If Third Way Democrats continue to the right with TPP, union bashing, privatization it's because

[whereisjustice]

they don't care if Republicans win.

Let's face it - we know that representing historically liberal values like good wages and benefits for working families, environmental protections and strong regulation for industry gets out to vote.

But today all you hear from the Third Way is abstract bullshit like "inclusive capitalism" and "wealth envy".

Wow. Let's fire up the base.

When you hear mealy-mouthed PowerPoint jargon like "inclusive capitalism" it's just another way to say "trickle down" which is the idiotic idea that if you legislate exclusively for the rich and corporations, eventually some crumbs will fall to the floor for the little people to fight over. It also means Larry Summers is hiding in the broom closet, waiting to sweep another million jobs to Asia.

Be warned as Wasserman Shultz's DNC doubles down on conservative politics. Third Way Democrats are close enough to Republicans that it really, really doesn't matter to them who wins as long as their corporate interests are served.

The Third Way doesn't give a fuck which establishment McCandidate wins. Hillary or Jeb, they will continue to profit either way.

Will you?

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I will not vote to support the revocation of the ACA.

I will not vote to see a Republican nominate the Supreme Court Justice that will vote to repeal Roe V. Wade, and it will only take one.
I will not vote to support Republican modifications to Social Security.

A vote for a Republican or a vote against Democrat or a failure to vote supports all of those things.

The way our system works, there will be either a Republican or a Democrat elected. People who don't support Democrats support everything the Republicans want.

[whereisjustice]

2. Really? And Hillary is the only Democrat out of 300,000,000 people who supports ACA?

Because that is what you just said.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Who said anything about Hillary Clinton?

The way our two party system functions at this time is that either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected.

You either support the Democrats or Republicans.

So if you vote for some third party, or choose not to vote, or vote for a Republican, you support Republicans and everything they want done.

If you support Republicans by action or inaction then you support everything they want done.

That is the way our two party system works.

I would be nice if they system worked differently. It doesn't.

So each voter decides what they want.

Democrats will do some things that will make life better for individuals. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who the candidate is.

Congress sets legislative agenda. You want liberal laws or simply to protect liberal laws you must elect a majority that will do that. Only Democrats will do that.

You want those liberal laws actually signed into law you need a Democratic President. You want someone to protect Social Security, the ACA, or even marriage equality before the Supreme Court makes it a right, you need a Democratic President.

[whereisjustice]

4. Yes, every year conservatives advocate the "reality" that we must support only the most conservative

candidate. And when that dogma is challenged, someone comes along and accuses us of not voting.

Just like you.

Like clockwork.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. I am a liberal because I will not vote

to destroy all the programs we've created because I don't get a preferred candidate.

I just pointed out how the system works. WE don't have to like it but that is the way it is.

If you like what Republicans are doing, you either vote for them or don't do a damn thing.

If you like the ACA, Social Security, Medicare, and a Supreme Court that protects our rights you have to vote actively to protect it. No one but Democrats will do it.

People who will not vote actively to support liberal polices or causes are neither liberal nor progressive and will be responsible for every thing Republicans do to destroy the system.

We all get to decide where we stand.

[whereisjustice]

7. so we should just sit back and let the system tell us who to vote for regardless of principals - we

have a primary system. It is there to prevent a corrupt monopoly of power from abusing citizens with no representation.

And again you are accusing anyone who isn't happy with Hillary of not voting.

Just like clockwork.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Never told you to vote for Hillary.

But you have told me where you stand on protecting liberal policies and programs and individual rights.

[whereisjustice]

10. Third way's conservative posturing will cost the election. Why do you want Republicans to win?

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. Bullshit. If you fail to actively support liberal policies, programs, and laws.

with your vote, you support Republicans.

Third way posturing will not cost the election.

The Democratic Party is the only one of the two parties that will support liberal policies, programs and laws.

People who fail to support the Democratic party will cost the election because that is how the system works. We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote.

Why do you want Republicans to win? Why do you want the ACA repealed? Why do you want Republicans to appoint conservative justices who will vote to repeal Roe V. Wade. (It will only take one justice.)

I don't get people who claim to be libeal or progressive but refuse to work activly protect the system.

[whereisjustice]

17. Explain how liberal policies are helped by grooming a single conservative candidate?

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. We are electing 30 Senators, 435 members of the House, a President and Vice President.

Not to mention several thousand members of state government and tens of thousands of county and city government. Who knows how many propositions and other bits of voting business.

Explain why you are so fixated on one candidate that you would flush sixty years of progress down the drain?

And, really, we have not even held one caucus or one primary election and people are ready to shitcan sixty years of progress?

[whereisjustice]

23. And the Third Way is influencing them all, so once again I ask, why do Democrats want Republicans to

win by shutting liberals out of elections and refusing to represent them?

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. The Democratic Party is not shutting out liberals. We are here.

fighting for liberal policies, programs, and individual rights. Liberals like Warren, and Franken and many, many other democrats are fighting for liberal polices, programs, and individual rights. Liberals in the House are standing up to Boehner. Democratic liberals in California have achieved historic majorities because liberals voted for them and and they are working to make the state a better place to live.

Those who decide to vote against thousands of Democrats because they don't like one are not liberal and never will be.

I do not know exactly what ideology the anti-third way anti-HIllary group follow, but it is not liberal and never will be.

Up to this point, I thought the anti-third way/anti-hillary group just did not understand the way our system works. But that is not it all.

So I will side with Democrats and liberals in my state and in national government. I will work to elect more and better Democrats. I will fight against Republicans and the anti-Hillary/anti-thirdway group because the oppose liberal polices, programs, and individual rights.

I have you to thank for that. I am sorry that you will not be voting to make things better.

[daredtowork]

46. And there's the claim anti-Hillary=non-Democrat, non-Liberal =.=

Anyone got that clip from The Purge handy?

...unless a clip from Leni Reifenstahl would be more apropos.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. When people refuse to support liberal policy, programs, and individual rights

they are not liberals. Liberals are defined for what they are for not what they are against.

I never said they weren't Democrats. In accordance with party rules, the only requirement to be a Democrat is to register as a Democrat. No one in this thread has said to me they are not Democrats. What they have said is that they can not vote for Democrats because third way somehow polutes them all.

You might want to read back over the thread so you know what was actually said.

Since you have descended to personal attacks it is clear that you have nothing to say and nothing to stand on.

[daredtowork]

61. I stand on my comment. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. And I stand by mine.

[Aerows]

130. I swear

I'm getting so fed up with Hillary being shoved down my throat after the Obama can do no wrong glamor, that I'm just about ready for a Republican to take office so I can complain about policy issues again.

I'm used to the idea that neither party gives a damn about you unless you are in the 1%, but I'd like the opportunity to vent about it every now and then without being castigated as disloyal.

[TheKentuckian]

94. How does not voting for one candidate prevent me from voting for the others on my ballot?

I'm betting your state does not require a straight ticket, I know mine doesn't so I can vote for exactly who I please in any individual race.
One may totally "side" with Democrats and liberals locally, in their state, or at the Federal level while not "siding" with any individual person on the ballot.

Who gets a ballot of "thousands" by the way? Maybe once has mine gone over 1 double sided page and that was because of initiatives not any thousands of anybody.

If you are pro Turd Way and think they are representative of liberal policies (except the global lassiez fare kind) then you don't have to worry about opposing me, I'm already opposing you and always was, you've sided with the right wing in the heart of their agenda, even if you aren't a bigot.

Good, glad you and those you favor aren't vile, sub-human garbage but the politics are still dangerously wrong even if they aren't driven by malicious hate though I don't know how to put supporting, covering, and codifying Bush the Usurper's counter constitutional criminality and warmongering fits even misguided and wrongheaded but at least there is some baseline to work from I guess. At least you won't look up and see me as a thug animal so that is something and nothing to sneeze at compared to the crazed Confederate jackals but still an awfully raw deal.

[rhett o rick]

33. If you nominate H. Clinton then you don't care if the Republicons win. We have better

candidates that all Democrats will back. H. Clinton will not stop the slide into corporatism but that doesn't seem important to some as long as we have a D in the WH. The wealth disparity gets worse and worse and yet you will settle because it's better than (fill in something terrible here).

We are being manipulated by those with the power and wealth. They want a conservative Dem running against a conservative R.

Those that nominate HRC are saying they would rather take the risk and end up with Jeb than have a progressive president.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. Only the anti-hillary/anti-thirdway group are talking about nominating Hillary.

No caucaus has been held and no vote has been cast in a primary, and yet they have decided that they refuse to support liberal polcies, liberal programs, and individual rights. They have decided to dump sixty years of progress. They have decided to surrender thosuands of City, Country, State, and Federal offices to Republicans. Not even Republicans are that loyal to Republican ideology.

[rhett o rick]

39. The Third Way does not support liberal policies. They support Conservative values. nm

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. The anti-thirdway/anti-hillary crowd do not support liberal policies. They are not liberals.

They have decided to see every liberal policy and program destroyed rather than support liberal Democrats.

[Scootaloo]

59. You're funny

I mean not like, you know, Mitch Hedberg funny. More like Pauly Shore funny.

[Agnosticsherbet]

65. Sometimes funny is good.

[Scootaloo]

78. Good-funny is good. bad-funny is sad.

If we assume that good funny is "Blazing saddles", and bad Funny is "The Love Guru"...

Then your comment that people who aren't supporting Clinton "don't support liberal policies" ranks somewhere between the "Dumb and Dumber" movies that don't have Jim Carrey, and that movie where Adam Sandler acts in drag.

[Aerows]

133. This is

one of the greatest posts I've ever read.

[rhett o rick]

105. What I find curious is that the Conservative Wing of our party really want to be called liberals.

This seems odd when it's them that trash liberals.

Tell me some "liberal policies" that the Third Way supports and show me how liberals are trying to destroy them.

Here's how wiki defines The Third Way: "In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies." In other words, they are willing to sell us down the economic river for the promise of some gains socially.

If we become paupers and lose our political power, the social gains will be lost in a heartbeat. To be free, we must be viable economically.

[Aerows]

131. Raises Hand!

I'm anti-third way. I'm totally not ashamed to say that, either.

Here, mark that down - Aerows is anti-third way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Like whom? ...

Like me just get this out there ... Elizabeth Warren is going to run for President in 2016 (her words, not mine) and there are plenty of Democrats that won't back Sanders (either because of the Socialist thing or the perceived electability thing) ... So who are these "candidates that all Democrats will back"?

(But I guess that might be a cunning trick on your part ... the vast majority of Democrats will always vote for the party's nominee.)

[JDPriestly]

80. We need candidates, not only for the White House, but for Congress and local

positions, who will do more than merely protect the programs that we Democrats have already put in place. We need candidates who will improve the lives of Americans.

The only way to elect candidates who will improve the lives of Americans with new ideas and who will protect what we have on top of that is to get voters excited about voting for our nominees.

That means we have to have candidates with charisma but who are also dependable and who have exciting new ideas that will help Americans live better and solve their personal problems better, especially their economic problems.

People who negotiate and then vote for and sign trade agreements that cost Americans their jobs and lower the living standards of American as well as the tax revenue of the US should not be our nominees.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. It has cost American jobs. He signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecommunications Act and a number of other horrible bills. His wife should not be running for president. She is not credible as a candidate who will not only protect the progressive programs Democrats voted and signed into law like the ACA but who will fight for the interests of ordinary Americans in other ways. She just is not credible.

[TheKentuckian]

92. 1+1=2 but 1+0=1 not 2, the only way a vote helps the TeaPubliKlans is if it is added to their total.

But...but that is one less vote for the Democrat. Absurd, that vote wasn't owned by the candidate, it was never their's to count.

There is by definition no other way to support to go to anyone other than to who the vote went to. You add them up and the winner in each state gets the electoral votes, in no state in the country am I aware of a system that awards the votes from another candidate or a write in to anyone else's tally.

But...but...either the Democrat or the Republican will win. No, there is no such law. The winner will be the person with the most votes and there is no party affiliation test, all they have to do is win the most votes which is a function of accumulating the most people voting for them. If everyone votes for candidate X, X is the winner and that is all.

It is addition starting from zero, a first grader can do the math stop trying to invent some new formula when it is simple addition. Where does subtraction even come into play except in the fevered imagination of someone counting votes not cast for their candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Why are generalizing Third Way going against unions? I happen to be a life long union member and

Also share views as the Third Way does also. It is not a either or or decision.

[whereisjustice]

8. I don't know many union members who support third way's TPP program. Do you? Can you

point to a union that endorses TPP?

[Thinkingabout]

11. You pick out a subject if which has not even been revealed. If the unions has

Made a premature decision about they are jumping to conclusions. BTW, there are many more issues the Third Way and unions have in common which are very important to union members and working Americans. I don't like the weather everyday but I don't wake up cussing the weatherman either.

[whereisjustice]

12. Which unions support TPP (or even Third Way for that matter) - I asked a simple question

which ones?

[Thinkingabout]

14. I dont know nor do I care, dont judge me on being a union member and liking

Issues the Third Way thinks are important, I agree with some of the issues.

[whereisjustice]

15. How many jobs do you believe should be sent to Asia? How much lower should our wages be?

How much should be cut from social security? How much more pollution should we allow?

How much should health care and education be allowed to inflate?

10% a year? 20% what's the right number for third way?

How much more poverty do we need?

How much more money should we pump into the police state?

This is what the third way has brought us over the last 20+ years. Lost wages, lost jobs, poverty and lost opportunity and a brutal police state.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Twll me exactly what is contained in the TPP, not rumors or judging by any agreements in the past,

Exactly word for word is in the agreement.

[merrily]

26. That is a bs demand, given that the agreement is in a secure room. However, the word of people

like Warren, Sanders and Grayson and many unions trumps your demand and your purported confidence that Third Way takes care of working people.

Sanders: Not another NAFTA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017247957

[Thinkingabout]

89. I know it is in a secure room, details are not known, poster wanted a decisive answer and I

Am not able to give an answer to the bs questioning of whether I am for or against TTP. I do not go by opinions of others on this subject and until the details are released apparently opinions are based on other prior agreements.

[TheKentuckian]

95. You support prior agreements? Which ones and why do you think they helped American workers?

[Thinkingabout]

96. It's over, no more questions answered on this thread.

[TheKentuckian]

115. No answers will do that to you every time.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

110. When politicians demand secrecy, it's not so they can throw you a birthday party.

It's so they can throw you under the bus.

[rhett o rick]

34. You tell us what could be in the TPP that the unions might like.

We have a lot of good reason to be fearful of the TPP. Give us one good reason not to be?

[Thinkingabout]

90. What is in TPP unions dislike, again we do not know what is in TPP and I am not going to answer

About information which isn't available.

[rhett o rick]

97. You certainly have a lot of posts here for not wanting to comment about information that isn't

available. You are willing to argue against those that have concerns but never commit yourself.
Here are some reasons to be concerned:

Progressives like Sen Sanders and Sen Warren are very concerned and have spoken out against. No one has spoken out in favor. H. Clinton is in favor of the TPP, but apparently afraid to speak out. My senators only reply in double-talk.

History shows that trade "agreements" like NAFTA havent helped the 99%. No one is saying otherwise.

Logic shows us that the multi-national corporations will like the "agreement", because they have been given privileges that citizens have not.

The lines have been drawn. It's between the Progressive Left and the Conservatives. It's between the Populist Movement and the Corporatist Status Quo.

[Thinkingabout]

98. see post #96

[rhett o rick]

100. See post 97. nm

[ND-Dem]

29. you're talking to the person who was on a kick about the rampant fraud in SSDI for a while.

[whereisjustice]

32. thanks, that figures, lol

[SidDithers]

48. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6234126

Sid

[ND-Dem]

50. ...

the post that preceded that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6233995

[SidDithers]

52. Yeah. I don't like homophobes...

I don't think they belong at DU.

Sid

[ND-Dem]

53. ...

[Scootaloo]

81. Question: What's your basis for the assertion, Sid?

I mean, I know, aside from you being Skinner in a funny hat, of course

What makes you claim the guy is HiPointDem?

[Bluenorthwest]

109. The homophobic tropes have a unique flavor profile...here's one I just read in yet another thread

in which Straight Folks who know no LGBT history pontificate about LGBT people and issues:

"lots of well-off, economically conservative gay people; in fact, the only 'liberal' thing about some of them is their support for gay rights.
"A lot of us knew we were Republican before we knew we were gay, so this is home for us," said Charles Moran, head of the Log Cabin organization.
their natural bias is republican -- except that they're gay. if the republicans were to suddenly welcome gay people, I imagine quite a few would sign up with the republicans. those who aren't signed up already. the republican party has always had plenty of gay people in it -- fully closeted or less so."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026297922#post9

Now if a person was to approach a Republican voter from another minority group with that sort of verbiage it would be a DU knock down. There are elected African American Republicans. Does Ben Carson mean you can say that sort of thing about African Americans in general? Play mad libs with it, replace 'gay' and 'LGBT' with 'black' and 'African American'. Or with 'Muslim' and 'Islamic'. Read it back. See how it strikes you...

[Scootaloo]

136. But how does that prove that the guy's a zombie?

[LondonReign2]

129. Yup, admitted in this thread to be a Third Wayer

Yay, supporting right-wing economics!

[RB TexLa]

16. In the real world it's not possible to support or oppose something that hasn't been written yet.

TPP is still being negotiated.

[Thinkingabout]

19. I agree, until I see the exact wording it is impossible to make a decision.

[merrily]

28. LMAO.

[whereisjustice]

20. In the real world something like TPP is designed by conservatives and fast tracked to prevent

review and/or opposition by a representative system of government.

Exactly like TPP.

BTW - How did NAFTA work out? It really fucked us over, didn't it.

Just like what has been released about TPP.

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/

https://www.stopfasttrack.com/

[merrily]

27. Sanders, Warren, Grayson and unions are not living in the real world? DUers know better?

Please watch the video linked in Reply 26.

BTW DUers get to read TPP--as if most are going to--to see if the exact wording harms them--as if most would get whether and how it's going to harm them--TPP will be a done deal. In fact, it probably is. And, as Sanders has pointed out, media has been all but mum on the subject.

So, that "let's all reserve judgment until the masses get to know all the terms of TPP" bit serves likes of the Koch Brothers and ALEC very, very well.

[rhett o rick]

35. In the real world we've seen parts of it. It may not be final, but we can certainly see the

direction. Also, since huge multi-national corporations are in effect writing it, it isn't logical to believe that it will help the 99%.

Those that have their fingers in their ears, their eyes tightly shut, and saying over and over "we can't see the TPP", are not living in the "real world."

No one has bothered to explain how the TPP might possibly help us. I have a feeling you will accept whatever the TPP says, because you'd accept anything that Obama does.

[RB TexLa]

40. I support free trade, President Obama doing something doesn't have anything to do with it.

If you are going to be insulting and degrading, you will need to make up a different lie.

[rhett o rick]

42. No one has even tried to explain how this TPP, which is way more than a "trade agreement"

will possibly help the 99%. There have been lots of good people expressing concerns.

[RB TexLa]

43. Sounds like like you got it all figured out, now get out there with your talking points

and get to talking.

Oh, the "no one has tried to explain how" is one of them. Man, you got me good! Yeah, just keep repeating that one over and over and over.

[zappaman]

62. Nah, he's too busy crossing his fingers and clapping for

Warren to run for president.
Even though she has repeatedly said she isn't interested.

[TheKentuckian]

99. You support legislation so what is so funny or tricky about wanting to know the benefits of the act?

Seems utterly sensible and pragmatic to me and with no quotes required.

Hell, it would seem that answer would be the entire reason you have a piece of legislation in the first place, your evasiveness and bizarre responses are indicators if not flat out indicative that the intent is actually malicious.

A talking point? It is one of the most basic questions possible. In fact, it is idiotic not to ask it.
Worse it is the height of irresponsibility not to ask the question and absolutely demand an answer.
It is a shame that the answer isn't offered proactively like is the typically case when someone is even remotely actually trying to benefit the people.

[rhett o rick]

104. But you have nothing. Not even talking points. Here's one you can use: "What's good for corporations

is good for America." How about this one: "TPP und Corporations uber alles."


I think it's cute how you guys use Sid's emoji as a sign of unity.

[Aerows]

132. Speak up.

You asserted that you are third way and pro-union, yet you can't come up with a single third way politician that is pro-union?

I know why that is, and so does everyone else, but I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

[BainsBane]

21. If you think Democrats are anti-capitalist

You don't have the first clue about the country you live in or its history. I don't know this term inclusive capitalism, but I can tell from that it isn't trickle down. You seem to think the Democratic Party is anti-capitalist. It is not and never has been.

The Democratic Party addresses those who actually vote. One reason why right to choose is non-negotiable with Democrats is because women, and especially single women, reliably vote Democrat. People who do not regularly vote Democratic and threaten not to vote are not Democrats. They are swing voters. The way to influence the party is to get involved at the local level, not sit back and complain on a website and wait for them to cater to you. The Tea Party was able to influence the Republican party by getting involved and working hard. The idle "left" thinks doing nothing is some sort of political statement. Doing nothing is doing nothing. Complaining while doing nothing is suppressing the vote and furthering the electoral prospects of the GOP.

The people who say there is no difference between the two parties are obviously privileged enough that there is no difference for them. They'll be fine regardless, and they don't care enough about others to consider the consequences of GOP victory on the lives of the subaltern. Anyone who furthers the electoral prospects of the GOP is a Republican as far as I'm concerned.

[whereisjustice]

24. Clinton is a conservative Third Way Lobbyist. By unconditionally refusing to challenge her

you are simply moving the Democratic Party closer to the conservative values and the Republican Party.

It is the fault of the Democratic Party if they are not going to attract voters and lose elections.

I don't want to lose to a Republican so I believe the Democratic Party needs to compromise and fight for liberal values.

But Democratic conservatives continue to tell us "fuck you".

[Katashi_itto]

25. +10000!

[BainsBane]

44. "Refusing to challenge her"

What are you even talking about? This little fantasy presidential election game is tiresome. For years you all have focused on little besides the presidency, and Clinton in particular. Why would you decide she will not be challenged? And why should it be up to me to challenge her? I'm not running for office. Other candidates will. GD even has a thread about O'Mally now. The people opposed to Clinton have done more than anyone to present a sense of her as the ultimate nominee by talking about her incessantly for years now. You have no one to blame for that but yourselves for that. These fantasy scenarios are a waste of energy. Why can't you all wait until we actually have some declared candidates before you decide how the whole thing is going to unfold?

If you want to influence the party, you need to go to your local caucuses and put forward proposals to be voted on. They aren't going to deliver you what you want. There are a few reasons the country has moved to the right, but among them is the fact that conservatives are willing to get off their asses and organize, while so-called leftists sit around complaining.

All these articles about Minnesota's billionaire governor and what a great state MN is. It's not because of Dayton. It's because we have the most politically engaged population in the country: not only the highest voter participation rates, but we organized for marriage equality, to defeat voter ID, to raise the minimum wage, for arts and parks and rec funding, for better schools, and now for mandatory paid sick leave. If we didn't do that, the politicians wouldn't give a shit what we wanted. They respond because we compel them to. That is what is required for progressive reform. And we don't say we want a "more liberal party." We press for specific reforms.

[whereisjustice]

47. And it just takes one president to push through NAFTA or TPP or another war and it all

goes to hell. This isn't a goddamn game. We deserve a national candidate who is ready to fight for what's right. Clinton is NOT that candidate. Leftists sitting around? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. While we are working our asses off trying to put food on the table we also try to make a local difference. Conservatives FROM BOTH PARTIES have billions of corporate dollars and full time staff fighting against us. You think we are on our asses?

You get the tone deaf award.

[JI7]

55. i never see people like those who claim to be the most liberal on the internet at local events

the local activists i see never talk about third way, dlc , etc.

[merrily]

57. How do you know if you are seeing anonymous posters at local events or not?

[JI7]

58. based on the things they say

[merrily]

60. LOL!

There is a time and a place for anonymous posting and a time and a place to say things in person for a different particular purpose.

Sorry, but you have no clue if you are seeing anonymous posters or not, unless they want to give you a clue. Speaking only for myself, if I wanted to give anyone a clue, I'd post using the name on my marriage certificate.

[JI7]

67. most of them support Hillary for President and i never heard the criticisms of her that i read on

the internet.

[merrily]

68. Covered by my prior post.

Posts claiming the left does nothing but post are hilarious.

[JI7]

73. people can claim to be anything on the internet so my point is more about those who claim

to be the left on the internet and what they really are.

[merrily]

74. Not really. Your point is nothing but insinuation and imagination.

You have zero to back it up. In reality, nothing is further from the right than the left and nothing is closer to the right than the right.

[JI7]

75. there are scientific polls which people like romney did not understand

and most people who say they are liberal are supporting hillary clinton .

[dreamnightwind]

69. maybe they should - eom

[TheKentuckian]

103. I never see them whipping the next "free trade" agreement, the next war, or the next austerity scam

in my neck of the woods.

Never catch any surveillance state lovers or devoted friends of Wall Street either. Don't remember the "End Welfare As We Know It" club on the scene when I was younger either.

Guess it depends on which local activists you associate with.
The activists that support the Turd Way garbage are called Republicans, the TEA party, the FOP, the Chamber of Commerce, and paid operatives from both parties and I live in Kentucky so I'd imagine in most states your grassroots activists are not going to be a bunch of corporate enabling, free trader, interventionist, Surveillance State, deregulation loving, austerity pushing "centrists" whatever lingo and label usage they may have.

[BainsBane]

86. Is that so?

Because when I've asked people here what they have done to enact the kinds of changes they complain aren't being accomplished, like single payer or anything else, they say things like "I voted for Obama," or "I shouldn't have to do that." They always have excuses for why they don't feel they should have to get out and organize, that politicians owe them.

Obviously you have to work to support yourself, everyone does. But you haven't said what you are doing to advance political goals, and you go on to talk about everything is all about the president, and natter on about Clinton without engaging at all in my discussion about your fantasy presidential politics games. I have trouble believing that people who work long hours have time to sit around and make up scenarios about uncontested elections. Normal people don't waste time on that stuff because it does not matter. Normal people do not fight about political candidates for years before an election because it is a waste of time. You hate Clinton. Fine. Vote for someone else, but you will need to wait for the election to do that. Yet for some reason only you and those who think like you know, you feel it necessary to pretend the election will be uncontested. None of this has anything to do with reality or anyone's life. It's a demonstration of political irrelevance.


Yes, politics is about big money. No president is going to change that for you. Whether Clinton, a Republican, or another Democrat is elected, none of that will change. To untie money from politics requires a constitutional amendment, which requires popular organization. And if you want a more progressive party, it starts at the local level. You can spend your life railing about what's on cable news, but it's destined to accomplish nothing. It's pretty clear to me the only point of these threads is for DUers to club one another over the heads and feel superior to one another, as your reference to conservatives in the Democratic Party is indicative of.

This fixation on the presidency that many Democrats have is counterproductive. They vest all hope and place all blame on presidents and presidential candidates. It is among the reasons turnout is so poor in midterms. You think if only the perfect candidate would come along all that would change. No, it wouldn't. The president simply doesn't wield that much power in our system. NAFTA and TPP are not enacted by the executive. They must be ratified by the Senate. And those free trade agreements are not the result of individuals but the overall trajectory of the political climate in regard to trade agreements over decades, largely as a result of decline of unions. You are simply wrong that it's all about the president. Consider redistricting, the reason Republicans control the House. That is determined at the state level, through state legislatures. Liberals' obsession with the presidency only enables Republicans to gain more power, while too many Democrats are worrying about a presidential election two or six years out. There are no political messiahs. No single president will save America from itself. As long as people absolve themselves from responsibility for organizing for reform, we will get exactly what you see now, or worse.

I don't think it's possible to grow up poor in America and demonstrate the kind of entitlement that these sorts of threads demonstrate. You see, having grown up poor and female myself, I never believed that government served me or even represented me. The previous decades you all think were so great were not that for me, nor for many people, such as LGBT Americans and people of color, denied equal rights and living under high rates of poverty. For people like those I grew up with, funding for food stamps is the difference between going hungry or not. Funding for medical assistance means you can take children to the doctor, and when that is cut you can't. And while I am no longer poor, my employment situation is greatly effected by which political party controls state government and to a lesser extent federal government. For Americans more concerned about getting by than what's on cable news, having Democrats in office--even those you consider "corporatists"--makes a very big difference in our lives. We are not people used to being catered to. We know that to get any reform, we have to push hard for it, which is why poor and even new immigrant communities in Minnesota organize to advance their goals.

[treestar]

72. It is amazing they have the ability to get involved

and have some real influence, but prefer to sit back and complain that they are not being catered to. They are against being involved themselves. The rest of us should listen to them and get them what they want. Or they will withhold their vote. Then they claim to be the "base." The base is no those people.

[treestar]

71. That statement is absurd to most of the people in this country

Clinton is a downright commie to the right and a liberal to most people.

[Scootaloo]

79. REAGAN would be a commie to the right. He raised taxes, you know. Four times!

And congratulations, Clinton is more of a liberal than a given republican.

Is that really the standard we want to set our candidates against, though?

I mean that's kind of like saying that the American poor aren't really poor because they're not Somalia poor.

[Art_from_Ark]

91. Yeah, Reagan raised taxes...

...on the people at the bottom (via payroll taxes and marginal increases for the bottom earners), while bringing the top Federal tax rate down from 70% to 50% and then to 28%. The only tax he raised on the Richie Riches was bringing the capital gains tax rate on new investments up to 28% from 20%-- and that was after lowering the capital gains tax rate to the lowest rate since the Hoover administration.

He was no commie-- he was doing precisely what Republicans have become famous for.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Reagan was a blacklisting, red baiting bigot. His director of communications was Pat Buchanan.

He raised taxes on smaller incomes, lowered rates on the rich and on corporations. He ignored the AIDS crisis for 7 years, while tens of thousands of Americans died and a global pandemic took root. He busted Unions, he used racist rhetoric, he was an arms trading drug dealing drug warrior.
There was nothing about Reagan nor any of his appointees nor policies that was liberal or moderate. He was a fiend. I understand the current drive to revise Reagan history but I reject it.
Here's David Corn's "66 Things to Think About When Flying Into Reagan National Airport"
"The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.
Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.
Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."
http://www.thenation.com/article/66-things-think-about-when-flying-reagan-national-airport

[treestar]

114. Ive never heard a right winger complain about that in regards to Reagan

But I have heard them think McCain, Bush or Rmoney were too liberal.

I lecture them about not accepting reality and expecting the entire country to view people according to their scale. So I guess I do the same hear. Hillary may be a right winger to you, but to most people in this country, she is not. Since the scale is relative, I don't see the problem of admitting where we are on it or where most people are on it. Changing the labels does nothing but get people laughing.

Simply admit that you are so far to the left of Hillary that you don't like her, but that means almost everyone in Congress and in fact most of your fellow citizens are too far to the right of you.

You have an uphill battle to convince people. People aren't going to simply accept your declaration that Hillary is a right winger any more than they will accept some right winger claiming McCain is a liberal. Simply declaring it to be the way you want does not make it a reality.

[Scuba]

88. +1

[rhett o rick]

38. No one here has ever said there are no differences between the parties. That is a

strawman that keeps coming up over and over.

The problem is that part of the Democratic Party is conservative and part is progressive. The Conservative Wing likes NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and corporatism in general. The like war and an oppressive security state. The Conservative Wing like fracking. Obama and H. Clinton support fracking. the Conservative Wing likes the false security of the Patriot Act.

When you make generalizations about the Democratic Party you should make it clear which wing you mean.

[pampango]

87. "The Conservative Wing likes NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO ..." But far-right repubs hate them? FDR lowered

tariffs, signed and passed more than 20 trade agreements and created the UN, World Bank, IMF and International Trade Organization - all of which are 'sovereignty destroying' according to the far-right.

The far-right in Europe has the same take on trade - nationalism and tariffs - which is why they hate the EU which promotes cooperation and trade. Which side is 'conservative' and which side is 'liberal'?

[rhett o rick]

101. So you are saying that you support the so called "Free Trade" agreements like the TPP?

No one I've seen has tried to explain how the TPP possibly might help the 99%. Well that's not quit true. One person let it slip that if we taxpayers help corporations be prosperous, they will in turn help the workers. I think they were channeling Reagan's ghost.

Progressives like Sen Sanders, Sen Warren, and Rep Alan Grayson have major concerns. And conservatives like Obama and H.Clinton are promoting it. I don't know how the Republicon senators feel about it but seems that if they opposed it, they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs. Right now I think they are saying, "Don't throw us in that briar patch."

[pampango]

107. I am saying that there is such a thing as a GOOD trade agreement. FDR negotiated plenty of them.

In our era I think a good deal would be one that promotes environmental standards and labor rights that are not factors in current trading rules. Those were not in FDR's agreements but that was a different era. (Republicans railed against FDR's 'secret' trade deals "flooding our markets with foreign commodities".

Obama has been talking about incorporating those labor and environmental standards into trade agreements for years. Are they in the TPP draft? Not in the sections that have been leaked but there is much that has not been leaked. Others who do not want them in there are complaining about their presence.

Will they be in the final agreement, if there is one? I don't know. I believe the standards are important to Obama. I don't believe he is a sell-out. I may be wrong but I do not see a better chance at negotiating a "good" trade agreement any time soon.

[rhett o rick]

113. I understand what you say. The problem I am having is that some people that I respect

have serious concerns. They know better than I. Why can't the Pres come out and say that he wouldn't approve an agreement that would endanger our environment, etc.? No one has made any assurances that the TPP won't be harmful to the 99%. The President will have to get it passed by the Conservatives in the Senate. I don't believe that's possible if it includes environment protections, labor protections, and controls on corporations. I would love to trust Pres Obama but I feel his ideology leans more to the conservative side than I like. Some say, don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. But often they mean, don't let the good get in the way of the "not so bad". I am fed up with compromises that continue to ratchet the 99% toward serfdom.

[TheKentuckian]

116. If "because Obama" was the coin you pretend you'd be shoving Obama's existing efforts down our

throats as proof of the turning of the tide and evidence of different kinds of agreements if you had anything but lame appeals to faith instead of talking about FDR supporting some 75 years ago in a completely different environment and "labor and environmental protections" that a red herring knowing good and well that nothing is forthcoming that would improve anything here at all.

The reality of this garbage in most of our lifetimes is the American worker continues to take it on the chin and as always the same old spin that comes out every damn time is lies as per the usual.

[pampango]

120. If the policies of FDR are irrelevant to you because 'times are different now' that is your choice.

I thought it was only conservatives who relegated FDR to the dustbin of history, that did not care about history, that thought that FDR's approach to government was not relevant today,

The fact is that FDR believed in 'good' trade agreements though his republican opponents did not. He believed in an effective safety net, legal/popular support for unions, higher/progressive taxes and regulation of corporations. Is any of that 'irrelevant' in your opinion because it happened 'some 75 years ago'? Or is 'relevance' determined by your level of agreement with a particular policy? Fortunately, progressive countries today do not consider FDR's policies to be 'irrelevant'.

If you know "good and well that nothing is forthcoming that would improve anything here at all", I bow to your superior knowledge of the details of the negotiations. If, OTOH, your statement is based on the assumption that the only good trade agreement is a dead trade agreement, we disagree.

[TheKentuckian]

121. I believe that certainly the impacts of trade are vastly different. We are talking a time when we

had all of the capacity and everything to gain.

I think on balance FDR's policies were beneficial, maybe even most of FDR's policies are just as relevant and are just as beneficial for the American people as they were then or even more so that does not mean EVERY policy was good then much less now.

I definitely see no good coming of rounding up all the Japanese - Americans and putting them into a camp today and would argue it was dubious at best then.
With the "free trade" the ground has not remained in place under our feet and the benefits available 75 years ago are not the conditions now.

Still got nothing on those existing agreements under Obama I see. Still got no case on what we should see to improve environmental and labor standards in the US.

All you seriously have is a lame twist into I hate FDR because I won't join your delusion that that the global environment for trade and potential for benefit for the American worker has changed significantly since his time?

Good Lord, it is like talking to a Republican who notes benefits from JFK cutting taxes 50 years ago and then assumes that cutting taxes is always the answer, that no matter what rate taxes are cutting them will always be beneficial, and that taxes can never be too low with you on trade.

That is sadly desperate flailing there. Yes, there are POSSIBLE permutations of trade agreements that can be beneficial but that in no way even hints that such permutations are plausibly forthcoming and in fact every indication is it will be more destructive garbage as has been the solid trend regardless of party or President, including the current one.

It is only because you function from the point of view that any trade agreement is good that you assume those who disagree with you think any and all are bad when the reality is just that they are likely to be terrible and the current whole school of thought of the people involved in creating them consistently leads to poor outcomes.

[Populist_Prole]

122. Excellent summation

Good stating of the obvious; that is coming down the ladder of abstraction that technocratic pro-trade wonks are always trying to go up.

[pampango]

123. Today progressive countries benefit from FDR's policies on trade, taxes, regulation and safety nets.

His policies, trade included, are not out-of-date or relegated to the dustbin of history.

"With the "free trade" the ground has not remained in place under our feet and the benefits available 75 years ago are not the conditions now.

"... the global environment for trade and potential for benefit for the American worker has changed significantly since his time?"

Don't tell that to the progressive countries - all of whom trade 2 to 3 times more than the US does and all have stronger middle classes, stronger unions and world-class equitable distributions of income. They perhaps are not aware that their trade policies, while patterned after principles established by FDR, are no longer beneficial for their workers.

So trade policy that was good under FDR is still good today - for countries that actually apply FDR's lessons on taxes, regulation, unions and safety nets. That's why all the progressive countries follow those policies. Of course, they use ALL of FDR's policies - not just trade, not just progressive taxes, not just strong unions, etc. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for us.

They could choose to use all of FDR's policies except trade, if they thought trade was harmful to their workers, but they do not. For countries that take care of their workers and citizens very well that is telling.

It is only because you function from the point of view that any trade agreement is good that you assume those who disagree with you think any and all are bad ...

I have said repeatedly that if there are no ENFORCEABLE (national sovereignty devotees be damned because 'enforceable' means superseding national laws that are weak in these areas) standards on labor rights and the environment, then the TPP does not deserve to pass.

How about you? If it (or any future trade agreement) has strong, ENFORCEABLE standards for labor and the environment would you consider its merits? Or are all trade agreements indeed bad?

[TheKentuckian]

125. I welcome seeing the standards for labor and protection of the environment increased for Americans.

It would still greatly depend on the rest of the agreement but obviously would be very encouraging.

As far as your pointing to Europe, when you and other zealous supporters of "free trade" work as diligently to mirror those conditions that you believe make "free trade" the force for good you aspire to then I'll might muster up a fuck or two about what you are talking about. It always seems the trade is demanded without the conditions that make them productive for the masses.

The trade piece is always operative the supporting conditions are lip service and sales pitch. "Free trade" will not create any such conditions and appears to actually make them less likely if the framework isn't in place to mitigate the excesses.

Until we have a different environment for "free trade" to operate in, opposed until proven otherwise makes sense to me. The track record of the past 40 years is terrible for us and I don't even think you debate that which makes the conversation frustrating because it seems to just want to keep doing something that works very poorly in hopes of different results from the same inputs.

If the key is other conditions then I bet you'll find less resistance when said conditions are actually operative.

Give me an environment where "free trade" lifts American workers up while protecting our habitat and we have a worthwhile experiment.

[Aerows]

134. You didn't knock that one out of the park

You knocked it out of the county.

[TheKentuckian]

135. Thanks

[treestar]

70. Well said.

[Scootaloo]

76. Excuse me, the "idle left"?

And paired with a hailing of the "hard work" of the Tea Party, no less!

Yeah, sorry, the left doesn't have massive corporate funding. Nor does it have the support of five TV networks and six of the nation's largest newspapers. So maybe you haven't gotten the chance to see us out there busting ass. or maybe you think it's all drum circles and pot smoke? After all, who are YOU to question what the TV tells you, right? It's the most trusted name in news!!!

We are involved at the local level, while you're the one sitting there, sneering at us, one hand on your keyboard, the other up your nose. You want to talk about privilege? You think the tea Party "works hard" for fuck's sake! it ain't hard work to plop it down at a street corner and swing a box of liptons around while rah-rah-ing for legislation written by ALEC and pushed forth by the fucking Waltons' bank account.

But you know, maybe you're right. we on the left work out of principle, not profit motive. maybe we ought to start charging for all the shit we do for people, that way we'd rack up the bank accounts that you seem to require for us to evade the title of "idle."

Oh wait. The people we rub elbows with can't fucking afford to pay $40,000 for a plate of foie gras with black truffle sauce and a delicate strawberry foam while a politician speaks. No, the people we work with, the people we work for tend to be, you know, BROKE. A lot of them are homeless.

You know, more "idlers."

So there you are, sneering and spitting at us because we're not able to rake in the big bucks like the hardworking, magnificent, admirable (in your estimation at least) Tea Party. If it were just you, I'd shrug and move on, but the problem is, it's not just you. The Democratic party is infested with this attitude. This mentality that the left is useless, or even that it needs to be purged.

I dunno why we might not be exactly enthusiastic to follow people who constantly kick shit at us while taking us for granted. maybe we're just lazy, I guess.

[Bobbie Jo]

93. Well said. nt

[whereisjustice]

31. What do unions say about TPP and Fast track? Democrats should fight for jobs and living wages in USA

We oppose Fast Track because we don't want thousands of more U.S. jobs shipped overseas
Congress shouldn't abdicate its responsibility to workers by punting their future away. Fast track is the wrong track for America!




We oppose Fast Track because it doesn’t provide the necessary transparency, accountability & oversight to do trade right
Fast track will bring more trade deals that increase corporate power & CEO bonuses while pushing down wages for the rest of us.





We oppose Fast track because it does not represent the new, transparent trade policy that our economy desperately needs
The TPP would wreak havoc on U.S. manufacturing workers as thousands of more jobs will be outsourced to countries that do not respect human rights.

[840high]

37. TY

[Scootaloo]

82. SEIU too

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) leads to job loss in the United States

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) attacks U.S environmental laws

The public, Congress and the press CANNOT SEE the drafted TPP agreement.
THE TPP IS A SECRET TRADE AGREEMENT THAT MUST BE STOPPED.
THE TPP IS LIKE NAFTA ON STEROIDS.

Take Action
Protect
- Labor Rights
- Human Rights
- Our Environment
- American Jobs
- The Cost of Prescription Drugs
- Democracy

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON FAST TRACK.

http://www.seiu.org/a/wuretirees/take-action.php

[daredtowork]

45. They live in a patronage bubble

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 02:53 AM - Edit history (2)

Peope who find affinity with the Third Way are people who have held the sort of jobs or other position in life (for instance, big money fundraiser) that require playing courtier and sucking up to the rich. They think they are being "reasonable" and "savvy" when they discourage talk of redistribution and shun the "angry left". Since their livelihood has always been dependent on the favor and patronage of the rich, they see threatening the status quo as a destruction of the source of all lifeblood.

These are the same people that insist on "polite protests" (so the rich might chose to "listen", but remain unoffended so they won't take their toys and go home). Since protests are usually triggered by the rich "choosing" to ignore problems, this approach causes not a little cognitive dissonance in the social justice community. The other Sign By Which Ye Shall Know Them is by their demands for real identity on the Internet in the name of courtesy. But it isn't courtesy they are enforcing - it's deference. Real identity brings the possibility of real life rewards and punishments into play. In that game, the rich have implied power over the poor. When anonymous speakers do end runs around the status quo on the Internet, it fries the Oligarch's hard-wired neural circuitry.

In California there is the added ingredient of New Age modes of thought - especially EST. These ideas proclaim all problems are a matter if attitude or transforming one's consciousness. The rich don't have to take responsibility for an unfair economy: the poor should just get some therapy and change their attitude.

If California invested half the money it puts into therapy into housing and livelihood safety nets, our economy would be blasting off into space! But no, that might involve "redistribution" and making the patron class grumpy, which would be unreasonable. Besides, so many people are employed by the "bureaucracies of poverty" - wouldn't it be unfair if all those folks lost their jobs because resources were redistributed to the poor?

The Third Way point of view is an insidious form of moral corruption because it identifies pleasing the rich with securing one's livelihood. That's how moves to the right became "reasonable". The constant repositioning against the "angry" or "wingnutty" left is based on fear of troublemakers as a threat to livelihood BASED ON PATRONAGE. The Third Way drags everyone into the bubble of this corrupt world view.

The Democrat Party needs to air out this underlying motivation and challenge its ethics. I hope we then chose to tear it out by its slimy ass-kissing roots.

[whereisjustice]

49. EST - I met one of "trainers" of that shit by way of mutal friend. must have been early 80s?

God help us. I thought it was dead and gone.

Your post is excellent and thought provoking. I really appreciate the time you spent on it.

[daredtowork]

56. Please double appreciate it XD

I wrote it on a tiny Kindle keyboard in a cafe. This is actually the second version. The first version was lost when the girl beside me started booking airline tickets and sucked all the wifi out of the room T_T

But I think I remembered most of it for version 2.0… XD

Ps. Made a few edits - this keyboard can make it seem like I'm drunk. >.<

[merrily]

63. Last I knew, it had morphed into something called The Forum, but even that was a while ago.

Just did some googling. Apparently, it's the Landmark Forum now.

http://landmarkforum.com/

[whereisjustice]

51. btw - I'd encourage you to edit and repost this as OP

[daredtowork]

84. I may do this tomorrow evening

I got back home too late tonight, and I will be busy most of the day tomorrow. I'm flattered you find my opinions worthy of an OP, though.

[whereisjustice]

119. please send me a note when you do so I can K & R it :)

[Scootaloo]

83. This would be a good basis for its own OP n/t

[daredtowork]

85. Thanks - maybe tomorrow evening! :) nt

[raouldukelives]

112. + 1000 nt

[Caretha]

118. Excellent

keep on posting...

articulate and exactly on point.

[Warpy]

77. The DLC, predecessor of the Third Way,

started up with funding from the Koch brothers. That should tell you where they're really at: they don't give a shit as long as the cash flow is positive.

[JoePhilly]

102. Where is your alternative candidate?

[fredamae]

106. Whoa boy

"Peters said that if Democrats are going to win back the House and Senate, "it's going to be through the work of the New Democrat Coalition.""

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing


DWS and a few Blue Dogs......
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership

Aren't "they" and their RW-Lite policy positions etc at least Part of the reason why Dems lost so many seats as the blue dog coalition was "whittled down"?
Are there any significant differences between the NDC and Blue Dogs?

[TheKentuckian]

117. No, it's all Turd Way. Little sense in getting caught up in the various brands under the umbrella

It is all stinks, it's all toxic, it all has to be flushed.

[GoneFishin]

108. K & R

[hifiguy]

124. The sole difference between the economic polices of HRC and any Repuke

is how fast we frogs will get boiled.

[Maedhros]

128. Unfortunately, the bystanders in our myriad foreign wars will continue to be boiled

at an ever-increasing rate regardless of which letter (D or R) festoons the next President - unless we make it necessary for them to stop in order to secure our votes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Your concern is noted. Thank you. n/t