HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RiverLover » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,830

About Me

FDR Populist Progressive who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.

Journal Archives

"The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome"

by Peter Bloom

The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
Published by Common Dreams

New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive

After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last night’s New York Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the state’s counties, she won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders’ progressive momentum and a just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the nomination.


Yet the fate of Sanders’ candidacy pales in comparison to the future success of the political revolution he is trying to create and ferment. What does losing the Empire state mean to the progressive movement he is helping to inspire? What does it say about its own long march to changing the country and the world?

A key takeaway from the Primary is that regardless of where the movement goes from here – it must recognize the affective hold that establishment Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and desiring of real change.

............A crucial narrative driving the Sanders’ candidacy is that he and his movement are the real standard-bearers for 21st century progressive values. While this may be substantively true, it misses how and why so many see Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its idealistic ambition but its clear eyed “realism”.


While supporters justify an establishment politics of “working within the system” as rational and pragmatic, its appeal largely resides as a progressive fantasy. Even after three decades worth of evidence of the profound limitations of such a strategy – it remains emotionally resonant. Hollow victories such as the compromised legislation of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare are celebrated as landmark progressive achievements. Centrist candidates are hailed for their courage in standing up to an “intractable” Republican enemy – doing what little they could to make things better in a political war that has already been lost.

It plays into a belief that all that is needed is to elect more Democrats. That they have the best interest of the country at heart even if they regularly feed from the same corrupt cesspool as their Conservative rivals. That to dream big means to consign the nation to a century of failed idealism rather than hard won compromise.

.........However, there is something else at play as well. She is heralded for her promises to continue the “progressive” legacy set by Obama. Suddenly the President who has pushed for Drone Wars, further Wall Street bailouts and the TPP is a paragon of modern progressivism. The New York triumph of his all but publicly endorsed predecessor Hillary Clinton is a paean of love to the very establishment that many of their voters are demanding to be changed.

For progressives to achieve mass success they must do all they can to break up this abusive relationship.

To not accept the myth that Clinton represents “incremental change” or that she is committed to fighting climate change or that you can trumpet gun control at home and the international arms industry abroad.

This does not mean abandoning the fight to ensure that a more retrogressive Republican alternative does not take power. The reign of a Trump or Cruz would be similar but worse than that of Clinton. Nevertheless, it also means not minimizing the passion felt for the establishment. It may be misplaced but it is real and when mobilized can be potent.

Instead, it demands that even in defeat we continue the struggle to deprogram the victims of the New Democrats. To point out consistently that change only happens from the bottom up.

That one cannot claim to be a progressive and support anti-democratic oligarchic regimes around the world.

That what Democrats and Republicans alike legitimize as national security is really just a bloated corporate security force subsidized by the American taxpayer.

That you may “be with her” but when the moment it is politically expedient she certainly will not “be with you.”

The path the nomination for Bernie Sanders undeniably narrowed yesterday.

The path to revolution and genuine progress depends on breaking America free from its Democratic Stockholm Syndrome.




Obviously, the meaning of "Stockholm Syndrome" has been misrepresented on DU & some clarity is called for.

Stockholm syndrome

A psychological syndrome in which a person being held captive begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor, simultaneously becoming unsympathetic towards the police or other authorities.

[After Stockholm, where a hostage in a 1973 bank robbery became romantically attached to one of her captors.]


It has NOTHING to do with RACE.

Unholy Media Malpractice


Unholy Media Malpractice
By Michael Shank
April 18, 2016, at 2:00 p.m

The press totally missed the point of Bernie Sanders' trip to the Vatican.

Meetings and invitations, with whom and by whom, is how much of the media distilled down Sen. Bernie Sanders' visit to the Vatican this past week. In reality, something far more meaningful occurred, but a well-oiled political media machine quickly obscured it.

This trip was perfectly primed for policy impact when it became public that Sanders was bound for Vatican City to speak at the Pontifical Academy of Social Science's 25th Anniversary of Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Centesimus Annus," which, not unlike Pope Francis' "Laudato Si'," decried society's exploitative, consumptive and non-communitarian tack. While timed inopportunely during a presidential election, and a few days before the delegate-rich New York primary, the stage was being set in Rome for something more substantial and significant.

Both cities – Washington, where Sanders works, and Vatican City, where Pope Francis is based – were witnessing the potential for a revolution in political, economic and religious doctrine.

Both leaders were at the cutting edge of reimagining how these systems should be retooled and restructured. Both were tirelessly tackling elite systems that benefitted from a growing environmental imbalance, economic inequality and social injustice.

And their words and actions were causing consternation among the established status quo because, if actualized, they could unseat the powerful, empower the powerless, and popularize the notion that the good life should be available to all, not just a few.


The senator, quoting the pope in his hometown, was right: Money is, in fact, "in charge." And the new "golden calf" is the "cult of money" that has led to a "dictatorship" by a faceless, inhumane economy. All of this from a U.S. senator running for president, aligned with the most edgy aspects of papal encyclicals. Ironically, while many Americans admire the new pope's revolutionary tone, Sanders' similar messaging gets met with "we need to be pragmatic and practical" pushback – a classic case of no prophet being accepted in his own hometown.

It is hard to remember when we last witnessed a member of the U.S. Congress calling for our economy to face such moral accountability......


PLEASE read in full~


Edit to add Bernie's speech. He is profoundly decent & good & Thank God he is here for US.

I am honored to be with you today and was pleased to receive your invitation to speak to this conference of The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Today we celebrate the encyclical Centesimus Annus and reflect on its meaning for our world a quarter-century after it was presented by Pope John Paul II. With the fall of Communism, Pope John Paul II gave a clarion call for human freedom in its truest sense: freedom that defends the dignity of every person and that is always oriented towards the common good.

The Church’s social teachings, stretching back to the first modern encyclical about the industrial economy, Rerum Novarum in 1891, to Centesimus Annus, to Pope Francis’s inspiring encyclical Laudato Si’ this past year, have grappled with the challenges of the market economy. There are few places in modern thought that rival the depth and insight of the Church’s moral teachings on the market economy.

Over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII highlighted economic issues and challenges in Rerum Novarum that continue to haunt us today, such as what he called “the enormous wealth of a few as opposed to the poverty of the many.”

And let us be clear. That situation is worse today. In the year 2016, the top one percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, while the wealthiest 60 people – 60 people – own more than the bottom half – 3 1/2 billion people. At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable.

The words of Centesimus Annus likewise resonate with us today. One striking example:
Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers’ training and capability so that their work will be more skilled and productive, as well as careful controls and adequate legislative measures to block shameful forms of exploitation, especially to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers, of immigrants and of those on the margins of society. The role of trade unions in negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is decisive in this area. (Para15)
The essential wisdom of Centesimus Annus is this: A market economy is beneficial for productivity and economic freedom.

But if we let the quest for profits dominate society; if workers become disposable cogs of the financial system; if vast inequalities of power and wealth lead to marginalization of the poor and the powerless; then the common good is squandered and the market economy fails us. Pope John Paul II puts it this way: profit that is the result of “illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people . . . has not justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.” (Para43).
We are now twenty-five years after the fall of Communist rule in Eastern Europe.

Yet we have to acknowledge that Pope John Paul’s warnings about the excesses of untrammeled finance were deeply prescient. Twenty-five years after Centesimus Annus, speculation, illicit financial flows, environmental destruction, and the weakening of the rights of workers is far more severe than it was a quarter century ago. Financial excesses, indeed widespread financial criminality on Wall Street, played a direct role in causing the world’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

We need a political analysis as well as a moral and anthropological analysis to understand what has happened since 1991. We can say that with unregulated globalization, a world market economy built on speculative finance burst through the legal, political, and moral constraints that had once served to protect the common good. In my country, home of the world’s largest financial markets, globalization was used as a pretext to deregulate the banks, ending decades of legal protections for working people and small businesses. Politicians joined hands with the leading bankers to allow the banks to become “too big to fail.” The result: eight years ago the American economy and much of the world was plunged into the worst economic decline since the 1930s. Working people lost their jobs, their homes and their savings, while the government bailed out the banks.

Inexplicably, the United States political system doubled down on this reckless financial deregulation, when the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of deeply misguided decisions, unleashed an unprecedented flow of money into American politics. These decisions culminated in the infamous Citizen United case, which opened the financial spigots for huge campaign donations by billionaires and large corporations to turn the U.S. political system to their narrow and greedy advantage.

It has established a system in which billionaires can buy elections. Rather than an economy aimed at the common good, we have been left with an economy operated for the top 1 percent, who get richer and richer as the working class, the young and the poor fall further and further behind. And the billionaires and banks have reaped the returns of their campaign investments, in the form of special tax privileges, imbalanced trade agreements that favor investors over workers, and that even give multinational companies extra-judicial power over governments that are trying to regulate them.

But as both Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have warned us and the world, the consequences have been even direr than the disastrous effects of financial bubbles and falling living standards of working-class families. Our very soul as a nation has suffered as the public lost faith in political and social institutions. As Pope Francis has stated: “Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules.” And the Pope has also stated: “We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”

And further: “While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.”

Pope Francis has called on the world to say: “No to a financial system that rules rather than serves” in Evangeli Gaudium. And he called upon financial executives and political leaders to pursue financial reform that is informed by ethical considerations. He stated plainly and powerfully that the role of wealth and resources in a moral economy must be that of servant, not master.

The widening gaps between the rich and poor, the desperation of the marginalized, the power of corporations over politics, is not a phenomenon of the United States alone. The excesses of the unregulated global economy have caused even more damage in the developing countries. They suffer not only from the boom-bust cycles on Wall Street, but from a world economy that puts profits over pollution, oil companies over climate safety, and arms trade over peace.

And as an increasing share of new wealth and income goes to a small fraction of those at the top, fixing this gross inequality has become a central challenge. The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great economic issue of our time, the great political issue of our time, and the great moral issue of our time. It is an issue that we must confront in my nation and across the world.

Pope Francis has given the most powerful name to the predicament of modern society: the Globalization of Indifference. “Almost without being aware of it,” he noted, “we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.”

We have seen on Wall Street that financial fraud became not only the norm but in many ways the new business model. Top bankers have shown no shame for their bad behavior and have made no apologies to the public. The billions and billions of dollars of fines they have paid for financial fraud are just another cost of doing business, another short cut to unjust profits.

Some might feel that it is hopeless to fight the economic juggernaut, that once the market economy escaped the boundaries of morality it would be impossible to bring the economy back under the dictates of morality and the common good. I am told time and time again by the rich and powerful, and the mainstream media that represent them, that we should be “practical,” that we should accept the status quo; that a truly moral economy is beyond our reach. Yet Pope Francis himself is surely the world’s greatest demonstration against such a surrender to despair and cynicism. He has opened the eyes of the world once again to the claims of mercy, justice and the possibilities of a better world. He is inspiring the world to find a new global consensus for our common home.

I see that hope and sense of possibility every day among America’s young people. Our youth are no longer satisfied with corrupt and broken politics and an economy of stark inequality and injustice. They are not satisfied with the destruction of our environment by a fossil fuel industry whose greed has put short term profits ahead of climate change and the future of our planet. They want to live in harmony with nature, not destroy it. They are calling out for a return to fairness; for an economy that defends the common good by ensuring that every person, rich or poor, has access to quality health care, nutrition and education.
As Pope Francis made powerfully clear last year in Laudato Si’, we have the technology and know-how to solve our problems – from poverty to climate change to health care to protection of biodiversity. We also have the vast wealth to do so, especially if the rich pay their way in fair taxes rather than hiding their funds in the world’s tax and secrecy havens- as the Panama Papers have shown.

The challenges facing our planet are not mainly technological or even financial, because as a world we are rich enough to increase our investments in skills, infrastructure, and technological know-how to meet our needs and to protect the planet. Our challenge is mostly a moral one, to redirect our efforts and vision to the common good. Centesimus Annus, which we celebrate and reflect on today, and Laudato Si’, are powerful, eloquent and hopeful messages of this possibility. It is up to us to learn from them, and to move boldly toward the common good in our time.

30 Years of Speeches. 30 Years fighting for The People.

FDR Democrats are always being falsely accused here.

And run off.

Standing up for Neoliberals like the the Clintons is contributing to the overtake of our govt by Moneyed Interests.

Depressed wages, outsourcing, privatization of public services, endless war for corporate profit, profits over environment, crumbling schools & infrastructure, barely potable water.....

They won't allow Bernie to take the nom no matter what happens, so I hope you enjoy nothing changing, except for getting worse.

Thanks to all Clinton supporters for enabling the continued Neoliberal dominance.


Shamelessly kicking for the night crew.

GO Progressives!!

We need this one.

Why Hillary Clinton Should Not Be US President (2014)

Not much has changed in 2 years, except maybe the amount Clinton Inc has made in personal income from making "speeches" came out. Had they known, it would probably be included in this video.

My favorite part is around min 4. How about you?


Just fyi, they also have a couple other good videos you may feel like watching~

(Published one week ago)


Published on Feb 9, 2016
As soon as a candidate like Bernie Sanders makes any headway, pundits bring up George McGovern and Barry Goldwater. This video points out why these historical analogies are bullshit and suggests a better one.

This is what we're losing by voting Status Quo, Establishment Hillary

Paul Rosenberg has written at great piece featured over at Salon:

SUNDAY, APR 17, 2016 05:59 AM EDT
Our media is just this dumb: Easily suckered press screws Bernie Sanders again

.....He makes his point on the utter stupidity of media using several recent examples. It deserves it's own thread. But towards the end of the article about our harmful media, he makes the case for the reason I, and many many others, support Bernie Sanders.

When Bernie was in the House, he started the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

What they put forth is always sound, fair, feasible, and positively wonderful for the country. Their proposals always get snuffed out by establishment reps representing Moneyed Interests over People.

The example in the article, of what the US could do if it weren't for a corrupt political process, is perfect to illustrate how different things could be if Bernie won & our priorities were re-aligned to benefit communities across the country~

In stark contrast, the Congressional Progressive Caucus—which Sanders co-founded when he first entered Congress—has repeatedly put forth its own “People’s Budget” proposals that actually do dramatically reduce the deficit.

Their 2012 fiscal year budget, for example, would have eliminated the deficit complete by 2021:

Instead of eroding America’s hard-earned retirement plan and social safety net, our budget targets the true drivers of deficits in the next decade: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession. By implementing a fair tax code, by building a resilient American economy, and by bringing our troops home, we achieve a budget surplus of over $30 billion by 2021 and we end up with a debt that is less than 65% of our GDP. This is what sustainability looks like.

But year after year, the establishment that has lionized Ryan’s budget prowess simply ignores the People’s Budget. They refuse to even consider that progressives might have better ideas, which actually add up in the real world. So now that Sanders is running a presidential campaign, based in part on the same sort of budget priorities, they must find a new way to avoid that discussion—by trying to denigrate Sanders’ policy wonk credentials.


But, of course, it would be genuinely refreshing if the media would take a more detailed look at the kinds of workable ideas that Sanders and/or his supporters represent. Back in July, I wrote about the massive majorities that support Sanders-style politics. I referred to the “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January, which was ignored by the establishment media, just as the People’s Budget had been, year after year.

From that poll, the following all received 70% support or more:

Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protects Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion/Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)

As I wrote at the time:

All of the above are in line with Bernie Sanders’ politics and all are extremely popular, with support across the political spectrum. For example, the infrastructure jobs program (a key element of Sanders’ platform) had 91% support from Democrats, 61% from independents and even 55% support from Republicans—compared to only 28% who were opposed. Donald Trump can only dream of being that popular among Republicans.

Those are the sorts of popular issues directly or indirectly implicated in the Sanders campaign. A serious substantive campaign focused on them would not only serve the interests and desires of the majority of the American people; it would also provide an excellent framework for evaluating just who is really qualified to be the kind of leader that our nation really needs.


Trump and Bernie are both right: ‘Free trade’ is killing us


Trade has been central to the 2016 presidential political debate, from Donald Trump threatening 45 percent tariffs on Chinese imports to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pressuring former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to oppose President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, the pact she earlier celebrated as the “gold standard” for trade accords.

It is becoming clear how ruinous U.S. global trade and tax policies have been. Yes, Americans have benefited from the lower prices and increasing variety of imported goods. But the nation has been running unprecedented trade deficits, now at about $500 billion a year, or 3 percent of gross domestic product.

The United States lost an estimated 2.4 million jobs to China trade alone from 1990 to 2010 while running the largest trade deficits with that country in recorded history. As companies moved good jobs to countries, like China, with low wages and scant environmental or consumer protections, entire communities in the United States were savaged. Economists estimate trade with low-wage countries has lowered blue-collar workers’ wages about $1,800 a year. Displaced workers lose incomes, homes, marriages, hope — and suffer through stunningly slow adjustments, often to lower-income jobs.


A thoughtful and comprehensive alternative trade policy has been put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House of Representatives with more than 70 members. The plan calls for a goal of more — but balanced — trade. The president could announce that the United States plans to move to roughly balanced trade by the end of five years. That would put countries with a trade surplus on notice that they must increase domestic demand and decrease reliance on export-led growth. It would also put global corporations on notice that if they want access to U.S. markets, they had better invest in the United States.....


Read in full~

And never forget, in that fateful last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, along with killing FDR's Glass-Steagal regulation of Wall Street & the inherent protection for citizens it provided, he also made permanent trade with China taking over 2 MILLION American jobs & devastating American communities :

In the last year of his presidency, Bill Clinton called on Congress to help him change China’s normal trade relations status with the U.S. to permanent. This would amend the Trade Act of 1974 which had the trade status of China on an annually review to determine the best course of action. The piece of legislation was introduced to the house as H.R. number 4444 on May 15, 2000 by William Reynolds Archer, a Republican Representative from Texas (he had three cosponsors). Introduce to the house the legislation referred to the Ways and Means committee in the House of Representatives to be amended and written up.[6] The legislation was introduced by saying that the bill was a top priority for the rest of the year and it was vital to the U.S. agriculture market to have access to a market that accounts for one-fifth of the world’s population.[7]


He sure Got Things Done.

Bernie Sanders DEFINITELY met privately with Pope Francis

Washington Post

Bernie Sanders meets privately with Pope Francis

ROME — U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders met privately with Pope Francis during his overnight trip here, his spokesman said.

The brief meeting took place at the papal residence early Saturday, according Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

"They discussed the issues that the senator raised, that the pope has raised so often, at the conference yesterday," Briggs said, adding that there was no discussion of U.S. politics or Sanders's candidacy.

"He said that there was radiance in his presence and that he was very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to meet with the pontiff."

Sanders does not consider the meeting in any way an endorsement of his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Briggs said.

Under Vatican rules there were no photographs of the meeting because it took place at the papal residence, Briggs said.

A source inside the Vatican, speaking on condition of anonymity, also confirmed the meeting.

"It was a private meeting and was not supposed to become public," the source said. "It had been planned for, and it happened."

And the Pontifical Academy of Sciences confirmed the meeting via Twitter.

Casina Pio IV ‎@CasinaPioIV

.@Pontifex spoke to @SenSanders about foreign policy and climate issues, five minutes before leaving for Lesbos https://twitter.com/iscaramuzzi/status/721246027995561984
4:00 AM - 16 Apr 2016

112 112 Retweets


If even for just 5 minutes, what a THRILL for Bernie. I'm so happy for him!

Beyond Hil and Bern—for Lefties, It’s the Battle for New York’s Soul

Daily Beast

Beyond Hil and Bern—for Lefties, It’s the Battle for New York’s Soul
by David Freelander


“This is a proxy battle,” said Democratic strategist and former Cuomo advisor Hank Sheinkopf. “It is going to show how much of the traditional left really exists in New York State. If Bernie Sanders is able to get into the mid-40’s, it will force politicians who want to stay in power to move further to the left.”

Liberals in New York have seethed almost since Cuomo was elected. In his first term, despite passing marriage equality legislation and a strict new gun law, he refused to help Democrats in their fight to retake control of the State Senate, which meant that many liberal priorities were shelved.

Cuomo cut Medicaid and school funding and reduced taxes for millionaires and home owners. He engaged in long-running feuds with Schneiderman and de Blasio. And when it came time to seek the endorsement of the influential Working Families Party, in 2014 Cuomo made a point of showing his reluctance to even be consorting with such an outfit. “We now know that Democrats cannot count on New York’s supposedly Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, as an ally, and every Democratic primary voter in the entire country should know that, too,” decried MSNBC host Chris Hayes, a sentiment that was repeated often in the liberal mediasphere at the time.


This isn’t a campaign—it’s a movement,” said Masters. “And what we have seen over the last few months is that polling doesn’t really capture the kind of self-mobilization that is Bernie’s campaign.”

................“This is a good state for Bernie,” said George Arzt, a Democratic consultant and former Clinton advisor. “The electorate has gotten younger, and there are geographic pockets that can be targeted by Bernie in almost every borough and college towns throughout the state in which he would be strong. He should do very well.”

Added Arzt, “If he loses by more than 10, or by more than the polls say, then people will say maybe this state isn’t as progressive as we thought.”


.........Cutting Medicaid & school funding is REPUBLICAN. Reducing taxes on the wealthy, AKA Trickle Down, is REPUBLICAN.

Much like Hillary's love of outsourcing American jobs & globalizing slave wages & war in the name of massive profits for the already massively wealthy & working for BigOil by globalizing fracking, to name a few, all are REPUBLICAN

This is a fight for Democrats to actually BE Democrats. To OPPOSE republicans beyond just giving good rhetoric when running for office.

This is a fight for "We The People".

GO Bernie! Go NY Progressives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38 Next »