicans would do if they had absolute power. But, our present path is not sustainable. And why President Obama is constantly looking for some kind of acknowledgement from a republican is beyond me.

So, what do we do? Do we go to sleep and wait? Do we march on Washington, DC and demand that President Obama honor his campaign promises and order Attorney General Eric Holder (really pussified, shitty AG) to start investigating and prosecuting the plethora of banking fraud and tax evasion in this country? How do we convince him that it is not in our best interests in any way, shape or form to allow the continued poisoning, polluting and outright total contamination of our water, land and air?

I am frustrated, yes. But, I'm willing to travel, do my small part in any way within my means that I can to finally help this country find a more equitable, cleaner and progressive future. As a single parent of a son who's a freshman in college I hope we can at least try to find a way to make a better future for him and all young people today and for generations to come.

[MadHound]

78. It would take eight years, probably much less, given history and political realities

After all, the Republicans went from non-existent to the presidency in six years. A political vacuum is not going to take a terribly long time to fill, it is, after all, about power, and power always springs at the main chance.

As far as preaching to the choir, what good is that? Ideas need to be spread far and wide.

[Summer Hathaway]

84. The Republican Party

did not go from being non-existent to the presidency. Their brand has been around a very long time.

You were talking about a "new left party" arising after the Dem Party "just fold up its tent and move on, leaving a vacuum for a truly left party to fill."

And if you honestly believe that a new party of any description could be organized, identified with their brand (platform, goals, etc.) in the public's eye, and in a position to elect a dog-catcher in eight years or less, you really are delusional.

I suggested preaching to the choir simply because they're the only ones who have any interest in listening.

[MadHound]

100. Geez, read your history, please

Whigs, Lincoln, any of that ring a bell? Hello?

How can you expect to carry on an intelligent conversation if you don't your history, if you don't know what people are talking about?

[Summer Hathaway]

146. OMG.

I thought you were talking about the GOP regrouping and revamping in order to get Dubya elected after eight years of a Dem president.

It NEVER occurred to me that you would be referring to the political landscape of 1860 in a discussion about a 'new left party' being formed and achieving success in light of 2013 politics!



Well, good luck forming that new party. You might want to check into the changes that have occurred since Lincoln's election, just to get yourself up to speed. I understand there have been quite a few.

[FSogol]

99. +1 n/t

[cali]

19. I'm happy with my dems (and my independent)

they represent my best interests and when it comes down to the presidency and there's a republican and a democrat to choose from and I vote for the democrat? I'm looking out for my better interests.

Want a better party? It's all about the local level.

[MadHound]

25. So you're happy with the chained CPI?

Happy with no public option, happy with our never ending involvement in Afghanistan, happy with the upcoming Keystone Pipeline, happy with our disappearing civil liberties, happy with what NAFTA did, happy with what the '96 Telecom Act did, happy with welfare "reform", happy with the repeal of Glass-Steagal(and all that resulted from that).

Must be nice to be you.

The rest of us out here in the real world, not so much.

[cali]

37. oh fer fuck's sake, you know I'm not. I've posted prodigiously about it.

and you know it.

You offer zippo nada jackshit in the way of solutions. At least I told you where to start, hon. duh. And yes, it's nice not to live in a state like you choose to live in with crazy fuckwad rightwingers running the show and the citizenry voting in ever increasing numbers of ever more radical wingnuts.

And yes, there are still differences between Obama and Romney. YOU may not give a shit about such things as abortion, but a lot of us do. And that goes for a myriad of other things that would be worse, as wll.

All you need is few functional brain cells to know that those are facts, not opinion.

[MadHound]

44. I am proposing that we hold our party, our politicians responsible for their actions.

What you are proposing is to do nothing, just the same ol' same ol', try to change from within bullshit that has gotten us nowhere for the past forty plus years. Been there, done that, still have the scars from getting burned by doing that. It doesn't work, sorry.

The only thing that is going to get the party's attention is a massive loss of support, whether it be a one time deal, or on a more prolonged basis. That's it.

Anything else is simply continuing to put party above people.

[cali]

54. No you are not. You are spouting tired, hollow rhetoric

There is no way that YOU can hold the party responsible by voting third party. It doesn't. It won't. We have a two party system. it's sucks, but reality so often does. '

If you think for a nanosecond that you can magically create this massive loss of support, you are, alas, seriously deluding yourself.

And no, dearie, what I'm doing actually puts people first.

[PeaceNikki]

46. yup. this.

Women'a rights, LGBT rights, healthcare, unions, my state...

The OP is advocating not voting for Democrats.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Actually, what was posted is readily available for anyone to see. Your statement that

"The OP is advocating not voting for Democrats" is contrary to what was actually posted in the OP: "Either way, a more responsive Democratic party, or an entirely new party, we the people would win."

[Mr. Evil]

72. I understand what you're trying to say.

It always happens in small increments, cutting a tax for the wealthy here, cutting a benefit there, quietly sneak in an exemption for hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure, etc. Who are we really voting for? The republican with millions of dollars in campaign funds from wherever or the democrat with millions of dollars in campaign funds from wherever?

Our political landscape is like Edgar Allen Poe's The Pit and the Pendulum. If the republicans screw up people tend to vote democrat in the subsequent election. If the democrats screw up people tend to vote republican and so on and on and on. The results... nothing! It seems our existence anymore is simply to be some warped experiment to see just how much the American people can be conned and fleeced just to put more money and control into the hands of the very, very few. How does that build a better society? How does that promote a better future? What's the end game?

So, I'm with MadHound. We do need a third party. It won't be easy and it will require a monumental effort but, not trying is only speeding up the inevitable demise of this country. It would have to have a platform based on accomplishment and achievement. Truth over fantasy. Science and facts over fear and smear. We need more engineers, architects and astronomers, not unscrupulous, self-serving hedge fund managers and money laundering bankers. Where is it etched in stone that our government has to subsidize and even bail out corporations that act maliciously? We only seem to have a handful of people in congress that seem to give a damn and that's pathetic.

It won't be easy but, anything worth accomplishing usually isn't. We deserve better because we CAN do better!

[NorthCarolina]

41. Excellent post! K&R

[Demo_Chris]

42. Excellent post and thread!

[forestpath]

47. K&R

[wryter2000]

48. Short term pain?

Tell that to all the people who lost loved ones in Bush's Iraq war.

I was with you until you got to that.

[MadHound]

51. And yet Obama has signed a midnight deal with Kharzi to keep troops in Afghanistan through 2024,

What are you going to say to all those people who are losing, and going to lose loved ones in Obama's Afghan war?

[randome]

89. And what are you saying to those who want to rid themselves of the Taliban?

Tough shit?

[MindPilot]

91. Pretty much, yeah.

I would like the US to be rid of the Republican party, but I don't want the North Korean Army over here doing that.

[MadHound]

101. Umm, the Kharzi government is telling the Taliban

That they can run for president against him. In fact the Kharzi government has been playing footsie with the Taliban for awhile now. Why? Because they recognize the reality that whenever the US leaves, the Taliban would be part of whatever fills that power vacuum.

Oh, and what was our original intent in going into Afghanistan? That's right, to get rid of al Qaeda and bin Laden. Guess what, mission is accomplished. So why should we remain in Afghanistan? Nation building? How well has that worked out anywhere else we've imprinted our imperial boot? Stay there forever and ever, amen? What about all the innocent we will kill?

The time has come, in fact it is past time, that the US pulled out of Afghanistan. It was an illegal, immoral war to begin with, one we should have never gotten into, and one that Obama should have gotten us out of ASAP. Instead, he has expanded, and now insured that we will be there for over another decade, wasting blood and treasure on what?

Is that what you favor, are you that much of a warhawk?

[wryter2000]

113. Having Republicans in charge won't do anything to fix that n/t

n/t

[Eleanors38]

49. Let's do it. I'm ready. One way or the other.

[on point]

55. Warning shot across the bow- mass registration for a third party

Won't hurt the dems but should get their attention.

If not vote third party and to hell with corporate dem-repuke party

[jaded_old_cynic]

56. It's a wonderful thought.

Unfortunately it isn’t realistically feasible. The moneyed interests that control our political system will never allow it. To run for any office, you need money. There are many great progressives out there, but the “owners” will throw all their resources (and they have enough resources to manipulate both parties quite effortlessly) at a candidate who best represents their interests, and as we are all aware, our interests are the antithesis of theirs. I’m afraid the best we can hope for is to postpone the coming tide of oligarchy. Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but I chose my screen name for a reason.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. Democrats need to be primaried by DU members....

Problem is,...it'll end up being the wrong ones...

[pinto]

58. Sorry, I stopped reading at "party uber alles". Have never found hyperbole like this a benefit

in any political discussion. I really like discussion, different opinions, dissent, analysis, etc. But simplistic hyperbole is a pass for me.

[Cleita]

59. I really don't know what to do anymore.

All I know is that I can't vote for a Republican and to vote for a third party candidate will succeed in getting us a Republican anyway. So I guess, until we get rid of the corporate corruption in our government, we are still going to have to vote for Republican Lite or a Democrat. Nothing will change until we change the way capitalism has evolved to the present day.

[OldDem2012]

61. Yep, dividing the Democratic Party by forming a third party is a GREAT idea!....

....One that will do the dirty work of destroying the Democratic Party for the GOP Tea-Nazis.

Great idea. Thanks.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

63. K&R nt

[stupidicus]

64. I have to respectfully disagree

while I likely share most of your disappointments and the sentiments they give rise to, I've long thought the better solution is the one that ushered in the age of the Pee Partiers -- primary challenges to replace the bad dems with better ones if need be. And given the disagreement many dems in congress have with BHO over the SS thing, it's pretty clear the barrel of congresspeople isn't completely rotten.

We need more Warrens and Graysons, not sacrificial continuations that lead to certain losses of what we want in the short term, in hopes of uncertain long term gains.

I think things like chained cpi, the expected (at least by me) keystone pipeline approval, drone use and assorted other issues associated with the WOT, etc, etc, etc, can be used as a litmus test in 2014, as what could be the only silver lining to their existence as controversial issues.

Their "responsiveness" should be measured by the positions they stake out before they get the nod. That's why I always thought it was best to make a fed case outta the current SS thing before the election, and to compel BHO to "respond" to it. That is after all, the over what and how we'll be evaluating those you expect to blaze the new trail/rise to power down the road.

[jopacaco]

65. I can't continue to do this

I read this and many other sites daily but rarely post.
I am a lifelong very liberal Democrat. I had great hope when Obama was elected President, and I did not expect miracles. I am very aware of the current political climate. What I did expect was someone who would try his best to achieve what the people who elected him wanted. I wanted him to stand by his word.
The most sensible idea during the healthcare debate was single payer, but it was not even on the table for discussion. Obama didn't put on his comfortable shoes or even offer a word of support during the union battles of the last few years. His administration coddles Wall Street while people are losing their homes and pensions. Now chained CPI.
I thought long and hard before I could vote for President Obama in November because I had lost faith in him. It came down to the sorry choice (once again) of the lesser of 2 evils.
I too am feeling that I am voting against my own best interests. Something needs to change.

[840high]

66. k/r +100

[Cali_Democrat]

69. Jury Results:

At Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

WHOOMP, there it is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022650244

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Ok I get that people are mad at Obama for chained CPI - and rightfully so - but this is the OPs second thread today advocating for people to abandon the Democratic party, and in this one he even acknowledges that it would be okay if Republicans gain from it. Sorry, but screw that.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I disagree. I think he is just posing some alternatives to consider. Thought-provoking but not necessarily advocating the overthrow of the party.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't necessarily agree with this OP, but I think it is fair to be discussed.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I would like to see this thread discussed. I don't really agree with the OP, but I want to know what people think.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[lexington filly]

71. Would like to see us weed out those who don't support

our values and needs by focusing on getting those who do into the primaries. Most often our choices are just between rotten apples. Lose-lose choices.

[SpartanDem]

73. People made the same stupid argument in 2000,

thanks to idiots voting for Nader we got Bush for 8 years. People like you made the election close enough to steal. It was a stupid idea , it's stupid now.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. "Fine, ever so sensible centrist friends"

You mean the Damned, Lousey Collaborationists who thought Bush's war in Iraq was also our war in Iraq? Those fine, ever so sensible centrist friends?

I'm 61 and living on disability. Have one of them tell me chained CPI isn't a big deal. I have a very different perspective.

Of course, I might not hear them. I stopped listening to them when they were backing Joe Lieberman in 2004.

[Billy Pilgrim]

75. Most calls for revolution are met with cynicism.

I hear you. But, being powerless, I'll try to keep as many Democrats in power as possible the next time I vote.

If this is a call for a more enlightened populace, I'd like to think our populace, if more enlightened, would be able to accommodate even more than three parties.

[Mr. Evil]

81. So who do we vote for?

In the present day presidential political landscape of America it seems that one party only wants to promote faux patriotism, fear and offers nothing of substance to the citizens (unless you're an evangelical Christian) and the other wants to be like the other party used to be. I would never vote for a republican today for any reason. They've circled the wagons on fear and crazy and that is not a solution to anything. The democrats have a few people that actually seem to care and are passionate in their wanting a better America.

So far I've been very impressed with Elizabeth Warren. She's smart, tenacious and so far hasn't been intimidated. Alan Grayson may shoot from the hip but, he doesn't give republican fear and smear tactics a free pass. He calls out crazy most every time he hears it. Al Franken has shown great promise and understands as well as anyone what a fact is but, has been a little quiet lately. Bernie Sanders gets it and I hope he has no plans to retire anytime soon!OTOH, Mary Landrieu is only concerned with two things; getting reelected and protecting big oil interests. She is the epitome of the acronym DINO.

It just seems to me that to run for higher office in this country anymore one must accept some amount of donations from large contributors (the ones we mostly don't like), always end a speech with "and may god bless America," profess their love for Israel and always say how much we need a strong military (destruction and killing is big business and we're very good at that). I don't vote for any of those things and don't know why each candidate always tries to outdo the other on them (its actually to placate the rich and powerful but, that's another thread).

My candidate would promote education based on reality and facts and not try to shove some form of bible teaching as a solution for poor classroom performance. My candidate would promote adherence to equal civil rights for all. This candidate would promote science and scientific fact and would not be afraid to admit that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. They would only promote tax breaks for large corporations that hired and paid Americans a livable wage/salary with good benefits and not just for a large campaign contribution. This candidate would promote single-payer health coverage and take away the burden of providing this benefit from employers. And also do away with healthcare companies (otherwise known as legal skim operations) which provide nothing but grief, burdensome paperwork and ever-rising rates, deductibles and co-pays. And this candidate above all must have integrity.

There are probably other good reasons to vote for my candidate for president and I hope in my lifetime I finally find one. 2016 is a long time off and its approaching fast. But if anyone seems to be the closest to what I'm looking for that might actually be convinced to run that candidate would be Elizabeth Warren. Maybe I'm wrong or becoming to cynical to jump on the Hillary bandwagon. She's just seems to be a little too connected to the inside the beltway old-way status quo methods.

[pam4water]

82. K&R

[eridani]

85. Holding Dems responsible? WTF are PRIMARIES for, anyway?

If progressives lose primaries due to corporate money, then we are just going to have to learn to use a combination of tech-based and people-based electioneering better.

[randome]

97. Primaries are where the battle is fought, I agree.

Yours is the only real suggestion of something practical.

[JEB]

111. Primary

every MFing piece of shite that votes for SS cuts. I will not ever vote for or support anyone regardless of party who votes for a cut to SS.

[Jasana]

86. My Grandmother takes in a little less that $600.00 per month on SSI

Chained CPI would be a disaster for her! A complete clusterfuck. It's time we told these "centrist" democrats to sit down and STFU. They are morally reprehensible and I have no problem saying so. You centrists think the repubs have problems... well, you just sit back and wait to see the split you cause in the democrat party.

We're getting there. By god, we're getting there and this time no one is going to tell me to shut up about it.

[randome]

90. Since you've told us how much your grandmother is receiving...

...perhaps you can also show us the calculations you used to arrive at 'clusterfuck'.

[Jasana]

127. Well, let's start with...

Mortgage = $720.00 per month. That about says it all, huh? She can't survive in her home without financial assistance from family and friends. (And she doesn't have a large family.) Better hope this is not your future.

[quaker bill]

87. Once again

A party, any party serves its voters. It may or may not serve them well, but in the current atmosphere they serve no one who is not reliable at the voting booth.

4 years ago the Obama campaign cast a wide net and worked to get caucasian liberals like me out to the polls. In 2012 they spent their time and $ locally organizing the hispanic and black communities. I had to drive 15 miles to the hispanic community find an office with a yard sign. The events were held in the black and hispanic communities. I have and had no problem with is. They were going to the places where very large margins could be stacked up, and found the margins they needed to win there.

These places are just not as liberal as we are. A political party is the sum of its voters. Voting for another party simply makes you part of a different sum.

[cali]

88. Not one. Not a single suggestion of how to realistically achieve this in a given time period.

I love how people like the OP who are financially secure are ready to sacrifice the poor, children, the disabled, the elderly, for their theoretical long term gain.

And short term. 10 years? 20 years?

[MindPilot]

92. You mean as opposed to the people who would sacrifice the poor, disabled and elderly...

for the Party?

The new Democratic motto: Party above People...always.

[cali]

93. No. I don't. Now do tell who you sacrifice, how long it will take and what the plan is

What I advocate is working to elect the most progressive people possible. I advocate focusing on local community building. I advocate voting for the best person. Granted, I don't find this hard because of where I live.

[woo me with science]

96. In any journey toward a compassionate liberal future,

a Very Important Step along the way is to impose as much predatory corporate legislation as possible, that can be fixed later.

Inferior minds just don't grasp the complexities.

[cali]

112. yes, I can see you have no grasp of the complexities. that, honeypie, is abundantly clear.

[woo me with science]

114. Well, *that* certainly settles things,

"sweetie."

[MadHound]

104. Financially secure?!

Ass u me much?

You know nothing about me, not a single thing. I am far from financially secure. Let's see, since going back to school to get a teaching degree in 2010, I've had exactly zero interviews for a full time teaching job. I'm piecing together money with substitute teaching, which pays some of the bills, but certainly isn't full time work. The only thing that is keeping us afloat is my wife's job, but I have no insurance, little savings, and am barely making ends meet. Why the fuck do you think I'm so pissed? Because this is my future we're talking about here, money being taken out of my pocket that I'm going to have to count on in less than two decades. Financially secure, fuck that, never have been, doubt I ever will be.

Short term, eight years. The 'Pugs went from zero to the presidency in eight years when the power vacuum they filled opened up. No reason that liberals wouldn't do the same.

[SidDithers]

94. Remember when DU didn't allow third-party advocacy?...

Good times.

Sid

[MadHound]

103. Remember when Democrats held onto certain bedrock positions?

Like not touching SS, Medicare, Medicaid?

[Egalitarian Thug]

105. Remember when election season was the only time it was verboten?

Remember when DU was full of diverse views, the best collection of hidden news, and thoughtful discourse? Remember when reich-wing nutballs were ridiculed and generally ignored.

I didn't think you would.

[SidDithers]

110. Well, you've been here for a year...

you've got an amazing memory for things you weren't here for.

Oh, lemme guess. Long-time lurker.

Sid

[Egalitarian Thug]

115. Nice deflection. No, Ms. Thug has been here since nearly the beginning, about the same time as you.

But she hasn't seen any of your brain-farts for years.

[Bobbie Jo]

130. Right?

x 2.

[HughBeaumont]

95. Unfortunately, "Short Term Pain" will = "The Death of the U.S.A."

Eight Years of the Failure Fuhrer ruined this country almost beyond the ability to repair itself. I shudder to think what eight more years of someone WORSE than even Bewsh will bring us, if the exercise is to remove DLCorporatists from our party and get more progressives.

Here's another risk you run with "scorched Earth": V for Vendetta, which is the exact opposite of what we want to happen. We run the risk of the country becoming LESS moderate (let alone liberal, because this government is not even remotely that now) and MORE totalitarian. This scenario is far more likely when you have moneyed interests purchasing government. We know very well, with a vastly uneducated and history-ignorant country such as ours . . . . "It Can Happen Here".

The place to hold "sit ins" are corporate boardrooms. Thousands upon thousands in corporate offices . . . barge in, to hell with security. You're going to tell me that penny-ante non-cop security guards are going to hold back thousands? Are security guards going to shoot us? Sounds far fetched? Workers in . . . I think it was France, I saw this on an Al-Jazeera special once . . . sat in their boardroom with their executives until their labor demands were met.

Shunning Washington where everyone but a scant handful are purchased . . . shouldn't we be on the backs of who's purchasing them instead? This system is corrupted from stem to stern. The heart of the corruption is Corporate America and the wealthy that run it.

[VOX]

98. So, hand the keys over to the cons, shills, vultures, christianists and batshit loons?

There won't even be a planet left, let alone some pie-in-the-sky third party.

This is *Democratic* Underground, or at least it used to be.

[Hotler]

106. TOE THE LINE! n/t

[FiggyJay]

107. K&R

I think I love you MadHound

[WillyT]

108. HUGE K & R !!!

[Orsino]

118. Short-term pain = Republican gain = long-term pain

Got it.

[yodermon]

119. NO. OCCUPY THE DNC goddamn it.

It's OUR fucking party, and if the blue dogs are taking over, then we fucking PRIMARY their stanky blue asses.

[caseymoz]

120. It's in my interests that Repubs don't win.

As much as I despise what Obama is doing. So, you have a plan where we'll eventually get a democratic party that's more responsive to us. How long will that take? How long will the Repubs dominate government until that prophecy is fulfilled? You say short term. Short term might bury us forever. Judging by how much damage George W. Bush did, and that the fact that all the candidates in the Repub field looked as bad or worse, there's no way I'm going to let those larcenous nutcases take the presidency again.

The reason why the Democratic part isn't responsible to us is simple: money. Obama received money from various players. Nothing you said addresses it. This problem cannot be addressed at the voting booth.

[whatchamacallit]

121. Picture a ball on a plane or tabletop

The north, south, east, and west edges of the table are occupied by the rich, the poor, the right, and the left, respectively. The ball will always roll toward or away from the edge that can exert the most vertical influence. The south edge has little leverage. The east and west edges can cause the ball to oscillate right and left a bit, but ultimately the ball rolls in the direction dictated by the north... What am I saying? I don't know, but there it is. Lol!

[nolabels]

135. Your right, we all should be giving the rich and wealthy a lot more to worry about

The only reason they are trying this crap is because they can and have nothing better to do. The wealthy don't give a crap, they think everybody likes to suffer and what is a little more of suffering for them poor folks to them anyway. We will need to push up the table more to stop this kind of thing

[BrainDrain]

122. You say you want a revolution welllllllll...ya know

You better free your mind instead.

Lets begin with Hillary. You will begin to hear how it has to be her 'cause no one else can beat (fill in the blank) for the Presidency. So we will all fall in line like good little drones and vote for HRC in the primaries and then in the general and hope like hell she is better than (fill in the blank). And the cycle repeats itself ad nauseam.

We all want/expect/hope that our newly elected gods will somehow respond to our wishes and we act/get so disappointed when they don't. We then spend countless hours pouring forth on why they should do this, that or the other thing we so hoped they would do without us having to yell at them to do it.

But alas and alack, our hero/heroine only disappoints and there is a strident call for new blood in the Democratic party, someone progressive and responsive. Someone we could fall enough in love with that we could give them our money and our sweat and our vote. But you need to remember, we are just schmucks to be swindled out of our cash and our vote by a party apparatus that only cares about maintaining itself and it's most favored souls.

How much of the party apparatus do you think would be willing to back say an Alan Greyson? Or maybe an Elizabeth Warren? How many of our wise old men/women of the Democratic party would be willing to step up for either one? Need i remind anyone about what happened to Ashley Judd?

Think on this, nothing increases resentment like going along because it's expected of you, or you are being told by the "adults who know better" that you should.

STOP listening to the Sunday morning pundits they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
STOP listening to the wise old Democratic operatives 'cause their wisdom has gone beyond the expiration date and at their core, they are working to maintain the status quo.

You want real progressive candidates? STOP giving money to any that aren't.
You want real progressive candidates? STOP giving your time and effort to those that aren't.
You want real progressive candidates? STOP voting for any that aren't.

Once we stop doing all that, THEN I think we will get somewhere.

Let the Revolution.......begin.

[CokeMachine]

140. +1000 and welcome to DU

[PeaceNikki]

125. No. And if you think otherwise, you can go start

www.thirdpartyunderground.com

[marions ghost]

128. Not a third party

just a much stronger force within the Dem party.

A third party could come out of such a wing of the Dem party eventually. But it has to start as a vocal, more cohesive, more powerful wing of the Dem party.

Because we do not currently have a system that allows for a separate third party to have a chance.

We need a more proportional system, but with the current clowns in congress, that won't happen any time soon.

[awoke_in_2003]

126. We used to laugh at what an echo chamber

FreeRepublic was, now I cannot even think straight from all the damn echoing here. K&R

[limpyhobbler]

129. All options should be on the table.

[SamReynolds]

133. I might love to see 20 years of nothing but Republican rule and policies....

Just to prove once and for all that they should never, ever be in power again. Unfortunately, we've had more than that already, and still nearly half the nation are too stupid or lazy to actually recognize it.

[rhett o rick]

137. We've had 30 years of Republican rule already and it hasnt taught

the nitwits among us a thing.

[Auntie Bush]

141. But, what will happen to the SC in those few years?

It could end up being 7 to 2 Conservative. What would happen to women's rights?
Got to think this thing through and not just react in anger.

[Progressive dog]

142. This didn't go well with Nader in 2000 or

with just staying home in 2010. In 2010 we even showed them Democrats by giving the RW control of the states and the probability of holding the House for another 10 years.
Yeah, I'm madder than hell at our Democratic President, but I see no alternative. I also see no rush by other Democratic office holders to defend his position on these cuts. So I do not intend to stop supporting Democratic candidates, at least until there is a viable alternative.

[gateley]

143. IF this ever comes to a vote (which I doubt), why don't we see how each Dem votes?

There are plenty who are against this, I'm guessing.

THAT'S what we should base our decision on -- voting history of our representatives. Not something a POTUS throws out there then condemn the entire party for it.

[99Forever]

147. I have made some vows to myself.

1) I will NEVER hold my nose in the voting booth and vote for less rotten bastard.

2) My vote MUST be earned by those who want it.

3) I will ALWAYS vote my conscience.

No more compromises. None.

[geckosfeet]

151. I am so done with these sold out bought and paid for bastards.

I will vote for whoever best represents my interests. Right now that looks like my dog.