Forget Sanders and Clinton for a moment. This is a symbolic schism that has been long brewing

[Armstead]

Sanders and Clinton are both individuals, so I realize they shouldn't be reduced to symbols.

However, each does represent something larger.

So, the context is much more than the personal foibles or attributes of either (any) candidate. Or the "bashing" of supporters of one candidate or the other....and all of the other personalized nonsense that occurs here.

And the stakes involve more than who ultimately becomes the nominee. And to use a geological metaphor, that is an underlying movement of plates that is now being seen and felt on the surface.

Simply stated, it is between the Corporate Democrats the Liberal Populists.

This has been a growing friction since the 1980's, as the DLC/Third Way/Centrist factions of the Establishment has deliberately marginalized economic liberalism and aligned the Democratic Party with the interests of the Corporate Elites and the Oligarchy. Sometimes it's been subtle and duplicitous, hidden behind nice innocuous words. Sometimes it's been more blatent, as attacks on the "professional left" and "fringe elements" and other derogatory terms, and pronouncements like "The Era of Big Government is Over."

In the 1990's, it was present but less obvious, because there was an illusion of economic success, even though the foundations of the economy were being pulled out from under the middle and working class, and the poor were thrown to the wolves. But the "professional left" warned against the crap like excessive deregulation, "free trade globalization" and other policies and messages that had more in common with the GOP than with even moderate liberalism.

In the 90's Bernie Sanders was among those progressives who tried to turn to Titanic more left to the true center. The Clintons were among the Third Wayers who praised Ayn Rand-cultist Alan Greenspan, aligned the government with the banksters and corporate monopolists, and did everything possible to tilt public opinion and political process to the right towards Corporate Empowerment.

Following the Crash of 2008, the results of the GOP CONservatisim, and the Democratic Third Way enabling of that became too obvious to ignore. A lot of people who were not "professional leftists" felt betrayed, angry and desperate as they saw their lifelines being yanked away.

I don't think that even Bernie himself believes we are on the verge of a "Socialist Revolution." But he does represent a real, and growing, movement of people who are sick of the grotesque distortions of the economy under the stewardship of the Status Quo Establishment -- and the social consequences.


And that's one reason IMO, there is so much pent-up anger and enthusiasm and otehr emotions on DU and in the 3D world.

[Bonobo]

1. Kicked and recommended. nt

[Skwmom]

2. Forget the liberal label. It's corporatists vs populists. n/t

[Armstead]

4. Well yes and no

There are varying flavors of populists. The basic term is ideologically neutral - because it is basically an instinct against the Big and Powerful. However how that perceived is important. Right Wing Populism sees Big Government as the culprit.

Trump represents a different form of populist, who appeals to the same underlying anger and frustration, but from the opposite direction.

[Skwmom]

11. There are Conservative Populists, Moderate Populists, Liberal Populists, Progressive Populists

which is why the message is so powerful.

What is a liberal, what is a moderate, or a conservative? People don't fix into neat boxes and they can move from box to box based on the issue.

I can assure you that there are liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats that are populists (for the common man) because that use to be what the party stood for. People are waking up to the fact that neither party is for the 99%.

[sabrina 1]

17. I think the OP is correct about the split in the party. The DLC/Third Way takeover

has caused great harm to Labor. And while it pays oral tribute to the issues that they must be seen as supportive of, women and minorities, their policies have done more to harm those constituencies than any Repub could do IF the Dem Party had remained true to its claimed values.

Eg, the horrific Welfare 'reform' bill, deregulation of Wall St, the horrendous 'Tough on Crime' policies which supported the awful, 'immoral' (thanks Bernie) Private Prison industry profiting from legislation that clearly targeted minorities, which THEY WROTE.

There is a battle going on now within the Party because after decades of these awful, Heritage Foundation policies, things have only worsened for the very groups the Third Way uses to give themselves Dem creds but hurts tremendously with their own policies.

We have a chance to begin the turnaround, though it will be hard even if the people win, or we can continue to support what has destroyed the lives of so many millions of people, and not just here in the US.

[SusanaMontana41]

174. What sabrina said. n/t

[Aerows]

110. You are absolutely right.

Establishment candidates, Clinton and Bush, are being shunned in droves by ordinary Americans.

People are fed up with the way the system is being run, the only difference is by who they see as the villain.

[Hortensis]

122. Here's another truism: DIVIDE TO CONQUER.

Apparently we need another: DIVIDE TO FAIL.

[Aerows]

127. Here's the thing

That does indeed work, but the problem is that the division has gotten so wide politically that nobody is hankering for a middle "decider".

Bush is absolutely tanking, and he was seen as a shoo-in as the nominee. Clinton was the nominee fait accompli, and now she is suffering in the polls.

I've spoken with people in every place - Taco Bell, the hair salon, getting an oil change - people are fed up with the status quo. How and who they back is different, but resoundingly, nobody wants another Clinton OR Bush in the White House.

If you want to look at reality, that is a reality. Hillary Clinton has a very tough climb as does Jeb Bush. The American electorate is fed up with the same old same old.

[Hortensis]

130. This mood you describe is precious and so hard purchased. I just hope

Bernie is able to take charge and direct it. Leader of a nascent movement that he is, he's not a thousandth so full of himself as some of the people here. He understands that he can never do it alone. He is very likely working toward one alliance or several right this very minute. That's his life right now.

And if he should fail, because he started late and inadequately organized to carry the torch Elizabeth Warren lit, he would do his best to hand his part of this movement off to the person who will carry on. I have confidence in HIS commitment to achieving our goals.

[Aerows]

133. "he's not a thousandth so full of himself as some of the people here"

What a charming side swipe at my character and the character of other DUers.

This type of backhanded bullshit is precisely what a majority of Americans are tired of in the political process.

If you want to call me and supporters of other candidates pompous fools, just go right ahead and do it, but don't pretend that isn't exactly what you are doing.

[Hortensis]

139. You need to understand that many with interest newly awakened to the

possibilities of this next election are now trying to understand what is happening, and many people from around the nation are visiting this site and others seeking answers.

When what they see on BOTH the right and the left is noisy, intolerant zealots busy attacking everyone who do not fall in march-step with them, many are going away repelled, mistakenly thinking there is no difference. We don't know the numbers, but we know it's happening. Even people who have participated here for years are withdrawing, repelled and disgusted.

The differences between the would-be fascists, greedy callous libertarians, and Christian theocrats directing the right and the commitment of those on the left to freedom, equality, and government of the people, by the people and for the people are ENORMOUS, but how are people who find sites on both sides pulsing with intolerant, hostile aggression to know that?

This is just one small website, but it has the potential for big impact, both positive and dreadfully negative. It may be a cliche, but we really do need to BE the America we want to restore.

A nice America for everyone. Stand FOR your dreams. Refuse to attack others. That isn't so hard it it?

[Aerows]

142. "You need to understand"

(because apparently, I don't).

You called myself and other DUer's full of themselves.

Please continue lecturing others on humility since you seem to understand how to be humble better than everybody else.

[SusanaMontana41]

175. "You need to understand"? How condescending.

"Be reasonable. Let's vote corporate because OUR corporate is better than THEIR corporate."

Rubbish.

[artislife]

168. We cannot be afraid of invisible people who may or may not

be reading here. That is a cop out.

These invisible readers can read the debates of the posts and if they find it difficult, perhaps they will come around to being mentally curious. If not, why will we worry? They will do or not do. They will vote or not vote. If debating and discussing were futile, there would be no sermons in churches, no opinion pieces in newspapers and no essay questions on exams.


People need to question everything and awaken out this slumber.

[merrily]

188. Your posts are full of attacks on your fellow DUers, express and implied, DUers who had not yet

attacked you.

[Hortensis]

270. No, they're full of explanations of what "United We Stand" means

in practical terms from someone who's been voting every election for several decades. If I were attacking, I'd be discussing the masses of right-wing attacks that're copied here, by whom, and speculating why. Interesting introduction of the word "attack," though, Merrily. Should I be watching for attempts to block and ban my opinions?

[merrily]

271. I was not the only one to notice your insults. Get a clue.

Should I be watching for attempts to block and ban my opinions?

Huh? What are you talking about? I don't have power to block anywhere other than the Populist Group and I don't think you've been posting there. But yes, if you show up there and start insulting those who support Bernie and call it explaining unity, you might get a block. Or maybe we'll just laugh a lot. I can't predict.

[SusanaMontana41]

283. I'd be laughing.

Even if you looked you couldn't find that kind of free entertainment.

Watching the GOP debates doesn't count, at least for me. I don't find the candidates funny at all.

[merrily]

284. .

The hosts of the populist group like to laugh.

[SusanaMontana41]

287. You guys sure know how to party.

You're the crowd everyone wants to be seen with.

Look for me in a quiet corner. I'll be wearing a goofy grin and sipping champagne.

[merrily]

288. Are you kidding? Get over here.

I'm guessing at least four out of six of us would follow you anywhere for champagne and a goofy grin.

[SusanaMontana41]

290. We'll need to discuss that, a little further down the road.

I'll bet you and your friends travel well.

[Marty McGraw]

177. You Talk

As if Bernie is a new puppy to the political arena and has no experience with conversing and working with the other politically appointed establishment

[Hortensis]

272. Marty, Bernie IS new to the role he plays now. To a very real degree,

he has had "greatness thrust upon him." He has stepped up to the challenge, but we have yet to see if he, and his ardent but currently relatively few supporters, will prevail. The real election is 16 months away.

And no, I'm not really worried about the primary. I feel that if 60 million people and more nationwide are ready to support the change he represents, we will have a good idea of that by the primary season next spring. He's either heading a big wave of big change, or he's part of a wave of real change.

Just my opinion.

[merrily]

187. He is not the leader of a nascent movement. He's a traditional Democrat.

he's not a thousandth so full of himself as some of the people here.

You're posting about party unity and taking a totally gratuitous pot shot at your fellow DUers, who, to the point at which you made this post, were speaking to you solely about issues. Talk about a disconnect.

[merrily]

186. Traditional Democrats were not the ones who initiated the division. The DLCers/New Democrats did.

The clue is right in the name "New Democrats." They were the ones who rejected what the Democratic Party began to stand for with the New Deals, the Fair Deal, the Great Society, etc. They are the ones who party unity almost impossible. Indeed, they are also the ones who went PUMA (Party Unity, My Ass).

[merrily]

185. Truth is, we need a different term. Liberal does have a component of laissez faire corporatism,

especially in Europe. "Liberal" is a fighting word to a European Democratic Socialist. With the net bringing together all parts of the world, we need a term that is better understood universally. In America, both Third Way Democrats and Republicans worked too hard and too long to discredit the term liberal. Successful resurrection of the term as a good thing is, I believe, impossible.

"Progressive" is the Chance the Gardener of political terminology. Maybe progressive populist works?

[Armstead]

231. Personally I like progressive populist

But also, despite his double-meaning, liberal still works for me, as its become associated with...er, you know. liberal.

[merrily]

234. Progressive populist is les ambiguous than either term alone, I think.

I like liberal, too, but I like traditional Democrat more. That's pretty much all I am, a traditional Democrat, on domestic policy anyway. I could do without using nuclear weapons on Japan, the Vietnam War, etc.

Etymology and definition

Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free".[15] One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.[15] The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint" – often as a pejorative remark – in the 16th and the 17th centuries.[15] In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[15] In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters".[15] With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[15] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[16] In Spain, the Liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,[17] fought for the implementation of the 1812 Constitution for decades. From 1820 to 1823, during the Trienio Liberal, King Ferdinand VII was compelled by the liberales to swear to uphold the Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.[18]

Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[19] Consequently, in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Armstead]

237. Well yeah but....I thin k a lot of people have no idea of what traditional Democrat is anymore

It's been so corrupted and twisted in all directions over the last 30 or 40 years that many are' not old enough to remember what that meant. And even back then it was ambiguous.

Traditional Democratoic Progressive Populist, maybe?

[merrily]

241. Okay, you've convinced me. I'm going back to we need a new term.

[Armstead]

243. How about iDem?

[merrily]

244. I have no idea what that means (so it's probably perfect).

iDems as in internet Dems? As in Integrated Diagnostic Engine Monitoring System?

[Armstead]

245. iPhine,iPad,iPod....everything today is iThis

Just trying to be cool and contemporary, ya know

[merrily]

246. Okay, so as in internet Dems. Wouldn't that be covered by Netroots?

(I am entirely too literal. I've been told many times by loved ones and enemies alike.)

[merrily]

247. P.S. You don't have to "try" to be cool. You ARE cool.

[Hortensis]

275. Merrily, liberal is also 1 of 2 or 3 basic personality types. You could reject it because

Last edited Thu Sep 17, 2015, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

of the slurs enemies of liberalism have attached to it, but they would win, and you would be rejecting a primary label for much what is best about humanity. Without the balancing, and often uplifting effect, of liberal qualities on their communities, humanity would be a pack of fearful, bloodthirsty primitives -- if it hadn't killed itself off entirely.

The knowledge of the literally genetically-determined orientations -- liberal and conservative, and possibly libertarian, as well as other minors that may not yet be discovered -- of all humanity is new. Before too much time has passed, a new understanding of who we are will become widespread, and people who may be angels to their loved ones but troublemakers to outliers will no longer be able to hide among crowds of others but be recognized for what they are.

In the meantime, for those of us who are liberals, I believe anything but embracing our political liberalism proudly would be very unfortunate mistake.

Progressives should also rescue a word, wearing it proudly, which the right has done its best to turn into a smear.

And while I'm at it (!), I'm really tired of the right's successful campaign to rebrand courtesy as "political correctness." Nine times out of ten -- and more -- it just refers to good manners and respect for the wishes of others. I.e., arising from the liberal and moderate conservative sin of tolerance. So I'd love to see us refuse to cede them that victory and instead return to speaking of "respect" and "good manners."

[Catherina]

3. K&R! n/t

[ibegurpard]

5. very true

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

6. Pick a side there is NO middle ground!

I choose to support the PEOPLE.

All others need not apply.

[Scuba]

20. The middle is where you find yellow stripes and roadkill.

Credit Jim Hightower.

[Enthusiast]

113. +1 a whole bunch!

[fadedrose]

129. ++

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. ...

[merrily]

189. Until now, traditional Democrats have been the road kill.

The DLC types have ruled the Party since Bubba and think they can do whatever they want to --and not do whatever they don't want to do--because "the left has nowhere else to go."

At the same time, every time they lose an election--which is more and more often--they blame the left. It would be so fucking hillarious if it weren't so fucking important.

[Hortensis]

125. IMO, very ridiculous. Where do you think 50 million Democrats are standing?

I've explained: Politics is all about forging alliances. What do you think Bernie was doing when he voted with the Democrats in Congress 90% of the time?

The good news is that these people you so mistakenly imagine are obstacles actually share most of the goals you do.

The other reality is that a man who stands alone might make a good model for a statue, but who'd bother to carve or mount it? Refuse to work WITH your natural allies, and you'll not only lose any leadership advantage you might have had, but they'll be forced to ally with others and march without you.

[merrily]

190. Wow. Condescend much? You think we don't know about forging alliances or about Bernie?

We all fell off the turnip truck yesterday and, thank heaven, you're finally here to tell us what's what?

Jaysus.

[SusanaMontana41]

173. Right on. You're either corporate or you're not.

[merrily]

191. I think middle ground exists, but the middle is not where DLC types say it is.

In the guise of becoming more electable, the DLCers drew a line--because the base required it--at abortion and gay rights. And kudos on those. I am staunchly in favor of a woman's right to contraception and abortion and equal human rights for all humans. But those two are among the most intractable issues in the electorate, if not the most. Now, they are both constitutional rights, so the key is indeed to get elected on other issues and appoint good judges to make sure those constitutional rights don't get eroded any further. And to get elected on other issues, you are going to have to show a healthy divide between you and the right. You won't do that by being center right. Yes, of course, you compromise to get things done. But you don't start at center right and then go further right to compromise. That ain't third way. It's 1.2 way.

[LondonReign2]

7. Agreed. K&R

[Ron Green]

8. Recommended. Additionally, I think there's an honesty divide

operating here: Anti-socialist alarmists, whether R or D, refuse to acknowledge that entrepreneurship and local capitalism will function better under the kind of safety-net system Bernie's talking about.
It takes scarifying talk to maintain a bad status quo, so we therefore have our "media."

[Armstead]

10. You hit on an important point

It isn't about pro-business or anti-business, or socialism vs, capitalism. Those are separate issues.

Capitalism or "pro-business" is not synonymous with Corporatism. The economy works better for everyone if a combination of government and public pressure exists to under restrain the instinct for greed, and the geometric accumulation of wealth and power that is a natural extension of unchecked capitalism.

Medium and small businesses do a lot better when there is a referee on the field, as do workers an consumers. The referee has been pushed off the field for several decades.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

21. A question for the bubble-dwellers

If you are going to make a distinction between "pro-business" and what you call "corporatism"...

1. What makes you think that Secretary Clinton is one and not the other?

2. What makes you think that the majority of Democratic voters (who favor Secretary Clinton) is one and not the other?

3. How exactly do you intend to appeal to all the "corporatists" that you so obviously despise, but whose vote you need in the general?

You see, to me the answer is obvious. Groups whose ideology has lost in the marketplace of ideas don't actually give up on their ideology. Instead they create euphemisms. So just like racists rarely use racial epithets openly any more, old-fashioned communists now use the word "corporarist" as the epithet of their hatred, instead of "capitalist pig-dog" (which is what you'd hear in the 60s). But it's still filled with the hatred and reduction of the complexities of the world into black and white thinking, where there are the "good guys" (you - of couse), the "bad guys" (the majority of other Democrats), and of course the "sheeple" who will fall in line, somehow, because they're all deceived (not that they see your ideas bullshit, naturally). Oh, that and the perpetual need to create enemies because they're not "pure" enough: Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea.

I even remember communists from that era saying they "weren't against small business", just as you're doing here, so the parallels are striking.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Admiral Loinpresser]

27. 1. Because of her Wall Street donors.

2. N/A. A majority of Democratic voters will be Bernie backers in a matter of weeks.

3. By the same argument that they are making. We need a Democratic nominee.

Bernie's ideas are mainstream. He probably has more Republican support than any candidate in my lifetime. Remember "Reagan Democrats?" This GE they will be talking about "Sanders Republicans."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

78. You actually addressed the questions as you see it

Thank you!

As a follow on:

1) Do you think that everyone who works for any corporation on Wall Street is so irredeemably evil that Democratic candidates who get any money from them should always be shunned? If so, how do you resolve the "corporatist" vs "pro business" dichotomy?

2) Do you think that only Democratic votes are necessary to win elections?

3) Are you actually accusing Hillary Clinton of not being a Democrat?


By the way, polling absolutely does not support your views. Instead, they show that Senator Sanders is, instead, the "northern liberal white" candidate. He draws nearly all his support from the same exact people who love Senator Warren. Not to say that this is bad, but they're not a majority of the party, much less the country.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

86. JUmping in for a second

1) No. people have to earn a living. The degree of evil or decency varies from person to person. But the system and overriding values that have taken over these institutions, and the people who eagerly espouse them are wrong, and sometime evil.

2)No not only Democratic votes are needed. But peopoe are not born with a brand R ot D stamped on them. There are a large number of people whose partty loyalty is fluid, based on candidates and what they espouse.

3)Hillary is a Democrat. But what does "Democrat" mean? Is it the party of Clinton or Zell Miller or Max Baucus or Shrerrod Browm or ....?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

111. Refreshing!

Every once in a while I debate someone on DU, without feeling a sense of hostility, but rather a Socratic give and take. Thank you for that.

I generally agree with Armstead's response above to your questions, but let me respond further to your questions 1 and 2.

1. I think most people on Wall Street are more dumb than evil, because they tend to vote against their own economic and ecological interests. This gilded age style of politics is unsustainable, as evidenced by the major reforms of Teddy Roosevelt. If these slack jawed troglodytes are lucky Bernie will be elected, if not, they may end up on the business end of a pitchfork. Wealthy people are deluded into believing their wealth can insulate them from human extinction. They don't think of it in terms of extinction or the collapse of civilization, but that is what we are facing ecologically.

I do not accept the premise of a "pro business" dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between small business and big business. In the current quasi-monopolistic environment of mega mergers, all the T Rex behemoths are gobbling up little raptors, or at least stunting their growth. Bernie's platform is very much pro small business, a la universal health care (financially liberating small businesses) and breaking up the mega corporations to promote good old fashioned competition.

2. I think this is precisely why we need Bernie in the GE. He, like Obama, has the ability to energize the Millenials and the previously uninvolved. But more so, Republicans in great numbers, e.g. veterans, libertarian populists who hate the banks, young Republicans and those old school Repubs who really care about ethics in government. Perhaps you haven't seen the many articles about Bernie and Republicans. If you google "Republicans supporting Bernie Sanders" or "veterans and Bernie," you can see what I'm talking about.

This is why Establishment pundits have been universally wrong about Bernie from the git go. They have underestimated the power of his personality, straight talk and the anger of Americans of all stripe who know their country has been stolen by a handful of oligarchs.

[azmom]

138. As a mother of a 20 year old, I can

Tell you that Bernie's integrity and honesty is what the young people are responding to.

If we elect Clinton, they will not vote in the General election.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

141. Okay, so like Armstead, you see corporate mergers as being the problem?

And that big business is evil, as opposed to small business?

That is, oddly, the exact opposite of my experience. Large businesses are watched. They are subject to corporate governance. They have huge piles of money lying around making them a worthwhile legal target for torts if they don't do absolutely everything exactly according to the law.

Where abuse happens in America is almost entirely in small and mid-sided businesses. And I'm not just talking about people refusing to sell cakes to gays. I'm talking wage theft. Employment abuse of illegal aliens. Sub-minimum wages. Hiring and firing based on illegal considerations. It happens all the time.


Regardless, a few more questions for you:

1) What do you judge the chances of passing a law to outlaw businesses from growing past a certain size to be? Consider any reasonable congressional electoral outcome in2016. Further, add in Supreme Court review.

2) If someone who is very rich owns two mid sized corporations, instead of a single large corporation, what difference does it make?

3) Do you think fiddling with the rules about corporate governance are the key to energizing Millenials?


I will say that I agree that our system of allowing corporations to flee to Tax Havens should stop. Also, stop rewarding corporations that offshore with tax breaks. President Obama (who is called a "Corporatist" on the DU) has called for both of these things repeatedly in his SOTU address, with no action from Republicans. I'm not sure why that's his fault, or why the election of a Senator Sanders would change that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RichVRichV]

153. Can't say I agree with all that.

That is, oddly, the exact opposite of my experience. Large businesses are watched. They are subject to corporate governance. They have huge piles of money lying around making them a worthwhile legal target for torts if they don't do absolutely everything exactly according to the law.

Where abuse happens in America is almost entirely in small and mid-sided businesses. And I'm not just talking about people refusing to sell cakes to gays. I'm talking wage theft. Employment abuse of illegal aliens. Sub-minimum wages. Hiring and firing based on illegal considerations. It happens all the time.

And that is the exact opposite of anything I have ever seen. Small businesses generally don't cheat their employees or customers because they don't have the legal means to be challenged by the NLRB, Attorney Generals, and lawsuits. When they do they usually end up sued or in jail. Not to mention they often can't afford the loss in customer base from bad publicity.

Every time I've seen people walked all over it's by large corporations, be it the employees (Wal Mart), the customers (Verizon with "billing issues&quot , or small businesses. Right now my local WISP is having to shut down a portion of its network because the local power company (who is a large monopoly) decided to install smart meters that stomp over an entire chunk of unlicensed spectrum. Instead of working with us to make everyone happy (as ever small wireless company has ever done) their response was tough luck. Not to mention how many times Wal Mart has sold at a loss in order to run competition out of an area only to jack prices up once all the mom and pops are gone.

About the Employment abuse of illegal aliens. A lot of that happens on farms. Most of the farms in this country are now corporate controlled.

Every single major abuse I've seen in business has been by the large corporations. They look at government fines as just a cost of doing business, not a deterrent. The bigger the corporation the more likely that is. Show me a small business that can afford to do that.

1) What do you judge the chances of passing a law to outlaw businesses from growing past a certain size to be? Consider any reasonable congressional electoral outcome in2016. Further, add in Supreme Court review.

The president doesn't need to pass new laws, just enforce the ones on the books. There's still tons of anti-trust laws that could be used to stop the worst offenses. It all starts with appointing people willing to enforce them as heads of regulatory agencies and giving them the green light to. No need to involve congress for solving a lot of this issue.

2) If someone who is very rich owns two mid sized corporations, instead of a single large corporation, what difference does it make?

That depends on how divested the corporations are from each other. If the corporations are sharing resources and knowledge, and using their combined power for influence then they fall under the same trust laws as a single corporation would. If they're truly divested of each other it limits the overall power they have to influence things (like owner or not).

3) Do you think fiddling with the rules about corporate governance are the key to energizing Millenials?

Considering Millennials are by and large going for Bernie (more than any other age group), you'd have to ask them that.

I will say that I agree that our system of allowing corporations to flee to Tax Havens should stop. Also, stop rewarding corporations that offshore with tax breaks. President Obama (who is called a "Corporatist" on the DU) has called for both of these things repeatedly in his SOTU address, with no action from Republicans. I'm not sure why that's his fault, or why the election of a Senator Sanders would change that.

No argument there. I don't blame President Obama for not getting things pushed through congress. I don't expect Bernie to get these things pushed through without a change in congressional layout. However, I do wish Obama would use the bully pulpit more as a bludgeon against the Republicans (it would help all Democrats). I also don't care for a lot of the appointees with strong corporate ties that he's put in charge of a bunch of the agencies. The lax regulatory oversight has been as big of an issue as the tax laws. It's something senator Warren is constantly harping on.

[Marty McGraw]

178. +1 and a 1000

Thank you for that RvRv!

add to that that these enormous corporations can easily buy out any agencies that are put in charge to 'so call' police their behaviors and buy out legislation to nullify or place in new laws to benefit their own interests (whether that conflicts with another uber-conglomerate or not is a separate issue) it just becomes a feeding frenzy for mere pennies on the dollar to these folk.

Corporate capture of social agencies happens at exponentially more rapid pace more now than ever especially with the judicial system now in their back pockets to back their actions as well

[ConservativeDemocrat]

248. We're going to have to agree to disagree

And that is the exact opposite of anything I have ever seen. Small businesses generally don't cheat their employees or customers because they don't have the legal means to be challenged by the NLRB, Attorney Generals, and lawsuits.

You need to see what work life is like in a small-to-mid sized restaurant (for example). Their workers aren't unionized, so there is no NLRB. The State Attorney General doesn't get involved in such cases. And lawyers won't be involved either as there is no money.

The president doesn't need to pass new laws, just enforce the ones on the books.

What laws on the books? The only ones that are there prevent monopolies from forming. Going from a thousand companies to five is called "market consolidation" and is perfectly legal.

If the corporations are sharing resources and knowledge, and using their combined power for influence then they fall under the same trust laws as a single corporation would.

I think you missed the point. If you're concerned with income inequality, a "1%-er" who owns 20% of one very large company is no different than that same "1%-er" owning 20% of multiple companies that one very large company has been broken up into. Your plan of action doesn't even come close to addressing the issue you're trying to solve.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RichVRichV]

268. Much of that is untrue.

You need to see what work life is like in a small-to-mid sized restaurant (for example). Their workers aren't unionized, so there is no NLRB. The State Attorney General doesn't get involved in such cases. And lawyers won't be involved either as there is no money.

1) The NLRA applies to most private businesses, union or not union. Being unionized just grants additional protections and rights. Many rights are inherent to all employees by law.

2) If your state attorney doesn't deal with illegal behavior by businesses then elect a better one. Here in Illinois AG Lisa Madigan has laid the hammer down on businesses big and small.

3) Whether there's money involved depends on how a person was cheated. I've seen employees win lawsuits against companies of all sizes for egregious infractions. For lesser infractions the NLRB usually does a good job. I've seen business small and large get busted for various infractions. The difference is the big ones can shrug it off, the small ones can't.


I've dealt with small businesses most of my life. I've seen many restaurants from small mom and pops to large chains. The small ones usually have better retention of their wait staff than the chains do, which implies they are treated better. But like anything it varies from business to business.

What laws on the books? The only ones that are there prevent monopolies from forming. Going from a thousand companies to five is called "market consolidation" and is perfectly legal.

The government can keep any companies from merging if they are deemed to gain too big of a market share. That's why large mergers have to be approved by regulators. Currently it's largely a formality. That doesn't mean it has to. Take the possible merger of AB Inbev and SABMiller (#1 and #2 beer makers world wide). Even the current US regulators are bulking at that one because it would give AB Inbev an 80% market share in the US. That's just one example.

I think you missed the point. If you're concerned with income inequality, a "1%-er" who owns 20% of one very large company is no different than that same "1%-er" owning 20% of multiple companies that one very large company has been broken up into. Your plan of action doesn't even come close to addressing the issue you're trying to solve.

At what point did I say income inequality? We were discussing market control and influence. Income inequality will have to be handled through minimum wage laws, tax laws, and trade laws. Those are totally separate issues from what we're discussing. Try not to conflate them.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

277. It is very very true

1) The NLRA applies to most private businesses, union or not union. Being unionized just grants additional protections and rights. Many rights are inherent to all employees by law.

From the NLRB's own webpage on Jurisdictional Standards, you can see that small restaurants are not covered:

The Board has statutory jurisdiction over private sector employers whose activity in interstate commerce exceeds a minimal level.
...
Retailers
Employers in retail businesses fall under the Board’s jurisdiction if they have a gross annual volume of business of $500,000 or more. This includes employers in the amusement industry, apartment houses and condominiums, cemeteries, casinos, home construction, hotels and motels, restaurants and private clubs, and taxi services.

Furthermore, the only thing the NLRA does is prevent reprisals against union organizing, and even that has massive hurdles to go through. By the way, do you know it doesn't cover farm workers?

If your state attorney doesn't deal with illegal behavior by businesses then elect a better one. Here in Illinois AG Lisa Madigan has laid the hammer down on businesses big and small.

Actually, my state has a state Labor Commissioner. But again, this is not something that a President influences. Furthermore, illegal aliens don't get to take advantage of any such protections. And even for many valid complaints, they're simply ignored by people too busy with big cases. Again, the small cases are the ones that slip through.

The government can keep any companies from merging if they are deemed to gain too big of a market share. That's why large mergers have to be approved by regulators. Currently it's largely a formality.

They've taken action about six times in the past ten years. But again, when you complain about there being "only six" competitors in the market, that's perfectly legal.

At what point did I say income inequality? We were discussing market control and influence. Income inequality will have to be handled through minimum wage laws, tax laws, and trade laws. Those are totally separate issues from what we're discussing. Try not to conflate them.

Perhaps I got you confused with others who have different wish-lists coming out of Senator Sanders. The source of my confusion is that there is no daylight between the two Democratic candidates in terms of preventing monopoly formation and maintenance. So I had to assume you were going somewhere with this.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RichVRichV]

278. Not quite.

You're correct on the limitations of the NLRB. However there are many agencies that protect people at businesses of all sizes in the US besides the NLRB. These include but are not limited to the EEOC, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, OSHA, MSHA, as well as federal and state protections against illegal firing and discrimination. These apply to small businesses the same as large businesses. The recourse is the same for employees and customers of small businesses as it is for large businesses. However, the ability for small businesses to fight these claims aren't equal to the large businesses.

Actually, my state has a state Labor Commissioner. But again, this is not something that a President influences. Furthermore, illegal aliens don't get to take advantage of any such protections. And even for many valid complaints, they're simply ignored by people too busy with big cases. Again, the small cases are the ones that slip through.

You made the claim that small businesses commit more unjust acts than large ones. I was disputing that. That has nothing to do with discussion about presidential influence, just to clarify.

Like all government agencies, AG's are limited by the resources granted to them (which varies from state to state). So they have to pick where to focus on. Small cases don't automatically translate to small companies. They usually focus on those that do the most harm to the most people. It's odd how that often works out to be the larger companies. Somehow you're trying to twist a claim that AG's focus on larger companies into meaning smaller companies commit more illegal and unfair acts. That defies any logic test you can apply.

They've taken action about six times in the past ten years. But again, when you complain about there being "only six" competitors in the market, that's perfectly legal.

That's exactly my point. It hasn't been a priority to block large mergers because the Obama administration chooses not to make it a priority. That doesn't change the fact that it's a mechanism available to the president to control market size of companies. If it's done even once that proves the power is there for the president and his agencies to use.

Perhaps I got you confused with others who have different wish-lists coming out of Senator Sanders. The source of my confusion is that there is no daylight between the two Democratic candidates in terms of preventing monopoly formation and maintenance. So I had to assume you were going somewhere with this.

Having a discussion on topic A in no way shape or form implies my opinion on topic B. I have many things which are important to me, of varying difficulty to get passed. We were simply discussing one subset of a larger issue, in this case market control and monopolies. And if both candidates are equal on monopolies why is only one of them interested in breaking up the big banks?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

285. Here is the crux of the issue

That's exactly my point. It hasn't been a priority to block large mergers because the Obama administration chooses not to make it a priority.

First, preventing large mergers hasn't been a priority because until two years ago, the NLRB was hijacked by the Republican members on the committee, who decided that they didn't want to recommend replacements for empty seats, and instead sit on their hands and do nothing. This was aided by a minority filibuster in the Senate by the Republicans until Senator Reid ended up having to pull out the "nuclear" option to override them.

Second, and more importantly, you are again failing to understand my point. What "perfectly legal" means is that it is PERFECTLY LEGAL. There is no basis upon which the Federal government can sue. So your point about blocking mergers fails. Large mergers have continued to be blocked, and we do not have monopolies in this country, but we do have consolidation since it is economically more efficient. So blaming Obama for this state of affairs is completely wrongheaded.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RichVRichV]

286. Now you're confusing the NLRB.

The responsibility of approving mergers falls to the FTC and DoJ. They enforce the anti trust acts. They can deny any merger that threatens market control or creates a monopoly in an area. In fact it was much more difficult for large companies to get approval before the 80's. The government doesn't need to sue anyone to prevent large mergers.

We do have many monopolies in this country. Most power companies, cable companies, and phone companies are legal monopolies. It's why they have to get regulatory approval for rate hikes. Also most professional sports are monopolies and have to have regulatory exemption to collude. Plus we have many industries that are dominately controlled by only a few companies that used to be hundreds or even thousands of smaller companies.

Oh and the "efficiency" touted by larger corporations is usually achieved by laying people off from redundant positions, if not outright shipping those jobs oversees to cheaper markets. Small businesses weren't the ones moving production over to China.

[Gothmog]

28. Great post

Drawing black and white distinctions are not productive and hurt the party if we want to be competitive. I live in a red state that will turn blue. We are working hard to turn Texas blue and when that happens, then the GOP will be unable to win an electoral college victory. I hate to break it to you but socialism and socialist are toxic terms in many parts of the country. My county party chair was attacked by the local paper for merely attending the Sanders event in Houston to see who showed up. http://www.democraticunderground.com/107827740

Many people are supporting for a host of reasons that do not fit in the narrow slots described in the OP. I have not seen an explanation that explains how Sanders is viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. In the primary process, this is a valid concern given that the control of the SCOTUS is at stake. I have repeatedly asked for some assurances that Sanders would be viable in a general election and I have not receive a satisfactory explanation.

In addition, I personally think that Sanders would hurt down ballot races in Texas and that Clinton has a chance of moving Texas towards being blue.

[Armstead]

39. They're not narrow slots -- Just the opposite

Since at least 1980 the deck has been increasingly stacked in favor of the wealthy and power, and enabling the massive power of monopolistic corporations in countless ways large and small. I haven't got time to list all of the particulars, but you may be familiar with them. Just to give one example -- Bill Clinton happily signed broadcast deregulation that has totally destroyed diversity of ownership of radio and television stations to alarming. Look it up.

And the patterns have been soooooo predictable. The Corporate Democrats predictably trot out your litany that basically says "Give it up. This is a conservative country. Liberalism is dead.. Stop asking for ponies."

And we saw the results in the economic crash and its aftermath.

Many of these problems were -- and are avoidable. But too many Democrats eitehr gave up the fight, or joined the GOP and in effect the Kochs.

The ONLY things that brand of Third Way Democrat has anymore is the fact that the GOP is truly horrible. If the GOP ever became somewhat moderate and reasonable, the Democrats would have nothing to sell or nothing to threaten voters with.

I am not referring to all Democrats. There are some great ones on leadershop, along with the grass roots. But they have been shut out. Now it is asserting itself, which is what I was referring to in the OP.

[Gothmog]

73. You are very very wrong in your assessment

You are blinded by your own very narrow viewpoint and that is so very very sad. Most of your post is really sad and wrong on so many different levels that I really do not have time to deal with. I am fortunate that the majority of the Democratic party does not share your views

[Armstead]

77. Many others seem to disagree with you.

And since you like facile generalizations....I'm not sure that a large numbe of Democrats don't share the same underlying frustration to varying degrees.

The GOP is such a handy unifying tool that I'll end up rooting for Hillary on if she is the nominee. But that doesn't mean we should settle for the bullshit that helped to create the conditions that are squeezing average people and the poor today, while a handful of elites at the tpp make obscene amounts of money at our expense.

But keep your fingers in your ears and go "nyah,nyah I can't hear you...."

[Gothmog]

83. You are welcomed to your opinions no matter how wrong you are

I live in the real world in a very red state that I am working hard to turn blue. Your attempts to divide the party and to characterize the majority of the party as corporate democrats serve no function whatsoever in the real world. I strongly disagree with your assessment and you and your fellow Sanders supports are really hurting your candidate. If there is an implosion in the Clinton campaign, either Biden, Kerry or even O'Malley will be the nominee unless Sanders show that he is not another McGovern.

I remember the McGovern campaign. Here is an ad that reminds me a great deal of a current campaign http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

[Armstead]

84. I appeciate your work...seriously

Kudos for trying to turn a red state blue.

However, and I'm being perfectly sincere, if all efforts to challenge the corporate status quo since 1980 had not met with such stubborn resistance by the corporate Dems (and I use that term deliberately, in contrast to the more moderate liberals and populist Democrats) this division would not exist -- or would be inconsequential.

Many people who you think are divisive malcontents, were thrilled when Bill Clinton was elected....and again when Obama was elected. At their best they ran on stated principles we believe in...The problem generally happened afterward. And -- without going into details -- it wasn't merely because of necessity because of the GOP.

Neither of us has the tome to go into that in detail here. But the "divisiveness" you refer to is not a one-way street.

[Gothmog]

107. The bulk of the party fits into your category of corporate democrats

I live in the real world where I have to fight with real conservatives on real issues. You have to deal with realities in the real world. You may be happy with Sanders being a socialist but I have to deal with people who do not share your understanding of the term and concept. My county chair is a really good guy who may be more liberal than I am but he was really offended when he was attacked by a local paper for merely attending a Sanders event. This man gave Battleground Texas and Wendy Davis a ton of money last year (more than I gave last year) and also help fund my county's operations and his feelings were hurt by these attacks. The fact that the attacks are stupid does not really matter in the real world where you are dealing with real voters.

I can tell you right now that I believe that Sanders would hurt many down ballot candidates in Texas if the GOP and the Kochs spend $400 million on negative ads on the term socialism. I fully understand the correct definition of socialism and I understand that many of Sanders' positions are somewhat mainstream but it would take a ton of money to educate voters as to such facts and I do not see that Sanders will have the resources to do this. I also know that Sanders' programs will not truly cost $17 trillion but the explanation of why that number is wrong will be too complicated to get across to most voters without a very very strong advertising budget. The WSJ did a good job of poisoning the well and the effort to get the truth out may well be futile for most voters.

I believe in working within the system to change things. For over 20 years, I fought the battle with the Boy Scouts of America for years on the gay rights issue and we reached a very strong accomodation in my council (one of the largest in the US) on this issue that has now become the official policy of the BSA. It helped that I and my friends had sufficient contacts on the board of the United Way to encourage the Council to see reason but that was working within the system. Today, the BSA has come around. I do not apologize for working within the system. Change may come slower than you like but change is possible.

[RichVRichV]

156. I can debunk the $17 trillion claim in under two minutes.

$15 trillion of the $17 trillion (over 10 years) is estimated to come from implementing a single payer health care. That's an average of $1.5 trillion being spent a year on single payer health care according to the estimates.

According to Forbes, in 2014 the US spent an annual amount of $3.8 Trillion on health care.



That means if health care rates stay consistent (they're expected to rise substantially), Bernie's plans will save US taxpayers $21 trillion dollars over 10 years, not cost us $17 trillion. That includes the costs from all of Bernie's plans.

[Gothmog]

167. Do you really believe this?

Your explanation would not work in the real world to people who are not true believers. It will be so easy for the Kochs and the GOP to do a negative ad on this and your explanation depends on people willing to read many outside sources and drawing the right conclusions. Negative ads work when the subject line is simple and it takes a great deal of time and money to undo a good negative ad. I doubt that Sanders would have the resources to accomplish this.

[artislife]

169. Don't Mess with Texas

I have been hearing that for decades. Well, we don't mess with it in our neck of the woods. It seems to be a country unto its own.

I respect you are trying to turn it blue and history and lots of monkey business is making that a huge task.


I can't focus the whole election to turn one state a shade of blue (Dino probably--not my shade of deep blue)while making the whole country a paler hue of blue to do it. We can't lower the bell curve for you.




Shoot for the stars Gothmog!

[Gothmog]

258. Do you want to compare how many delegats Texas has compared to Iowa and NH?

Living in a red state is tough but there are people working hard to change this state to blue. In the mean time, for this cycle Texas has almost 3 times the number of delegates as Iowa and New Hampshire combined. Even if Sanders does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Super Tuesday primaries will be difficult for Sanders to do well in.

Sanders is appealing to a narrow segment of the base and is doing well in two states with 90+% white vote. The current polling is showing that Sanders is not doing well in Super Tuesday primary states and these states have a large number of delegates that may determine this year's nominee

BTW, if the Rice University/Baker Institute/University of Houston study is corrrect and is applicable to the rest of the state, Wendy Davis would have come close to turning Texas blue http://news.rice.edu/2015/08/06/texas-id-requirement-kept-voters-from-the-polls/

[artislife]

261. I saw the delegate count

But I also see the delegate counts we have and we don't need to have all 38 to have a victory. Easier effort on our part in other smaller states that are not so....uniquely unique. Texas has a lot of hat and cattle.


I love Wendy, but I don't trust your politics,gerrymandering and flat out steals regarding your elections.

The water finds the quickest, easiest way to flow. Texas ain't easy.

[Gothmog]

264. I spent a ton of time last cycle helping people get ids

It was too big of a problem to overcome

[RichVRichV]

172. They're not my numbers.

I posted the reference to forbes on the current cost of health care in the US. Last I checked 1.7 trillion is less than 3+ trillion. There for we would save money. That is the real world. Not the GOP fantasy world they pass off. It's backed up by independently verified facts, not conjecture.

Democrats don't lose because we have bad ideas. We lose because we're scared to stand behind and fight for those ideas.

Don't try to triangulate. Don't compromising what you believe in to win. Fight for it. We will reach way more people by being honest about who we are. We have the better message, the better ideas. All we have to do is push them as forcefully as the Republicans push theirs.

That's not wishful fantasy, it's the truth. People follow strength.

[Marty McGraw]

179. Rember Berniacs

If you don't see things the 'Texas' way you really can't be considered as dealing with the 'Real World'

more like reality turned upside down. Your deflationary way to try to place a large segment of the population into a make-believe corner is such an over used 3rd way tactic that has been going on for several decades now and will no longer have the effect you are so wishing it to have. The wave of true progressivism served by our candidate is really going to wash over and drain out this old DLC/HF smoke & mirrors prop that has helped fleece this county dry.

As far as Texas....? Really

[Gothmog]

259. Do you know how many delegates Texas has to the DNC?

You may not like Texas but Texas has almost three times the delegates to the Democratic National Convention as Iowa and New Hampshire combined. If Sanders wants to be the nominee, he will have to win in states that are not 90+% white states

[LondonReign2]

219. Your pedantic claim that only you live "in the real world" is tiresome bullshit

As is the implication that anyone that disagrees with you lives in a fantasy world. The sensible woodchuck routine is what got us in this fucking mess in the first place.

[Gothmog]

257. How many campaigns have you worked on?

I am very active with my county and state party and have worked on a number of campaigns. I am also able to read polls and understand demographics. You are welcome to believe in and support your candidate and I will base my support on facts and my knowledge as to how the real world works.

[LondonReign2]

262. One, thank you very much. And I reiterate, your claim is pedantic, tiresome, condescending bullshit

I live in Texas. Maybe you need to get out of Texas to see how the actual real world works.

[Gothmog]

263. Time will tell

Do you think that Sanders will reach the threshold to get any delegates in Texas?

[LondonReign2]

267. In the primary, it will be uphill for Sanders

Too many sensible woodchucks here have been subject to Republican ideas for too long and think the only way to beat them is to act like them. It's a losing strategy.

In the general, it doesn't matter if we run Jesus Christ, Texas is still out of play is this cycle.

[merrily]

192. None of those things are the reasons why McGovern lost that election. And, this ain't 1972.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825 (please be sure to read the replies).

[Gothmog]

194. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

[merrily]

196. Yes. So stop ignoring the real reasons why McGovern lost and the real differences between 1972 and

2015.

[Gothmog]

199. McGovern was the candidate selected by Nixon

The similarities to 1972 to year are more than you are admitting. Nixon got to pick his opponent and decided that McGovern was the easier opponent. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop/2015/03/nixon_s_dirty_tricks_and_muskie_s_tears_of_anger_during_the_election_of.html

Again, if you understood history you would see that the GOP is trying the same trick now. Howdy Gowdy is targeting Hillary Clinton on the e-mail issue to weaken her for the GOP nominee. The GOP would love to face a weak candidate like Sanders in the general election compared to Hillary Clinton. The idiots at the National Review are now urging conservatives to support Bernie Sanders http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/bernie-sanders-republicans-myra-adams

Support Bernie Sanders!

This is a call to action for every Republican anxious to win back the White House in 2016. Bernie Sanders, the socialist U.S. senator from Vermont, is now surging in his quest to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. He is attracting media attention and large crowds, and is invigorated by a New Hampshire–primary poll showing him only 10 points behind frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

After a GOP power player sent me a piece from left-leaning Salon headlined “Hillary Clinton is going to lose: She doesn’t even see the frustrated progressive wave that will nominate Bernie Sanders,” my heart went pitter-patter, beginning to sense an opportunity. But it was not until I saw a headline in The Hill warning that the “Sanders surge is becoming a bigger problem for Clinton,” accompanied by “It may be time for Hillary Clinton to take the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders more seriously,” that I was truly motivated to join Team Bernie and rally my fellow Republicans to do the same.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/bernie-sanders-republicans-myra-adams

The GOP is urging people to support sanders because the conservatives know that they can not beat Hillary Clinton. The author of this article actually made a contribution to Sanders.

Ted Cruz has been touting Sanders because he knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017281465 The GOP is trying to repeat history here by trying to hurt Hillary Clinton and then supporting and contributing to Sanders. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it and if we let the GOP select its favorite candidate to be the Democratic nominee, we will be repeating 1972 all over again (do I need to tell you the history of that race??)

History is a good thing those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

[merrily]

201. I no longer attempt substantive replies to in the face of insulting, arrogant posts.

You are not the only one who understand or studies history. Even if you were, you should stick to substance. However, you do seem to believe that you are the only one whose paradigm is unassailable, you and those who agree with your view. That is not the basis for a substantive discussion, only for a closed mind.

The similarities to 1972 to year are more than you are admitting.

And this implies that I share your view, but am refusing to admit something I believe, rather than that I am simply honestly stating own view, which is different from yours and that of the meme machine. That's way too low for a substantive reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=600944

P.S. Republicans "picked" Obama, too, thinking an African American would never win. Changed voter registrations in order to vote for him in the Democratic primary. They are not always correct. If I thought they were, I'd be a Republican.

[Gothmog]

204. Go ahead and ignore history

I volunteered in 1972 and remember that campaign. The anti-war passion back then is very similar to the Sanders supporters' passion on income inequality. Passion alone is not sufficient to win a race and 1972 is a great example.

As for conservatives voting for Obama, I remember Limbaugh's operation chaos plan was to encourage republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton to delay President Obama from being the nominee. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries, Obama was scaring the GOP with his fund raising machine. Remember, President Obama drastically outspent McCain in 2008 and had the passion on his side.

Again, I both study and understand the history.

[merrily]

208. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=601007

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=601007

[Armstead]

236. I disagree mostly with yout premise

Sure yhe GOP would probably rather run against Sanders. Bit that does not mean their ssessment is cirrect.

More importantly are two other points --

The GOP has been going against Clinton far longer than Sanders was a blip on the horizon. They, like most everyone, assumed she was going to be the nominee, so they started their Benghai and other shot to get a head start.

2)The GOP currently has deep problems and divisions that make the current Democratic schisms look like choir practice. At this point, I think that's what they are focused on.

[Gothmog]

255. Most people who are looking at the polls believe that Clinton will be the nominee

Predictwise has Biden with a higher percentage than Sanders http://www.predictwise.com/ Silver has a similar prediction. Unless the Clinton campaign implodes or Sanders can appeal to voters other than in the small segment he is currently appealing to, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. Biden is waiting until after the Howdy Gowdy hearings to decide if he is getting in. Early November is too late to get into the race against a healthy Clinton campaign but is plenty early if Biden's main competition is Sanders.

The GOP have been going after Hillary Clinton because they expect to be the nominee. I listened for Sanders' name in the debate last night I did not hear Sanders mentioned by name once. The GOP is gearing up to run against Clinton because they can read polls and they have learn to trust Nate Silver.

The Clinton campaign and/or perhaps Biden are the only two candidates who might be able to raise the funds to compete against the Kochs and the RNC candidate. I have been to one bundler event already and met Clinton's chief of staff who is very impressive. I hate Citizens United but one has to play by the current rules. Event President Obama used a super pac in 2012. The GOP would love to run against Sanders due to the funding issue and the fact that the GOP could run negative ads on (i) the socialism term and (ii) the WSJ cost of Sanders programs. Even if the premises of such ads are wrong, it takes a great deal of money to counter such negative ads.

[malokvale77]

223. FWIW

I live in Texas. I've been here since 1966. I have a totally different take from Gothmog on what's going on in this state.

Texas was the "blueprint" for a hostile takeover of government.

The Democratic Party basically abandoned us and the voters lost interest or became to busy trying to survive to care.

I could say a lot more on the subject, but must get off to work.

[merrily]

225. Thanks, malokvale77. I never have a problem with anyone's disagreement on issues, even if

it is 100% standard 3rd way memes/propaganda. But, I am not going to try to address substance with anyone who approaches me that way. Been there, done that. It's a waste of time and it only escalates and gets uglier as it goes along.

[LondonReign2]

220. Yes: See 2010 and 2014 for the effects of running candidates unwilling to take

Democratic positions

[dflprincess]

163. I would disagree that a majority of the party doesn't share this view

Oh sure, those running the DNC and the state parties may, but the rank and file, not so much. Based on the number of long time (read older, like me) activists that are gleefully getting behind Bernie - including in more conservative parts of the state - and the young ones who are sitting up and taking notice - I'm betting those in the trenches have had it with "Third Way".

[Gothmog]

166. So the nationwide polls are all wrong?

Romney and Rove tried this in 2012 and that did not work too well for them

[merrily]

193. Nationwide polls? They show that, given a real choice, Americans are more liberal than the 3rd way

types want us to believe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036 (Let's talk polls.)

[merrily]

209. Apologies for the OT, but I want to make sure you see this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128049975

[dflprincess]

280. Thanks - great ideas.

[cascadiance]

75. I certainly felt this schism back in 2008 when Edwards left the race then...

... and I almost felt that his private situation that had him leave was part of the manipulation of him drawing the progressive votes in to a black hole away from someone like Kucinich early on and let them be left with the two corporatists in Obama and Hillary left afterwards...





The Clintons and other corporate Democrats worked with Koch brothers to help build the DLC then that lead to corporatist power in the Democratic party then, which they try to hide by "phasing out" the DLC and changing the name of that crowd to "Third Way", much like Diebold and Blackwater changed their corporate names when they became toxic to the public too.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

https://samsmitharchives.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/6467/

This was one of the earlier efforts to squash attempts at populist movements when they squashed Howard Dean then with the media manipulation of the Howard Dean "scream" that really didn't happen. It's too bad that he seems to have retreated from being a populist in recent months that he could have solidified if he'd supported fellow Vermonter Bernie Sanders.

A revolution is happening now. The DLC/Third Way folks might not like it and may try to fight it like they've been able to more successfully do in the past, but that's what's happening, and those who reject the corporate government are really becoming determined this time not to accept more stealth corporate rule like they've had to put up with and suffer from since 1980.

[Armstead]

79. Edwards....um, that was kind of an embarassing chapter

I hate to admit it, but I feel for it for a little while, despite that little voice inside that said "don't trust this guy"

[cascadiance]

134. As did many of us, who liked that he was speaking more on many of the inequality issues directly...

... that Hillary and Obama were avoiding then. But as I have noted here before, part of me wonders that at the time most of us didn't know of his personal issues, if he wasn't being schooled to talk about these issues to help draw our support to him, where many of us might have supported Kucinich having a bigger voice and staying in the primaries longer to keep the conversation on progressive topics than the later avoidance of such when it was just down to Hillary and Obama. I still strongly feel that we perhaps were being manipulated in to supporting a "more realistic choice" of Edwards at the time, who was looked on as more apt to compete for the nomination then than Kucinich before the other issues came out.

Even if Kucinich hadn't won, and he likely wouldn't have, if we had the opportunity to give him more support so that he could be a bigger voice later in the campaign, we could have had more promises from both Hillary and Obama that Obama might have otherwise had to follow through on, or we could have had more room to criticize him for breaking them on things like Free Trade crap that he's pushing on us now.

[merrily]

198. Edwards, who was a third way legislator, was a slick talking snake oil salesman. JMO

He was one of those, "I'll say whatever I think is likeliest to get me to the Oval Office" candidates. He was about him, not about Americans. Total narcissist, up to and including $300 haircuts while running his mouth about two Americas.

No example is more dramatic than indulging himself in an affair while running for President, including having his mistress and baby mama on his campaign bus, while his wife was dying of cancer. Let's say he succeeded in getting the nomination: What do you think the October surprise would have been? And how would that election have gone the following month? M cCain Palin. Probably at least sixteen consecutive years of Republicans, at a miniimum, but definitely twelve (including Dimson's eight). That's what that fucker was willing to do to America and his family.

[merrily]

195. A schism has been in the Party since Lincoln. FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ all dealt with it.

Sure, they Democratic Congresses because a coalition that ranged from Klan members to Northeast immigrant factory workers to midwest farmers united against the banker-Wall Street union busting employer class. But, within that, my God, were there divisions.

We lost the Solid South when JFK and LBJ started the entire party toward overt support of ending Jim Crow, ensuring voting rights, etc. And that's when the party's right, led by the Clintons, decided they had to act if they ever wanted to see another Southern President--which Bubba, Gore, Warner, Robb and other founding members of the DLC most certainly wanted to see.

[rhett o rick]

118. The problem we have is that we must draw the line somewhere. If Clinton wins the WH

the 99% will be doomed. No one even tries to convince us that Clinton will do one single thing about the problem that is killing the 99%. Wealth inequality. At some point we have to say "frack it" we will not willingly become paupers. Some argue, selfishly if you ask me, that we must accept what we get.

One of the great things that Sen Sanders said at Liberty U. was, "any country that cared about all its children would guarantee them healthcare" I think that is a great test. This is a morality issue and if H. Clinton doesn't agree then that tells us a lot.

[Marty McGraw]

180. and I will say

FelderCarb! to Anyone who doesn't believe this movement is not going Anywhere. We're just starting to see the beginning of this taking on a real life of it's own! This time it will be for Real

[merrily]

200. A country that cares about its PEOPLE.

In the 30s, Social Security was sold on the basis of the elderly and the disabled and the widows and orphans. Then, Republicans mocked "widows and orphans." Then the Pete Peterson types attacked the elderly and disabled. So we thought things for children would be easier to pass. So we dialed all the way back to that. However, I don't want to see a 25 year old walking a median with a sign that says "homeless and hungry," any more than I want to see a 16 year old with one.

We have to stop heading for the hills every time Republicans mock something, as though they had a point.

[daleanime]

31. Despise? No....

Just don't want you, the 'reality based' , to continue controlling everything. Sorry about that.


Oh, and you don't need the tell me that you're disagreeing. I think we know that.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

61. The name-calling betrays your emotionalism

...regardless of whether you admit it or not.

But no, the reality based are the majority of the Democratic party. So if you want the leftist equivalent of the teabaggers taking over the Republican party, it's not going to happen.

I did notice that you didn't bother to try to answer any of the questions. I am forced to conclude that this is because you have no answer.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[daleanime]

71. Huh? You're not a 'Proud Member of the Reality Based Community'?

Sorry about that, I'll try to remember that.

And as to your questions, I just don't feel like wasting your time, and mine, with something your 'reality' rejects.

[Armstead]

87. name calling?

"leftist equivalent of the teabaggers"

[ConservativeDemocrat]

93. Not to put too fine a point on it...

First, teabaggers are well known to be the ideological purists that took over the Republican party, succeeding beyond their wildest dreams in the primaries, but then going on to lose general elections they should have won. Harry Reid almost certainly wouldn't be in office today if they hadn't voted in someone unacceptable to the general electorate in the primary, and the same thing can be said of Senator Chris Coons. So the analogy is purely descriptive.

Second, if you have decided to take offense at the analogy anyway, you're the one who started off this OP by calling the majority of the Democratic party "Corporatist", after which you clarified your use of the word as essentially meaning "evil capitalist", as opposed to the more reasonable merely "pro-business capitalist". So in a very grade school sense, you have very little to complain about when people do back to you, what you initially started with them.

This, by the way, is a behavior I see with a lot of the most prolific Bernie supporters on the DU: they start out with sweeping general insults, and then complain bitterly about the blowback, as if they didn't instigate it in the first place. It almost seems to be a tactic to avoid rational discussion. That, and the ugly misuse of the jury system, that caught people like 1strongblackman.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

99. You're probably right but it works both ways

On a discussion board a lot of shorthand has to be used, But if you want a more calm explanation, here goes.

First of all, I'm 63. And I hate to sound like an old fart but -- when I was young, things that are considered commonplace business behavior today would have been thought of as beyond the pale of decency. That ranges from the declining minimum wage and overall wages, outsourcing our jobs and decimating communities by already profitable corporations, replacing public services with privatization of necessary resources...etc. etc, etc.

Chainsaw Jack Welch became the role model. And he is a first class shithead. That's what became our business model.....and that acolyte of Ayn Rand fantasy Alan Greenspan became the Centrist Democrat Guru.

And if you trace any industry or sector of the economy,what was once a diverse mix of competing small, mid-sized and large businesses has been allowed to congeal into an economy in which a handful of massive corporations own and control almost everything. And, worse yet, those corporations took over other industries -- so that we have companies that control many sectors.

Now if you think that was a good thing there's nothing to discuss,, And if you think it's healthy to see the current concentration of wealth and the falling behind of the working and middle classes while corporations and their top brass made out like bandits.

That could have been avoided, if we had stood up while this process as occurring -- stop these mergers, or at least severely limited them so that no one could own so much. Instead, the Corporate Democrats sat back and let it happen -- and all too often reaped the rewards with well paid positions.

It was a definite descent. And it was a descent for the Democratic Party, to move from being one that should have been offering a reasonable alternative to stop this shit. Not "radical socialism" or "ponies" or "unreality" or whatever pejorative you care to apply to it,

[daleanime]

128. ........

[ConservativeDemocrat]

132. At best, I think you're oversimplifying

This looks to me like the following:

1) You're blaming Democrats for a Republican led effort. Nearly all the deregulation this country had came about due to Republican pressure and/or when they were in office.

2) Mergers that come close to establishing monopolies continue to be opposed by the Federal government. Other than that, there is little that can be done about companies buying each other.

3) I think you need to take off your rose-colored glasses a bit. Minimum wage is considerably higher now than it was throughout the 1940s and early 1950s. And Hillary Clinton's proposal to set it to $12 an hour would place it at all time historical highs:

...which is not surprising, because Hillary Clinton is very much a liberal.

4) Wealth is increasingly concentrated largely due to the fact that developing nations are getting hooked into global trade, and thereby being able to lift themselves out of abject poverty. The disparities in wages are so great that companies like Nike can make out like bandits, even after they pay superstars like Michael Jordan more than the entire cost of making their shoes. So even if we went back to 1950s laws, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the would would return to the way it was then: where if you were a white American, you'd be virtually guaranteed a job at a decent wage, but if you were anyone else, you almost certainly were living at a lower standard of living than you are today. Again, one of the reasons why many Democrats don't "Feel the Bern" is that they don't see the 1950s as quite the halcyon days of yesteryear that his supporters do.

5) I do need to point out that I do see a huge difference between DU supporters of Sanders, and general Democratic voters who support him. The latter I may disagree with, but they usually express themselves in terms of who they like better, rather than the spittle-flecked anger from the screed writers here. I promise you that I don't hold anything said in the DU by Sanders' supporters against the Senator personally.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

150. We're never going to agree but...

1)Bill Clinton (and others of his ilk) were not dragged kicking and screaming into all of it. They actively pushed many of the things that have caused the biggest problems.

2)Mergers have not been opposed, except for a very few instances (such as the recent telcomm things, thank God). It;s still happening....There has been nary a peep iver the years as these monolithic monopolies were being formed..... I guess I donlt share your belief that there is nothing that can be done to control them.....Or at least put up a fight, and drive public opinion against them. What are we helpless? I disagree.

3)I'm not talking about the 40;s or even the 50's. We were reaching a point where it was a somewhat livable wage by the 60;s and 70's, but then it was allowed to slide, as part f the geneal deterioration of out political and economic systems towards gross inequality and corporate banditry.

4)Concentration of wealth is too damn complicated to discuss here. Except to say yo are isolating certain cat=uses and ignoring or disregarding others. Besides politics, there is a matter of public morality and common sense that should come into play. That can't be solved by politics alone, but at least the bully pulpit should be employed in politics as part of that.

5)MY own OP was stepping ouside the usual personality frame. But most Sanders supporters here (me included) are enthusiastic about Sanders. If you don't see that, then you are deliberately not looking at it honestly, As for your spittle comment -- people who live in glass houses...

[treestar]

273. I thought that exchange was pretty civil

between you can CDC and Gothmog.

The spittle is the posts below that back up nothing of what is said.

[hueymahl]

164. So many fallacies, so little time

Rush, I didn't know you frequented DU - mega dittos!!!

[LondonReign2]

221. "because Hillary Clinton is very much a liberal"

LOL. It appears the "reality based community" didn't get Hill's latest memo.

[merrily]

203. Sorry, I don't think Conservative Democrat is right at all. Compare earlier posts in the Bernie

Group with those in the Hillary Group during the same period. Our hosts did not allow meta, etc. only positive OPs about Bernie. And look at this thread, with the times on the posts. The posts containing insults to Bernie's supporters came first, same as always.

[merrily]

202. Who started what and went way overboard with it is a matter of perception.

The first ones to whine when they get some of their own back are not necessarily the ones who jumped into the fray last.

[Fairgo]

96. I liked "bubble dwellers"

Made me feel all effervescent.

[merrily]

205. Like drinking champagne inside a geodesic dome! Cheers!

[artislife]

254. Heee! nt

[Doctor_J]

152. name calling? didn't you post up thread that liberals are actually communists who are

Pissed that the USSR fell?

And now democrats who think that Medicare for all would help the country are "leftist teabaggers"

This is why the DINOS have led the party to the brink of ruin.

[merrily]

211. Their name calling of us doesn't count, only our criticism of a professional politician on issues

Puh-lease. Learn the DU memes and get with the program.

(fake anger toward you; not kidding about anything else; just finally tired of all the bullshit)

[merrily]

217. What do your insults "betray" then?

[Armstead]

35. You're doing exactky what I was referring to

Thanks for playing

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. Oh, let me add the Kafka-esque accusations

Ill-explained, and not serious. That's another hallmark.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

58. You're right. "Thanks for playing" is not serious

But you are so rigid and engage in such stereotypes that the time spent on a serious response is not worth it.

As for your characterization of the OP...once again you illustrated my point....And "Reality based Community" is about as Kafka-esque as it gets.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. You should google my tagline

You might find it enlightening.

You also might consider the idea that when you start off an OP by attacking the majority of the Democratic party with a term that you clearly intended to be pejorative, that any response to your own stereotyping is - of necessity - going to make conclusions about why you're doing so.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

68. I'm not sure of which perjorative you are referring to in the OP

there were so many after all.....

It is opinion. You also use perjoratives. Those are your opinions.

That's life.

[ieoeja]

76. "Pro-Business" is a Liberal capitalist. "Corporatist" is a Conservative capitalist.

We're not communists by a long shot. Where in the fuck did you come up with that weird ass idea?

And Liberal capitalism was anything but a failure. We were the #1 creditor nation in the world. We led the world in innovation. We built a country that outshined the Soviet Union so much that they turned to capitalism likely knowing it might bring down their empire.

Or do you actually believe the Rightwing myth that we would have "bankrupted" the Soviet Union without them entering the global marketplace? Because, while the Soviet Union still owed us for WW-II expenses, they didn't have to discharge their loans through bankruptcy. But that was a pre-requisite to them joining the global market place. Had they continued as a self-contained, communist country using its domestic resources and de facto slave labor, the Soviet Union would still be alive today.

But once Nixon lowered the Iron Curtain and embraced detente allowing the people of the Soviet Union to see how much better the West was doing, their own people began clamoring for capitalism. And *that*, not the "bankrupted by military spending" myth which, as I point out above is nonsense, is why communism fell. How do you bankrupt a country that has no need to borrow money when they already own all the resources they need and de facto slavery to do the work? You can not. It is not physically possible.

It is not, in other words, in the Reality Based Community.

That myth did not even exist when the Soviet Union first fell. It was invented years later by people who can only see things through a RW national security lens. The RW national security had to have done that somehow. So they came up with an impossible scenario to describe how the military did it.

In the meantime in the Reality Based Community, Western businesses were popping up like flies in the former Soviet Union. While the CIA was informing Poppy Bush that the Soviet Union still had at least 20 years of life in it, Western law firms were helping Soviet Republics write commerce laws compatible with the global marketplace. While the RW was still preparing for the long fight, Liberals were preparing the fall.

And the Reagan economy did not even exist when this began under Nixon. It was what you today would call a far left economy. Well, no, actually you just literally called the Western economy "communist" even though it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Because you refuse to accept Reality and instead keep trying to find some way that Reagan flexed his mighty muscles and the Union came tumbling down.


Reagan did flex his mighty muscles and something came tumbling down. But it wasn't the Soviet Union. He brought the United States from the #1 creditor nation in the world to the #1 debtor nation in the world. He shut down VA mental hospitals because he thought veterans with PTSD were just whiny losers. Our streets became flooded with the homeless to this day.

He cut taxes on the wealthy, raised them on the working class. He eliminated block grants to the cities and states. Small rural communities could never have afforded to build modern sewage plants on their own. But now they are on their own. Big cities could have, but he did this in the immediate aftermath of White Flight which took a great deal of Money Flight with it. So big cities and small towns went broke while suburbs flurished.

The cities, those that did not come under attack by state legislators, are bouncing back. Newly minted young professionals fled the anti-youth attitude prevelant in the suburbs and moved into the cities. Some moved out to the burbs as they aged, so the burbs are still doing just fine. But many, like me, said "fuck the burbs" and began re-building the city. And now we're the ones with the money and the cities are beginning to regroup.

But rural towns don't stand much of a chance. They just don't have the numbers. There is a reason my family did not get electricity until 1961. There were no power lines nearby.

More farms went bankrupt under Reagan than during the Great Depression! I worked for a bank that went through the Great Depression without laying off a single worker. Not so under Reagan. Had I predicted the bankruptcy of any of the giants of industry that went bankrupt under Reagan, you would have called me a loony.

Had I predicted a quarter of the disaster Reagan would create, nobody would have believed me. Hell, we lived through it and Republicans still can not see it when it's staring them in the face.

And apparently one Proud Member of the Reagan-Myth Based Community.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

82. So where did you get the idea that Secretary Clinton is a "Conservative Capitalist" ?

Or that the majority of the Democratic party is, as the OP clearly states?


I don't quarrel too much with your characterization of the history between Democrats and Republicans, but somehow there is this belief in the D.U. that Hillary Clinton is a Reagan Republican, or even more right wing. You have to be exceedingly extremist to actually believe that to be true.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ieoeja]

95. Would you prefer Third-Wing or Neoliberal (both terms she has called herself)?

Feel free to change that one word in my prior post.

30 years ago their economic policies would have been called Conservative. But today's so-called "conservatives" are in truth reactionaries. And I guess I should go with modern definitions since we are living in the world today. As has been noted many times over, today's self-proclaimed political conservatives think Reaganomics is socialism while "New Democrats" call it Left of Center.


"Factoid" is my pet peeve. Not too long ago it meant "a commonly believed fact which is actually false". It was kind of funny that "factoid' itself was a factoid! But the media has used it wrongly so much that it has now become "a single point of truth". So it now means the exact opposite of its original meaning.


But I will not budge on "entitlements". For one thing, we can not afford to budge on that. That word actually has a legal meaning to it. If we passed a budget tomorrow that included:

Entitlements for Fiscal Year 2016 will equal 90% of the amount calculated in paying out the entitlement, as the same entitlement for Fiscal Year 2015.

Most Americans would cheer! Then look confused as their Social Security and Medicare decreases 10% while Food Stamp recipients continue receiving their same Food Stamps. Because that is the true and, most importantly, legal meaning of the word. I push back against that rebranding every chance since you know some Teabagger in Congress would push for just such legislation ignorant of the fact that the word does not mean what they think it means.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

102. I prefer to look at voting records...

...rather than identity politics. And Nate Silver has crunched the numbers on that. There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton supports dismantling Social Security.

Indeed the places where I disagree with Secretary Clinton are where she's too liberal. I dislike her views on gun control, for instance. And I'm hardly the only Democrat who feels this way. But as a grown up, I know where the country is, and no, the election in this country doesn't start and end with members of the DU, and their widely understood preferences.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

212. Let me guess: She voted with her caucus most or all of the time. Big whoop.

[LondonReign2]

222. You're to the right of Clinton, who'd a guessed that?

[Ron Green]

80. Terrible post.

Starts off with name-calling ("bubble-dwellers&quot , not an auspicious beginning.
You refer to losers in "the marketplace of ideas" - a well-known Libertarian term that ignores the fact that this mythical marketplace is tilted, tainted and generally controlled by proponents of the "Invisible Hand" who fail to acknowledge the "Invisible Foot" - laws written by lobbyists, echo-chamber media, targeted distractions, etc.
Worst of all, you accuse of black-white thinking those who call out the bought system, ascribing to them the identity of communists or old-style leftists.

And for the record, the Wall Street supporters of Secy Clinton are not friends to local economic activity or small entrepreneurship.

[senz]

85. Sounds like you're calling us communists.

old-fashioned communists now use the word "corporarist" as the epithet of their hatred, instead of "capitalist pig-dog"

Oh, that and the perpetual need to create enemies because they're not "pure" enough: Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea.

I even remember communists from that era saying they "weren't against small business", just as you're doing here, so the parallels are striking.

You've got a real 1950's McCarthyite outlook there, Conservative Democrat. Clearly, it is impossible for you to conceive that anyone could favor the intelligently regulated business environment of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s that gave this country the optimism, prosperity, and strong middle-class that it has lost in recent decades. For you, a carefully regulated capitalism is no different from Soviet style communism. For you it's laissez-faire capitalism running rampant over the rights of U.S. citizens -- or nothing. I'd say you need to open your eyes, look around, and see what Reaganomics has done to our country. Maybe you should listen more carefully to what Sen. Sanders has to say.

As for this:

How exactly do you intend to appeal to all the "corporatists" that you so obviously despise, but whose vote you need in the general?

I can assure you that true corporatists are a minority in this country. Corporatists believe that this democratic republic should serve the interests of large corporations and other moneyed-interests at the expense of the people. The majority of American people do not and will not follow that line. The only way your side can achieve that nefarious end is to paint democrats as communists and get the gullible to fear us. You know, Fox News style propaganda.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

98. People who can't distinguish between Hillary/Obama on one side...

...vs Republicans on the other, are indeed cut from the same cloth as communists. Either that, or they're being deliberately disingenuous. Or both.

The remainder of your points are arguing against a straw man of your own invention. There is a vast gulf between my position of "businesses are not automatically evil, and the voting public will not vote in a candidate who campaigns against them" and the words you try to put in my mouth: "carefully regulated capitalism is no different from Soviet style communism". There is also a huge gulf between supporting President Obama and Secretary Clinton and supporting Republicans, regardless of whether you recognize it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Armstead]

105. So why is the ACA healthcare a modern version of conservative GOP Romneycare?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

143. Excellent question. I'll let Newt Gingrich answer that one:

“I just wanna make one point that’s historical. In 1993, in fighting HillaryCare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less-dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After HillaryCare disappeared it became more and more obvious that mandates have all sorts of problems built into them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering, trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills while still leaving an out so libertarians to not buy insurance. And that’s what we’re wrestling with. It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But, it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s.”

- Newt Gingrich

In other words, the Republican plan was not actually something they were actually in favor of passing. It was political bullshit. Indeed, Republicans only came out for the mandate proposal as a way to stop Hillary's proposal:

The more visible the Cooper and Chafee bills become, the more questions arise about their technical and political feasibility. Many supporters of the two bills, when pressed, confess that they have misgivings about some key features and hint that they have signed onto them mainly for tactical reasons.

What you fail to understand is that the Clinton proposal of 1993 is very close to the "Public Option" that Obama eventually had to drop out of Obamacare. They were just named "Regional Alliances". So it's very bizarre to see the attacks against Hillary when Obama's even more conservative plan succeeded, and has done very well - thank you very much.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[dreamnightwind]

265. But Hillary campaigned for a mandate in 2008

while Obama did not. And today, she is not supporting a Medicare For All program like Sanders is, nor is she advocating removing the mandate to buy into private health insurance. I'll take Sanders any day of the week, and Hillary is most definitely neoliberal corporatist type of Democrat, with foreign policy conections to many in the neocon world.

[merrily]

206. Romneycare was modeled on Billarycare, which was modeled on Heritage Foundationcare, which was

a Jackson Hole, WY conservative group's horrified reaction to Nixon's health care plan, which had an employer mandate, but no individual mandate.

[senz]

162. You obviously don't know what a communist is.

Look it up sometime. It's got nothing to do with Hillary/Obama vs. the Republicans.

Nevertheless, if a Venn diagram showing areas of overlap between Hillary and the Republicans vs. Sanders and the Republicans, Hillary's circle would have much more overlap with the Republican circle than would Sanders'.

And none of it has anything to do with communism.

[merrily]

213. Pssst. Posting arrogant insults does not make them true.

[bvar22]

135. You are absolutely correct.

To become a 3rd Way, no issues, Party before Principle, Centrist Clinton Democrat,
one must INDEED give up ALL IDEALS,
and just sit quietly under the table hoping that more crumbs will fall off and Trickle Down on the peons.


I believe I will KEEP the following Ideals until I'm dead.... perhaps even longer.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.



---bvar22
Mainstream/Center FDR/LBJ Democrat
who still believes in the FDR Ideology that made the Democratic Party GREAT,
and built the largest, wealthiest, most upwardly mobile Middle/Working Class the World has ever seen.

Lets try that again!
We KNOW it works.

[passiveporcupine]

144. old-fashioned communists

old-fashioned communists now use the word "corporarist" as the epithet of their hatred, instead of "capitalist pig-dog"

You've learned to play the game well, haven't you?

Democratic socialists are not communists any more that corporatist third-wayers are facists.

But you keep on reaching out, why don't you. You see, Hillary will need our votes too, if she wins the primary.

[merrily]

214. Whose game, I wonder?

I love how the left of the left gets accused of being Republican and Libertarian and rat fucking all the time on this board, but neo McCarthyism red baiting doesn't? Interesting disconnects at DU.

[Ken Burch]

171. Nobody here is an "old-fashioned communist", buddy.

(there's no excuse for 1950's style red-baiting in the year 2015, btw) And left-Dems are just as reality-based as you are.

[DirkGently]

104. Amen. Corporatism is not

"The American way."

Lot of people have been confused by that, but it just might be wearing off a bit.

[nashville_brook]

233. so spot on -- it's about leveling the playing field so everyone can compete.

right now it's more like a rigged casino than a fair playing field.

that's why the presidential race attracts gambling magnates like Trump and Fiorina.

[d_legendary1]

38. Bernie wants controlled capitalism

which will work wonders for the 99%. The guys on the top, however, don't feel like losing their spot to regulations that might make others rich and have therefore placed candidates that will keep the money train going (those candidates are those not named Sanders, O'Malley, and Chaffe). When I start hearing things like savings accounts for health insurance and profit sharing for McDonald's employees I know those guys aren't talking to the rest of us. I want somebody who says they want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, healthcare for all, and screw outsourcing. Let's go back to what made America great and ditch the Clinton service economy.

In short go Sanders!

[chknltl]

108. I've a sorta similar version

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I ask folks, "What supersedes the power of the citizenry in our democracy?"

Capitalism/corporatism unregulated runs the entire Republican Party, it has taken over much of the Democratic Party too. Republican voters usually turn that statement around but there is this consensus: the citizenry has all but lost control over their democracy because of this. Our economic model must be OURS, not someone else's-not the model currently used by the capitalists/corporatists!

Deep down inside, the citizenry gets this. They can see that the money has shifted out of the hands of the citizenry and is flowing into the hands of the very few. They can see that their politicians are more beholding to the capitalists/corporatists than they are to the citizenry. Both Trump and Sanders are offering the citizenry a chance to turn that money flow around. Neither Trump nor Sanders are Washington insider politicians-the citizenry see that both of these men are not following the wishes of the big money holders. This explains why both candidates are enjoying their current rise in popularity.

When thought about, those I asked all respond: "Nothing must supersede the power of the citizenry in our democracy."

GO SANDERS!

[Enthusiast]

117. +1 You nailed it.

[d_legendary1]

140. IMO Most people don't have to know where the money is going

to know something is wrong. In a lot of people's cases their 401 (k)s have tanked to the point that retirement is impossible. For others they simply lost their jobs because nobody is buying the products they sell. In my case the place of my first employment closed down since people weren't buying floors now that those N.I.N.J.A. loans came to fruition (among other factors). Then it was a giant pain in the ass to look for another job (I was unemployed for a month...lucky!).

I found out the hard way what politics meant. And ever since hearing Bernie on the Thom Hartmann Program I liked the way he presented all of our problems. I support him 100%

[Enthusiast]

116. Huge +1!

[Enthusiast]

114. +1 a whole bunch!

[mmonk]

9. Yes, that is it. The collision course was set and now is coming to fruition,

especially since 2008.

[daleanime]

18. Which is where I feel Obama had his biggest failure....

we should have had this fight then. Instead he insisted on 'reaching across the aisle', not matter how often he had his hand bitten in return. Of course just my opinion.

[Armstead]

46. I tend to agree with that unfortunately

High hopes half-dashed.
He did also do some great things and elevated the tone, But too little for what is needed.

[Scootaloo]

60. It's a matter of perspective

When I supported Obama in the primaries, when I voted for him in 2008, and again in 2012, I was never under any illusion that I was voting for a revolutionary figure. He was not going to overturn the system of things. When I went to the voter booth, I didn't vote for "Change", I voted for Hope.

Barack Obama was a foot in the door. The first step on a road of progressive change. A herald of more to come, basically. he did fine - could have done more, but he did fine. It's now up to us to put some shoulder to that door and throw it open.

[Aerows]

136. Damn fine perspective Scootaloo

You nailed it, and I wish I could rec this post because you smacked it out of the park, my friend.

[Enthusiast]

119. An opinion that I share.

[mmonk]

184. Yes, you are correct. I still remember the cat food commission

and other developments in the wrong direction. Opening up drilling on the Atlantic. Freezing wages on the federal level. No public option. etc

[merrily]

215. Sorry, I'm not following. Who do you mean by "we?" Democratic politicians or Democratic voters?

Because the latter sure tried.

Yes, Obama did try reaching across the aisle--to a right driven even further right to distinguish themselves unmistakeably from the DLC types. Since "the left has nowhere else to go," the assumption was they could do anything to us without losing a critical number of votes. Supposedly, the votes were to picked up from right leaning indies and the right and they were to picked up by going further right.

New Democrat Obama himself has said that his politics are those of a 1980s Republican (the DLC having incorporated in 1985 to capitalize on the popularity of a 1980s Republican, namely Reagan). So, to reach across the aisle, he had nowhere to go but less than moderate Republican--and got stonewalled anyway. My guess is that's why he now has a fuck it bucket list. However, there is only so far he can go without running afoul of the DLC/DNC strategy for 2016 and only so far he can go with a Republican Congress.

[daleanime]

226. I mean all of us...

republican, Democrat, Independent and any one left over. We have to be able to agree to work together or nothing will get done. Bernie's Liberty University speech was a great step in that direction.

[merrily]

227. Thanks. Agreement is tricky.

A majority of Americans do agree on many critical and less critical issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

We don't control the megaphones yet, so we don't always get that.

But, agreeing and uniting are intersecting circles.

IMO, as the parties grew more similar in policies, they had to demonize each other more. And that is where we are. It's hard to imagine oneself finding common cause with Satan. Heck, even different wings of the Democratic Party are demonizing each other.

I don't know how we fix it. Bernie is trying. I hope to heaven he makes headway.

[artislife]

12. Ok, this is going to sound woo...

but this is a time of letting go and shedding what doesn't work for us anymore.

In 1990s, I was a Clintonite. As James Carville said, a Shi'ite Clintonite. My brother, older, more radical tried to talk to me about how Clinton was not liberal, but I was consumed with winning and being on the Right Team.

Before anyone else stepped in to challenge and I knew Warren wouldn't be running, I let go of having to be on the team that won and be on a path that was in alignment with what I felt we needed to bring into our government.

Luckily, Bernie threw his hat in. I don't know if we will win the election, but I am on the winning team.

Winning because there is a force that is joining up people who are looking at this planet, this money system and are working for the best solution for everyone not just for themselves. We may have already passed the tipping point, but we may have a few years to change course...but we cannot wait for 2020 to try again.

[Armstead]

13. Not really woo

To be honest, the most important aspect is a change in consciousness and a reassertion of moral and ethical values in society at large (on the practical real-world level).

Politics both leads and follows that.

woooooooooooooooooooooo

[TheJames]

33. The bit I have never understood,

is how someone doesn't see that improving X for EVERYONE, includes them. To put it into other terms, altruism can be motivated by self-interest.

[Armstead]

43. Like the old saying goes:

WE all do better when we ALL do better.

[Enthusiast]

121. Truth.

[JDPriestly]

69. Yes!

[Scootaloo]

63. Great post, artislife!

[Enthusiast]

120. Not woo. Your post could have been about me. Of course I have not a spec of woo.

[artislife]

170. Not one spec!

Thanks everybody, I kind of wondered how that post was going to land!

[mmonk]

182. Yes, we can't keep going down the rabbit hole without fighting back.

All the Third Way got me was less net worth, less income, and gerrymandered. Even if there is no escape, I'm still going to fight.

[merrily]

218. War has risks, well, winning a war requires taking risks, though, of course, one

tries to minimize them. Attempting a risk-free war is only the longer way to surrender.

"The left has nowhere to go," and LOTE voting, aka Happy Supreme Court and Merry Say Hello to President Trump" are all risk averse concepts. So is the illusion that contacting our elected representatives or posting = activism. We may as well surrender now and save a lot of blood and treasure.

I struggle with this whenever I am at DU and I've never found a great answer. Well, not a risk free/good outcome answer, anyway.

[restorefreedom]

14. great summary

and why the anti establishent, one way or another, is going to sweep this election.

[me b zola]

15. Huge K&R

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[jalan48]

19. American's now know that Wall St. isn't interested in solving economic and societal problems.

Wall St. and the big banks are interested in making money, period. However, Wall St. and the big banks do buy politicians. They are able to set individuals and families up for life if the politicians do their bidding. That's the system we have today.

[fbc]

22. My message from the corporate democrats:

[DanTex]

23. I disagree. First of all, the large majority of Dems like both Hillary and Bernie.

The anti-Hillary feelings you see on DU are not representative of anything except a small group on the left.

Also, the "Third Way" had its heyday in the 90s, possibly into the early 2000s, but the Dems are not there anymore. Look at what Obama has done, look at what Hillary (and Bernie and O'Malley) are running on, it's obvious. Some people want to punish Hillary for things that her husband did 20 years ago, but she isn't Bill, and never was Bill.

[staggerleem]

40. I often wonder ...

... if the bashers (on BOTH sides) are really Rethuglican trolls trying to create discord on our sites, and hopefully diminish Democratic turnout for 2016. Hell, limiting turnout worked REAL well for them in 2014!

[Armstead]

81. A few on both sides

[workinclasszero]

42. Thanks for injecting some reality into DU fantasy land

I disagree. First of all, the large majority of Dems like both Hillary and Bernie.

The anti-Hillary feelings you see on DU are not representative of anything except a small group on the left.

I will vote gladly for whoever gets the democratic nomination. Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, Uncle Joe, etc.

Every republican running is a de-facto fascist religious nationalist and it will be a major disaster if one of them gets elected.

Any democratic candidate would be worlds better. The people here that pledge their vote to one man alone and to hell with anybody else are playing a dangerous game with the future of this country.

[Armstead]

48. You missed the point

I wonlt repeat my other replies, but you can read them for this one.

[Fairgo]

115. Thank goodness for the Agora

Where the public can explore ideas and debate in a shared and convivial space. I appreciate your take on the struggle of ideology. People forget that in a political space, the individual is defined by the policies they trade in, not the team they think they belong to. The"real world" that they claim as the anchor of their existence is an allegiance to surface stimuli, a fascination with colors and
Logos and labels and the immediacy and righteousness of their visceral experience. On both sides, every side, the inability or refusal to challenge the ideas beneath the experience creates a confederacy of dunces amused by their ability disrupt discourse.

Please continue with this line of thought. It needs to be said, it needs to be explored. In the marketplace of ideas, there are many voices. Some speak, some bray. Others strain to listen.

[Armstead]

47. Two Points

1)You missed my premise. This is not about who "like" what specific candidate.

2)The Third Way is alive and well. The same "accommodations" to the "progressive base" get dragged out in most elections, But they never address the core problems. Cough medicine for cancer.

[DanTex]

49. Sure, but your opinion is only held by a tiny minority of Dems.

The vast majority don't consider Clinton "Third Way" or "Republican lite" or anything else. In fact, most Dems don't even think about the Third Way anymore since it has come and gone, and looking at policy (isn't that what Bernie fans are supposed to be about) the current leader, Obama, and the likely future leader, Hillary, are both progressive.

Basically, the "Third Way" attacks on Hillary are by people who are still mad at Bill and don't pay attention to what's actually going on in the party.

[Armstead]

53. Neither you or I have talked to everyone in the country

You can read the "news" and get very different opinions and analysis to support either position. Eitehr Clinton is craashing and burning, or she is amazingly popular or people think of her as "meh."

Not everyone thinks about the Third Way -- but they are fucking pissed off that the company the work for is screwing them while the top execs and owners get disgustingly wealthy. They see outsourcing, communities whose economic base has been hollowed out by outsourcing. They are pissed.

On the GOP side oit takes for form (weirdly) of the support of Trump. His only message is "The people who ate tunning this country are stupid."

On the Dem side, it is expressed in the weak base that Clinton actually has, the growing popularity of Sanders and a general disgust with the whole system. Obama generated such enthusiasm by harnessing "hope and change." That "change" part of his message is what got him over the top....But as we have seen since then, not enough of it.

[DanTex]

57. They have polls for that.

And both Obama and Hillary get very high marks from Dems. In fact, the whole last 7 years when the far left has been blasting Obama, his approval ratings from liberal dems have been in the 80s or 90s.

Sure, people are pissed about things, this isn't anything new, people are always pissed. But liberal Dems don't associate Hillary and Obama with the things you say. This is a simple fact. The people who associate Hillary and Obama with everything wrong in the world are Republicans.

[Armstead]

59. I'd give Obama high marks too

But I'd also say we can do much better.

[DanTex]

64. So what's the problem with Hillary then? She's basically the same place policy-wise.

[Armstead]

65. She's all over the place

"I'm a moderate."

"I'm a fighter for progressive causes."

"I'm for traditional marriage, until it was clear that people were okay with gay marriage then I was for gay marriage."

Etc.

[DanTex]

67. Those are labels, not policies. As far as gay marriage, again she's the same as Obama,

who also was for "civil unions" until recently.

[Cosmocat]

70. It is a pretty brroad casting of the support of Hillary to say it is all "corporate"

or third way or whatever.

NOW, I do think that does apply to the support she has from elected officials, party officials, the business community and wealthy types.

These folks wield great political power, but end of the day, they have a small fraction of the votes.

There are a LOT of "every day" people who support Hillary who are completely removed from all of that, and support her for a lot of other reasons past the broad catorgization of being third way or corporatists.

The people around me, my neighbors, the people I know and interact with just like her, know her from the 90s, support her as a woman, etc.

[Armstead]

74. Please read my OP again

I actually kind of like Hillary, and agree with her on some things, and admire her accomplishments.

But it's not only about the personalities. They are the representations of deeper forces.

As for the wonderful 90's....Yeah it was like a party. Problem is the punch was spiked

[Cosmocat]

91. Eh

I can appreciate the deeper forces thing, but honestly, that is giving a LOT of voters a lot more credit than they deserve.

I know a lot of folk who in no way shape or form are corporate or third way who support her.

[Armstead]

50. PS Bill Clinton ran as a populist but governed as a moderate Republican

[Aerows]

137. Open your mouth

and talk to people. The best way to find out what people in "the real world" believe is to ask the people in your "real world" what they think.

It's not very difficult and you will be astonished at what people will tell you while you are waiting in line. If you judge the pulse of Americans on what you see on the news media instead of the people you interact with day by day, it's pretty clear of that the heartbeat is in a different location.

[cantbeserious]

24. HRC - Is A DLCer & Obligated To Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - A Favorite Friend Of The 1%

eom

[dougolat]

25. "Profits over People" "Public Risk and Private Gain"...

"The Rule of Law - Except for the Rich"
"The 1% vs The 99%"
"The Golden Rule or the Rule of Gold?"


I like my new bumper sticker:

MONEY OUT -- BERNIE IN

[daleanime]

32. Nice!

[840high]

72. ...+1

[shireen]

26. Thanks for an awesome post

You've succinctly and eloquently expressed how I feel about this primary. I'm also glad to see the thoughtful respectful responses. This is DU at its best.

[NRaleighLiberal]

29. Yes- I agree. Kick and rec.

[Ed Suspicious]

30. I keep thinking of Aristotle's cycle of regimes.

I'm not sure how that operates within mixed government, but I can really feel a lot of energy around oligarchy, democracy, and even a little anarchy with the Teabillies. The fight between the aristocratic/oligarchic and the demos is heating up because the oligarchs have crossed a line.

[JDPriestly]

34. I agree, and I would like to say that I think that Bernie is not talking about a socialist revolutio

nor do I or most others who support him want one.

What we want are specific programs that would guarantee better opportunities for American families and especially Americans who are too young or old to compete for jobs, who are disabled or who are not at the time needed or wanted in the workforce. We want a country with fewer homeless people.

Why is anyone homeless when a few people have not only multiple homes but huge homes with many empty rooms? People who want a room should be able to afford one -- at least a place to sleep and live very modestly. I challenge the Republican candidates who claim to be Christian to propose a program they will house the homeless, feed the hungry and heal the sick. Charitable donations and faith are leaving too many people living in makeshift tents, storing their few precious possessions in shopping carts.

I challenge every student who attends Liberty University to forget that great internship iin business next summer and volunteer for a homeless shelter.

We want to invest in education so that every qualified child can enjoy the opportunity to realuze his/her potential beginning from the moment he/she leaves the womb.

We want, also, a country that is a good place to live in terms of good safe roads and parks, bridges, the environment, public.

For-profit healthcare insurance, education have not worked well. For-profit health insurance is too expensive for either private employers or the government, the co-pays even now are very discouraging.

We want a country in which people who work at ordinary jobs are encouraged to and can save a little, maybe even. Buy a house or condo.

It isn't about making everyone the same. It is about making our country not just strong and unified in the world but also a healthy place to live in which each of us strengthens every other American.

[workinclasszero]

92. Things will never be better for the 99%

In this country until we stop the pax America empire and it's enabler the MIC.

We spend an insane amount of money on our military and maintain bases all over the world.

It's easy for the rest of the industrialized world to have great social programs for their citizens when we pick up the lions share of their defense costs

[JDPriestly]

36. My husband says people are for Bernie because they are against corpotate crime.

Forged signatures on foreclosures?

Opposing corporate crime is not socialism.

Writing laws that create loopholes that legalize what is really corporate crime is legislative collusion with corporate criminals.

[Enthusiast]

124. Huge +1!

[apnu]

37. Nah, this schism has been around, openly since 2008.

History is repeating itself.

But instead of a young Senator from Illinois capturing the imagination of the left, its an elder-statesman from Vermont.

But the groups that lined up behind Obama are now lining up behind Bernie. Both represent change that the left desires. Hillary is more of the same. I'm sorry but its true. If you loved the Bill Clinton Presidency (all of it: Insane corporate economic boom, Wall St. robbery, NAFTA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DMCA, and including the scandals), then Hillary is your candidate. If you didn't like all of it, then Bernie is your candidate.

Its that simple.

[Armstead]

41. The only thing I disagree with you on....

This extends back much farther than 2008. That was the first break point.

[apnu]

51. Yes, you are correct which is why I said "openly"

There has always been an uneasy alliance in Left with moderate, corporatist, Democrats and everybody else. But I think in 2008 it broke open for everybody too see in the Obama/HRC fight. And it was never healed.

Not that I want it to. The corporate whores are the problem. Its not us, the progressives, or the unionists, or the African Americans, or the Latinos, or anybody else. Its them, they're the problem and they need to be made uncomfortable and learn we will not be taken for granted anymore.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. I never thought Obama was not part of the establishment

I disagreed with most of his positions, but I saw him as marginally better than Clinton. I expected exactly what we got, a center-right administration tasked by the PTB to clean up Bush's mess.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. Eagerly K & R'd!

[GoneOffShore]

45. Thank you. Well thought out.

[PatrickforO]

52. A good and thoughtful post.

The pendulum is now swinging back to the left after about 35 years of going disastrously right.

[RufusTFirefly]

54. "Sometimes it's been subtle and duplicitous, hidden behind nice innocuous words. "

Indeed. Want a great example? "Public-private partnership." That's just a euphemism for privatizing the public space.
Same applies to "corporate underwriting" which has basically robbed the "public" from public radio.

Excellent OP all in all.

The fact that we have two pretty distinct groups who both fall under the umbrella of Democrats is reminiscent of the 1930s when the northern Democrats had a markedly different view than the segregationist southern Democrats.

[Enthusiast]

126. Excellent points.

[HassleCat]

55. The corporate Democrats have done very well

They have managed to hang onto enough seats in Congress to... Oh, wait. They lost seats in Congress, didn't they? Well, there goes that theory!

[Armstead]

62. Doesn't matter...When GOP is in power they get what they want. When the GOP is out of power...

they get what they want.

We're too busy "keeping powder dry" and all that.

[emsimon33]

88. Wow! Well said!

You need to have this published as an OP.

[Uncle Joe]

89. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[CharlotteVale]

90. K&R. You nailed it.

[Capn Sunshine]

94. I used to refer to this schism as "East VS West"

Crack first appearing in earnest in 2004 - East coast intelligentsia ( mostly inside the beltway types) vs West Coast progressives. Dean V Kerry. After a Kerry defeat where he declined to activate a team of lawyers we had assembled to fight the theft of Ohio, which would have given him the victory, we were livid.

Fast forward to 2008. Dean's the head of DNC, 50 state strategy articulated electoral victory in the midterms. To our horror, Hillary has assembled a team that resembles completely the "lose with grace" team from Kerry's campaign. Some of the most despised operatives in the Democratic universe, together with every craven power hungry beltway sophist. My main complaint: Mark fucking Penn.

No one will listen to the California delegation. We have several conference calls. Decide to ask, no beg , no plead with Barack Obama to run.

The rest is history. That split still exists, there's still a ton of residual resentment over putting in DWS but she's OK. Hillary wisely has included us in her decision making which looked set to steamroll to the nomination. Many of the Obama partisans and funders go straight to her.

Then a nefarious plan is hatched by Karl Rove et al:
create and exploit discontent with Hillary via a constant stream of negative articles fed to MSM and a [link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=1|plethora of bogus websites] designed to look like left leaning sites with agenda like the environment or populism.

That part is working exceedingly well. Not that Hillary needed any help creating a schism. She's still got a tone deafness one can only develop after years as a cabinet level official inside the beltway, and Bernie Sanders was always there, but FINALLY his message is resonating.

Et voila, schism city.

[LondonReign2]

224. Hillary hatched her own discontent by supporting a shitastic set of policies

[hifiguy]

97. The British musician, gay rights activist and journalist Tom Robinson

was there 35 years ago:

All you downtrodden people
Always bear the brunt
Just sit back on you fat backsides
'Til you have to face the Front
Waiting 'til the bullyboys get you
Don't make no kind of sense
And pretty soon there'll be no room
For sitting on the fence

You better decide which side you're on
This ship goes down before too long
If Left is right then Right is Wrong
You better decide which side you're on

Too bad for the gay revolution
This is as far as we get
And if you think you're free, well listen to me
You ain't seen nothing yet
We're all gonna feel the backlash
Of puritanical power
And kicking us down into the ground
Gonna be their Finest Hour

You better decide which side you're on
The chips go down before too long
If Left is right then Right is Wrong
You better decide which side you're on

Too late, trendy thinkers
Your time is running out
Ain't no time to wonder why
Ain't no time for doubt
Joseph, Reed and Whitehouse
Are out to get your guts
You better decide which side you're on
Forget those ifs and buts

[Armstead]

100. Or Iris DeMent -- Wasteland of the Free

Living in the wasteland of the free...

We got preachers dealing in politics and diamond mines
and their speech is growing increasingly unkind
They say they are Christ's disciples
but they don't look like Jesus to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got politicians running races on corporate cash
Now don't tell me they don't turn around and kiss them peoples' ass
You may call me old-fashioned
but that don't fit my picture of a true democracy
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got CEO's making two hundred times the workers' pay
but they'll fight like hell against raising the minimum wage
and If you don't like it, mister, they'll ship your job
to some third-world country 'cross the sea
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

Living in the wasteland of the free
where the poor have now become the enemy
Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones
Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy
Living in the wasteland of the free

We got little kids with guns fighting inner city wars
So what do we do, we put these little kids behind prison doors
and we call ourselves the advanced civilization
that sounds like crap to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got high-school kids running 'round in Calvin Klein and Guess
who cannot pass a sixth-grade reading test
but if you ask them, they can tell you
the name of every crotch on mTV
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We kill for oil, then we throw a party when we win
Some guy refuses to fight, and we call that the sin
but he's standing up for what he believes in
and that seems pretty damned American to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

Living in the wasteland of the free
where the poor have now become the enemy
Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones
Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy
Living in the wasteland of the free

While we sit gloating in our greatness
justice is sinking to the bottom of the sea
Living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the fre

[DrBulldog]

101. Bernie has never said "socialist revolution".

He is trying to ignite a "political revolution". Big, big difference.

[Armstead]

103. I'm not the one who thinks that

[ut oh]

106. Great post!!

K&R

I do really hope that we are able to pull the country back to the left. It makes no sense to me where the 'Status Quo Establishment" is going.... Most of those in power seem unable to see the long term effects of what they are doing.

[Todays_Illusion]

109. I disagree. Populists are not liberal and Populists are not Democratic or strongly democratic,.

Populists are traditionally decribed as

Xenophobic, isolationist, racist, reactionary. Conservative, and Christian and more socialist than Democratic.


Here is a better comparison: Populists are anti-free trade social conservative Socialists.


I am not making this up: http://www.britannica.com/event/Populist-Movement


The populists were always anti-Democratic Party and Bernie is not a Populist, Liz yes do you see how that populism is like the lefty libertarians?

[Armstead]

148. Populism itself is a fairly neutral term -- like all othrs open to interpretation

It can be attached to eitehr left wing progressive or liberal values or right wing xenophobic ones, or some combination thereof.

[Paka]

165. Important distinction.

It can be entirely fluid depending upon the context.

[Todays_Illusion]

289. Wah? you don't use a dictionary?

If you don't stick to a standardized dictionary how are you going to know if your reader or listemer is hearing the word with the meaning you have assigned it?

[Enthusiast]

112. K&R! Obviously this post should have hundreds of recommendations!

This is exactly correct. Denying what happened won't change the reality. We watched it happen right before our eyes.

[Duppers]

123. Excellent post, great thread...

but for a couple of replies, most see the light.

[zentrum]

131. Actually it's been since

……the 1960's. Johnson and Humphrey were good social and financial liberals, but there was that damn war in Viet Nam they wouldn't end.

The party started to split then—the McCarthy part of the party—which included most of the young people was ruthlessly suppressed by the Party Machine.
The progressives in the party never recovered. Kind of withdrew from politics. So there was no longer any pressure from the left on Dem leadership.

Then the Clinton's founded the DLC——look! they said, Democrats can align with corporations too and win elections, yay! This really ate at the party's values from the inside out.

That makes it fifty years of rightward drifting.

TIme for the return of the FDR center—Bernie. O'Malley. Warren.

[Armstead]

146. You're right...Democrats are still running from the 1960's

But along the way they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

And the 60;s were a few decades ago and a very different world.

[zentrum]

157. Agreed.

Thanks for making the point that the schism has been brewing for a long time and is bigger than Sanders and Clinton.

[KoKo]

147. As a DU Dem Lefter here's what I say:

We are Skilled, we know how to Find Info to Counter Hillary from her past record and we are Dedicated to Bernie...and he doesn't have to PAY US! We are Dedicated, we are Smart and we Know Where to Look to find Real Information .....unlike Brock who is payed to do Disinformation! What a "FAIL" for Hillary to rely so heavily on the Corporations, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Moles from the RW to Handle her Campaign.

She had a chance to do better and she Blew It. And, I say this as a huge Bill Clinton Supporter when he ran who thinks that both deserve a nice retirement babysitting for Charlotte and moving on with their lives. It's the Progressive Left of the Dem Party's Turn. We've worked for years supporting Candidates who Do Not support US and Instead Trash and Marginalize us in the Dem Party.

Hillary is Divisive and Bernie is Fresh and we know where he comes from and he will be the BEST against Donald Trump...because as a Fellow New Yorker Bernie knows how to FIGHT TOUGH down to the Wire! Bernie isn't going to be Marginalized ...because he is fighting for the Soul of the Democratic Party!

Feel the "Bern!"

[Major Hogwash]

149. The DLC/Third Way/Centrist faction cost us the House and the Senate and left Obama holding the bag!

I have no idea why some Democrats who were candidates in 2014 refused to tell the voters who they voted for to be the President in the 2012 race while they were running for the Senate 2 years later, but that tactic backfired big time.
It blew up in their face.

The middle-of-the-roaders will screw up things every time.
The GOP Congressmen in the House had already voted 40 times to repeal the ACA by 2014.
There was no reason to negotiate with them or compromise with them.
There was no reason at all to try to appease them.

And in the Senate it was worse, they were busy as beavers in a forest filibustering Obama over 400 times!!

No more compromise.
No more corporatists.
No retreat, no surrender.

[Todays_Illusion]

158. I agree with you, we want a liberal not some fake liberal calling themselves populist.

When I see that word used I know it is not a liberal but a deceptive lefty libertarian so dishonest in their agenda.

They are libertarian and there are some in Congress as Democratic who are one of these and they are very friendly with those more famous libertarians, I say beware and run away as fast as you can.

[sadoldgirl]

154. There is more than a schism, I think.

There is one in each party. When I talk to people of either
party I find:

They feel powerless and feel their vote does not count.

They think they elect people, who will represent their
interests, but once in office they don't.

They all want to see money getting out of politics.

They are sick and tired of wars and of violence in
our own country.

They dislike wall street and the large corporations

They believe all politicians are bought by special
interests, and therefore do not trust them.

Most dislike outsourcing and fear for their jobs.

There are more points, but I just leave it at that.
The right wants then more privatization and very
local control.

The left wants their government to find solutions
to these problems and consider the government
as "theirs".

Then you have the ones one the conservative "left"
and those on the "moderate" right, who are actually
going along with the status quo.

Both the left and the right are in rebellion, while the
"centrists" group is shrinking, since they don't
have any real solutions to offer.

Just my view.

[ChiciB1]

155. Kicked... Keep The Truth Coming! n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

159. This sums it up....

[colsohlibgal]

160. What If?

I wonder where we would be if the Reaganites had not committed treason with the October Surprise, which swung the election to the B actor

Carter would likely have been reflected and who knows from there?

As it is there is little doubt HRC aligns with the Neo democrats. Her hubby and and Obama leaned heavily that way as well.

[PatrynXX]

161. I just see two parties

The Conservative Party of with Hillary is of and the Liberal Party which is mostly Sanders. Been saying this for years. Once you understand this then the people you are voting for might be fixed or it might not be. But you would understand that Congress has been in the hands of Conservative Party since maybe 1994... Could be earlier.

[senz]

176. Thom Hartmann cited this thread and you by name, Armstead.

Am listening to his show's Wednesday podcast; he mentioned you in the first hour -- and he was very impressed by your OP.

[Armstead]

228. Thanks for letting me know. Alas I didn't hear my 15 seonds of fame

I guess he doesn't have podcasts of his old shows.

Good to know though as I respect his opinion a lot.

(I guess it wasn't as off base as some of the respondents thought. )

[senz]

249. I think I found it.

Try this & click on 9/16

http://kbcs.fm/programs/thom-hartmann/

As I recall, the mention (it's brief) is within the first hour.

[KoKo]

250. Thanks for the link to Thom's broadcast...

[senz]

252. No problem. I hadn't known about this website either.

As a podcast subscriber, I don't need it, but it's cool to know it's out there. They go to the trouble of laying out the topics for each half of the show.

[senz]

251. He leads off with it. Right after the news, 6:45 minutes in.

I think it's an honor that he leads with it and begins it with "Wow."

You can fast forward to it by clicking ahead of the stream (you probably already know that.)

[senz]

253. Thom Hartmann follows DU.

He mentions kpete's post on Bernie's Liberty U speech too. I wonder if he has a user id?

[KoKo]

256. There's a poster that uses Thom's name in the Video & Multimedia Forum

Here on DU. Thom's posts are often posted there...so its either Thom himself or a Staffer of his.

[senz]

260. Interesting. But people do post under famous names

such as Rosa Luxemburg and Bill Hicks, among others. Although usually it's a deceased person, and, who knows, it might not be legal to use a living person's name, famous or not.

I'm impressed, but just a tiny bit worried, that Thom is following DU so closely. The tiny bit is because we're mere opinionated amateurs, not as good as news outlets, known pundits, authorities. We're just small fish. Maybe that's a prejudice of mine. But on the other hand, one of Thom's very good attributes is that he doesn't favor the powerful, rich, and famous. I suppose someone could just ask the DU member who is going by his name.

Anyway, thanks, KoKo (famous gorilla name).

[KoKo]

266. It's not the Gorilla....

It's my beloved,now passed-on Siamese cat's name. From series of funny books about Siamese who solved mysteries who were named after characters in the Mikado. We had two Siamese, brother and sister, who were named KoKo & Yum Yum after the characters in the book taken by the author from the play written by Gilbert & Sullivan.

Unfortunately, when I joined DU I picked the anonymous name of Koko the one Siamese who sat on my computer not thinking I would stay on this site for years. I wish I could change it ....but, the Admins don't allow name changes.

Not that you needed to know this....but, being thought of as "KoKo the talking gorilla" is not exactly the image that I would have wanted to have all the years I've been posting here.

[senz]

269. Either way, KoKo is a wonderful name.

I thought of you as a sensitive person, a la Jane Goodall, who loves our nearest animal relatives. Gorillas are amazing creatures. KoKo, in particular, is special for me because she liked cats and asked for and received a little orange kitten whom she held and played with gently and happily. For some reason, the great apes have a fondness for cats as pets.

I understand how you feel about cats, having been a cat person since infancy. To this day, I think fondly of all the kitties I've had, and I still miss them. Currently, I've been adopted by a stray, an elegant, athletic street girl who hunts like a champ (I try to dissuade her), is very self-possessed, but also affectionate when she feels like it.

Your KoKo sounded like a very sweet cat. The only Siamese I've ever had was a slim, lanky, blue-eyed Siamese mix who made friends and fans all over the neighborhood. He also found me as a stray.

There's no reason for you to change your name. Anyway one looks at it, it's a nice person who loves animals. It says nice things about you.

[Armstead]

281. Thanks a lot. I heard it.

I guess that makes me a pundit? ...Well for 15 seconds anyway.

Seriously, thanks. I apprecate it.

[senz]

282. Glad you did. You're famous now!

Actually, if Thom decides to follow you a bit, your words could be influencing someone who has a pretty big megaphone. So...post wisely.

[Recursion]

181. The DLC took over because Democrats were tired of losing elections

The worry is that the base wants to go back to the days of carrying one state and DC every four years.

[Armstead]

230. That's called throwing out the baby wirh the bathwater

It's 2015, not 1980 or even 1990 or 2000.

The McGovern analogy is pretty irrelevant by now.

[Recursion]

239. Maybe so, but this is why the DLC was formed, and it delivered

Now, this model focuses too much on the White House, I agree, but winning 5 out of 6 Presidential elections since 1992 is pretty impressive.

[Armstead]

242. 2 points

Done a pretty shitty job with Congress and on the state level (though states have a lot more to do with local circumstance and personalities)....Bith a shitty job in holding onto Cingress, and doing a shitty job in terms of letting the GOP ditate terms even when Dems are in power.

The sucessful Dem presidential candidates did not win because of their DLCness. It was that they lucked out with oustanding politicians -- and also because those candidates won over liberal voters, among others, Bill Clinton ran as a charismatic progressive populist, and Obama won because of the "hope and change." ....Plus the GOP was so awful and had such awful candidates they scared a lot of people into voting for the D.

[merrily]

235. Congress has been lost more since the DLC than before the DLC.

2010 and 2014 were routs for New Democrats at every level of federal and local politics. The Third Way response was to promise to double down.

And, of course, by "days" of winning one state, you mean one Presidential election decades ago that can be explained in at least 30 ways other than liberalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825

Bill Clinton didn't win an election (by a plurality) because he was Third Way but because he was a Democrat. To this day, most Democrats have never heard of the DLC or Third Way.

Will reality ever penetrate the memes?

[Recursion]

238. Conservative dems were our only two pick-ups in 2014

Last edited Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

2010 and 2014 were routs for New Democrats at every level of federal and local politics.

I understand you see it that way, but what the party sees is that the only two Democrats who beat sitting Republicans in 2014 were Graham and Ashford, both conservative Democrats. They follow the people who win the seats.

[merrily]

240. I see 2010 and 2014 as routs? Sorry, that is not exactly a subjective assessment.

They WERE routs and the only thing the Party was selling was Third Way. Democrats went from solid majorities in both houses in January 2009 to having lost control of both houses by January 2014 to a party full of nutters. Meanwhile, in 2010, we lost the right to draw districts for 10 years. Not to mention how many state houses and local offices were lost. And you want to talk about picking up TWO seats in Congress?

The majority of registered voters are Democrats. If all Democrats went to the polls, Democrats would win. However, many who registered Democrat have been staying home. If they felt they had a reason to go to the polls, if they felt it would make a palpable difference in their lives and the lives of their families, they would have gone to the polls in a blizzard.

When even Trumka threatens to bolt, there's a problem--and it ain't that the party is too far left.

The Party isn't following wins and losses. "Follow the money" is the issue. So is Follow the DLC philosophy.

[MrMickeysMom]

183. Thank you for making me think of that "unfettered capitalism" thing...

We seem to have a lot of trouble sorting out all of our woes since the 35th President. Lots of us put labels on what it means to be a member of a party who brings everyone along. It's clear that "we" are not in control.

After years of eroding labor, draining public education and allowing things that are "too big to fail" make the rules, I've had it with the type of capitalism that has gone WAY BEYOND "unfettered".

We all are stakeholders, but you wouldn't know it from the state of the Democratic Party. That shows in what comes out in many of my posts. Well, that, plus the stigma of having no answers as to how dumbed down we've become.

"Hey, honey…. Is American Idol on tonight?"

[SonderWoman]

197. Hillary and Bernie voted the same 94% of the time.

And its hilarious how people conveniently forget under Clinton we raised taxes on the rich, created 25 million jobs, and the longest stretch of peace time. But I'm sure Bernie will create millions of jobs by collapsing healthcare industry and our import/export industry.

[mmonk]

207. I haven't forgotten how much I had before the Democratic Party went Third Way or what my vote was

worth. I understand if you don't understand negatives in the shift to financialization of the economy and neoliberalism and what it has left us with. After all, the dot com bubble covered up the damage. But forgetting is not something that applies to us.

[merrily]

216. That statement is highly misleading and intended to be so. And you've misstated it anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037156

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=601091

[Armstead]

232. As usual, you missed the point

In the OP I asked to set aside the personalities for a second.

And can you spend am hour or to reading our history, and the results of all that wonderful "no more recessions" bubble of the 90's? Jobs were created -- including a small handful of really good job for technically brilliant people -- but we lost many more real jobs, and replaced then with low paid service economy jobs.....And proceeded to shift many of then to India and China.

[raouldukelives]

210. All they care about is money.

There are those who fund Wall St and finance the assaults against grassroots democracy for all people and there are those who labor so the least have a voice.

For them, democracy for all people, justice and liberty, outweigh personal profit.

I've only been on this planet a short time and in that window American democracy has gone from somewhat of an ideal to a focus group slogan.

From South American death squads to Tiananmen Square. From the Middle East to the Midwest. From the melting ice caps to the warming oceans. The deceit, destruction, despair and deaths of the innocent can be laid directly into the laps of those more concerned with personal gain than being a decent steward to the young, to wildlife and to our swiftly degrading natural world.

[MoveIt]

229. First Rule Of Third-Way Club

Is to pretend Third-Way Club never existed.

[treestar]

274. Maybe they just disagree with how to deal with the economy

"Aligned with the interests of the corporate elites and the oligarchy" may not be what they were really trying to do, although in some ways interests are not always contrary. We all need a good economy. Why would any Democrats deliberately work in a way to make it worse for most of the voters? You talk as if they intentionally wanted to ruin "the foundations of the economy." I do not think it credible that the Clintons think like that. And there are always Republicans to fight, Republicans willing to shut down the government.

They merely disagree with you that the "oligarchs" and "corporate elites" are somehow not necessary to the economy and are devils with horns out to get us all. It's just a free ranging blaming of the devils, but the devils are vaguely defined. It's nice to have the "corporatists" and "oligarchs" to blame - they are sitting around somewhere plotting how to make us all poor.

It is the way capitalism is and the way government is. The corporations cannot run without employing people. This vision of the "oligarchs" trying to get all the money and starve the rest of us could not work for them either.

Not being able to deal with it makes one "betrayed, angry and desperate," but it doesn't eliminate the facts.

[Armstead]

279. Your faith in the good intentions of the oligarchs is touching

You are engaging in the same thing you are accusing me of -- grossly oversimplfying.

It's a combination of systemic problems and bad behavior and misguided beliefs of too many of the people at the top.

Yes, there are good companies and bad companies and a lot of companies that are a mix. It is not merely the status -- it's the values and behavior. It's also systemic. If you have a company swallowing up 30 companies -- that is not good. It's too much popwer concentrated in too few hands...and the result of these things is fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, shitty wages and abuse of consumers.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18412/united_airlines_CEO_greedy

[oldandhappy]

276. Thank you