HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Grapes

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:52 PM

Grapes

It is said that when the ancient philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do, if he was granted political authority, he responded, “Insist that people use words correctly.” While he may not have been speaking of the 2016 Democratic primary specifically, I am convinced he would have included the word “progressive” as one with a real meaning. That word continues to be misused today, when applied to the two Democratic candidates.

My father was a first-generation product of an Irish immigrant family. Most of the extended family worked on the railroads in the northeast. They were all union activists. Dad’s favorite aunt, Mary, was a charter member of the national Order of Telegraphers Union. Hence, my father passed down her definitions to me, as a family heirloom. These definitions apply accurately to the membership of the Democratic Party.

There are four basic sub-groups of Democrats. While the party has definitely shifted to the right since 1980, those definitions still hold. Going from right to left, there are: conservatives, moderates, liberals, and progressives. Obviously, not everyone fits neatly into the various groups. There can be differences, for example, in an individual’s beliefs on domestic and international affairs. Yet, the sum total of their beliefs tend to fit into one of the four groups.

The growth in the numbers of conservative Democrats accounts for the party’s shift to the right. The most obvious example of this was President Bill Clinton. His political beliefs were known as “Third Way,” as they combined both republican and Democratic values. Thus, the correct identification for this type of Democrat is “conservative,” or centrist. Still, some people misidentify President Clinton as a “liberal,” despite his record on important issues ranging from international trade deals to public assistance.

Perhaps the two most important groups in the context of the current primary are “liberal” and “progressive.” By definition, liberals seek to fine-tune the system by way of gradual change. Progressives, on the other hand, seek fundamental changes to the system. Senator Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of a progressive. We see this in his approach to the international trade deals, and in his health care proposals.

Hillary Clinton has stated during the campaign that she is a progressive. She was challenged on this during one of the debates, when a moderator played a recent film clip of her speaking to a conservative audience, where she took pride in identifying herself as a moderate. This attempt to be all things to all people is not something Clinton invented -- it is not a new political tactic. But it is much harder to pull off these days, with the internet.

The Clinton campaign likes to portray Sanders as a radical. Perhaps the concept of social justice is radical today. They like to call his supporters dangerous extremists. Certainly, the environmental crisis we face presents very real dangers, and it will require extreme dedication in order to deal successfully with it.

We live in an “extreme” period of time. It is not possible to confront and resolve the extreme problems we face with a moderate approach. There may have been many times when a moderate politician, or a conservative Democrat, would be the best choice for president. Or, at least the safest choice. But that is not true today. We need a true progressive in the White House, who has the moral authority to call forth progressives at the grass roots, in order to deal with the extreme damage that has been done to our country by the 1% since 1980.

Add to this that as we approach the Democratic National Convention, neither Hillary or Bernie has the number of delegates required to put them over the top. Thus, the “super delegates” will be selecting the candidate that gets the nomination. It is safe to say that 100% of these “super delegates” are establishmentarians. A few might be liberal, but the vast majority are moderate and conservative Democrats. None are progressives.

It is anticipated that, barring unforeseen circumstances, they will be loyal to the Clinton dynasty. This will not transform Hillary into a more attractive candidate with the progressive community; rather, it will serve to confirm the negative impression they have of her. And despite her campaign’s attempts to portray her as so gosh darned popular that her presidency is inevitable, a growing awareness among her top advisers points to the great difficulty she would encounter in the general election. “There’s no where else for them to go” isn’t a strategy -- it is an attempt to justify the vicious attacks that her people have unleashed at the Sanders revolution.

Some progressive Democrats would definitely vote for Hillary if she is given the nomination by the “super delegates.” And Clinton has the ability to convince others, between the convention and November, that she represents the lesser of two evils. It is certainly possible that she could win the general election. However, it is a shame that the Clinton campaign has no chance, at this time, of gaining enthusiastic progressive support, and has totally alienated the Democratic Left.

If Bernie gets the nomination, it is unlikely that the moderate and conservative Democrats would support Trump. Of course, they won’t be invested in campaigning for Sanders. But as long as they vote for him, Bernie will crush Donald Trump like a grape.

Peace,
H2O Man

69 replies, 4253 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Grapes (Original post)
H2O Man May 2016 OP
myrna minx May 2016 #1
H2O Man May 2016 #2
procon May 2016 #3
H2O Man May 2016 #5
procon May 2016 #11
H2O Man May 2016 #18
Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #31
H2O Man May 2016 #33
cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #36
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
H2O Man May 2016 #38
cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #44
H2O Man May 2016 #47
Sensitive soul May 2016 #48
JumpinJehosaphat May 2016 #49
tk2kewl May 2016 #10
procon May 2016 #13
tk2kewl May 2016 #15
H2O Man May 2016 #19
tk2kewl May 2016 #20
H2O Man May 2016 #22
procon May 2016 #23
tk2kewl May 2016 #24
H2O Man May 2016 #27
tk2kewl May 2016 #35
H2O Man May 2016 #39
Hiraeth May 2016 #4
H2O Man May 2016 #7
mmonk May 2016 #6
H2O Man May 2016 #8
mindwalker_i May 2016 #9
H2O Man May 2016 #21
mindwalker_i May 2016 #25
TM99 May 2016 #53
Vincardog May 2016 #12
tk2kewl May 2016 #14
Vincardog May 2016 #16
tk2kewl May 2016 #17
hootinholler May 2016 #37
Vincardog May 2016 #54
H2O Man May 2016 #34
Vincardog May 2016 #55
jpmonk91 May 2016 #26
H2O Man May 2016 #28
jpmonk91 May 2016 #29
H2O Man May 2016 #30
jpmonk91 May 2016 #32
Gregorian May 2016 #40
H2O Man May 2016 #42
countryjake May 2016 #41
H2O Man May 2016 #43
Liberal Jesus Freak May 2016 #45
H2O Man May 2016 #46
Uncle Joe May 2016 #50
H2O Man May 2016 #61
MFM008 May 2016 #51
JonLeibowitz May 2016 #52
H2O Man May 2016 #62
PATRICK May 2016 #56
H2O Man May 2016 #63
JEB May 2016 #68
fun n serious May 2016 #57
H2O Man May 2016 #64
fun n serious May 2016 #69
Nye Bevan May 2016 #58
LexVegas May 2016 #60
H2O Man May 2016 #65
Demsrule86 May 2016 #59
H2O Man May 2016 #66
G_j May 2016 #67

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:59 PM

1. Fantastic essay. I agree with every word. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #1)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:01 PM

2. Thank you!

I kind of hurried to type it up, because I am writing another one (in my head) that I think is pretty important. But it comes as something as a follow-up to this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:10 PM

3. Giving your flamebait a wide pass.

If you could just make an itemized list of all the derogatory phrases you use to describe this terrible Hillary person, it would really speed up slogging through your next rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #3)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:15 PM

5. Or, then again,

you might opt to not waste your time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #5)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:26 PM

11. Hard to tell when you use a clickbait title like "Grapes", yeah?

I was expecting to find something to do with the plight of impoverished migrant field workers, or possibly the use of cancer causing pesticides. Imagine my chagrin at being suckered into another Hillary Hater's vanity post. Bad show, guy, bad show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #11)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:49 PM

18. Silly you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #11)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:08 PM

31. Yes, because that would be the expectation in GD: P.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #31)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:22 PM

33. I guess I

should have written about my favorite grape jelly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:32 PM

36. Concord. Without a doubt.

 

Welch's.

Finally... a subject I can sink my teeth into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #36)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:37 PM

38. !

Well done.

Thank you.

It's a shame that some folks just want to add a few insults, rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. I'm always happy to converse with people that hold different opinions. But this person just wants to make their bias know, not to engage in a discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #38)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:42 PM

44. Read your OP twice, failed to find the derogatory phrases.

 

They deflect, then deflect the deflection. I've often wished I had that talent at certain times in my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #44)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:32 PM

47. Right.

I've always been willing to discuss (or debate) ideas and opinions here on DU. And I think that it is high-time that this community's Hillary and Bernie supporters talk shop. But a number of one group seem intent upon shutting down serious discussions .....and just attacking people for no good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:13 PM

48. When

You hit a nerve you know that you're on the right track. Kudos to you my dearest H2O man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #31)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:19 PM

49. good one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #3)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:25 PM

10. funny... i saw nothing derogatory

 

Maybe you would like to create a list of the words the OP used to describe Clinton that are derogatory?

Third Way?
Centrist?
Conservative Democrat?

Those are the closest things I could find, but no serious observer of politics would say that those are inaccurate descriptions of Hillary or Bill Clinton. If you find those descriptions derogatory, you may want to examine why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #10)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:33 PM

13. It's a two way street, yeah?

What is the payoff in posting and defending divisive posts like this OP? High fives and giggles back in the clubhouse? Bernie has policies that no one discusses here, so what do you lot hope to achieve by launching all these sequential flame wars against Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #13)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:35 PM

15. again, what is derogatory about the OP?

 

What is inaccurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #15)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:52 PM

19. Call it speculation

on my part, but our friend might be offended by my pointing out that neither candidate has a "victory" without the establishment's "super delegates" picking who they want as our party's candidate. That's rather like the old all animals are equal, with some being more equal to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #19)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:56 PM

20. maybe they just don't like grapes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #20)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:57 PM

22. A case of

sour grapes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #10)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:10 PM

23. Of course you don't, and that's symptomatic of a larger problem.

If those are the best examples you take away, it's not surprising that you're so discombobulated. This rigid and blinkered mindset does not portend well for a faction that is limited by their own idealistic purity. Bernie's fans seem to be unable to see themselves selves as others do, not that it matters now, I suppose, but it has a hugely negative impact on your candidate. Since these repetitious flame bait posts appear far more regularly than any positive posts on Bernie's platform, I would like to see someone discuss why that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #23)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:14 PM

24. so what am i missing?

 

what is so offensive to you about the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #24)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:57 PM

27. A pattern emerges:

This person did not identify what was so upsetting about the OP; rather, he resorted to insulting me and my opinion. When you asked why, he attempted to again deflect, and insult me and my humble opinion. When he continue to ask, you get the latest response, pretending you are the problem.

Let's think -- I gave my opinion that Hillary is not a progressive, and documented the reasons why, by definition, she is not. I noted that neither candidate has pulled off the victory before our convention; again, hard to argue that one. I noted that the "super delegates" will select their favorite candidate; again, hard to argue. I noted that we are in extreme times; again, hard to argue -- unless one is comfortable, as the "super delegates" etc are. I said that the times demand a unique leader -- and only Bernie could possibly be considered unique in the 2016 contest.

The person is unhappy that I am posting a series of essays from the left side of the Democratic Party; besides being posted on DU, these are being shared among a variety of sites read by progressive Democrats and members of the Democratic Left. We are attending the national convention. We aren't coming hat-in-hand, begging for crumbs off their table. We aren't coming with clenched fists, trying to start a fight. We are coming with our hand extended, hoping to shake hands with the Clinton people. It is just as much our convention as it is their's.

Hence, when I say the things I do, it is not to be mistaken as an attempt to look acceptable to that person, or anyone like him. My recent OPs are directed primarily at the Sanders revolution. They are my opinions. I have as much right -- and responsibility -- to speak my mind as anyone. Attempts to silence me, or the other progressive activists, are silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #27)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:30 PM

35. I'm with you

 

I just like to see if I can get these other posters to provide real argument. This guy says I have binders on, so I was wondering what he thought I was missing. Another said your OP was deragatory, so I asked how. Niether provided a response to the questions asked, so it's reasonable to conclude they have no serious argument but are just angry that some are not buying what Clinton is selling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #35)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:25 PM

39. It is curious

how, per my last three OPs, one or more of the Clinton supporters will resort to simply making personal insults, while avoiding any serious discussion/ debate of issues. Reminds me of the old saying: shallow waters run shallow.

Like you, I'm always happy to engage in civil discussions. In fact, as the convention draws nearer, it would seem an ideal time to stop with the cheap stuff, and to talk shop. Luckily, there are plenty of Hillary Clinton's supporters who are ready and willing to do so .....they just don't seem to be found on DU .....which is not to suggest that there are plenty of intelligent, rational Clinton supporters on DU ....but rather, that there is an "us versus them" mentality here, which discourages the Clinton supporters from talking in a civil manner with the Sanders revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:14 PM

4. Precision of Language, please. Thanks for the OP. I think you could be right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #4)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:16 PM

7. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:15 PM

6. Agreed.

The problem as I see it is the progressives have been very active in the political process, loyal, and active gotv specialists. However, their treatment in the party in recent years has not matched the contributions. Therein lies the angst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #6)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:20 PM

8. Right.

In general, progressives are the ones who are doing the "on the street" work for campaigns, from the grass roots level to presidential elections. I'm not saying that this is more important than the many other chores that successful campaigns require ....but I can say that it is no less important than the others.

No one likes to be taken for granted. But, even that would be an upgrade in how the progressives have been treated in this primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:23 PM

9. Most excellent post!

I can hear the Hillary supporters already: "But, but, but you don't get to define 'progressive'." Basically, thay apply good-sounding words to their candidate/deity whether those words make sense to apply or not. As a result, words lose all meaning. Their defense (above) is pure, uncut bullshit.

The core of your message is that we don't live in normal times - we live in extreme times. That has a lot of truth to it. Envirnomental problems need radical solutions, not just requiring slightlly higher fuel efficiency - and we can't even get that in these extreme times. Income inequality is also an extreme problem that threatens to push the country into pitchfork terriroty. It also has a significant effect on whether we can deal with climate change given that the super-rich are married to the systems that cause climate change.

One political party is deep into extreme, ideological terrirory. That makes it impossible to discuss many issues or even approach them. Dealing with the country's issues is pretty much impossible because of it. "Tweaking" won't solve this one in a million years.

In the end, Hillary is insufficient to improve any of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:57 PM

21. Exactly.

I certainly did not say that Hillary hates nature, enjoys polluting, and likes to kill small, cute living things. But, what I did say -- and will say again -- is that she does not have the capacity to bring about meaningful change per environmental issues. While she understands the horror of children drinking water contaminated by lead in Flint, she hasn't made the connection with the children in communities where the water has been contaminated by fracking. But many of us can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #21)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:20 PM

25. See is also too much a part of the system

The system is the one where money makes all the important decisions. She is wedded to it to a large degree and won't go against the interests of that money. Hence, it is unreasonable to expect her to tackle the problem brought about by money in the political system or even problems where money influences decisions.

As for fracking, money in politics is a key part of why we have it. She will either ignore the contribution of fracking to problems like Flint or claim there is just nothing that can be done about it. She has a progressive tax plan, but the rich will rise up against it and she will bend to their will. The war on drugs makes too much money for too many people. She isn't going to change it.

In contrast, Bernie's revolution is about denying the influence of big money. He probably won't be able to overcome it, but he will at least change the conversation about why things are the way they are and why they need to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #9)


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:28 PM

12. What it comes down to is the radical solutions are the only ones that offer even a modicum of hope

Of success. Our economic system has entered its' terminal cannibalistic phase.
Our political system also has entered its' death knell as the moneyed interests work to make even the idea of democratic rule a joke.
The environment is in such terrible shape human life will not be possible on this planet in short order.

The only fixes to any (or all) these issues is RADICAL and extreme. The Powers that be have to be overruled and their policies reversed.

That is why we have all the food fights over trivialities. They are distractions designed to disguise the real horrible realities we are facing.

HRC is the last nail on the democratic coffin. As democracy is killed so too will die the economy and the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:34 PM

14. what it has come down to...

 

Is that the sensible is now considered radical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #14)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:38 PM

16. Our politicians are not scientists but their donnors hate scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #16)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:40 PM

17. sometimes they like to play doctor though

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #16)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

37. If they hate them so much

Why do they keep trying to buy them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #37)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:55 AM

54. They want them to lie for them why else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:27 PM

34. Well said.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #34)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:58 AM

55. Thank you for the excellent OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:44 PM

26. Excellent Post!

I'm also doing a series of posts here is part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280194197

Keep fighting the good fight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpmonk91 (Reply #26)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:59 PM

28. Beautiful!

Mighty proud of you, Brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #28)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:04 PM

29. Thank You!

Btw this is one of my favorite posts. The word does get misused a lot these days. I'm glad Bernie decided to run because he is helping to hold politicians accountable to thier words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpmonk91 (Reply #29)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:06 PM

30. I've got another

rough outline almost completed in my mind. It is time for the progressive community to not only speak up, but to exercise our full power .....within the Democratic Party, and the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:14 PM

32. Exactly

If we act we can get a lot done. In Europe the people march on all issues large and small and because of it those governments do listen to thier people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:31 PM

40. Even evolution works in quantum jumps.

I was listening to something this week regarding evolution, and I was hearing my thoughts on this election, as i read it.

Today i listened to a great history of how we went from the socialists and communists having political clout in America, from the 1800's right up until the death of FDR around 1945, at which time the dismantling of the New Deal began.

So what I've learned is that Bernie's campaign is simply trying to bring us back to what once was normal American politics.

It keeps coming back to me over and over that this election is like trying to sober a drunk who doesn't see his situation as problematic.

The bottom line is climate change. But the trouble is, if we don't take action immediately, and wait until we see more serious symptoms, it will be too late. It's already too late, but we don't care about millions who live in poverty. Like Bangladesh. Originally we were to keep temperatures from rising 1.5C, in order to save the suffering of millions. But it was too inconvenient, and they bumped it to 2C. Already, we're backing away from the inconvenient truth.

We have literally devolved as a nation, since the last days of FDR. But like many diseases, we didn't feel it happening, and can't see it as it is now.

I'm somewhat frustrated, as I thought if one presented logical arguments, results would follow. That isn't happening, from what I see.

All I can think of is the last words in Bridge On The River Kwai. "Madness".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #40)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:13 PM

42. Thanks, Gregorian!

Exactly as you note, we do not have the luxury of waiting patiently to see just how dramatic nature's consequences will be. It's not like with "man's law," where one can hope, for example, that a police or FBI investigation will determine there's not enough to prosecute; or where one can hire a fancy lawyer, and beat the rap; or even plead guilty, and hope the court shows mercy. For Natural Law can be extremely cold and harsh, and everyone is at risk of paying for the few's mistakes.

We need to immediately begin instituting change. Not just talking about it. Or demanding new studies. The scientists in our universities already are convinced that human-kind is going to pay a huge price in coming years -- indeed, plenty of people around the globe already are.

Yet we have people -- who tend to appear otherwise intelligent and rational -- who are convinced that we can continue on this path for a little longer ....while they collect a bit more wealth, and enjoy a few more vacations and what not. They are, just as you say, intoxicated to an extent that they put others at risk, as surely as any drunk driver.

As always, thank you for your contributions to this community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:39 PM

41. Grapes of Wrath




That's what I was immediately reminded of when I read your thread title and then, my thoughts wandered on to precious past DUers such as Sapphire Blue, while reading your paragraph about social justice and "radicals" and "extremists" and the extreme sincere dedication it is gonna take to effect any change.

I so much appreciate seeing your essays posted here and I thank you for your own dedication. And I still have hope that we are everywhere.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #41)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:20 PM

43. Thanks, countryjake

I'm glad that you reminded us of some of the "extremists" who have graced this forum with their goodness over the years.

All of my "heroes" were extremists: Buddha was an extremist for peace of mind; Jesus for love; Gandhi for forgiveness; and Malcolm for justice. These are role models that far less significant individuals, such as myself, should try to learn from, in order to meet the needs of this time in history. I recognize that I am a tiny acorn, compared to those extraordinary oak trees. But to even be insulted in the same manner they were is indeed an honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:51 PM

45. As always...

Your posts are thought-provoking, intelligent, and inclusive. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Jesus Freak (Reply #45)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:27 PM

46. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:11 AM

50. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #50)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:19 AM

61. Thanks, Uncle Joe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:13 AM

51. hope springs eternal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #51)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:30 AM

52. Incisive commentary, to be sure.

I know who I'll look to for depth and clarity of thinking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #51)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:19 AM

62. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 04:56 AM

56. OK, I'll ask again

How on earth will the magical coming together happen this year at the convention, since the split is much more than about the candidates and is in fact an irreconcilable power conflict. At least at first blush it is. Traditionally the winner is both too happy entitled and- fearful- to concede real party power advantages. Even with the establishment raging and sending out the riot police in 1968 with HHH doing the jig as he finally hit the magic number(delayed with resentful purpose by a long roll call), concessions were made to the primary process. The impression on the viewership and the party faithful embodied the whole divide of the times and the GOP skated over this with Nixon.

Our times are very different of course and so are the progressives, united behind a single candidate with singularly powerful and undeniable numbers. If again, the party establishment tosses its weight against those delegate numbers I really have to wonder how this will play out right there and then and then what kind of potentially crippling result it will shadow over the the following months.

It isn't about appeasing a wing but doing the right thing, inspiring and leading. And the right thing is not about kowtowing to 1% of the electorate- most of whom are not by any stretch of the imagination Dems in any form at all.

Oh yes, I've heard that superdelegates will vote for Clinton should she even be in a jail cell by June. Obviously on the side they are still bugging Biden. Conservative Dems, now corrupted by big money, have been chafing since FDR as much as the GOP to steer this party toward their part of the coalition. Now they seem exactly like the old GOP with some incremental sops for the peasants. This may be something worthy of the grand myopia of an already fading Empire, but not what the citizens of this planet desperately need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PATRICK (Reply #56)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:35 AM

63. Interesting.

I think that the republican party faced a potential Chicago '68 experience, if the establishment had tried to deny Trump the nomination. I do not think that similar dynamics hold for Philadelphia. But your post provides food for thought.

In '68, the young people were protesting against the Democratic Party, as it was without question the "war party." If RFK had not been killed, the "leaders" at Chicago would not have called for the demonstrations. McCarthy, by this time, had shown some personality quirks that suggested he was not entirely serious about his campaign -- including a lack of respect for the anti-war leaders ....of course, he had seen both MLK and RFK killed, and Eugene was not stupid.

The Philadelphia demonstrations are not "anti-Democratic Party." We are the Democratic Party. We aren't coming there to throw bricks from rooftops, or start fires in the streets. We are not coming to disrupt. Rather, we are coming to make an organized statement, in the spirit of Martin Luther King.

I'm still in the middle of my first cup of coffee this morning. I wanted to start a response to your important post now .....and hope others will, as well. I will add more later today. Until then, thank you for raising these very important points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PATRICK (Reply #56)

Fri May 13, 2016, 11:44 AM

68. The Party establishment has stepped too far right

 

and is stuck in the quicksand of money. The Progressive and Liberal wing is done compromised out. There will be no magical coming together. It will be up to the nominee to patch together a coalition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 05:13 AM

57. You forgot the other group of alleged democrats..

 

Authoritarian Zealots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fun n serious (Reply #57)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:39 AM

64. That is two groups.

The authoritarians all fall under the conservative Democrats; there are zealots among all four of the groups. That word -- "zealot" -- can have either a positive or negative connotation (unlike authoritarian). When connected with "authoritarian," it describes a rigid type of conservative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #64)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:55 PM

69. The group I am talking about is a unique

 

mix of those words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 07:50 AM

58. Where would you put President Obama in your "conservative", "moderate", "liberal", "progressive"

classification?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #58)

Fri May 13, 2016, 08:00 AM

60. Right leaning moderate. It's Bernie's Bizarro World. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #58)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:49 AM

65. Fair question.

I think that when he ran in 2008, Senator Obama was a liberal, who was willing to take moderate steps to move the country forward. As president, I think he has achieved many important goals. There are some areas where I disagree with him, of course, but I think that in the context of where our country was when he took over -- which really was in the month before the '08 election -- he ranks as one of the most substantial presidents ever.

If I were to assign "blame" for his failures today, I'd simply point out what I posted on DU early in his presidency. His campaign had created a great force in America. His campaign harnessed that force for the election. However, in part because his staff did not keep the force harnessed, and largely because people stepped back -- incorrectly believing the election was it, and Obama could then take care of business on his own -- and it created a vacuum. The tea party quickly filled that vacuum, while Democrats watched on TV, shaking their heads.

I have a high opinion of President Obama. I hope that Bernie can move the ball forward from where Obama has advanced it. I do not believe Clinton wants to move it in that same direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 07:57 AM

59. I have news for you

If Bernie stole the election which is the only way he could get it, I would not vote for him period. He would lose anyway once the swiftboating began. I want nothing to do with Bernie Sanders if he does such a thing...that is dictator like behavior...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #59)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:49 AM

66. gosh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 10:17 AM

67. I always appreciate your respect for clarity

in communication and language. I am onboard with your OP.

At this point in my life, for lack of another description, my world view might essentially be seen as Buddhist in nature. In this, I will choose in the GE that choice which I believe will result in the least suffering. I am still hopeful that Sanders can pull through and give me a choice that isn't the best of "two evils". Whatever is in the future, I will keep in mind the suffering of the least among us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread