How do you reshape the Democratic Party? Start with winning the nomination.

[CajunBlazer]

Which is more important?

To re-frame the party platform (which no one will care about one week after the convention.)

OR

To ensure that there is still a Democrat in the White House after President Obama moves out
And to ensure that the Supreme Court is run by liberal justices for the next 20 years
And to ensure that Obama care isn't repealed
And to ensure that women can continue to make decisions about their own bodies
And to ensure that Wall Street isn't given permission to ruin the economy again.
And to ensure that a thin skinned, narcissistic demagogue isn't making war/peace, and economic decisions and doesn't have his finger on eh nuclear button.
And etc.
Etc.

Endorse or don't endorse, I don't care - but get your priorities straight and don't cause a useless floor fight at the convention. Don't make it more difficult for your remaining supporter to support the nominee. Don't tear the party apart while trying to reshape it.

[Scootaloo]

1. If you don't care what the party stands for, then why bother?

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

That's what the platform is, a statement of what the party stands for.

[840high]

53. .that^

[DirkGently]

75. This is the weirdest argument, eh?

If we had a Fascist platform, or an anarchist platform, it wouldn't matter, because apparently our only job is to "win" things?

What a strange point of view.

[pangaia]

84. That is one of the things for which I have the greatest respect for Sanders.

He is not about him winning.
He is about issues and doing good for other human beings.

[DirkGently]

85. Well obviously getting things done is a product of both, right?

You have to get the votes to get the elections to get the representatives. But it also has to mean something and get you somewhere, or you're wasting your time.

Which is why everyone continues to argue for the things they believe in at all times. There is not a point where reasonable intelligent citizens of a democracy shut up and get in line.

What a weird impulse it is to try to convince them to do that.

I don't know why people keep floating these primitive reductionist arguments. They don't work and make us sound unintelligent besides.

[pangaia]

88. Perhaps, as I suspect is true with many,

you don't realize that Bernie is fighting a totally different battle than Hillary is.

[HumanityExperiment]

109. ^^^ THIS ^^^

n/t

[HassleCat]

126. That's kinda what happens.

Both political parties pend a lot of time putting together a platform. Then the candidates run away from it as fast as they can.

[silvershadow]

129. I care what the party stands for. I hope and pray the platform resembles

something much further to the left than has been presented over the last 4 decades...more of something we used to be.

[Lunabell]

2. Dude, it's all about what the party stands for.

The Democratic platform is their promise to the people. It is about integrity.

[sheshe2]

3. Hey dude,

Please link to me the last time you had such concerns about a party platform. TIA

[Lunabell]

4. I don't have to justify myself to you. n/t

[sheshe2]

6. Thanks.

Asked and answered.

[Lunabell]

8. Yea, like I said.

It's about integrity.

[baldguy]

15. Integrity is being consistant in things you care about, knowing what our goals are.

As indicated in the OP, one of those goals is maintaining the accomplishments we have won, and knowing there is always more than one way to achieve our goals.

Being dogmatic & hidebound to document that carries no legal weight and no moral authority when it could prevent those goals from being achieved is the opposite of integrity. Doubly so when that document is usually forgotten, other than to be mined for ideas by the nominee of the party for things that are actually achievable.

[FSogol]

36. Well said. Make that an OP. n/t

[pangaia]

86. If the document doesn't matter, carries no legal weight, no moral authority

and will be forgotten, then why not just put everything Sanders wants in it?

[pangaia]

89. Second, Bernie IS being consistant in the things he cares about.

THAT is what proves his integrity.
And THOSE things he cares about would go farther in reaching 'our' goals.

[Ken Burch]

63. Some of us always have.

I wanted progressive platform amendments in 1980 as a Kennedy supporter, 1984 and 1988 as a Jackson supporter and 2004 as a Kucinich supporter(most of those campaigns were before the internet).

People on the left have ALWAYS cared about the platform.

[CajunBlazer]

5. It doesn't matter what a party stands for if it's not in power

If an attempt to change what the party stands for means the loss of the white house, the Senate and the Supreme Court, what does it matter how pure the party is ideologically.

Hard core progressives and hard core right wingers both comprise just a small portion of the electorate. Why is it that that they are always insisting that the majority adopt their ideology.

[DirkGently]

40. It doesn't matter who's in power if they don't stand for anything.

Hard to understand how people become so partisan they literally think nothing but "winning" matters. What matters is getting the right things done. That's why we have these discussions about "platforms" and "integrity" and "principles."

Trump's a perfect example of this backward thinking. It's hard to tell what he really thinks, because he just plays to the crowd. Used to be a Democrat. Used to support a woman's right to choose. Sometimes wants to ban Muslims; sometimes isn't so sure.

If he were right, and could elected simply by making whatever noises people want to hear, we'd elect that kind of person every time. An indecipherable concoction of crowd-pleasing chants and slogans, with no predictable policy behind it. Policy would therefore be a random crapshoot of whatever the most successful strategist really thought, which no one would know beforehand because it would all be about, "winning."

It's not all about "winning." That kind of winning is for the Trumps and Charlie Sheens of the world.

Nobody thinks that.

We are supposed to be smarter.

[CajunBlazer]

45. I understand - you would rather be idealogically pure and lose...

....than be more moderate and win the Presidency.

You realize that the losers don't get to set the agenda or do anything to improve the situation. You understand that they don't get an opportunity to nominate Supreme Court Justices or use the President's bully pulpit to right social wrongs. Losers don't get to veto right wing bills that deny women's rights to choose or cut the social safety net.

The reason why the far left wing and the far right hardly ever win political battles is that, dressed in their garb of ideological purity, they can't bring themselves to compromise, even a little. Consequently they lose time and time again. After a number of such loses they begin to believe that the system must be rigged against them. Why else, they reason, would people like themselves who have all of the answers never win? Consequently, every new loss is explained by some conspiracy theory or another. Frustrated and embittered, they continue to lose, and they will never be happy with their political lot.

[DirkGently]

49. "Ideological purity" is a red herring though.

It was just argued here that ideas don't matter at all, just "winning." That's very silly.

I haven't seen anyone in American politics running on a no-compromises platform, nor any real right or left "wingers" running for President. Cruz was pretty far out on the Christian Right, but no one could fairly be called anything like a "purist."

I see this argument trotted out by conservative Dems who just don't like progressive Dems and prefer to imagine their own ideas are " the best we can do."

That's just posturing though. The truth is everyone even remotely in the running -- Trump perhaps being the exception -- has been a thoroughly modern, compromising politican with no overweening ideological fervor.

The better ones though would never make a nihilistic argument that "winning" matters more than the right ideas and policies.

[CajunBlazer]

50. The fact that you consider more moderate Democrats "conservatives"

... says everything I need to know about your perspectives.

[DirkGently]

72. More "conservative Democrats" are not "conservatives."

Although they certainly can be. Ideas exist on a continuum, and a political party is whatever it is at the moment. We once had Republicans demanding workers' rights.


Again, this is not super complicated stuff.

[CajunBlazer]

73. I didn't use the word "conservative" to describe Democrats like myself

You did. I prefer the more accurate terms "moderate progressive" or "moderate liberal"

[DirkGently]

74. Some Democrats are more conservative than others.

That is perfectly accurate, whether you object to the terminology or not.

[CajunBlazer]

87. That is like saying that 2 is smaller than 4 so therefore 2 is a negative number

Think about it.

[DirkGently]

92. You don't think some Democrats are more conservative than others?

I'm not sure I can break that down any further for you, but it does not involve "negative numbers."

[brush]

128. On a scale from extreme left to conservative . . .

the vast majority of dems, imo, lie between moderate to progressive than progressive to extreme left, or moderate to conservative.

Hillary prevailed in the majority so why should his demands dominate the platform?

[pangaia]

91. God, you have more patience than I do. Bless you.

[CobaltBlue]

119. CajunBlazer—Sounds like you want to Republican into Democratic politics…

Given your use of the words moderate progressive and moderate liberal. (Plus your recent threads and follow-up posts.)

[840high]

54. Thank you.

[AgadorSparticus]

55. I have to disagree. It IS about winning. I am all about making changes. Not just talking about it.

With the victor, comes the spoils. You can't enact legislation when you are not a part of it. Winning elections get us to the table.

[uponit7771]

58. +1

[DirkGently]

71. Winning what for whom?

This is pretty basic stuff, guys. Yes, we all understand politics is an organized power struggle, but power isn't an end itself.

The point is supposed to be to get the right things done. You could elect a charismatic psychopath, and it doesn't matter whose "team" they are on; things are not going to go well.

That is not "winning."

[AgadorSparticus]

78. Well, duh. It would depend on who & what. But the OP is about extreme ideologues..

And what is viable. Winning elections sure help push "right" ideas.

Here's the rub: EVERYONE thinks their ideas are right. But having ideas is one thing. Executing it is another. We do not live in a vacuum. Ask Obama how fun it was to deal with an obstinate congress. And his ideas are far more moderate.

The "right" ideas were not created in the last year. It has been around a very long time. But unfortunately, we do not live in a vacuum to execute those ideas. That is why the more centrist ideas win. You know why? Most Americans subscribe to that. Most of America does not live on the far left or right. It lives in the middle. And while we can argue that the middle is more right than ever, we can't argue that isn't where most of America is at. It took a few decades to get to where we are. It will take a few decades to get back to where we used to be (more left).

[DirkGently]

83. What a party stands for is an ongoing discussion.

This year's Democratic Party is not what last year's was. Next year's will be different still. In the meantime, issues will be argued and discussed and fought over.

The American political process is not a static series of electing individuals and adopting whatever it is they do. That would be fascism, and it's not what we do here in America, or in the "Democratic" Party.

Leaders are nice, but we support them because and to the extent they reflect the will of the people who permit them to hold office. For that matter, even elected leaders do not always agree, nor do Democrats vote in a unanimous block, as we all know quite well.

Is the hope here that Progressives in general will somehow now go away and stop trying to have any input in the party of which they are a part?

Because that's not going to happen. And it shouldn't, and you shouldn't want it to.

[AgadorSparticus]

94. Progressives are still in the party and very much represented.

Those who choose to leave, do so of their own accord. But progressives are very much in the party. All 16.7 million progressives plus a recently added 11 million progressives to the mix.

And each election cycle brings a slightly different shade of blue to the party platform because each person is slightly different. But, make no mistake, it is still a shade of blue.

You are right. It is not a matter of adopting what elected officials choose to do. They choose platforms representing their constituents in order TO BE elected. They are representing issues that people WANT to see. That is why they won their elections. They are representing the MAJORITY of their constituents.

[DirkGently]

98. And the discussion continues. Through elections. Through platforms.

Through ongoing debate. No one has it all nailed down or all in the bag. We don't know, even among supporters of a given candidate, who was with them on what basis, although polling tells some of what people support and don't support.

None of that goes away at any point. Shall we sign on to the TPP? Is fracking okay sometimes, all the time, or never? How interventionist shall we be in our foreign policy? How shall we regulate the finance industry? What should we do about student debt or the costs of healthcare?

No one stops pushing. No one stops arguing. No one has a mandate for the minutiae of their individual personal policy, ever. It's why we have freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to assemble and petition the government.

We have picked a candidate. We have not decided everything that the party stands for or what everyone wants to do.

That never happens, and it never should.

[AgadorSparticus]

102. At this point, I think the candidates have spoken plenty about issues

And the democratic voters have spoken.

[pangaia]

95. There is no active, visible far left in American politics.

Bernie's ideas ARE the most popular and would win, right now, whether he is the nominee or someone else. No question about it.

We don't have "more decades." I am tired of hearing that cowardly shit.
(Not saying that about you, but the whole concept.)

[AgadorSparticus]

100. Be honest. You are talking about me because you are quoting me.

Whether you like it or not, big changes don't come that quick. Prime example, LGBT rights did not happen in just the past 4 years. That was decades in the making with very focused groups making that happen. One of the problems with millenials (not saying you are) is that they want things now. It is not realistic.

Nothing happens over night. But go ahead and make those demands and see how far it gets you. We don't live in a vacuum. And there's a lot of people out there believing, breathing the polar opposite.

How far did Obama get with the obstructionists?

[pangaia]

93. Gets 'us' to the table and doing the same ole same ole is a waste of time for other human beings.

That's the whole point.

It's time to break open the crusted boulder and free the life that is inside.

[AgadorSparticus]

96. See posts upthread about being in a vacuum.

[pangaia]

97. I already did. Non-sense.

[AgadorSparticus]

101. Calling it nonsense is not a discussion. I can say the same about your post and we can go back and f

But that is not a discussion, is it?

[CobaltBlue]

66. CajunBlazer—The Ds are in power with the presidency right now.

[pangaia]

90. "Hard core progressives?"

First Hillary was a moderate. She said so herself.
Then Bernie comes along, a true progressive and suddenly Hillary is a 'progressive.'
Now Bernie is sticking to his guns still proposing stuff the banks, oil companies, big pharma, et al are afraid of, but postions that will help all human beings, and suddenly he is a 'hard core progressive.'

What's next? Bernie is a Communist?


I am speechless.


ON EDIT: You call the 47% or so of the votes Bernie won in the primary a "small portion of the electorate?" I don't think so.

[CajunBlazer]

7. No one cares about the platform one week after the convention

And why does the platform have to reflect the wishes of a small portion of Democrats. Sanders not only lost the nomination by a large margin, his numbers were much worse in nearly every state among registered Democrats. Now most former Sanders supporters are now supporting Hillary. Why should we let a defeated Independent and and a small minority of his mostly independent remaining supporters dictate the Democratic Party platform.

That doesn't make walking around sense.

Threatening a floor fight at the convention makes as much sense as a child threatening to throw a tantrum if he doesn't get his way, and it will be no more productive.

[CobaltBlue]

67. CajunBlazer—Can Hillary win the general election with zero of Bernie Sanders’s primaries votes?

[comradebillyboy]

80. Too bad the vast majority of Sanders supporters

will vote for Hillary regardless of the platform. They did not become his personal chattel to do his bidding, they are free agents and the primary is long over. Time to support the nominee and not sacrifice victory on the alter of purity.

[CobaltBlue]

99. comradebillyboy—You actually cannot speak for Bernie Sanders’s primaries voters.

Your attempt to assert an authoritative message is not going to exert control over how people handle their general-election votes.

Perhaps if the reshaping of the Democratic Party platform includes sufficient amounts of Bernie Sanders’s platform, then that much-demanded endorsement for Bernie Sanders to give Hillary Clinton will manifest—and with great enthusiasm.

[comradebillyboy]

106. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, however

Bernie does not own the folks who voted for him in the primaries. Polls show about 80% of Sanders voters will support Clinton in the GE. So that 45% of the primary voters won't be sitting out the GE just because Sanders doesn't get all his demands met.

[CobaltBlue]

107. I'm aware of that poll. However, we have not yet arrived at November 8, 2016. So…

…let's see that party platform reshaped. And better than with the details from some of the reports I've recently read.

[Tal Vez]

9. The nominee should be permitted to design her own campaign.

Clinton is the one who will be out there speaking every day, measuring every word and how each word might affect her chances of victory in November. She should choose the platform that she believes is most likely to lead to success. She is the one who will be forced to defend all of these proposals so she should determine what proposals should be emphasized. She seems to know what she is doing.

If there are people who believe it crucial that everyone else hear every detail about what is important to them, then they should write a book or a letter to the editor. But, they shouldn't try to hobble a presidential campaign with their personal wish list. If there is a victory in November, we can then see what is doable given the makeup of the Congress. First, win because if we don't win, your personal wish list might just as well be flushed down the toilet.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Hillary Clinton is the most important Democratic candidate this year

...but she's not the only important Democratic candidate this year.

[sufrommich]

13. She's the only democratic presidential candidate. The

primaries are over.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Yes, but Democratic Congressional candidates are also important. NT

NT

[Tal Vez]

43. That is another reason to prepare a platform that describes very general objectives

rather than specific policy proposals. There is diversity among Democratic candidates for Congress.

[brush]

27. Slight correction. She's the only Dem candidate left standing.

[NorthCarolina]

34. The party platform is non-binding on the candidate, so Hillary has

nothing to sweat with regard to whats in it. We already know she is running a status-quo campaign with no goals to change the party, or those in control of the party.

[AgadorSparticus]

82. Well said!! Nt

[BainsBane]

10. IMO

the platform is an excuse to stay in the limelight. Seems to me if a Senator wants to implement real changes, he should use his elected position to build legislative support for them.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. This ...

and if the past is prologue, it makes one think at least twice about the proposals of someone in DC for 25+ years who has not managed to build substantial legislative support in Congress for any of those proposals. ????

[sufrommich]

14. I agree. This crap is getting too cute by

a mile.

[baldguy]

17. That would require that he build an organization with his colleagues in the Senate.

Unfortunately, he's not much of a joiner.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Bernie Sanders is a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

..and its only Senator.

Other liberal Senators should be joiners, and join the CPC.

[baldguy]

20. And you've proven my point.

[Eric J in MN]

23. My point is that Bernie Sanders co-founded a US House caucus which now has dozens of House members

https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71

Which point of yours did I prove?

[baldguy]

24. "...and its only Senator."

It can't be that Sanders is the only progressive Senator in office now. Perhaps its Sanders himself rather than the CPC?

[Eric J in MN]

28. Members of the House don't have to join, either, but dozens did.

Apparently, they didn't think: I don't want to work with Bernie Sanders so I won't join the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

[CajunBlazer]

46. Members of the House don't have to deal with Sanders every day

Ask yourself, why didn't Elizabeth Warren join the CPC. She is among the most liberal of all Senators. In fact she was the first choice of most far left liberals to run for the nomination. Early on Sanders was dark horse alternative candidate who ultimately ran because Warren didn't. Yet Warren never joined the CPC and never endorsed Sanders. I think you know the reason why. It certainly wasn't because their politics are out of sync.

[EffieBlack]

51. and its only Senator" - one would think that he could have persuaded some of his

Senate colleagues to join. Obviously he couldn't - or he chose not to . . .

Either he has no influence among his fellow Senators or he wants to be the only Senator in the caucus ... Either way, I wouldn't brag about Bernie being a caucus co-founder and only Senator - it makes him look completely impotent or completely self-absorbed.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, not something I'd be telling everyone if I was a SBS supporter

[Eric J in MN]

18. Citing a proposal as being in Dem platform will help Sanders to build support for it in Congress. NT

NT

[CajunBlazer]

21. You're assuming that adopting a socialist platform would be best for the party

I am not using the word "socialist" in a derogatory manner here. My purpose is simply to point out that socialism is not ideology that the vast majority of Americans voters will embrace. A major political party cannot adopt far left or far right ideologies without expecting be shunted aside as irrelevant by the American electorate. Those on the far right and the far left may be the loudest and most passionate, but they still only represent relatively small slices of the electorate.

This country always has been and probably always will be based on free market principles. Trying to change that basic trait is exercise in futility. What progressives should concentrate on is equipping our government with the ability to curb the excesses of the free market which hurt people like you and me and especially those who are the most vulnerable among us and make it work for all Americans.

[woolldog]

31. No it won't.

Nobody cares about what's in the platform.

[Eric J in MN]

69. Usually the Democratic Party platform is platitudes.

This time, we'll probably have a platform which takes positions on issues which are controversial between Democrats.

[uponit7771]

61. NNNNNNNNNNNNoooooooo, not ONE person in congress can tell us more than 3 things about their party

... platform because its brochure ware with a shelf life of months

[BainsBane]

64. Can you imagine?

"You have to back this bill because it's in the party platform."
When did that ever get legislation passed? Never.

It certainly doesn't make any difference to the House and Senate Majority.

[BobbyDrake]

22. Don't we criticize Republican Senators when they abandon their jobs for campaigning?

Any Senator not doing their job so they can pursue some kind of vanity side project should be held to the same standards.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. The platform is a reason to carry on a lost battle

I'm hoping he is doing it out of good intentions (keeping his followers engaged) but it's def not to move progressive legislative agenda

[Surya Gayatri]

41. Absolutely spot on...

Whatever...anything to stay on the national stage.

[AgadorSparticus]

56. I totally agree. The limelight is hard to give up sometimes

[uponit7771]

57. NO NO NO!! Unicorns not logic dammit !!! /sarcasm. I've been saying for months that the house...

... of representatives is designed to be the strongest body of all 3, if the house was 90% dem the speaker could proffer legislation that was damn near veto proof.

If they wanted real change then put up a progressive house and get his their speaker in it.

That would take a lot of work though, and being angry seems easier than making a tangible difference

[aikoaiko]

26. The more Bernie works on the party platform the easier it is to vote for HRC.

From my perspective as someone who voted for Bernie.

He is showing the disaffected that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for.

HRC supporters should thank him.

[uponit7771]

60. You do understand party platform is brochure ware right? means very little legislatively

[CobaltBlue]

68. uponit7771—If that is so…Democratic Party can make all of Bernie Sanders’s platform theirs.

[aikoaiko]

105. Meaningless, but yet so much resistance from behind.

The party platform may not be as important as substantive legislation, but it's what we, as Democrats, get to argue about and decide right effing now.

[bluedye33139]

29. Win/lose

Our political system does not hand out participation trophies to every special snowflake who is present. Like it or not, our system is built on winning and losing, and a successful candidate will work within a national party and encourage members of that party to work for their election.

One of the most hateful things about this cycle is the belief that people who engage with their party are evil or wrong, or that people who are elected to positions within the party are a conspiracy of evil.

I have hated this election cycle, except that it will produce a Democratic president most likely.

[DonViejo]

30. Anyone remember the planks in the most progressive Dem platform

of all time...the 1972 platform?

[CajunBlazer]

32. How did that work for us?

[woolldog]

33. How did that work out?

I wasn't born yet in '72

[CajunBlazer]

35. McGovern won 17 electorial college votes

Maryland and Washington DC - the worst loss in Presidential history. And it is no coincidence that McGovern was probably the most liberal Presidential candidate in history.

[DonViejo]

37. Not Maryland, it was Massachusetts....

I still have a bumper sticker from that election, "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"

[CajunBlazer]

47. My Bad - the map was very small and it looked like Maryland to me.

But the bottom line is the same; the most liberal Presidential candidate of the 20th Century, probably ever, was given an ass whupping.

[DonViejo]

38. It didn't and, as you can see, no one as yet seems to remember...

the planks of that platform.

[CajunBlazer]

81. Enlighten us

What were the planks of the Democratic Party in that election?

[DonViejo]

103. Democratic Party Platform of 1972

New Directions: 1972-76

Skepticism and cynicism are widespread in America. The people are skeptical of platforms filled with political platitudes—of promises made by opportunistic politicians.

The people are cynical about the idea that a rosy future is just around the corner.

And is it any wonder that the people are skeptical and cynical of the whole political process?

Our traditions, our history, our Constitution, our lives, all say that America belongs to its people.

But the people no longer believe it.

They feel that the government is run for the privileged few rather than for the many-and they are right.

No political party, no President, no government can by itself restore a lost sense of faith. No Administration can provide solutions to all our problems. What we can do is to recognize the doubts of Americans, to speak to those doubts, and to act to begin turning those doubts into hopes.

As Democrats, we know that we share responsibility for that loss of confidence. But we also know, as Democrats that at decisive moments of choice in our past, our party has offered leadership that has tapped the best within our country.

Our party-standing by its ideals of domestic progress and enlightened internationalism--has served America well. We have nominated or elected men of the high calibre of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Adlai E. Stevenson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson—and in the last election Hubert Humphrey and Edmund S. Muskie. In that proud tradition we are now prepared to move forward.

We know that our nation cannot tolerate any longer a government that shows no regard for the people's basic needs and no respect for our right to the truth from those who lead us. What do the people want? They want three things:

They want a personal life that makes us all feel that life is worth living;

They want a social environment whose institutions promote the good of all; and

They want a physical environment whose resources are used for the good of all.

They want an opportunity to achieve their aspirations and their dreams for themselves and their children.

We believe in the rights of citizens to achieve to the limit of their talents and energies. We are determined to remove barriers that limit citizens because they are black, brown, young or women; because they never had the chance to gain an education; because there was no possibility of being anything but what they were.

We believe in hard work as a fair measure of our own willingness to achieve. We are determined that millions should not stand idle while work demands to be done. We are determined that the dole should not become a permanent way of life for any. And we are determined that government no longer tax the product of hard work more rigorously than it taxes inherited wealth, or money that is gained simply by having money in the first place.

We believe that the law must apply equally to all, and that it must be an instrument of justice. We are determined that the citizen must be protected in his home and on his streets. We are determined also that the ordinary citizen should not be imprisoned for a crime before we know whether he is guilty or not while those with the right friends and the right connections can break the law without ever facing the consequences of their actions.

We believe that war is a waste of human life. We are determined to end forthwith a war which has cost 50,000 American lives, $150 billion of our resources, that has divided us from each other, drained our national will and inflicted incalculable damage to countless people. We will end that war by a simple plan that need not be kept secret: The immediate total withdrawal of all Americans from Southeast Asia.

We believe in the right of an individual to speak, think, read, write, worship, and live free of official intrusion. We are determined that our government must no longer tap the phones of law-abiding citizens nor spy on those who have broken no law. We are determined that never again shall government seek to censor the newspapers and television. We are determined that the government shall no longer mock the supreme law of the land, while it stands helpless in the face of crime which makes our neighborhoods and communities less and less safe.

Perhaps most fundamentally, we believe that government is the servant, not the master, of the people. We are determined that government should not mean a force so huge, so impersonal, that the complaint of an ordinary citizen goes unheard.

That is not the kind of government America was created to build. Our ancestors did not fight a revolution and sacrifice their lives against tyrants from abroad to leave us a government that does not know how to listen to its own people.

The Democratic Party is proud of its past; but we are honest enough to admit that we are part of the past and share in its mistakes. We want in 1972 to begin the long and difficult task of reviewing existing programs, revising them to make them work and finding new techniques to serve the public need. We want to speak for, and with, the citizens of our country. Our pledge is to be truthful to the people and to ourselves, to tell you when we succeed, but also when we fail or when we are not sure. In 1976, when this nation celebrates its 200th anniversary, we want to tell you simply that we have done our best to give the government to those who formed it—the people of America.

Every election is a choice: In 1972, Americans must decide whether they want their country back again.

much more:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29605

[CajunBlazer]

104. I think that Sanders could sign on to that platform, but only if....

... it contained specifics referencing to the will to implement his pet projects.

The 1972 Democratic platform was one of the most liberal in the history of the Party and featured one of the most liberal candidates to date and yet the '72 election was one of the biggest electoral defeats in Presidential election history.

[AgingAmerican]

39. Will you guys ever get over the primaries?

Tick Tock?

[MariaThinks]

42. kick

[mcar]

44. K&R

[SaschaHM]

48. K+R!

[liberalmuse]

52. Both. Both are important.

I'm glad he's shaking things up. I'm completely voting for Hillary, though at one time I didn't think I could do it. But I will. Proudly. And as I vote for her, I will remember all the Hillary supporters for our local caucus taking shit from Bernie supporters. To be honest, some of my fellow Bernie supporters were embarrassing. The passion is wonderful, but when you are a man heckling a woman who is trying to speak about why she's passionate about Hillary, that's when it's time to crawl under the bleachers while thinking, "I didn't sign up for this shit". Every single one of the Hillary supporters took the verbal assaults at the caucus gracefully. They withstood the booing and the heckling and were largely outnumbered where I come from.

I also feel passionately about issues, and know that we need to move 1,000 steps forward to even be where we're supposed to be at this point in time. But don't eat your own. Don't be that person. Don't be the "all or nothing" sort, because in the end, you get less than nothing. I'm old enough to know that even a few baby steps forward with this human "civilization" we live in can be a great victory.

Hillary might not be ideal for some of us, but she's noble and is doing what she feels is best, and a lot of what she feels is best is best for all of us. I acknowledge that some of what she feels is best isn't what I feel is best, but I'm not the seasoned politician who's had to slag through all muck, and I wouldn't even be able to survive it like she has.

I love Bernie, but I sincerely hope he doesn't become another Nader. Nader proved that even the most well-meaning people can let their egos take over until they become utterly useless, and even worse, destructive.

[Ken Burch]

62. ''your remaining supporter"?

You think it's just Jane now?

[CobaltBlue]

65. CajunBlazer—Take all of Bernie Sanders’s platform to become the Democratic Party’s.

[Ken Burch]

70. ...er, you think we weren't TRYING to do that?

That we didn't come damn near to pulling off the upset of the century there?

Don't talk to Sanders supporters as if we are idiots. We don't deserve that from you.

[highprincipleswork]

76. I don't know, I think it's pretty important the "Democratic Party" has the right & best ideaa

and policies outfront, just in case anybody thinks or believes in anything in America anymore.

And I think debate over this is a good thing.

[CajunBlazer]

79. You mean of course that...

... the Democratic party should adopt the ideas that you espouse, right? Because they are the only "right and best" ones, right?

I guess it doesn't matter that the Democratic nominee is a pragmatist who doesn't want to be pigeonholed by all of your ideas and wants the flexibility to compromise when necessary. I guess she should run with your ideas as her platform whether she totally agrees with them or not.

When are you folks going to learn that you aren't the fount of all knowledge and righteousness?

[highprincipleswork]

108. When will those who support Hillary stop making so many assumptions about what other people

say, feel, or believe, when they don't blindly follow every corporatist idea the modern Democratic Party comes up with?

That's a much better Zen koan than the one you threw my way, IMO of course.

[CajunBlazer]

110. If you had the power to do so, what would you do about corporations...

...."Corporations are evil" is a consistent theme theme from some folks on this board like you which has been used time and time again to disparage the Democratic nominee.

So let's hear solutions rather than complaints for a change. If you personally had the power to make whatever changes you desire, how would you handle the "corporation problem".

[highprincipleswork]

112. In this challenging age of robotization and globalization, if economies are not enabled & motivated

to hire people, to ensure they are active, involved, and earning money, the entire economic system will suffer and eventually there will be unrest of a violent type.

It is in the best interest of our government, our politicians, our corporate CEO's and all involved to solve this problem productively and not to keep treating people who are their fellow citizens like the biggest losers in the world or like loafers or like people who are only valuable when they buy, buy, buy as consumers. Especially as consumers end up with ho money to have purchasing power.

[CajunBlazer]

113. I can't disagree with that

One of the problems is that the American consumers are no longer the only people buying the products of American corporations. Actually I need to amend that statement because the largest corporations are no longer "American corporations", they are multinational corporations. They sell their products all over the world, including to billions of consumers in countries like China and India.

Henry Ford once said that he paid his workers well because he wanted them to have enough money to buy his cars. When corporations move jobs to other countries, they no loner need to be as concerned that some Americans might no longer be able to buy their products.

The capitalistic free market system is here to stay in this country and throughout the world. The alternatives is for the people, through their governments, to take over the means of projection. That has been tried many times throughout the world and those attempts have always ended in utter failure.

The only way forward in our society is to reign in the excesses of capitalism, filing down the sharp edges that hurt ordinary people. That can only be done through government regulations. The key is applying enough regulations to still obtain optimum results without extinguishing the profit motive. While even fiscal conservatives agree that some regulations are necessary, others call for much greater regularization of corporations then is in place now. The political problem is convincing the American people we have the best ideas on how to achieve the necessary balance.

[stonecutter357]

77. by winning the nomination.

[HumanityExperiment]

114. here a quote for ya...

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy

[CajunBlazer]

115. So you think that if that if the peaceful revolution led by Sanders isn't successful...

.... there will be a violent revolution in this country?

Who do you think is going lead this armed insurrection, Sanders or will it be the paramilitary groups of the far left?

added for those who are incapable of recognizing the same.

[HumanityExperiment]

116. interesting leap...

was wondering where you would take the quote...

you didn't disappoint with how far you'd leap

[CajunBlazer]

117. Interesting deflection

Okay, here is your JFK quote: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy".

Tell us how you would apply this quote in light of the current topic and illustrate why my take is such a "giant leap".

[HumanityExperiment]

118. Let's use your words against ya

'there will be a violent revolution in this country?

Who do you think is going lead this armed insurrection, Sanders or will it be the paramilitary groups of the far left'

violence takes many forms, you made the decision to stake the claim to 'armed insurrection' and 'paramilitary'...

Tell us why you decided to choose that form of 'violent revolution'

the '68 convention shows us a 'degree' of violence so take that as an example to 'answer' your 'question'...

[CajunBlazer]

120. That's pure BS!!!!

The quote is "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy".

And now you want to parse the meaning of "violent Revolution"?!?!?!

Let' look at the definition of the two words:

violent - vi·o·lent vī{e}lent/ - adjective: Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

revolution - rev·o·lu·tion - revəˈlo͞oSH(e)n - noun: revolution; plural noun: revolutions: A forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.

Given those the definitions of those two word, violent revolution, there is no other context in which one can interpret what Kennedy meant except in the manner I understood it.

So I ask again. Who is going to lead this violent revolution? Is it going to be Bernie Sanders or will it be the non-existent paramilitary militias of the far left?

[HumanityExperiment]

121. ...perception...

'Using or involving physical force' 'forcible overthrow...in favor of a new system'

'no other context' so you say... there is only one 'context' eh? yours and none other?

[CajunBlazer]

122. You're were wrong and you know and I know it.

Your feeble attempts deflect are pitiful. I am not going to waste any more time arguing you. I'll simply allow anyone who reads our conversation to draw their own conclusions.

[HumanityExperiment]

123. convention should be fun...

n/t

[CajunBlazer]

124. Not if the Sanders delgates decide to act like @$$s

[HumanityExperiment]

125. based upon your responses one would perceive you believe that they already are...

n/t

[CajunBlazer]

131. I have virtually no idea how Sanders convention delegatges have been acting to date

I have heard some of them have been planning a 'farting' protest complete with a bean dinner. I read that in an article that was purportedly written a Sanders delegate, but I really have no idea if there is any truth to that story. Regardless, that would be simply be juvenile and of no consequence. No one is going to put a microphone near their butts on national TV.

However, if Sanders' delegates were to start a floor fight at the convention over the platform, I would conclude that they are more concerned with continuing their "revolution" than they are in insuring that a Democrat occupies the White House for the next 4 years and everything that emanates from that. And I am sure that the national media and the voting public will agree with my conclusion if that happens.

[HumanityExperiment]

132. your numerous replies already show your 'conclusions'...

n/t

[CajunBlazer]

133. I cannot draw conclusion about a situation on which I have no information

This conversation is getting ridiculous and you no longer merit further attention. Bye.

[HumanityExperiment]

134. yeah, sure...

n/t

[Gothmog]

127. The nominee gets to control the direction of the party

Clinton has already in effect taken control of the DNC

[NurseJackie]

130. Absolutely!

Any thing else that deviates from this is motivated by pure vanity.