Imagine a Republican Administration and Congress in 2017

[MineralMan]

It's a worthwhile exercise for everyone. It bears thinking about in a serious way. Based on the stated goals of the Republicans currently in control of Congress and of the Republicans who have shown a strong interest in becoming President, here are some of the things I'd expect to happen if they controlled both the White House and Congress:

Repeal of the ACA with nothing at all to replace it.
Privatization of Social Security and Medicare.
Appointment of two conservative SCOTUS Justices at least.
National support for Voter ID laws and other voter restrictions.
Removing minimum wage requirements at the federal level.
Elimination of the estate tax.
Additional tax breaks for corporations and the richest Americans.
Repeal of many environmental laws.
Shutdowns of a number of major federal agencies, including the Department of Education, HHS, EPA. and the Labor Department.
Further limitations on unemployment benefits.
Privatization of medical care for Veterans.
Removal of regulations on bankers and other financial organizations.
Drastic reductions in Pell Grants and other aid to post-secondary education.
Bomb, Bomb Iran!
Movement toward a theocracy of conservative religious doctrines.

There are many other things on the Republican's agenda. None of them could be stopped if Republicans controlled two or even all three branches of government, and those changes would be almost impossible to reverse later. Everyone would be affected, and most gains that have been made in many areas would be reversed. Everyone's welcome to add to the list.

As we get closer to the 2016 election year, it seems to me that we should look closely at the goals of the Republican Party and work strongly together to prevent conservatives from gaining control of government. Only by uniting and working toward that goal do we have a chance to prevent such a thing from happening. I'm hoping we wake up and see the necessity of making sure we stop the Republicans in their tracks, before they destroy any chance of progress.

I'm all in on this goal. How about you?

[upaloopa]

1. On the one hand it is realistic to think that

it is possible for the repubs to do exactly as you say.
On the other hand it is not realistic to expect that 2016 could bring about a new progressive era. Yet people will be willing to risk the first hoping for the second.

[MineralMan]

3. You may be right about what we can expect from

electing a Democratic President. I'm not seeing an immediate progressive wave beginning in 2017. I'm more realistic than that. But I do see the possibility of something much worse than the slow progress we've made. I'm 69 years old. If Republicans gain and hold power for eight years, there's a good chance that's the last chance I'll have to see good things happen.

It's not a prospect I look forward to, I must say. Too much damage can be done unless we work to stop that from happening.

[calimary]

5. I'm with you, MineralMan. I'll be 62 this year. If the GOP snatches the White House and holds enough

ground in Congress and the statehouses, WE. ARE. SCREWED. We won't see ANYTHING that furthers the greater good. FOR DECADES to come.

The idea that people here and elsewhere will insist that NOT voting if you don't get the EXACT PERFECT CHOICE YOU WANT - just fucking terrifies me, MineralMan. You think you'll get anywhere near what you want by doing THAT??????? That THIS will be somehow a better wiser and/or more noble move?????????????????????????????????

[MineralMan]

6. It's a face-palm thing for me, too.

I simply don't get it at all. If I can't get everything I want, which is almost a certainty, I can do my best to block people who want to take everything away from me. I'll do whatever I can to prevent Republicans from gaining even more power. I'm not up for 8 years of disastrous policy making. Nope.

[calimary]

23. So will I, MineralMan.

I'm sorry. A lot of our fellow DU brothers and sisters don't like the sound of this and don't all embrace the idea but it's still true, dammit:

The WORST Democrat is STILL - EXPONENTIALLY preferable to the "best" republi-CON.

Frankly there's no such thing as a "best" republic-CON anymore. Even Jon Huntsman. He's STILL an "r". So he'd STILL be bringing CONS in with him - some of them guaranteed to be turn-your-stomach bad for America. Some of them would STILL be bringing turn-your-stomach ideas into power to be implemented - with him. And he'd be far more likely to side with his own over-arching team than to give fair hearing to the "D" side. I don't care HOW "moderate" he seems to be.

I just don't trust ANYBODY who places himself or herself with the "r" team. There's a reason they do that. And their reasons DO NOT square with benefiting the greater good. No matter how they slice it, no matter how they spin it, no matter how they sugar-coat it, no matter how they downplay it. IT'S STILL THERE. And it's STILL GONNA BE THERE.

[MineralMan]

24. I know you will, and I'm counting on that.

[Johonny]

9. It isn't the fear of seeing aNnything that furthers the greater good. FOR DECADES to come.

It is the fact of removing anything we do now for the greater good that seems to be point of the list. It would be decades just to fix the huge damage they would do in one four year period. I can't imagine the job loss, economic crash, unnecessary deaths,... that would result from a GOP sweep. A whole generation would be screwed and the country would clearly be an also ran in the world if those policies are put in place. Will it happen? Good God who votes for that shit is my question.

[calimary]

15. A combination of both of those. With one hand, they'd be hellbent on tearing down everything

we've tried to build up, while with the other hand they'd be trying to build as-permanent-as-possible impediments to our ever being able to do something progressive again.

We have to keep the GOP OUT OF POWER, OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE - for as long as possible. At least as long as it takes to revamp the Supreme Court, replace the aging scalias and thomases on there with left-leaning justices AND replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with another left-leaning justice similar to her. WE HAVE TO - HAVE TO - make sure the Supreme Court doesn't go farther down the drain. Unrecoverably down the drain.

I hate this, but we have NO choice. WHATEVER IT TAKES. If it means holding your nose and voting for Hillary, THAT is what it takes. The alternative is a jeb bush or some other CON in there, and that is an alternative NONE of us, nor our children (who'd be the ones sent off to the GOP's next rounds of wars) can afford.

[JaneyVee]

47. Oh wow, you're turning Social Security age just as...

Republicans are looking to shred Social Security to pieces. No doubt this next election is very very important.

[jwirr]

19. I agree. If we cannot have everything we want the best we can do is hold the ground we do have.

Doing that will allow us to carry the fight forward later.

[MineralMan]

26. There are times when that's true, for sure.

Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in 2014. That fact should cause extreme concern for everyone. It's a symptom of the danger we're in for the 2016 election. The Republicans already have control of Congress and the SCOTUS. We're just a step away from their control of the entire federal government. If that doesn't inspire fear, I don't know what will.

We need to fight for our survival. If we don't survive, we cannot thrive. It is that freaking simple. That's what we're facing and nothing less. How that is not clear to everyone, I do not understand.

[jwirr]

28. And not only our survival as a political party but for the nation and the 99%.

[valerief]

2. We'll be Northeast Korea. nt

[MineralMan]

4. Something like that, anyhow.

The US run by its own Taliban. Not a pretty picture.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Count me in! ...

republican control of the House, Senate and Presidency AND the SCOTUS will result in an American in which I do not wish to live.

[MineralMan]

8. Thank you! I already knew that you were on board.

There's a disaster just waiting to happen in 2016. A disaster we need to keep in mind and try to prevent. Try our best!

[FSogol]

10. K & R. n/t

[MineralMan]

11. Thanks very much!

That's my battle for 2016. I'm hoping for preservation and survival. I think both are at a high risk level right now.

[FSogol]

12. Yup, we can't afford people sitting out of this election, making waffles, or trying to suppress the

turnout. We'll need every single vote.

[MineralMan]

13. We will, indeed, need every vote.

We will need an outstanding turnout of Democratic voters to prevent this looming disaster. We will always need that. For me, that's the only real issue. GOTV is a constant effort, not just something for a couple of months before an election.

[corkhead]

14. All the more reason we need a good healthy well contested 2016 Democratic primary.

You never know what might happen...

[MineralMan]

16. There will be primary elections.

Of course. This is not about that. This is not about any candidate. It is about survival.

[corkhead]

18. Agreed. Once we are past that everyone will fall in line once faced with the prospect of your list

[MineralMan]

20. I certainly hope so.

That's the reason for this thread.

[corkhead]

25. As rancorous as the 2008 primary season was on DU, it worked out fine in the end.

I am not concerned that things are any worse than they have ever been in that regard. I have worried about the Supreme Court every four years for my entire voting age life and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[MineralMan]

27. 2010 and 2014 were ground-losing elections.

I do not rely on confidence that things will work out "in the end." That is most definitely not a certainty. Far from it.

[Blanks]

17. I see a lot of this in the massive quantities of emails that I receive...

and while I know it's true and scary, it seems that this is the message that we're getting from the folks who are compensated to ask the masses to vote for democrats.

I think the more effective message would be to tell the american people what the democrats would be working on if they were in charge.

The 'republicans are the boogeyman' message is not very inspiring. The president seemed to be avoiding going down that path with the State of the Union address promising free college and that sort of thing, but I think that the good work that the democrats have done and the good work that the democrats would do is drowned out by the 'boogeyman' message.

I'd rather the message be something like 'this is what we WOULD be doing, and this is what they ARE doing'. They have some good examples of work that they did when they had the chance. They need to stop stepping away from it and use it as bragging rights.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. You mean the ones with the "Could you spare $3 dollars?" attached?

I think they need to refocus too.

[Blanks]

43. That's them...

I get way too many emails trying to trick me into sending money.

As many as 20 to 30 a day. Very often the exact same message from different organizations.

I'd be embarrassed if I were them. As I've said before, they need to use paid programming to get out the facts and stop wasting all their money on 30 second spots. If they've got the money to compete head to head with the republicans - they aren't going to govern much differently. They'll be getting the bulk of their money from the same source, why should we believe they'll be any different.

I got a lot of 'double match' or 'triple match'. Oh yeah, by who? The Koch Brothers. If we are going to win, I believe our message needs to be retooled.

[MineralMan]

22. Pending disasters are plenty inspiring to me.

I have no trouble doing things to prevent disasters. I'm plenty motivated by their possibility. Perhaps you're not.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Blanks]

39. The problem with trying to convince people...

That there is a pending disaster is that too many people blame the disaster known as the Reagan administration on Jimmy Carter.

If scaring people were going to work, it would have worked in the 2014 mid-terms.

No, I think if the democrats want to win they need to talk about what the democrats are going to do instead of what the evil republicans are going to do. Even the miserable job that Dubya did is celebrated as 'a good thing' by many of my facebook friends. It is up to the democrats to tout their plan as a good thing. I remember when Dubya, came up with that stupid ass 'Mediscare' thing in the debate with Gore. Sadly, that seems to be the philosophy, try to scare people to the polls in order to get them to vote against republicans. Well, technically voting for the green candidate (or even libertarian) is voting against the republicans. The Arkansas democratic candidate for governor (Mike Ross) bragged on TV that he voted against Obsmacare - he lost and now we're stuck with Asa Hutchinson.

The democratic candidates need to have the guts to say "yeah, I voted for Obamacare, and it's a good thing" instead of this weasely "vote for me because the other guy is going to take your social security".

Again, just my opinion.

[hughee99]

29. It's funny because most of this stuff was on their agenda last time

they had both houses of congress and the white house and almost none of it got done. It looks like what they tell their voters they're going to do, and what they actually do when it power aren't the same thing. In some certain ways, perhaps, both sides are the same.

[MineralMan]

30. So, you're saying that things will be fine if they win?

Really? You're not concerned? Sorry, but I can't agree with that sentiment at all. No way.

[hughee99]

32. No, but I am saying there's a whole lot of things on this list

that they're never going to do. In fact, I'll bet you the worst things they do aren't even on this list because those are the things they don't like to advertise and can't even spin in a way that anyone would support it.

[merrily]

41. Lieberman!

Everything that Democrats did not get done was all his fault! Even if it took only 50 votes plus Biden.

Or Baucus. Or Tester.

Just you wait! The next time Democrats get the Oval Office, a very strong House majority, and 85 Senators, at least 60 of whom are liberals, you just wait and see what gets done!


Catch 22. No one wants liberal Democrats running for national office. Oops.

Luckily for Republicans, since they don't have 60 Senators, they can blame Democrats for whatever doesn't get done.

[Blanks]

46. That's why we need some kind of...

'Contract for progress' (obviously stolen from Gingrich's moronic 'contract with America').

They've got stuff they need to get to work on right away, and we need to have some kind of idea what that is.

It could be called something else because I thought it was stupid when Gingrich did it, but they did win and they did vote down all those things they said they'd bring to a vote. So, it made people feel like they were involved.

Congress approval rating is in the teens, and I expect forwarding some kind of plan that people could get behind would bring their approval rating up.

[merrily]

48. Teens? Wow! It's soared. Then again, they haven't had a lot of time to screw us yet.

Isn't the Party Platform supposed to be a Party's contract with America, anyway?

"If you vote for me and I win, I'll work like hell to get this for you." Isn't that always the deal voters have a right to expect?

Gingrich turned it into a gimmick.

BTW, how many Republican Senators were there when the Republican Contract With America passed?

(To the credit of Democrats and some vetoes from President Clinton, not all of it passed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

[Blanks]

60. Yes, the party platform should be the contract...

I don't have a problem with getting the word out about what the platform actually is with a gimmick.

The 'contract with America' was a house thing. In my recollection it reminded Americans that the house is the lower body and responds to emotional issues, while the senate is the deliberative body and doesn't typically do diddily squat unless the issue has been around through a house election.

My view of the 'contract' is a bit tainted, but I thought they voted a lot of the issues down and defended it with the statement "hey, we didn't say we'd pass anything, we just said we'd bring it to a vote in the first 100 days - the vote just happened to be no".

The contract itself was just a poll of the top 10 things americans believed congress should act on immediately, or something like that.

[merrily]

62. I don't have a problem with a gimmick, either. I was only making the additional point

that we always have a contract with politicians. (They breach a lot, though.)

My view of the 'contract' is a bit tainted, but I thought they voted a lot of the issues down and defended it with the statement "hey, we didn't say we'd pass anything, we just said we'd bring it to a vote in the first 100 days - the vote just happened to be no".

From the perspective of a voter, donor and volunteer, that beats the hell out of not even putting what you promised me into a bill. At least their own people let it out of committee as promised, ffs.

[merrily]

31. Supreme Court and say hello to President Cruz. Ugh.

This is the time when we should be eagerly anticipating a great primary, a great party platform, and looking forward to how candidates will work for Main Street, not lowering our standards to the least possible things we can expect of a Democratic President, namely not being a Republican and fulfilling his or her constitutional duty to nominate people to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court.

[gordianot]

33. There are so many catastrophic disasters brewing it is hard to keep track.

In the mean time as long as most your bills get paid, money and credit still works, you can eat, there is gas for your guzzler, a few entertainment venues keep open; heads fit nicely in holes in the sand.

[jeff47]

34. Imagine a 2016 candidate who can actually win votes

instead of a candidate who can only rely on the other side losing votes.

We used to be a party that was about bravely moving forward. Now we are a party that is cowering in the corner from various demons.

It's time to be brave again. And we aren't going to get there when we keep arguing from fear.

[djean111]

35. Isn't it a little to soon to be dragging the GOP Boogeyman out?

Just what or who would we be uniting about or behind at this point? Shouldn't this wait until after someone wins the primaries?

[MineralMan]

37. No, not really. The GOP already controls the SCOTUS and Congress.

Doesn't that worry you a bit? It's not a bogeyman. It's already almost in control of everything. You're not concerned about that?

Someone will win the primaries. That's not the point. Whoever gets the nomination is going to need our full support. Without that, we'll also have a GOP President. I mentioned nobody as the Democratic candidate. I will support whoever wins the nomination with my very best efforts. Period. This is not about that. This is about a real threat. The Republicans are 2/3 of the way there. You want to give them the last third? You can. Just ignore the threat. That's what they want you to do.

[merrily]

40. There was no need to mention a candidate. We all got it anyway. But this is still pre-primary time.

Or should be.

[MineralMan]

42. Really? Who is it you think I support?

I have no candidate for President yet. I will have one after the national convention. Until then, I'm more interested in legislative races in Minnesota. The presidential nomination will proceed without my input, I'm sure. I don't even consider it the most important race, although I will work hard to get the Democratic nominee elected.

What I'd really like to see happen is to flip a couple of congressional seats in Minnesota. There are two possibilities, and I think they can be turned. Like other Democrats in Minnesota, I'm looking for a candidate to oppose Congressmen Kline and Emmer. Those two races are my primary interest right now.

I won't have any influence on who Minnesota delegates will support at the national convention. That's above my pay grade, I'm afraid. If Bernie Sanders is on our primary ballot, he'll get my vote.

[merrily]

44. Think? You've posted that you support Hillary because you think she's the most able to

win the general. (While I disagree, that is not the point right now.)

Hillary is indeed the candidate of most, if not all, DUers actively looking for loyalty oaths, but I was going by your previous posts.

But, back to my actual point: this is still primary time. In fact, pre-primary time.

Right now, I'm thinking a lot more about the fact that powerful people in the party have been saying publicly that they don't think anyone should challenge Hillary in the primary and also think primaries are generally undesirable. I find that quite ominous not to mention anti-democratic (small D), especially in a tight, two-party system.

[MineralMan]

50. I certainly will support her if she is the nominee.

I do think she's the most likely candidate, and that she can win. However, I've also said a number of times that I will vote for Bernie Sanders if he is on the primary ballot in my state. His political philosophy is close to the same as mine. However, I doubt he can win the nomination, and am almost certain he would not win the office. Realistically, I have almost zero influence in who becomes the nominee, but will pledge my support for whoever that Democratic nominee turns out to be, just as I have in every election since 1960, when I supported JFK, despite being a sophomore in high school.

I am a Democrat. I support and vote for Democrats. Every time. Every election. Every office.

[merrily]

52. A lot of people who defend Hillary a lot post that same thing, but that is not what you posted

a while back. A while back, you posted that you were supporting Hillary.

Even though a lot of people who support Hillary and defend her to the death, almost literally, say they support Sanders in the primary, I don't see a lot of pro-Sanders posts, just a lot of Hillary posts and a lot of "swear you'll vote for the nominee" posts. Meanwhile, the party has been discouraging primary challenges to Hillary, so.....

In any event, saying "I am for Sanders, but will vote for Hillary in the general," even if true, it's a distinction without a difference. IMO, Sanders is the least likely to win the Democratic primary--as your own post acknowledges.

So in all, color me skeptical, as I tend to become when I see something that doesn't seem to add up to me at alland then I see it from a number of posters.

I see that, you are still not responding to points I raised twice now, so I won't bother raising them a third time.

[MineralMan]

55. You say I said something. Post a link where I said what you claim I said.

Do that, and we can discuss it. Thanks.

[merrily]

57. Excuse me, but the point of my reply to your OP was not about you. You have ignored

every substantive thing I raised three times now---and now you want me to google what you posted so we can continue to discuss you and not the political substance of my replies?


Seriously?

BTW, you realize you are asking me to search DU for "vote support Hillary?" How many hits do you suppose I will have to look at?

[MineralMan]

58. But it was about me. You said that I had said something.

I say that I did not say that. I have often said that I would support Hillary if she is the nominee. I've said that I think she will be. I have said that I think she will be the President. I have not said that people should vote for her in the primary elections. You made a statement about what you believe I said, and repeated it. So, you show me when I said that. You made the claim. You support it.

Here, do this search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=vote+for+sanders+mineralman&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

It will find posts where I said I will vote for Sanders in the primary, if he is on the ballot.

[merrily]

59. No, Reply 40 was about posting about primaries, though it mentioned you.

The point of the first post to you (still Reply 40) was not you. The point of the first post to you was we should be discussing primaries now. That post appeared under djean's post about primaries.

Mention of you in that post was an aside. See also my second reply to you (Reply 44). That also mentioned you because you were the only thing you replied to me about. However, I continued posting there about primaries.

My third and fourth posts pointed out you were ignoring the subject I raised. Since all your replies to me were about you, I certainly was not saying you had ignored my aside in Reply 40 about you. And then, you ignored my saying you were ignoring the substance of my posts.

I am not sure why you would assume you know the point of my posts and I don't.

You are still asking me to google about you? After my prior post to you? Really?

And with Sanders in the search field? Why should I google that? There's a post like that right in this subthread. I never said you had never posted about Sanders. I said you had posted earlier that you were supporting Hillary on electabilty grounds. Both are possible.

Your link, if it works for me at all, is not going to lead me to the post about Hillary I've been referring to. (Advanced search will not work for me. I posted that in the admin forum months ago, if YOU want to google to verify that.)


As it happens, though, I did google the internet between my last post and noticing your reply. I had time to look at only one hit. It came up in the first three and, since it was conservative cave, it drew my curiosity first:

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=100290.0

It is not the post to which I am referring, but it does kind of support what I posted in Reply 52 about what saying you will vote for Sanders in a Dem primary boils down to in practical reality.

And now, I am going to beg out of this fascinating political discussion of mineralman.

[MineralMan]

64. Predictions are not support. They are predictions.

I still predict the same outcome. It's interesting that you would quote from that right-wing site and link to it. The link to the DU post is right there in the first post. I'm posting it so people can visit the actual thread, where it is clear that I'm not endorsing Clinton, but am making a prediction. I am not on conservative cave, except as a subject of derision, just like a lot of DUers are.

Nowhere in the post you refer to do I support Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I believe, as many do, that she is the most likely nominee. That is different from supporting her in the primary, as I have pointed out to you.

Here is the link to that post on DU, to let people see it without going to that subterranean place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026085190

[merrily]

67. P.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025114256

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025144597

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026135390

Still have not found the post I remember, but, per my Reply 52, I wonder: since Sanders is your primary candidate and Hillary is not, how many OPs and other posts do you think you have written defending and/or praising or promoting Hillary and how many OPs have you written defending and/or praising or promoting Sanders?

And aren't party unity posts really also about getting people to vote Hillary? This is a Democratic board where people should be assumed to plan to vote for the Democratic nominee unless they say otherwise.

I really have not seen a lot of posts at DU vowing not to vote for Malloy or Sanders or Warren or even Webb, if he or she is the nominee. But I have seen plenty to that effect about Hillary.

This is a rhetorical question. I don't expect an actual count. Just amplifying on my Reply 52 and one of the several posting patterns I've seen.

[djean111]

54. Oh, yes, I have read that we should not waste the (bankers') money on primaries,

and also that we should not give the GOP any ammunition against Hillary. As if, you know, they needed more, or had not already thought of everything themselves.

I do believe, though, that the media is really looking forward to all that lovely primary money, so maybe the no primary thing won't be pushed too hard. But - anyone who thinks a more liberal primary opponent will actually move Hillary to the Left is smokin' something. All that will happen is liberalized campaign blather.

[merrily]

49. YES. But it sure distracts from other things. Pls. see Reply 44.

[Andy823]

36. I agree

We also can't forget the state and local governments either. They are causing a lot of problems ALL levels of government, the only way to stop them is vote them out.

One thing for sure, republicans will make things worse at ever level they control, and we have to stop them.

[MineralMan]

38. Absolutely. Every race at every level is crucial.

I focus primarily on local and legislative elections. There is a Presidential election, though, in 2016. We lost ground in 2014. We have to get control back and that's going to take an all-out effort.

[LongTomH]

45. You need to add: What will happen to science

Anybody remember George Deutsch, the Bush appointed 'press officer' (read 'political officer,' like the old Soviet Union!). This little punk hadn't even graduated from Texas A&M; but, he was allowed to censor NASA reports on global warming and limit press access to NASA scientists like James Hansen.

After he resigned, when his lack of qualifications was revealed, he went out whining:

In emails to reporters after his resignation Deutsch complained there was a "culture war" in the government over climate change. "Anyone perceived to be a Republican, a Bush supporter or a Christian is singled out and labeled a threat to their views. I encourage anyone interested in this story to consider the other side, to consider Dr. [James E.] Hansen's true motivations and to consider the dangerous implications of only hearing out one side of the global warming debate," Deutsch wrote in the email.

There was also a creationist theme in young Mr. Deutsch's censorship:

In a subsequent story in the Times (February 4, 2006), Revkin reported, "Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists and public-affairs employees came forward this week to say that beyond Dr. Hansen's case, there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency." Among these appointees was George Deutsch, described by the Times as "a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign." Deutsch "told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word 'theory' after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times."

In his e-mail message, Deutsch wrote that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. ... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most." Revkin added, "The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity."

[workinclasszero]

51. We can't lose in 2016

Freedom will die in this country if we lose, or should I say it will be murdered by the Koch bros and their private puppet party.

[MineralMan]

56. Sadly, we CAN lose in 2016. We must not, but we certainly can lose.

Democrats can lose any presidential election. It has happened many times. If we don't turn out enough voters for the Democratic candidate, we WILL lose. It's that simple.

Every presidential election is a close election, except in a few cases. This country is very evenly divided politically. It's easy to lose. Winning takes hard work and strong voter turnout.

[workinclasszero]

79. "Winning takes hard work and strong voter turnout."

So true but I am afraid with seemingly 3/4 of this board saying they will never vote for Hillary under any circumstance that we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I will gladly support any democratic candidate that gets the nomination. Amy democrat would be worlds better than a President Cruz and a koch/religious fanatical Congress ready and willing to write sharia laws and destroy SS/medicare on the back of all-out nuclear war in the middle east.

But the purists might get what they are begging for...I hope not.

[get the red out]

53. Hell on Earth

Nothing but that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. So where are the stellar Democratic candidates?

We all know how desperate
this election will be.

Yet the Democratic party
is not showing any significant
leadership and the candidates
have been lackluster.

In fact, the Democratic Party
has squandered many opportunities
and done little to nothing to
give us something to vote FOR.

Your thread is premised on voting
AGAINST republicans, not voting
FOR any Democratic platform.

It's a sad state of affairs for our Party.

[MineralMan]

66. I have no idea, nor do I have any influence on any potential

candidates. Warren has once again categorically said that she is not going to run. Sanders still might. O'Malley appears to be strongly considering it. Biden will probably join the primary race.

I will certainly be voting FOR a Democrat for President. That's how I vote against Republicans. I will also be campaigning for every Democrat on the ballot here in Minnesota, where I live. That is how I help others vote against Republicans. What will you be doing?

Is the Democratic Party in a sad state? That depends, I guess, on where you are. Here in St. Paul, MN, the DFL Party selects and elects progressive Democrats. Reliably. How about where you are?

[Cosmic Kitten]

69. Why do you think there is a lack of strong Democratic candidates overall?

We are losing in every level of governing.

Why do you think that is so?

I'm in a deep red voting district.
A Populist message resonates well here.

[MineralMan]

71. So, when was the last time a Democrat held office where you are?

That might be why nobody's running there.

I know my own state, and my previous state best. Minnesota and California. No shortage of strong Democratic candidates in either state.

You'd know your own area better than I do, so maybe you can answer.

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. Why do you think there is a lack of strong Democratic candidates overall?

Why do you think the Democrats are losing elections?

[Rex]

63. Is this just a trend or fad for some? I did not know that.

I thought progressives are always trying to find ways to get rid of the GOPukers, I had no idea it was just a trend for some here.

[yuiyoshida]

65. It will be the VERY LAST Administration and the US will be no more.

The Country will break up into smaller clumps of countries by then. There will be no more USA, and we'll look like what has happened to the Soviet Union, with new neighboring countries trying to fight to survive.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. That's depressing

I hear Costa Rica is a great place to live...

[yuiyoshida]

74. Wait till you see the kind of government they form

lots of petty dictatorships.

[Fumesucker]

70. Do you have a declared candidate in mind to unite behind?

I get the impression you are trying to imply something without actually coming out and saying it, a very political way of communicating.

[MineralMan]

72. Nobody has declared, so no. When there is a nominee, that

person will have my full support. What I have said many times is that I have no influence in the selection of presidential candidates. I have exactly one vote in the primary election. Maybe there are people on DU who will be delegates to the national convention. I don't know, and I haven't heard anyone say they will be. If not, then everyone will have their single vote in the primaries.

During the primary campaign, I will be trying to get people to go and vote in them, but I will not be campaigning for any presidential candidate at that time. I'll save that for the general election, and will campaign for the eventual Democratic nominee.

So, no. I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that we need to win in 2016. I assume there is no disagreement with that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

78. Why do you think we won't WIN in 2016

We need to win every election.

Why are we losing?

[hobbit709]

73. to someone on the bottom, it will feel like the same screwing.

[MineralMan]

75. Will it? I don't think so, really.

There are many differences between the approaches of the two parties. They are palpable if you are in that difficult situation. While you'll still be in a hole, it will be an easier hole to get out of with one of the parties in power.

Life can suck, regardless of politics. It can always suck worse, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. IMHO, the emboldened will come to pass

Repeal of the ACA with nothing at all to replace it.
Privatization of Social Security and Medicare.
Appointment of two conservative SCOTUS Justices at least.
National support for Voter ID laws and other voter restrictions.
Removing minimum wage requirements at the federal level.
Elimination of the estate tax.
Additional tax breaks for corporations and the richest Americans.
Repeal of many environmental laws.
Shutdowns of a number of major federal agencies, including the Department of Education, HHS, EPA. and the Labor Department.
Further limitations on unemployment benefits.
Privatization of medical care for Veterans.
Removal of regulations on bankers and other financial organizations.
Drastic reductions in Pell Grants and other aid to post-secondary education.
Bomb, Bomb Iran!
Movement toward a theocracy of conservative religious doctrines.

[Martin Eden]

80. **GOTV** is the KEY ...

... and I think the SUREST WAY TO GOTV is to give people candidates they are enthusiastic to vote FOR.

Urging people to vote AGAINST Republicans is less inspiring, in my opinion, to the millions of eligible voters who often don't bother.