Now do you understand why so many of us termed our vote as being for the lesser of two evils?

[MadHound]

The president lied to us. That shouldn't be surprising, politicians lie all the time. But it is disappointing, especially when it comes to bedrock Democratic positions such as protecting Social Security. Here is what Obama had to say about Social Security just a couple of months ago on the campaign trail.

"He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced, and he will not accept any approach that slashes benefits for future generations."

Now, here we are, just two and a half months later, and the president has put a chained CPI for Social Security on the table, and we're still not sure what else is coming down the pike.

This is why so many have termed a vote for Obama as a vote for the lesser of two evils. No, he won't privatize SS like the Republicans want, but instead he will inflict a death of a thousand cuts upon Social Security, a chained CPI here, raising the retirement age there, before you know it, Social Security will be a pale shadow of its former self.

As I've stated before, at this point it is better to go over the fiscal cliff, and that is far more true today than when I wrote it a couple of weeks ago. Imposing a chained CPI is going to lessen the quality of life upon my elderly mother and upon millions of others who depend on SS for their retirement income. Year in, year out, as inflation rises and the chained CPI fails to keep up, more and more people are going to suffer, now and in the future.

This is the very definition of the lesser of two evils.

For decades I've compromised my principles, my positions and voted for the lesser of two evils. Over those same decades I've watched as Democrats have abandoned basic Democratic principles, assaulted them in fact, leading us to where we are step by step. Yes, Republicans are a horrible, evil party wanting to drive us back into a feudal society, but guess what, the Democrats have aided and abetted them every step of the way.

No more, not one more vote will I cast for the lesser of two evils. If Obama and the Democrats do this devil's deal and cut Social Security benefits in direct repudiation of their promise not to, I'm through with them. I will not support a party that works directly against my best interests. We laugh at Republicans who vote against their own best interests, I'm not going to become a laughingstock for doing the same.

The sad thing is, this deal simply doesn't need to be done, in fact it would be better if it isn't done. The only thing that really needs to be addressed before the end of the year is implementing the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, that's it. Everything else can be addressed in the new Congress. A new bill reinstating tax cuts for the middle class can be passed, sequestration, that contrived Congressional boondoggle that led to this madness can be addressed, and the world will not end.

But it seems as though both parties are now using this contrived crisis to do what they really want, renew the assault on the poorest and weakest among us. I won't support that, and neither should you.

Actions have consequences, and so should breaking promises. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

[Earth_First]

1. But, but, but....you just wait! We have to pick and choose our battles! The next one will be EPIC!

You just wait!

[hfojvt]

26. someday our party will use all that dry powder it has saved up

[RC]

77. Dry powder?

Then why are the Democrats pissing in it now?

[brush]

183. Whatever your title means

The President has stood firm on no SS age raise and on continued long-term unemployment benefits. He has said he's willing to go up to 400k for raising the taxes on income after that. Do any of you think that dems do not have to be willing to negotiate anything? Not that many of us make 250k much less 400k so what is the President giving up that's so bad? Many posters are sounding like the teaparty with their unwillingness to budge on anything. And many posters also sound like they're repeating the mistake of 2010 by turning against the President already. Things haven't even been played out yet and the rats are already threatening to leave the ship. We're not children, okay. We're adults. It's called negotiation. You don't get everything you want but we'll get the upper hand because we have the strongest hand. Let's be patience. God!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

189. "The President has stood firm on no SS age raise". No he hasn't. At best, various people have said

"it is off the table."

None of them, nor Obama, has ever said that there is only one table and that there will never be another table.

[RC]

209. Social Security has nothing to do with the debt or the deficit.

There is no reason to use Social Security it as a bargaining chip. Obama needs to stick with his campaign rhetoric on this.
Is he? No, he is not. He is getting ready to throw more millions of seniors under the bus.

[brush]

221. I don't think you're keeping up to date on this

He just said yesterday that the age for SS is not going to change.

[HiPointDem]

232. i believe he also said that benefits to current retirees wouldn't change - but chained cpi is a cut.

talk is cheap.

[RC]

240. I don't think you are keeping up

There is no reason to even be talking about Social Security now. We should be talking about the debt, the deficit and raising taxes on those that can most afford it.

[zentrum]

241. What are you talking about?

This is an offer to cut SS benefits. It's disgusting. If seniors don't get cost of living increases and meantime, there is inflation in medical costs--it can be devastating to them. There should be no more austerity for the middle class at this point. Enough is enough!

He does not have to do this. It is not negotiation. It is caving unnecessarily.

[Ken Burch]

268. It's because we went through this on healthcare and the 2010 tax cut thing.

Can you blame progressives for having trust issues?

We weren't ever again supposed to get anything that Rahm Emmanuel would have approved of.

[denvine]

280. Thanks for a voice of reason!

[kelliekat44]

90. I think you all of you are wrong and short-sighted.

See my post here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019860#post32

[cui bono]

159. Your heading in that post says it all and affirms what the OP said above.

"32. Well, it really is up to the voters to put in office people who will not bargain"

Well, we put Obama in office and he's bargaining. When he doesn't have to. Like he always does. Period.

I'm with the OP.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

190. 100%

[sabrina 1]

199. And as many of us were afraid he would.

It's like being a bad parent. You keep caving into their demands, and we the people have done that over and over again out of fear of the worst evil.

Well, now people are organizing. This I believe was the last election where people will vote out of fear.

We need to start choosing our own candidates and spending our money on them, not on the candidates chosen for us.

Forget the presidential race, Congress is where we need to focus our efforts. They distract voters with the huge emphasis on the presidency while ignoring Congress.

But now that a coalition has formed of the very people who generally get Democrats elected, only this time we are working for the people, not for the politicians.

Enough!

[roguevalley]

239. for all Mr. Obama's gifts and they are prodigious

he has acute flaws. He almost has a pathological need to compromise. I find that amazing. But then, I am old enough to have been through so many Presidents that I can spot legacy building blindfolded. He wants to be like his favorite president, Abraham Lincoln. compromise, collegiality, all of it. Its out of Lincoln's playbook. He's probably legacy building. God help us all. I don't have another spare nickel to give and I know the rich will never pay. I wish all of them were truly democrats again.

[JEB]

252. Cutting Social Security benefits is building a legacy

that will destroy the Democratic Party.

[spanone]

2. no.

[ananda]

3. It was always that way for me.

In the first primary, I voted for Hillary Clinton. I knew Obama was corporate right at the very first... but in both generals, I held my nose and voted for him.

[JDPriestly]

118. Hillary and Bill Clinton were the original corporate Democrats. Can't imagine that anyone would

fail to see that.

[HiPointDem]

233. +100. they invented third way, & they're buddy-buddy with the bushes.

[ashling]

143. And a vote for Hillary was, dare I say it,

the lesser of two evils?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

4. Sure,

stick to your principles and watch while the Republicans privatize social security. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Fumesucker]

7. Obama has veto power

And the Republicans do not have the votes to override.

Keep trying.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

24. Trying for what?

Watching 3 million people lose their unemployment benefits?

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. But ... But ... But ...

Oh, wait ... I didn't look at that square on the board because I have a job.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

133. Exactly.

[JDPriestly]

121. Unemployment benefits can be dealt with in a separate bill.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

137. Is anyone paying attention to the negotiations?

Have you seen the polls saying people want a compromise worked out? Are you really so anxious for another debt ceiling battle? Is congress irrelevant? As long as the Dems in congress fail to deliver their message and the MSM serves the business community there is no way to achieve a plan that will completely satisfy the left.

[cui bono]

162. They want the Republicans to compromise, not Obama.

Polls show the people do not want SS touched.

And also, most people don't understand this whole "fiscal cliff" situation. They believe this false issue that the Republicans are whining about. If they knew the truth they would want the Republicans to stfu and raise the debt ceiling not hold all this hostage for their masters' profits.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

184. It really doesn't matter

who knows what. The republicans have won the messaging war on the debt and because of that Democrats have been hamstrung. I am waiting for the first politician to come out and just say, "No nation that controls and prints its own money can ever be broke or go broke" People still think that the government operates on the same financial principles with which they are forced to live.

I would love to see Obama tell Boehner to go f himself....but I don't see that happening, do you?

Ever think about the fact that low voter turnout always favors the republicans? What does that tell you about the Democratic electorate?

[cui bono]

203. That's what I'm saying. The voters have been mislead by the messaging.

If they knew the truth they would feel differently, or maybe the media wouldn't be able to keep up the charade. Or if the Republicans knew they would be laughed at and not gain support for lying they would stop. Well they'll never stop lying but you know what I mean.

No, Obama will NEVER do that, that's the problem. He always caves even when there is no need, like now.

And no, voter turnout does not always favor Republicans. Dems outvoted Repubs for the house seats this year but more Repubs won due to redistricting.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

215. I think I've addressed this in another reply....

But I said low voter turnout favors republicans. This year's turnout was not low, although not as high as 2008 it was quite a bit higher than 2000 and 2004.

[HiPointDem]

266. "because the democrats have been hamstrung". no, the democrats have pretty much behaved

as though the republican talking points are fact, where they weren't spouting the same talking points themselves. nor have they presented any coherent counter-narrative.

that's not the republicans' fault.

[cui bono]

289. Exactly right. Dems need to start framing the issues and stop using Republican

terms for everything. Dems are so weak and seemingly stupid. I feel like I have to go to DC and tell them how to do it, it seems so obvious, why don't they do what you said? They can't really be on our team or they're stupid. I don't see another conclusion.

[paulk]

174. I wasn't aware

that leaving social security out of the negotiations was a "leftist" position.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

176. And we have so many voices from the right here on DU....

Are the Democrats considered left of center? The Republicans right of center?

[cui bono]

180. The Dems are center at best now, and the Republicans are extreme right wing.

The left has all but disappeared, and is certainly not listened to any more.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

201. I won't argue about that....

But ask yourself why it is that low voter turnout always favors the Republicans. Republicans show up to vote for their candidates regardless of how much they may loathe them. It is the Democratic electorate that refuses to support a candidate they don't absolutely love. It was fear of what a Romney would do that drove Dems to the polls in November. If the GOP moderates its platform, Dems will
once again desert any imperfect candidate.

[cui bono]

205. First, that's not true. Dems outvoted Repubs for house seats but more Repubs

won because of redistricting.

More Dems voted for president, Obama won the popular vote.

And history also shows that when Dems grow a spine and stand up for the people, the people can't wait to get out to vote for them. It's when there's little difference between the two parties that people grow apathetic and feel there's no point to voting. If the Dems were like FDR right now - which Obama had the PERFECT opportunity to do right after he was first elected but squandered it - the people would be lined up for days to vote for a Dem.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

212. This was not a particularly low voter turnout election

by modern standards. Ask yourself how the states were gerrymandered so severely? Have you forgotten the dismal turnout of 2010?
All the redistricting was done after that election of 2010.

History teaches that American politics is cyclical. George W. Bush should be the end of a conservative cycle that began with Nixon in 1968. Obama didn't run as FDR and everything you need to know about him is that his idol is Lincoln, not FDR. He is the consummate opportunist. He saw that, barring a miracle, there was no way the nation was going to elect another republican after 8 years of the Shrub and Cheney and so he jumped into the ring, with virtually no experience and no political capital to spend. Why do you think McConnell was able to state so boldly that is first priority was making Obama a one term president? Why do you think the GOP is dedicated to doing all possible to frustrate whatever good Obama might want to accomplish? It is not to gin up the republican base, it is to dishearten Democrats. History also teaches that Americans rarely keep the same party in the WH for 3 terms.

Obama had a natural base that was highly energized. Do you honestly think that African Americans will be willing to stand in line for up to 9 hours to vote or some white dude in 2016?

[HiPointDem]

234. "by modern standards". black voters were the only group that kept their energy level from 2008,

though they've gotten precious little for their support.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

191. You are relying upon polls? If the Gallup poll just before the election was right, Romney would the

President.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

197. I'm not talking about

Gallup...and most of the national polls had Obama winning all along. Ask Nate Silver if you don't believe me.

[quakerboy]

182. You know what?

I am unemployed. And I don't care to be used as a bargaining chip to justify destroying my own future.

[HiPointDem]

265. False, forced choice. The reason people will lose their unemployment benefits is because pubs

(& some dems) ruled that they would unless there were other spending cuts.

The choice is not "screw old people or screw the unemployed". The choice is whether to call the republicans on their shit in the public arena or let them get away with hostage taking.

The only reason to let them get away with hostage taking is because you belong to the same gang.

[cui bono]

288. Agreed. There is a false dichotomy being presented in this thread.

We do not have to give in on SS or else have Republicans elected and get all their policies.

We do not have to give in on SS at all. Period. It should not be part of the discussion and anyone who allows it to be is advocating cuts to it.

Sam Seder and I think Digby have mentioned this tactic where people who pretend to be defending SS say things like "well, I wish we didn't have to make any cuts but unfortunately we'll have to look at it". Trying to come off as if they don't want to but using rhetoric to prepare people for the cuts to come.

[MadHound]

8. Hell, at this rate we'll have Democrats privatizing Social Security as well,

Or doing away with it altogether, it will just come at a slower pace.

How can you defend any Democrat needlessly slashing Social Security benefits, especially in these times of economic hardship?

Let me guess, you supported Clinton's welfare "reform" as well. How's that working for you?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

21. Then consider yourself warned.

I was just coming back to add this to my reply: "I do understand your frustration, but all elections come down to choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I have been infuriated over the years and ranted myself"

I am not defending Obama or the slashing of benefits, however my COLA raise will be $13. next year and that certainly doesn't seem worth cutting off my nose to spite my face. As a woman, I can never support a party that wants to reduce my younger sisters to second class citizens, or allow them to do so because I failed to support the Democrat running. As a compassionate and tolerant person I cannot allow the republicans to reverse the rights already won by the LGBT community or prevent them from winning those rights on a national level. As a rational individual I cannot allow another Scalia or Alito to be appointed to the SCOTUS or to see the nation turned into a theocracy. So there are many reasons I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils....Elections have always been choices between the lesser of 2 evils because most of the nation lives in the middle of the political spectrum. Just think of all the GOP primary voters who held their noses and voted for Romney.... All we on the outer reaches can do is try to move the party along in the direction we prefer.

I think you are forgetting that these negotiations are not just about taxes and social security. 3 million Americans stand to lose their unemployment benefits if Obama allows us to go over the cliff. While the cliff holds no terror for me, I bet those 3 million people are losing sleep right now.

As to Clinton: I was shocked by Clinton's welfare reform, however as I have never received welfare of any type it hasn't effected me in any way. Clinton was better than G H W Bush and much better than Perot would have been.

[MadHound]

29. So you're willing to sacrifice others, the poor and least among us,

Just to realize your own political priorities.

No, the loss of thirteen dollars a month won't effect you. It will effect the least among us, forcing them to make hard choices between food and shelter, medicine and heat. Nice that you don't have to make those decisions, but far too many are and far too many will if these cuts go through.

[louis c]

39. Will the Republicans return that $13?

Because that's the result of your conclusion.

That type of thinking led to many Democrats to voting for Nader in 2000.

How'd that work out for us?

[MadHound]

43. So we just continue to sacrifice more and more, bit by bit instead?

Sorry, but there are other solutions than just bad and worse. It simply takes the collective will of the people, that's it.

Or you could continue to keep sacrificing more and more, bit by bit, and guess what, you'll still wind up with nothing, just as if you had voted for the 'Pugs.

[louis c]

46. I would agree that we could follow your advice

if we had a Parliamentary system of Government, but, alas, we do not.

To change to that system would take a complicated, difficult constitutional Amendment.

Any realist knows that's impossible. We couldn't even ratify an equal rights amendment for woman, and that was before there were teabaggers.

[MadHound]

52. No it wouldn't, geez.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have a viable multi-party system in this country. It is simply that the people in power have made it extremely difficult to do so. But we can do extremely difficult, the people in this country have proven that time and again. It just takes collective will.

[Blanks]

136. Is there a specific action that you have in mind?

I'm all for change, but unless a lot of people are using the same plan; it's just looks like a bunch of people complaining.

Do you have a plan?

[robinlynne]

141. YES. go over the "fiscal cliff" and start negotiations in January AFTER the Bush tax cuts expire.

pretty easy.
doing NOTHING is better than cutting social security.

[Blanks]

276. That's not really what I mean.

Sure, go over the cliff may be the desired outcome, but what action should we, as the people on the street, take to encourage those who represent us to take that action (or inaction in this case).

I agree with you, but everyone has their own ideas about what the outcome should be; how can we all agree on what should be done and then do it? What should our priorities be? For example: who still hasn't eaten at Papa Johns or Chick-Fil-A?

We need a plan and a system in place to carry out that plan. Otherwise a lot of us are just going to feel unrepresented.

It seems to break down into bickering even when people agree in concept. There has to be a better way.

[KakistocracyHater]

243. yes, the plan is to become a Precinct Committeeman & get into gov Tea Party style

http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/category/becoming-a-precinct-committeeman-step-by-step/ only for the LEFT. "The office of precinct committeeman (“PC”) has been has been called “the most powerful office in the world” because the PC is the closest structured political officeholder to the registered voter. A registered voter has no vote in internal Party policy; a precinct committeeman does. A PC elects district, county and state party officers, delegates to the Presidential convention and RNC members. PCs sent to the Pres. Convention vote on what policies the party platform will be advocated in the next two years. Through a monthly meeting, PCs interact with their elected Party officials to influence legislation."

[bluestate10]

65. Voting for Nader in 2000 is that shit that will take 40+ years to clean up.

The hot heads that are running around talking about punishing democrats in 2014 don't seem to be able to recognize that fuck up that their brand of thinking caused in 2000 and 2010.

They ran to support Obama against Hillary in 2008 because Hillary voted for the Iraq war resolution. They didn't give a fuck that Hillary and many other people were lied to. Obama, to them, was the great Liberal messiah that would deliver the promise land to them, even when Obama was getting tens of millions in campaign contributions from Wall Street while Hillary was having to rely on money from people like me. They are pissed that Obama turned out to be a Centrist with a penchant for appointing republicans to high profile positions.

The big problem that I have with the Left is that they are so hair trigger. Every thing to them is some mythological life and death struggle, a struggle which they often don't seem to understand. Their lack of understanding about political dynamics and the consequences of a lack of patience is why they vote for a Nader in 2000 and cost our side Florida and the Presidency and set the country back decades. Bush II appointed Alioto and Roberts to the Supreme Court, imagine where we would be today if Gore had filled those two vacancies and we haven't even gotten to a massive tax cut for the rich and two un-funded wars that wouldn't have happened. Their inadequacies in understanding is why we got teabaggers blowing up the government after the 2010 midterms, a scourge which we will be cleaning up for several election cycles. I must admit that at this point, I hope that they leave the democratic party and allow the rest of us to bring in reliable, disciplined voters to support our causes, at least then, I don't worry about a knife in the back during critical political fights and having to fight harder because unreliable allies set my side back.

[MadHound]

71. 'Scuse me, but please provide a link to a post of mine back in '08

Where I supported Obama over Hillary. I despised them both because I knew that they were both nothing more than centerist, corporate candidates who would continue the recent Democratic practice of triangulation, moving to the right and selling us down the river piece by piece instead of wholesale like the 'Pugs do.

My question for you is how should we hold Democrats accountable? The vast of us can't donate enough money that withholding it would make any difference. Working within the system, been there, done that, found out just how stacked the system is against us. Which leaves us with our vote, and only our vote, as a means of holding our leaders accountable.

[bluestate10]

76. So, you would throw your vote down a shit hole with the result being republicans gaining

more power. What a brilliant piece of logic.

[cui bono]

164. A big problem is, we're not even "allowed" to be critical and try to push Obama

further left.

Sorry, but there are people who just love Obama no matter what he does on here and even start threads just to ridicule - and I mean ridicule, not criticize - people who are worried about the country's future.

So the plan to move the party back left again, rather than center, where it most assuredly is right now, is thwarted by those who can't stand to hear that Obama isn't perfect. It gets so old. Especially when those same individuals tell those trying to push the party back to where it once was that we are not needed, that Obama is plenty progressive enough for them. Well, no, he's not.

So what do we do? Keep voting in Dems like Obama and then not say anything to try to get the party left again? There is no left running this country any more. And the country is getting ruined and turned over to corporate america because of it.

So what do we do??? Keep being complicit in this?

[HiPointDem]

267. let's see, that nader election was how many years ago? how long do you plan on blaming nader

every time a democrat criticizes the party?

maybe the party should try listening for once.

[louis c]

150. I remember 1968

I was only 16 then, but very politically active. I worked for Gene McCarthy in NH at 15.

I supported, gathered signatures and passed leaflets out for a delegate in my home town in Mass that got elected to the Chicago convention.

When it came down to Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace, everyone figured, "WTF, they're all the same". Nixon one by 1%.

1968 taught me a political lesson I'll never forgot.

[JoeyT]

251. LOL.

Y'all are going to blame Nader for every screwup by every Democratic politician for the next 40 years? Sounds about right.

It's hard to defend the indefensible, so making shit up is the only option.

[Bohunk68]

282. Absolutely correct about Nader

We know damn well that Nader did NOT let Bush get FL in 2000. Gore was way ahead. It was the SCOTUS. And as far as Clinton, the guy who signed DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, and who gutted AFDC when he could have had a spine and at least vetoed. Yeah, Yeah I know it would've gotten passed anyway, but at least he could've had some guts. No, he was too busy getting blow jobs from Monica and the bankers. This shit about Nader is getting old and it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Pushed by the DLC and Third Way bots.

[bluestate10]

48. She didn't say that she was willing to sacrifice others.

She pointed out that she was on SS and the COLA change, if accurate would cause her $13 per check. Sorry, but I fail to see how a person can't make up $13 per month.

Her larger post, which you chose to ignore was that there are other issues out in the country that are of critical interest to democrats, that affect other people outside of her. Her point was that democrats are infinitely better that republicans on Gay rights, women's rights, women's pay, aid for the poor, wars, etc.

If I can summarize her thoughts, it would be why sacrifice a plate of benefits that democrats deliver for her to save $13 per month? She doesn't want to sacrifice rights for Gays to save $13 per month, nor rights for young working women, nor sacrifice young americans to wars started on a whim, nor sacrifice a young single mother that is struggling to raise her family.

There are always fucking important interests that compete with our provincial interests, the poster seems to get that, you don't.

[MadHound]

55. So, we should sacrifice the elderly and poor for gay rights?

Sorry, but I can't go down that road with you, because the simple fact is there is no need to go down that road.

Oh, and for many people, sacrificing thirteen dollars a month is a lot. Nor can everybody make up that thirteen dollars. Or would you rather see old men in wheel chairs and on oxygen working at Wal Mart. Oh, wait, we already are seeing that.

[bluestate10]

73. Her point was the size of the sacrifice. $13 per month is not an impossible amount to make up.

But, if republicans gain control of all of Congress and get more power in several Blue states that will have open Governor's chairs in 2014, the nation will get set back decades and the costs per person will be a lot larger than $13 per month. One only has to look at Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Ohio to see what happens to the poor, Unions, Women and Children under republican led governments. The question to us is, knowing what has ACTUALLY happened in Blue states that put republicans in control because purist democrats didn't vote in 2010, are you willing a repeat in 2014 over $13 fucking dollars per month.

"Oh, and for many people, sacrificing thirteen dollars a month is a lot. Nor can everybody make up that thirteen dollars. Or would you rather see old men in wheel chairs and on oxygen working at Wal Mart. Oh, wait, we already are seeing that."

Ok, do I have to assume that we won't see even worst if republicans gain overwhelming control in states and control ALL of Congress? Fact don't seem to matter to you, your agenda is clear from many of your posts, you have a narrow view that does sacrifice key social safety nets, just not the ones that you care about. Tell me why your point of view is superior to that of a teabagger again?

[cui bono]

172. But that's a slippery slope. And if the Dems know we will always be there no matter what

they get to keep moving to the right.

Maybe if they see a hard push from the left they will take notice and move back over here.

Obama likes to keep giving the Republicans a bone. Then he gives the left a bone with support for gay marriage. He's playing both sides and taking us down the wrong path.

Most of the rest of the Dems are just as bad in that they don't stand up for what they should either. So we have seen the party move further right with each passing year and people keep voting for the Dems because they are afraid of the Republicans being in power. Well that's just not good enough any more. Not when the Dems are pushing/supporting/giving in to right wing policy.

When we keep voting them we are condoning this. I fear the only way they will take the left seriously is if they lose us for a cycle or two.

If there was ever a perfect time to push back to the left it was after GWB but well, we got Obama.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

206. You are not thinking logically.

The Republicans have been able to move ever further to the right because Dem voters can be counted upon to pack up their teepees and go home.

Look, if you're running for office and the republican candidates keep winning, what conclusion can you draw but that the country prefers the right end of the spectrum? That's what has happened over the past 30 years. 30 republican governors and how many state legislatures are now controlled by republicans? How many states have been gerrymandered to the point that it will be at least a decade before Dems gain control of the House again, unless there is a major republican screw up?

I don't like the idea of a compromise any more than you....but I will not abandon the fight because Obama disappointed me.

[cui bono]

257. Totally disagree. I was completely logical.

I believe there are stats to show that when a Dem acts like a real Dem they are far more successful than when they try to adopt Republican policy in order to appeal to what they think the voter wants.

In fact, you speak of low voter turn out... well Dems won't bother to show up if they think there's no point, and if both candidates are too similar and neither is a true Dem. Therefore, we need Dems to shift back left where they belong and run strongly on the actual party platform and an FDR agenda and I would put money on the people rallying behind them and showing up to vote in masses.

ETA: My post was completely logical.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

275. So Dems don't show up if they think there is no point and

we end up with the mess we have now. Brilliant strategy. The only way to convince Dems to move left is to continue to vote for them. Your idea of logic leaves much to be desired.

The last Democratic president who acted like a Democrat was Lyndon Johnson, and his legacy has been marred by the Vietnam debacle.
He couldn't win a second term and opted not to run for a second term. Kennedy destroyed Carter's chances of winning a second term
because he wasn't Democratic enough for Kennedy. So we got Reagan who gifted the nation with Scalia and Kennedy. I have little patience with people who piss and moan about their government while opting to sit out elections.

[cui bono]

287. No, that's not what I said at all.

They won't show up to vote if Dems act like Republican lite. I said Dems need to act like real Dems for people to come out in droves. You are misconstruing what I'm saying.

And your logic of thinking that by rewarding Dems for acting like Republicans by voting for them we can make them move to the left is absolutely illogical. You don't change behavior by rewarding it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

290. I am not misconstruing anything....

You want Dems to be further left than center/left or you don't think people should or would vote for them...that's what you said. Republican lite is a euphemism for someone who is not left enough for your, correct?

" You don't change behavior by rewarding it." These are (presumably) adult politicians, not dogs nor toddlers we are talking about here. They respond to election results and polls. If a Dem loses an election to a republican by a wide majority, what is he/she to assume? That he/she wasn't far enough to the left? The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from such a loss is that he/she was too far left. You can look at the history of the Electoral College votes, from 1960 through 2012, for illustration. Besides, any good dog trainer or parent can tell you that punishment is not the best way to achieve your desired results.

Johnson won a term in his own right by defeating the extremely right Goldwater 486 to 52. Just 4 short years later the country was in upheaval over the Vietnam war, Johnson decided not to seek reelection and Nixon beat Humphrey 301 to 191. But it was the republican landslide in 1972 that caused the Democratic party to lurch to the right. Nixon beat the truly liberal McGovern 520 to 17. In 1976 Carter won a rather close race against Ford 297 to 240. But in 1980 Ted Kennedy primaried him and that is never good for a sitting president ...it gave Reagan a 489 to 49 victory over Carter. In 1984 Reagan beat the reliably Democratic Mondale 525 to 13. Should Mondale have been further left? Should he have run as a communist? George H. W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis 426 to 111. Perhaps Dukakis should have run as a socialist? Along comes the consummate politician Bill Clinton, a centrist if there ever was one, while his EC win looks impressive, it was the result of the Ross Perot candidacy which pulled votes from Bush I...Clinton won the WH with just 43% of the popular vote, while Perot drained over 19 million votes from Bush. It was not progressives who switched their votes to Perot and Perot cost Bush a second term. Are you beginning to see the picture? Neither the extreme left nor the extreme right wins elections in this country.

The equally important mid-terms demonstrate that whichever party has the most disaffected members loses....2010 has cost the nation dearly. States have been gerrymandered to the point that it is going to be almost impossible for Dems to regain control of the House and of state governments for at least a decade. We now have 30 republican governors and numerous states in which republicans control the state legislature. Florida is one such....

Finally, conventional wisdom is that unless the Republicans move to the center they will be frozen out of the White House for a generation. But for that to happen the Democrat running has to be acceptable to a majority of the population. When Democrats begin winning consistently, they will feel more confident and move further left.

American politics run in 40 year cycles. If Dems don't screw it up, 2008 was the beginning of a new cycle.... a more liberal cycle than the one we just passed through...1968 to 2008.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

139. Thank you.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

98. So you are willing to sacrifice everyone, including the poor,

just to satisfy your own vision of the country. The unemployed don't count? You think that having nothing is better than having less? I find it interesting that you would call anyone "the least among us" just who are the unfortunates that fall into that category?

COLA will not be eliminated, but lowered...

You know nothing about me. In February Medicare will begin taking $104.00 a month from my Social Security payment. I turn 65 at the end of that month. I am incredibly healthy and would be more than happy to take a pass on Medicare, but if I elect to do that this year, when I do sign up I will be charged an extra premium of 10% for every year that I wait. Thus delaying until age 67 will mean my premium will automatically be 20% higher than the regular Medicare part B premium and that premium goes up every year. That $104. each month will definitely pinch my budget, but I have written letters to my congress critters and signed every petition that has come my way asking that congress not raise the Medicare age even though I would benefit from just such a raise.

[JDPriestly]

128. You are fine now, but how will you be when you are 85 or 95?

Will you need nursing home care?

That's where the rub is. When elderly people can no longer care for themselves, they are moved into nursing homes. The Nursing Home charges a certain amount each month. A few years ago a friend of ours was moved into a home that charged several thousand dollars a month -- more than Social Security pays out each month. They sold her home. The nursing home took her entire estate and then all her Social Security and I suppose in the end applied for Medicaid for her.

It is not a question of $13.00 a month. Several sources have stated that by the time we are in our 80s, we will receive $1000 less per year if the COLA is changed.

That means that many more of us will be less able to pay for the small things, like someone to come in once a month and help us clean our homes. More of us will be shipped out to nursing homes.

Changing the COLA on Social Security will be detrimental to elderly people. And the sneakiest part of it is that we won't notice it for years to com. It will make nursing homes even worse than they now are.

And cutting the COLA now will set a precedent. If we allow this cut to Social Security, then in the future, Social Security will become the whipping boy of the Republicans. They hate the program, and they will destroy it.

We have to draw the line at Social Security.

I seriously doubt that we will see another Democratic president if Obama caves on Social Security. The Republicans know that and that is why they want to cut the program.

[raouldukelives]

135. And what will the climate look like when your 85?

Will all the giveaways to Wall St be worth it then? Will all the greenhouse gases turn us into a giant hothouse where the elderly can pick fresh vegetables & fruit off the abundant foliage? Or will it be one of terror. One of drought, extreme weather events, massive famine, tropical diseases, vanishing wildlife and fresh water?
If nothing is going to be done to address climate change. Making sure the people who put us here and profited from it pay back for the damage they have done and to ensure Americans of the future aren't starving in the streets seems the least we demand they do.

[JDPriestly]

246. I'm all for saving the environment. We drive very little.

I compost, garden in my backyard, sort waste and use as little as possible. Right now I am changing my front yard into a succulent garden so that I will use as little water as possible.

I don't think that Social Security cuts will help the environment, but I would like to see us spend more on protecting the environment.

[raouldukelives]

286. If only everyone could do as much.

My point wasn't that SS would affect climate change. Just the notion that the people these proposed cuts will be made too, those who will retire in the future. Who we now know are going to be living and suffering through the worst conditions made possible by our friends on Wall St. Made possible by every 401k owning, climate change supporting, corporate boot licking, do anything against the poorest you want just please don't fire me, self absorbed asshole out there. All of them working together to take more from the poor and distribute it to themselves when they know full well the ravages of climate change will make cat food seem like a modern luxury of days past to those who are trimming the fat from us as we speak.
It sickens me to my core and spells the end of my time as a proud Democrat if true.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

142. If we don't see another

Democratic president because Obama caves on the chained CPI, I would posit that we deserve all the misery the republicans will rain down upon our heads in the future decades. You can draw the line anywhere you want, but then don't complain when Social Security is privatized and Medicare is turned into a voucher program a few years before it is eliminated completely.

The reality is that unless we support Democrats in the most vocal and rigorous means possible it will be impossible to protect these programs. The COLA adjustments can be changed...but it will take Democratic control of the government to do it. Democrats always want what they want immediately. The GOP has been patiently chipping away at not only the social safety nets, but the rights of women as well, for over 30 years. They have always known exactly how to take advantage of Democratic disunion. If you are willing to surrender to the republicans, do so...but as I said before, don't complain when you get what you've asked for.

[JDPriestly]

244. I don't think I will be the one deciding whether we get another Democratic president.

A lot of people who voted for Obama will run like crazy from the Democratic Party into the arms of third parties and into the Independent category. I suspect a lot of people just will stop voting.

I don't know whether you worked to get out the vote and register voters this past Fall, but it is an extremely tough job requiring many, many volunteer hours. A lot of the volunteers this year were seniors. In fact, young people will give a few hours here and there, but the unpaid volunteers who worked day after day were mostly seniors (at least in my group).

Social Security is my income. That's what I have. My savings pay me nothing. Wall Street just steals if you entrust your brokers with your money. Those are the tough lessons that I and many other seniors have learned in recent years.

Social Security makes our lives possible. We have not complained. We trusted President Obama. If Democrats vote for the changes to the COLA which will result in cuts to Social Security, they can forget about being the voice of sanity and staying in the White House in the future. No one will trust them.

I'm not talking about what I want to happen. I am talking about what will happen. Obama let people (active Democrats) down when he failed to get a public option with his health care plan. Democratic activists stayed home in 2010, and Democrats lost the majority in the House. We are paying for that now.

Obama cannot afford to get more Tea Bagger types in the House and Senate in 2014. More of them would make his life miserable.

So, Obama has to veto cuts to Medicare. It's really his only choice unless he wants to be remembered as the president who caused the country's seniors to fall into poverty.

It is essential from a political point of view, that Obama let the nation know that the Republicans are demanding these cuts to Medicare and that he is refusing them.

As for unemployment insurance, having enough jobs is a better alternative than unemployment insurance. We are on the way to recovery. Personally, I think that cuts such as those proposed for Social Security will mean that we fall back into high unemployment at the rates we saw a year or two ago. Social Security is a sort of grease to the economy and the job market overall.

[quakerboy]

185. As before

I am unemployed. And Yeah, loosing a bit of sleep over it.

But I do not approve of selling my long term future for a temporary unemployment fix that would end up getting passed anyway. Its time for Obama to play hardball, and stop making unnecessary deals. He needs to act in the favor of the people, not in the favor of compromise.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

216. Nor do I....

I am retired and receiving my Social Security benefit.

But I will not abandon the Democratic party because I have been disappointed by Obama. That was the premise of the original OP and I don't agree with it.

[quakerboy]

248. Ive never yet abandoned my values, or my party.

But if they abandon us, what do we do?

I haven't thrown in the towel, as unhappy as I have been with some of Obamas blunders, as many scuzzballs as we let drift into our party because they bring money, etc. But damn if i dont feel like we are all too often getting, as the op says, the lesser of two evils.

[DearHeart]

256. The vast majority of the long-term unemployed have already exhausted our UI.

Unfortunately, anything done now, will probably only benefit people who recently joined our ranks. Many, many sleepless nights have we had and many more coming, what with COBRA expiring and if you have a pre-existing condition...you're screwed!!

If this deal is indeed true, I will be utterly pissed! This is not what I voted for!!! I feel like I voted for the stereotypical used car salesman who dressed up, sold me a Mercedes and is delivering me a used Pinto!!!

I think the majority of people have had to hold their noses to vote for the lesser of 2 evils for quite a few years now! Truly wish we had more choices, especially progressive or god forbid, a real liberal!!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

274. All of our elections have been based

on choosing the lesser of two evils. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, nor a candidate who can deliver on all of his promises.
Like you, I am frustrated beyond belief but not surprised. Obama was an opportunist in 2008 who had no business running for the highest office in the land with so little political capital to spend. What worries me most about this latest betrayal is that as soon as the ink is dry on the signed bill, the republicans will begin proclaiming that Obama sold out Medicare to pay for Obamacare and never gave a crap about Social Security.

[DearHeart]

285. I agree with everything you said!

I know that no candidate is perfect, but I wish we could get someone who won't sell us down the river, throw us under the bus, or kiss the Republicans' butts.

Oh well, I can dream, huh?

[duffyduff]

119. They're doing it to public ed

It's all of this neo-liberal hogwash which has been debunked and discredited every single place these policies have been tried.

I am sick of fake Democrats.

[jollyreaper2112]

5. Thank you for your concern

God, even when I'm being completely sarcastic that still feels incredibly dickish.

Yeah, I never get the sense that Obama's representing the workers, he always comes across as more of a spokesman for management. He's not telling them how it's gonna be, he's telling us. Frankly, I don't care for it.

[limpyhobbler]

58. +1

[Whisp]

6. and many of us can't wait to rub your Madhound nose in it

when what you are hoping for, does not happen.

[Fumesucker]

9. Mandate?

[Dawgs]

13. It already happened. The President has OFFERED TO CUT SS while giving more breaks to the rich.

He can't take it back now.

One day you'll accept it.

[uponit7771]

14. Link and quote? tia

[lbrtbell]

100. It was on Yahoo News this morning - n/t

[Whisp]

23. just because you said that and want to believe it

doesn't make it true.

Can you provide some solid evidence please? Not your interpretations of what Might be meant.

[MadHound]

28. Actually, I would love for you to rub my nose in what doesn't happen,

Seriously, do you think I want Social Security benefits cut? Do you think I want my elderly mother to have to try and get by with less? Do you think that I want to get by with less when I retire, just so as to make some political point on a political chat board?

Please, let's pray that you will be able to rub my nose in it. But with a chained CPI now on the table, I doubt that you'll be able to do so.

[nolabels]

91. Please to be too angry with some of these younger folks

Sometimes it takes a few extra years for the learning of when you have been sold out

Thanks for telling them though, because someone has to

[KansDem]

10. I don't understand it...

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit! Yet, why is the President giving in to GOP demands to include it in "deficit reduction" talks?

George W inherited a surplus. He and his ilk lied us into war while cutting taxes on the rich causing the deficit to explode. Make them pay!

[librechik]

11. "negative liberty"

"John Jay, in Federalist Papers No. 2, stated that: "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers." Jay's meaning would be better expressed by substituting "negative liberty" in place of "natural rights", for the argument here is that the power or authority of a legitimate government derives in part from our accepting restrictions on negative liberty."

also:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

We are all slaves of one sort or another in today's industrialized society. We have the illusion of freedom because we are allowed the sacred choice between Republican or Democrat, Coke or Pepsi, paper or plastic. It is what it is. A trap. Freepers think freedom is being able to blow people away, to usurp, as it were, the power of government or God. As long as we are all trapped in negative freedom, rebels and lunatics will lash out at the restriction and smash our happiness repeatedly.And as people of peace, we can only turn the other cheek and speak out, appealing to our common humanity, however we can.

http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap

[Dawgs]

12. Wait.. What? Yesterday he was the greatest President ever.

Something about how he looks great when getting his picture taken with kids.

[CakeGrrl]

17. Pay attention to the recs and the comments and you'll see

a pattern. There's a distinct group in the "I knew he sucked all along" column who are waiting for him to validate their lowest expectations. They won't show up on threads like the one you mentioned.

[cui bono]

179. Just as the "he can do no wrong for he is a chess master" crowd isn't showing up here.

I would never show up in a "fan" thread just to see the nice pictures of the president and fawn over him for that sort of thing even if I were a huge supporter of his policies. Those threads are almost embarrassing to me as they usually have nothing to do with policy or substance and are just "fan" threads and the equivalent to tabloid material imho.

No one is "waiting for him to validate their lowest expectations". No one wants those validated. But when he takes steps to go there why should those who are critical of it not speak out?

Do you agree with what he has just put on the table? Or are you just here to criticize those who criticize Obama?

[Puglover]

279. She should put Bernie Saunders on her list as well.

He is appalled at this latest development.

[forestpath]

15. Same here...there is only one party now. The party that screws over the vulnerable.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. I've been voting my conscience

since 2004. No longer does any one political party hold my vote hostage. It's amazingly liberating.

[snooper2]

18. Thanks for the vote dude!

[jpak]

19. Obama won, Nader sucks - get over it

yup

[SidDithers]

20. Oh, it's this post again...

Sid

[JoePhilly]

188. This time it's absolutely gonna happen!!!

[riqster]

22. Any vote that is not for a Dem is a vote for a Reep.

And I say that as an Independent who believes President Washington was spot with his comments about the dangers of political parties.

It's a binary world in American politics. Sucks, but it is.

[MadHound]

31. So, what do you call a vote for a Dem who governs like a moderate 'Pug?

Because that is what we've been dealing with for twenty years now, a Democratic party and Democratic politicians that have, for the most part, moved into center right, Eisenhower territory.

[riqster]

36. I call it "not as bad as a right-wing Reep"

Bush WAS worse than Clinton. Romney IS worse than Obama.

If the best I can give my family is "less shit", I will not vote in such a manner as to give them more shit.

[MadHound]

40. So you will vote to continue to give your family shit, in some quantity large or small instead,

Isn't that a self defeating strategy?

Why not vote for candidates who will feed you and your family no shit at all? It can be done, it just takes collective will and the individual's ability to break out of the lesser of two evils mindset.

[riqster]

45. The individual initiative is not the issue

It's the lack of collective action, cohesion, commitment and quantity.

Right now, there exists no viable third party that can replace the current shit peddlers.

Voting for candidates with no chance of winning does nothing but create an effective vote for the Reeps.

(Note: I could have replied by saying "so, you choose to have your family drown in shit rather than dog-paddle?" But I didn't.)

[MadHound]

50. And that is something that can be changed now, can't it.

The hardest things are often the things most worth doing, and this is no different. Just giving up and giving in because it would be hard to break the two party hold in this country is no excuse.

[riqster]

67. I didn't say I was giving in

I am working for the abolition of political parties, just as President Washington advised. And as you can imagine, it is a pretty lonely pursuit. And not likely to succeed in the immediate future.

While working towards a better paradigm, I am not blind to the current state of affairs. Until we are free of the false choice of the two-party system, I understand and accept that my present-day choices are gonna suck.

[MadHound]

72. So when are you going to make this miraculous changeover of yours?

When the rest of us have already gone out and done the hard work, created a viable option to politics as is? We need people now, to fight for us now, not come along later when the hard work is done.

[riqster]

86. Meh.

Perhaps you would like to provide your detailed plan?

You know, the one you will work on while boycotting Dem candidates (thus helping Repubs win).

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. +100 n/t

[dotymed]

111. MadHound, I am with you 100%.

We actually have no choice. Just look at the direction our country has taken in the last 40 years. Ever rightward, corporate all of the way.
We are in a decent position IF we ALL start the hard work NOW. We have the longest amount of time that will ever be available to us with our 4 year presidential cycle. Now is the time to create and field a viable candidate, one who puts people before money (and politics). We do have a few of those left on the national stage. If we can get two of them to agree to run, and we the people, channel all we have into making theirs a successful run, we can change our current paradigm. If we don't it's going to be more corporatism and fascism.
I would choose Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson and petition them to run as presidential candidates in 2016. Then begin a huge grassroots movement in their favor. I feel confident that many actors and "Buffets" would also help in this chance at saving our country. (I love Warrens rhetoric but have not seen her in action)
I have supported this "takeover of our political landscape" for ages and I realize that we have as much time to accomplish this as we will ever have. Sure, it sounds impossible, but it is the only non-violent alternative that I can see.
It has to start immediately.

[SouthernDonkey]

217. I went to a garden party.

All they had were shit sandwiches. I ate them.
.......i'm full but my breath smells like shit!
They put tooth brushes in the goody bags.
I suppose I'll go back again....
certainly....someday they'll have ham....???

[Autumn]

25. I'm not voting for Obama again

and I sure as hell won't vote for the lesser of two evils again.

[democrattotheend]

154. I'm not voting for him again either!

Because I can't

[Baitball Blogger]

27. Well, the honeymoon is over. Time to emotinally disconnect.

[Little Star]

30. Touching SS is a bridge to far for me, I'm a liberal. k&r

[louis c]

32. that line of thinking got us Scott Walker

Rick Scott, Snyder, Kasich.

I don't like this anymore than you do, however I'm realistic. The Republicans want to discontinue Social Security entirely (including medicare, medicaid and other social safety net programs). If the American people rejected those ideas completely, there would not be a Republican Speaker of the House. The other side has an agenda, and it prevailed in a majority of House districts. Obama has to deal with them.

I don't blame the President. He has to compromise to get anything done. We, the American people, have put him in that situation by allowing so many Republicans to hold House and Senate seats.

I will always vote for someone who may very well disappoint me than someone who has avowed to destroy me.

[MadHound]

37. No, he doesn't have to compromise, not in this case

He could simply let us go over the cliff. The only thing that has to get fixed before the end of the year is the Alternative Minimum Tax patch. Everything else, tax rates, unemployment, all of that can be addressed, and rather speedily, by the new Congress in January.

The fiscal cliff is another one of those contrived confrontations to put the populace into a panic that something, anything needs to be, all the while providing cover for the worst sort of economic policies to be carried out.

Let's go over the fiscal cliff, now. Stand strong, call the 'Pugs bluff now and they won't be putting up as much of a fight in the future.

[louis c]

44. and then in Feb. face the debt ceiling vote?.

The other side always has the advantage. They hate government and want it to fail. Even if they cause the failure (see Katrina) it reflects on all of government and that's the side we're on.

My mother also collects SS and has medicare. I'm lucky that I can help provide for her to fill in the gap. The Dems fight for the working class, the poor, the dependent. however, that doesn't mean we can win all the time. especially if one branch of government is controlled buy the Republicans and they are dominated by teabaggers.

But unless I get some right wing psycho as the Dem. nominee, I will always choose a Dem. President.

[MadHound]

47. That's the thing,

If we call the 'Pugs bluff now, over this fiscal cliff, if the president and Congress actually stand up and fight, we'll have a much easier time with the debt ceiling debacle.

If we cave now, cut SS, that will only encourage the 'Pugs to play chicken again and again. You don't get rid of a bully by continuing to give him whatever he wants. You get rid of a bully by beating the shit out of him until he concedes that he won't be a bully again. This is the perfect time to beat up that Republican bully, and we need to take advantage of it, otherwise we'll continue to get bullied for the next four years. Today, it's cut SS benefits to avoid the fiscal cliff, tomorrow, it's raise the retirement age to avoid the debt ceiling. What will it be the day after that, and the day after that, and then the question is just how short a time will it be until we're simply bled dry?

[joeybee12]

33. On the environment, Obama gets an F minus...

So I agree.

[Flashmann]

34. Since the first time I voted

In 1972 at age 19,I've been aware that voting for Dems is,indeed,merely voting for the lesser of two evils....I have never once felt I was voting for a GOOD guy...Rather,that I was voting for the guy,or the Party that meant to fuck me the least.........And in 40 years,I have not once seen any reason to be dissuaded from that attitude.......

[WilliamPitt]

35. You make it sound like you invented the wheel.

Every presidential vote in my lifetime has been for the lesser of two evils. The concept did not come down with the last drop of rain, nor did it just appear last November.

Just sayin'.

[MadHound]

38. Didn't invent a damn thing,

Just pointing out that there comes a point in time when voting for the lesser of two evils simply isn't a winning proposition. This is that point in time, at least for me.

[Fumesucker]

41. Tom Tomorrow said it all rather succinctly

[Uncle Joe]

116. That's a good toon. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Nose holding and voting for the "lesser of two evils" is a highly over rated pastime.

Not to mention a piss-poor reason to vote for anyone.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[grantcart]

49. No I don't. It is completely incomprehensible to me. I think that anyone

who says "lesser than two evils" when faced with Romney and Obama is a fucking idiot.


Now I normally wouldn't use such language but the OP specifically asks what our opinion is of such blathering nonsense.



Hope it clarifies.

[paulk]

178. how about

the "lesser of two bad choices"?

[hay rick]

222. I guess you're ok with chained CPI then. nt

[woo me with science]

51. Amen with a caveat: This is not only about Medicare and Social Security.

Whether they cut SS and Medicare *this time* or use them again as hostages to convince lemmings that withholding a vicious, contrived blow is the same as standing *for* the people's interests, we are being betrayed and assaulted, repeatedly, by the party that pretends to represent us.

We have lost if they inflict these cuts. But we have still lost even if they do not lower this particular axe on us at this particular time.

SS and Medicare cuts, if they happen now, are happening within a SEA of predatory policies by this President and the bipartisan one percent in both parties. We get austerity and trillions slashed from the budget no matter what. Criminal bankers remain immune to prosecution, no matter what. We get more wars and bloody empire no matter what. We get deform of public education and a fetish of privatization no matter what. We get pipelines and new job-murdering free trade agreements no matter what. And we get a growing surveillance and police state that is suppressing dissent and imprisoning more and more of us every day for profit, no matter what.

There is absolutely nothing serious being offered now or on the horizon to slow the looting or reverse what has been done to us in any way. Rather, the process is being escalated.

This is not *only* about Social Security and Medicare. In fact, I would not be surprised if SS and Medicare were ostentatiously "saved" at the last minute one more time as propaganda to make the people cheer and be grateful and feel represented when the blow is withheld, rather than demanding to know why predatory policies are still being enacted in every other area of our lives, and why nobody is helping us.

Your post is desperately needed, but let's be clear. It's needed whether they inflict this particular blow this time, or not. At a certain point, we need to be honest that we really have one party now in this country, a party of Republican and Democratic corporatists, and that party is assaulting us every single day.

[leftstreet]

54. +1 This should be its own OP

Excellent big-picture post

[limpyhobbler]

59. "ostentatiously "saved" at the last minute"

yep. just to make us remember how grateful we are supposed to be for anything that we get.

[bigtree]

62. problem is, there's nothing but speculation like yours to base all of that activism on

It's just an amazingly curious and hypocritical tactic to rely on innuendo, rumor, and half-truths to position folks to rally against the administration and our Democratic party. You don't get a pass on unsubstantiated bull just because you portray your cause as progressive. I'd think there would be a more credible reliance on actual facts in a stance which is so critical of the administration's veracity. There's a double standard for the truth that under girds your entire political philosophy:

you:

"It's needed whether they inflict this particular blow this time, or not. At a certain point, we need to be honest about what the corporatists, even in our own party, are doing to us every single day."

Whether they do or not? Whether these reports are true or not? This is the standard of political action? We should operate from our worse imaginations; react to rumor and spin rather than react to actual facts?

How can you be 'honest' after making up your own set of facts about the intent and practice of the administration and presenting that as some absolute truth?

[cui bono]

194. Are you saying you can't see or hear a train coming until it hits you? n/t

[DJ13]

94. Excellent post, thank you

[bvar22]

114. Nailed it AGAIN, woo

DURec for your post,
but also DURec for the thread.

One way we can begin is by RAISING HELL!!!
"Do not go gently into that Good Night,"
as so many (too many) here are advising.

STAND and be COUNTED!

The politicians in Europe FEAR the electorate.
IN the USA, they LAUGH at us and how easy it is to steal our money without consequences.

[font size=4]Go ahead!
What are they going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahaha![/font]


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[duffyduff]

124. Neo-liberalism is the enemy

and it is pervasive in both parties.

Neo-liberalism is little more than a political gangsterism. It has to be fought tooth and nail before we lose EVERYTHING and become a feudal society.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

200. You're right, "This is not only about Medicare and" SS. Approval of the TPP will be next.

Not only will even more jobs be shipped to foreign countries but the rule of law now applicable to corporations will be weakened further.

[In Truth We Trust]

237. Slam dunk woo! Please consider making this an original post for educational purposes!

[bigtree]

53. I'm pretty damn sure you're lying to us

. . .fortunately, you're just some anonymous figure on an internet board; not even a 'source familiar with the negotiations.'

You're just a 'person' willing to eat up whatever AP's secret source feeds you and spit it out all over DU. Brilliant.

[JNelson6563]

56. People believe what they want to hear.

I wish the elmbagger types would be content under their rotting tree. I hear, btw, the rotting tree is begging for funds. I guess purist lefties are tightwads...? Perhaps too pure to bother with filthy lucre? Who know?

Julie

[kurtzapril4]

84. So what are you guys, then?

Since you aren't progressive, you must be conservative, right? If you're a conservative, what are you doing here? And what's an "elmbagger?"

[cui bono]

195. I would guess it's the opposite of an "Obamabot" ?

[SidDithers]

63. +1...nt

Sid

[FSogol]

123. +1 Yup.

[iandhr]

57. No I do not see the lesser of two evils argument.

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is a list some of the Presidents achievements...

1. The Lily Ledbetter fair pay act.

2. Saving the Auto Industry.

3. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

4. Dodd- Frank.

5. Healthcare Reform

6. Ending the war in Iraq.

7. The Matthew Shepard hate crimes law.

8. Two Pro-Choice women on the SCOTUS

Oh yeah I almost forgot.

HE GOT BIN LADEN

Given the Presidents past achievements and given he is 10x smarter then anyone in the room I am prepared to give him some latitude and everyone else should too.

The SS thing could be a trial ballon.

The GOP will reject it and send us over the cliff. The President looks reasonable and measured.

Remember he is 10x smarter then anyone else in the room.

But in case my theory is wrong, write The White House and let them know that any cuts to SS is not acceptable instead of compiling on a website.

[MadHound]

61. First of all, what makes you think I don't write?

Do you have some sort of magic access to what comes and goes in my mailbox? You have absolutely no idea how much or often I communicate with my reps, both state and local, and the president. For you information, I've already written the WH, my Senator and Rep about this before posting here. What the hell have you done?

Second of all, some of your "accomplishments" aren't really accomplishments at all. Dodd-Frank is a weak substitute for Glass-Steagal, but it does provide cover for the plutocrats to continue to rip off this country. Healthcare reform, HA! I could gone on for hours about that one, but instead I'll simply say that it is telling that a "reform" for healthcare that started out as Nixon care, became Heritage Foundation-care, then Romney care is now the law of the land, aided and abetted by a so called Democrat. Yes, the President ended the war in Iraq, and is now keeping us in a war in Afghanistan for the next twelve years. What an amazing trade-off

And he got bin-Laden. Good, why can't we bring the troops home now?

[iandhr]

70. I HAVE HEALTHCARE BECUSE OF THE LAW

I am a recent college grad who has had trouble finding work. Since Obamacare allows me to stay on my parents plan. There are millions of other people like me across the country.

Yeah I wanted a public option. But 30 million more people will have healthcare because of this law. Every president since truman tried to do something about healthcare coverage.

Only LBJ and Obama were successful.

[MadHound]

75. Yeah, and under Nixon/Heritage Foundation/Romney/Obama care,

When you actually start paying for your insurance, you're going to find that the rates are going to be higher than they are now, and continue to rise. This is what happens when you give a mandated monopoly to the insurance industry with few price controls, weak price controls at that.

Why in the hell do you think that the Republicans, the pro business party, pushed for this form of healthcare "reform" for years and decades? Oh, yeah, because it's good for business, and not so good for us.

[iandhr]

81. So would you rather have nothing?

Screw everyone who doesn't have insurance for the sake of ideological purity. Single payer would never have happened.

[green for victory]

126. single payer didn't happen because people like Baucus had single payer advocates arrested

at a hearing.

Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and

Can you imagine how angry you would be if Republicans had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing?

AMY GOODMAN: Baucus’s raucous caucus. Five people were arrested yesterday at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on healthcare reform and charged with “disruption of Congress.” They were protesting Committee chair Senator Max Baucus’s refusal to include any advocates of a single-payer healthcare system in a series of hearings on healthcare. Last week, eight doctors, lawyers and activists were arrested as they sought to put a single-payer advocate at a table of fifteen witnesses. At yesterday’s hearing, none of the thirteen witnesses testifying was an advocate of single payer.

Senator Baucus, a Montana Democrat, opened the hearing on a cautionary note, warning against any disruptions.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: I respect the views of everyone here, including everyone in the audience. And that respect, in turn, means listening and not interrupting when others are speaking. I sincerely hope that everyone here today, including our guests, especially guests in the audience, will afford these proceedings with that level of respect.

...SUE CANNON: We want single payer at this table. Healthcare is a human right. We want guaranteed healthcare. No more Blue Cross’s double crosses. We want guaranteed healthcare. No more Aetna or -— thank you. No more Aetna or CIGNA bosses. We want guaranteed healthcare. We want to see our doctors when we need and get our pills that are guaranteed. We’re tired of private insurance greed. We want guaranteed healthcare. In California, SB 810 means guaranteed healthcare. And HR 676 guarantees healthcare.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Let me just speak a few minutes.

JERRY CALL: Senator Baucus, my name is Jerry Call. I’m with PNHP.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Sorry...

[iandhr]

134. This country would not have supported single payer.

And to think if Baucus had single payer people at the hearing would have gotten it done is unrealistic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. If properly packaged, it would have been

The Democrats' PR on health reform was LOUSY.

They just sat back and let the right wingers set the narrative--as they have repeatedly over the past thirty years.

This constant betrayal is why I voted for Obama BUT did not lift a finger to work on the campaign or donate a penny.

[iandhr]

155. I have health care of the ACA act.

So to millions of other Americans.

To me an every one else its not a betrayal

[Lydia Leftcoast]

204. And as an older person, I am specifically allowed to be charged three times as much as a younger

person, even though I am much healthier than many younger people. (I haven't been sick for over a year.) Such a deal for the insurance companies!

Furthermore, the medical loss ratio is 80%, but companies USED TO do just fine with 90%.

This bill was a gift to the insurance companies, despite some good features: a guaranteed customer base, the ability to price gouge, government subsidies for them to cover poorer people, and deductibles still permitted (deductibles being a concept largely unknown in other countries, even those that use private insurance.)

The excuse was that "the insurance companies won't accept it otherwise."

If there was ever proof that corporations rule this country...

By that standard, we shouldn't ban theft because the thieves won't like it.

[socialist_n_TN]

225. Maybe, maybe not, but.............

the public supported a public option by about 60/40 as I recall. And if single payer had been presented as Medicare For All, I have no doubt that the numbers in support would have been about the same.

[leftstreet]

80. No. You have HEALTH INSURANCE because of the law n/t

[Lasher]

74. Obama didn't end the occupation of Iraq any sooner than GWB said so.

Obama moved his campaign promise goalpost to hide the truth: He merely conformed to the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by his predecessor.

[obama2terms]

173. You are wrong about health care reform

My family who could pay for insurance but because my parents have pre-existing conditions we could be dropped from our health insurance at any time with no explanation. Even worse we wouldn't be able to get health insurance again because companies could discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. So FYI to my family and so many others who could have LOST our health insurance the health care reform was anything but "HA!" to us. Maybe you should actually google the law. You would know the law isn't even in full affect until 2014, so major changes haven't really happend yet because it obviously isn't 2014 yet.

[MadHound]

177. I'm happy for you,

I actually think that forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is a good thing. However I also think that good is far outweighed by the fact that we've handed a mandated monopoly to the insurance industry with price controls that are weak and won't protect us from rising premium rates.

So while your pre-existing condition will be covered, will you be able to afford the premiums. The sad thing is you won't have a choice, since the law mandates that you must have an insurance policy, from a for profit insurance company in most cases.

What could go wrong?

[Lasher]

125. Freudian slip?

Accompaniment = the art of playing along.

[olegramps]

281. I have contacted my Congressman and my Senators.

If what appears to be what has been proposed as a compromise, then I can only conclude that I have been sold out. Yes, absolutely lied to. What a bitch of a position to be in when the choice is either complete destruction by the Republicans or slow death by the Democrats.

[pnwmom]

60. There's nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils.

No human, and no President, is without flaws.

And no President could satisfy progressives as long as the House is controlled by Rethugs and the Senate has a non-Filibuster proof majority.

[MadHound]

66. No, but this president does have fatal flaws,

The biggest one being is no willing or not able to fight, especially when he holds all the advantages.

The president doesn't have to cave on this fiscal cliff, absolutely, positively doesn't. This cliff was a contrived crisis in order to give the 'Pugs another chance to play chicken with a president who they know would rather cave than fight. If the President would stand up and fight, call their bluff now, he could put an end to this governance by contrived crisis and some real work could get done.

But instead, he's going to cave over this, cutting SS benefits. In a couple of months, he'll cave again, and then again, and then again. Then where will we be, picked clean and ripe for the roasting.

[99Forever]

64. I am not surprised.

At all.

Capitulater In Chief.

[Ganja Ninja]

68. Yup a lot of people trusted him not to cut social security.

Now instead of being screwed by the Republicans they will see themselves as having been screwed by the Democrats.

It's going to make 2014 that much tougher for the Democrats.

[RobinA]

101. Anybody Who

trusted him not to cut SS has just this minute awakened from a very long sleep.

[Safetykitten]

69. Oh Madhound, come sit by me. I agree completely.

[Snotcicles]

78. Careful folks, this could crescendo into a full-blown Nader. nt

[JEB]

79. Taking from old folks and disabled Vets

is not acceptable to me. Anybody who supports such measures can FOAD.

[FreeBC]

82. I support Obama

Some of you may be right, but I'm not going to call him out on a deal that hasn't been made yet.

[grahamhgreen]

83. SS does not add one nickel to the deficit. CALL your reps, people.

[DeSwiss]

85. He called it.

Moderate Republican from the 1980s.

- But who's good with the youngster's.......

K&R

[PrMaine]

87. Yet Better Actually is Better than Worse

Our current electoral system really forces our elections to be between two major parties. Whenever a third party develops any significant strength, the spoiler effect causes the candidate who is most disliked by the voters to win and that danger encourages the two parties that are most alike to merge into one. Having more than two parties is an unstable condition because with three or more parties the majority of voters tend to be so unhappy with the results of elections.

Following one of our elections, half or even more of the electorate is unhappy with the result. But how could we expect any better? In our elections we never bother to ask voters who they dislike - as if that is immaterial.

Suppose instead we allowed voters to choose whether to vote against one candidate or for one candidate (with the net vote being the for-votes less the against-votes). If we had done this in the last election for president, it seems quite possible that both Obama and Romney would have received nearly a zero net vote count - opening up the possibility of electing one of the third party candidates.

Of course with politicians understanding the new system their campaigns would change. The system would penalize a candidate for being divisive and certainly for insulting a large segment of voters so there likely would be fewer negative ads. Since third parties would have a chance it is likely that the media would start to treat them with more respect and help the public to know more about them.

But note that in system terms, it would now be precisely the two-party system that becomes unstable. We would gradually have at least three and probably more significant parties in real competition - and wouldn't that seem better.

Impossible you say? Remember that our elections are at most at the state level. Even in elections of our president we really are voting for a state office official to send to the electoral college. We could try this system at a state level or even at a local level to test how it works.

[graham4anything]

88. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hillary45./Kennedy46

you are putting down the #4 best President of all time

[reformist2]

89. Obama hasn't signed anything yet. Let's let him know SS is NOT to be put on the table.

[ReRe]

92. I'm holding out for now...

I'm hoping for no agreement or veto of agreement, and over the cliff on New Year's Eve.

[MotherPetrie]

93. He betrayed us.

[Shivering Jemmy]

104. Who's us?

Ain't betrayed me.

[MotherPetrie]

145. Everyone who gets or will get Social Security

[OldDem2012]

95. Let's all panic, run in circles with our hands in the air, while screaming and shouting....

...based on what source in the fact-challenged media that I thought we had all grown to mistrust?

Wow. Just wow.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

97. I agree with you. It was the conservative versus the right wing extremists. We voted conservative.

What can I say? Our country has been so screwed since Reagan, it's not even funny, and the masses out there are f nuts, uneducated, unaware, and busy watching reality shows.

[rivegauche]

99. oh SHUT UP. Obama is not evil for fuck's sake.

Evil is the NRA. Evil is corporate greed. Evil is right-wing Taliban extremists. My President is not evil, get over yourself.

[kath]

144. killing children w/ drones, indefinite detention, assassination w/o any due process,

torture, warrantless wiretaps, letting war criminals and banksters go free, etc, etc, etc --

all of these things are EVIL

And being a corporatist is evil.

To read up on the Constitutional issues mentioned: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

[Vietnameravet]

167. Well i certainly hope you didnt vote for a man who consider evil..

or did you?

[cui bono]

196. Um... did you miss the line: "The lesser of two evils"? n/t

[Vietnameravet]

202. No i did not...

saying he is the lesser of two evils still says he is evil...

[cui bono]

208. This is true.

[liberal N proud]

102. I don't see how anyone would have had any question who to vote for in the last election

It was very clear where we we would be going if Rmoney would have been elected and if you don't like anything Obama has done, you sure as hell would have been pissed off with the other.

I don't buy the lesser of two evils bullshit.

[Shivering Jemmy]

103. No.

Deal is not terrible in my book. Will take it.

You do what you want.

[think_critically]

105. People are starting to act like republicans

We're supposed to be the logical and reasonable party. Getting pissed b/c the president has to strike an imperfect deal
with assholes that are only in office b/c half of you sat on your asses in 2010 b/c you were pissed about the public option
is insane. The solution to this problem is not to just tax the hell out of rich people. As long as there are protection in whatever
deal there is for low income people then it's reasonable. I'm so sick and tired of people wanting other people to sacrifice and then
not wanting to sacrifice anything themselves.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

230. First mistake: Assuming Obama "has to strike an imperfect deal."

He doesn't have to do any such thing. We could go off the "cliff" and deal with these issues when Congress returns in January. Instead, they're trying to ram some sort of deal through before Christmas.

Second mistake: Believing we will "tax the hell out of rich people." That might have some merit if we were looking at Eisenhower rates; instead, we're looking at Clinton rates. Hardly onerous. But hey, way to carry water for the 2%, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Third mistake: Not realizing that the lower and middle class has been sacrificing for decades. Social Security and Medicare are the end of the line for many, including me.

[lbrtbell]

106. The old folks need to lube up their rectums

Because it's coming.

We need to start voting for REAL Democrats in primaries, not the Obamas and Clintons.

I'm tired of hearing about Obama compromising when he doesn't have to. He compromises because he wants to.

[treestar]

163. Odd for the old folks to be the victims

They are the ones who voted 65% for Rmoney. So those old ones at least should have no problem with cutting the entire program.

[Zoeisright]

107. No. I don't understand.

And when repukes take over in 2014, YOU will be to blame.

[ProSense]

109. Dick Durbin: No cut in Social Security benefits

Dick Durbin: No cut in Social Security benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022020805

[nc4bo]

110. This election for me, has always been about the < of the 2.

Always and I did everything I could to convince others of the same but now I've got my gloves back on and am ready to battle like my life and those of others, depends on it.

But the answer to the lesser of 2 is to work our asses off getting liberals and progressives in at the bottom floor and support them as they work their ways up through our politics. The 2nd answer is to find a way to get the influence of $$$$$ OUT of our politics and our democracy. This is OUR government, the People's Government and not GE's, Walmart's, Koch Brother's, Adelson's, Romney's, Blue Cross Blue Shield's, Exxon Mobile's of the world.

It's the ONLY way.

[alarimer]

112. This is absolutely spot-on.

I voted for the lesser of the evils. And I knew when this fiscal cliff stuff began that Obama would screw us again. He's is about to offer up cuts to SS for the first time ever, despite the fact that the majority of people oppose those cuts.

The next 4 years are going to suck big time. We have to elect real progressives and get these proposed changed reversed, if they pass.

I cannot stand Obama. These next four years are going to see the dismantling of the social safety net at the hands of the party that traditionally has been supportive of it. And then the Republicans, like the lying sacks of shit that they are, will run on the fact that Democrats cut SS and Medicare and the stupid sheep will vote fore them, even though they only reason Democrats did this was because Republicans refused to compromise. At all.

This country is screwed.

[jsr]

113. Deja vu. Seen the movie before.

Many times.

[Hissyspit]

115. @RepBarbaraLee: Reducing COLA is a Social Security benefit cut. Any deal that cuts

@janehamsher: RT @RepBarbaraLee: Reducing COLA is a Social Security benefit cut. Any deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits is unacceptable.

[JDPriestly]

117. Agreed, MadHound. Agreed.

We stand together. Enough is enough.

Cut the funding for bases and contractors overseas. Don't cut Social Security.

Fiscal cliff, here we come. The Republicans have more to lose than the Democrats. Why should we protect that bunch of jerks from the consequences of their own excessive paranoia.

Of my two senators, Senator Boxer has taken a strong stance in favor of Social Security.

I have not heard the policy of Senator Feinstein -- but she is one of the worst security freakers in the entire government. Everything for Homeland Security and defense, but Social Security is not even one of the issues listed on her website. ]

If anyone knows Senator Feinstein's position on cuts to Social Security, please let me know.

[nineteen50]

120. CPI

another weapon in the war on the poor.

[Eric the Reddish]

122. It's ALWAYS about the Lesser of Two Evils!

sic transit gloria mundi

[DonViejo]

127. Maybe you should just abandon politics and DU....

your perfect candidate is never going to materialize.

[bvar22]

129. I used to ridicule Working CLass people who voted against their economic interests...

...by voting for a Republican,
...ridicule without mercy.
NOW, I routinely vote AGAINST my own Economic Interests because the Republicans are WORSE?

I have voted AGAINST my own Economic Interests since 1992 by voting FOR "Centrist" Democrats.
Over those years, Loss after Loss, declining wages, continued transfer of Wealth TO the Rich, destruction of LABOR, Consolidation and Conglomeration of Wealth & Power at the very TOP, Shifting of the Tax Burden to the Working Class, dismantling of the Working Class, Death by a Thousand Cuts to the New Deal and the Great Society.....
I have finally reached the point where I don't HAVE any "Economic Interests" except the preservation of Social Security and Medicare.

One of the problems is that you have to be pretty OLD to remember a time when a REAL Democrat was president.
I hated LBJ with a purple passion for The WAR,
but he WAS a REAL Democrat.
He acted and sounded like a REAL Democrat,
and the programs of the Great Society built upon the foundation of the New Deal.
I never, EVER though that 50 year later I would be praising LBJ as the best and most Liberal Democrat of the last 1/2 century,
but THERE it IS.

[font size=4]Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360

The time frame doesn't matter.
On policy and issues, he is STILL a moderate Republican.
He BELIEVES that "Free Market", Deregulation, Privatize Everything, Trickle Down, Two Americas shit.
Bill Clinton's undisputed title of "Best Republican President EVER"
is in jeopardy.
The Big Dog never had the balls to touch Social Security.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[kath]

146. + a brazillion, bvar!

Great post. You said it all so well.

-First Way kath, who also remembers (and knows enough history to know) what REAL Democrats were like. (and *hates* Trojan Horses who call themselves "Democrats&quot

[Speck Tater]

130. Shut up. Roll Over, and take it up the ass.

Peons who complain about the government just make me sick. Why is it that nobody knows their place any more? You're not royalty, dammit, You're just commoners. You have no right to be questioning your betters. Just do as you're told and shut the fuck up.

[dembotoz]

131. once again thrown under the bus--the less of 2 is still evil

[Sunlei]

132. they exempt Supplemental Security Income so no ss recipient is pushed below the poverty lvl

a lot of ss retired get 25-30k a year in checks or more. I think the CPI method and the current method are both bell curved, intended to keep persons above the poverty level.Should also raise the federal poverty level number for all persons. Currently its about $11,170 & $10,788 if 65 or older. That I feel is to low a number.

What I would like to see them do is extremely wealthy persons like the Romney adults shouldn't get a ss check at all unless they go broke or dip below some millions per year income.

They should raise the ss payin cap and amount paid in slightly.

I don't believe in not voting.

It is annoying any of Americas guaranteed benefits be on the current table at all without removing the ss check and medicade from the Romneys of America first.

[Fearless]

138. I'm reminded of the difference between politicians and activists.

An activist supports a view or views and will not compromise that view in any way, because it is that view that they desire to achieve.

A politician believes that in compromising one view they are able to find gains in another venue. Give a little on one issue, get a little on the other.

I believe that politicians tread water, in a series of steps forward and back on a variety of issues, in an attempt to maintain power and appear as though they are helping their perceived constituents.

I believe activists may indeed at first lose to the status quo, and that the road to their goal is indeed much steeper than the politicians' to their goal. But I also believe that the activist will eventually get there and will receive an unadulterated version of their goal instead of the bastardized one that the politician gets.

What would the civil rights movement have been if we only compromised? Would slaves have been freed had we only compromised? Women have gotten the vote? Social Security had FDR compromised with Republicans? The end of DADT had we compromised? No, we wouldn't have. We would have had half-assed versions of these things, trod water, and made no effectual changes at all.

That's what happens when we compromise. That's what happens when we play politics with basic human rights and dignities.

[BlueStreak]

140. Nothice the one thing he WON'T put on the table for Social Security is raising the contribution cap

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

Why should it stop at $110,000? That's an arbitrary number. I understand that the benefits are capped, which gives the argument cor capping contributions. On the other hand, there are very few people with incomes above $110K whose businesses have not benefited from having a healthy Social Security program. Those most fortunate in our society have a greater obligation.

Why not pay the full rate up to $150K of income, and then phase it out from there up to $1,000,000 in income. That is no more arbitrary that the current numbers. Such a plan would make Social Security solvent indefinitely. Yet, has anybody ever heard Obama discuss this -- even one word of it?

When the guy only considers solutions that hit the lowest income earners the hardest, at some point we have to acknowledge the guy is simply not on our side. Better than Romney? Yes. But that's really all we can say now.

[femrap]

147. Gee,

I'm glad you're not banned for writing this. I agree 100% with you. My vote last month was more a vote against RobMe than a vote for Obama.

The moderate Repugnants have taken over our party. I'm a unreconstructed democrat and so often feel very alone.

[jtuck004]

219. Don't look at it as alone.

Think about how much opportunity there is around you to help folk realize how they've been schooled

[nonoxy9]

148. "death by 1000 cuts" is exactly right! How many times can the middle class be stabbed in the back

before it's fatal?

[Neon2012]

149. Why are you jumping to the conclusion the cuts will be bad?

Some cuts are good. They can save money by cutting inefficiencies. Why are we so convinced Obama is out to get us?

[riqster]

152. Because he is not perfect

Damn the man for that!

[a2liberal]

151. It's 20 dimensional chess!

You don't understand, you need to just keep complacently waiting and he'll do the right thing eventually... It's just elaborate maneuvering!

[Hamlette]

156. Yeah! Let's form our own Tea Party and refuse to compromise too!

That will surely work.

[bowens43]

157. He's right back to the same old shit....

there is no issue so important that obama won't cave....

[mother earth]

158. Is our president DINO? I'm sickened, truly sickened & now we understand why the oligarchy. nt

[JohnnyRingo]

160. No, I don't understand

Obama goes down in history as one of the three greatest presidents in my long life.

One could criticize Clinton for trade deals and welfare reform, and LBJ for the Vietnam war, but that ignores all the good they did. Carter had his shortcomings, and many had remorse by the end of his term, but in retrospect he was a great leader.

Your primary utopian choice for president doesn't exist. A candidate you think is perfect would disappoint you eventually by not following your vision to the letter.

[NorthCarolina]

161. They knew it then. At the time though, it was more prudent to their cause

to simply attack you for such voicing such "poppycock".

[Dustlawyer]

165. K&R! I have watched Obama sell out the BP oil spill victims and you won't read or see anything

about it! BP put a lock on the media so only their lying propaganda gets out. Obama has done great things as well but still answers to the corporate masters

[Vietnameravet]

166. No wonder Democrats lose...

According to this post..Obama isnt forced to make a deal with a Republican controlled House....No the OP tells us he is a "liar" ..that's right, an outright liar just like the right says he is..according to this thread..

And we now know from this post that he is "evil" too..admittedly the "lessor of two evils" but evil nevertheless! We are told that not once but six times!

I am learning from all this that we might just as well have voted for Romney..if we cant get everything...then, damn it, throw Obama to the wolves just like so many wanted to do during the health care debate when he had to compromise...and we all know how that worked out..

We dont even know for sure what the deal is..but we now know it must be "death of a thousand cuts!" making "social security a shadow of it's former self!" and that the real goal of Democrats is to "renew the assault on the poorest"

And I guess we better sit home next election and not vote for the "lesser of two evils" and let Rick Perry get to be President and maybe Sister Sarah as VP and wouldn't Newt make a great Secretary of State or would Rick Santorum be a better choice?

All so much better than compromising...so much better than accepting the reality that we do not control the House and funds removed today could be restored in the future..

Once again Democrats are doing what they do best in time of trouble..circle the wagons ..and start shooting at each other!

[busterbrown]

168. No, thats incorrect.... There is one side who only cares about destroying Obama’s Presidency

and nothing else. And from the looks of DU this afternoon, they are succeeding!

[In Truth We Trust]

169. "I won't support that, and neither should you." Exactly! Anyone that can even TRY to justify any

adverse action to social safety nets is NOT a real democrat but any definition other than they are of the corporatist infiltrating kind.

[MisterP]

192. alas, there's this death cult that says that if you point out corpo infiltrators, you're the problem

it's a death cult that okays killing 6-year-olds and the elderly from Connecticut to Pakistan

[like-mind]

170. Boehner needs to return to his caucus with a few scalps

The GOP concessions they'll have to support will cost a few of them their re-election, and cause them all big trouble with their OWN base who demand No Compromises. People, let's not be our own Left-Wing Tea Party. Say you all agree with MadHound and refuse to vote for imperfect candidates -- so you'd rather we'd gotten President Romney?

[TheKentuckian]

227. Perfect? Lets try sufferable. Hell, there are plenty of Republicans that didn't cut Social Security.

I'm tired of cheerleading weasels telling lies and driving the bandwagon toward the next sellout.

You were told that we had to put the foot down two or three deals ago and the same full of shit crowd was telling us how the President drank the GOP's milkshake, how we don't understand trillion dimensional chess, and all kinds of silly shit.

SNAKE OIL SALESMEN plain and simple. Always talking "perfect" and can't even manage tolerable.

[Summer Hathaway]

171. I've always understood why you've posted that meme

over and over, along with your other fave memes.

Your reason for doing so is as obvious as it is tiresome.

[Scootaloo]

175. Never occurred to you that the unnamed source might be the one lying?

Just a thought here, since I've only seen references to "anonymous sources" and "top GOP aides" - also unnamed. But I think that on the one hand, we have the president, who has publicly stated his opposition to Social Security cuts. On the other hand we have rumors to the contrary.

I mean by all means, write, call, do your thing. But maybe we can stop this silly "unnamed non-sourced rumors are more credible than Barack Obama on what Barack Obama is doing" stuff?

[MadHound]

181. So, it's OK to trust unnamed sources when they're saying something you like,

But when they are reporting something that reflects badly on the President, we must ignore them? Hypocrisy much?

Look, this story is in all kinds of credible, even left wing media outlets, people who aren't known for spreading baseless rumors. If we waited to oppose this move until we were absolutely, positively one hundred percent certain, it would be far too late because the deed would already be done.

[Scootaloo]

186. Outlets like the Huffington "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM!" Post?

I think you're being had.

Like I said, call, write, do your thing, it never hurts. But I'm not going to shit my drawers over an anonymous source that may or may not be a "top GOP aide" providing rumor to an outlet that at times has shaky credibility to begin with.

[MadHound]

207. Who said anything about Huffington Post?

Oh, yeah, you and only you, once again trying to stuff your words into my mouth.

Actually I was referring to sites such as the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor. But anything to try and make your point, including stuffing your words into my mouth.

[MadHound]

210. Does Reuters meet with your approval?

"The White House said on Tuesday that a proposal to change inflation adjustments to Social Security benefits would affect other government programs that use the government's Consumer Price Index as an inflation gauge.

The proposal was part of an effort by President Barack Obama to compromise on deficit reduction issues in the ongoing "fiscal cliff" talks, spokesman Jay Carney told reporters."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/usa-fiscal-inflation-idUKL1E8NI9IZ20121218

Sounds like this proposal for a chained CPI is coming straight from the White House, not an anonymous source, not from Huffington Post.

[Scootaloo]

254. There we go. Jay Carney. That's a source!

Knew you had it in ya!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

187. A "Centrist" is someone who wants Democratic votes.

It is someone who can pick a Chief of Staff for the White House who can refer to liberals as "fucking retarded" without any adverse consequences.

It is someone who can smile and let others use their imaginations to make up scenarios by which he will someday take action in a leadership role consistent with traditional Democratic values.

It is someone who can attract the support of authoritarians who are otherwise opposed to Republicans who have a big "R" after their names.

Whatever a "Centrist" is, it is someone who doesn't want to be known as an FDR-type Democrat.

[blackspade]

193. +1000

[indepat]

198. An assault on the poorest and weakest among us is an assault on the

letter, spirit, and intent of what the founders envisioned by inserting the promote the general welfare doctrine in the Preamble to our Constitution. Neither will I ever cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. The problem is we now have one party which has moved far to the right of center, figuratively jumping through its asshole to curry favor with monied interests and the other party led by evil-minded, evil thinking, evil-doing right-wing extremists whose actions are contrary to every principle on which this Republic was founded.

[elleng]

211. No, and this is b.s.

Unfortunately there's too much of it here.

[lib2DaBone]

213. Kick & R.. well said...

I can't imagine Seniors.. (Repiublican or Dem.). will stand for any more abuse from Washington.

Get on the phone to your Congress critter.. get on the phone and email to Obama....this is no time to sit silent.

As George Carlin said.."They are coming for your Social Security... and they will get it... every penny."

[Louisiana1976]

214. I get Social Security Disability

and unlike the person upthread who said she could do without the $13 COLA she was getting, I can use my raise. So I am totally against cutting it.

[Curmudgeoness]

218. I have said those same words.....

or at least very close to them. And I mean it too. If they fuck with Social Security and Medicare, I am also done. This is the one thing that will only hit hard on the people who have worked hard all their lives and have paid into it all those years.

I cannot believe that this is even being considered. I am hoping that this is wrong. But if it is fact, and this is what comes out of this administration, I am done.

I have already written to President Obama that this is my breaking point, the point of no return. To think that a Democratic president would be part of the undoing of the most important safety net of our time is unthinkable. This is the final straw.

[lillypaddle]

220. unrec

for whatever it's worth.

[hay rick]

223. "We laugh at Republicans who vote against their own best interests"

Ouch. Time for the mirror test.

K&R

[DaveT]

224. Interesting Thread

President Obama has been extremely disappointing, and if the Republicans had not adopted a totally unprecedented set of loony tunes "ideas" like vaginal probes and the dismantling of labor unions, I might have let that disappointment lead me all the way to a Green vote. But no -- although very disappointing, Obama does have some nice things on the plus side of the ledger. The auto bailout was huge, his Supreme Court appointments were good and he has been good on the social issues that make up the Culture War. No, a vote for Obama was imperative and I breathed a huge sigh of relief when he won in such convincing fashion.

Now we are left with the question -- what do we do about the disappointment on so many other issues? I agree with the OP's assessment of what the President is likely to do in this farcical Fiscal Cliff fracas. He will try again to reach "common ground" with the Republicans and that means cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There is no rational policy reason to do so, and a solid working majority of Americans do not want that to happen.

I will be ecstastic if it does not happen, but four years of continuous disappointment with Obama make me expect the worst.



Nevertheless, I vehemently disagree with the OP's answer to the question. I do not think it accoplishes anything at all to vote for a splinter party other than making it more likely for the Tea Party to take over the Federal Government. I share the OP's skepticism about continuing loyalty to the Democratic Party, but I think bailing out of the political system is even worse than the prospect of more Clintonian Triangulation and Obamian Bi-Partisanship.


I suggest that we look for a deeper understanding of whyClinton and Obama have been so disappointing. I do not believe for a second that either one of them is a bad human being or the source of our political impotence. They are symptoms rather than causes -- and as each man goes to bed at night, he can comfort himself that he is doing the best he can under the circumstances.

There are a lot of things that have gone into creating this insane political culture that has doubled military spending since the end of the Clinton years while cutting taxes by an utterly irrational amount. Grover Norquist dreamed all this up when he was consulting with the GW Bush Administration to follow a strategy for "starving the beast of Government." Caught in the budget trap between the jaws of uncuttable "Defense Spending" and those ridiculous tax cuts, the corporate media and the Tea Party clowns in Congress tell us that we have "no choice" cut "spending."

In 2008 we needed a President like Franklin Roosevelt to cut through this glob of bullshit to rally the public against all the Big Money Institutions that have decreed defense spending to be sacrosanct and increasing taxes to be unthinkable. Obama disappointed me in that he did not even try to do that. Instead, he accepts the premises that Deficit Reduction is an imperative; that taxes can only go up on a tiny portion of the citizenry; and that our global empire must at all costs continue to spend three quarters of a trillion dollars per year.

Four years later, he is still at it, trying to reach common ground over how much of the New Deal we should extinguish in exchange for rich folks going back to Clinton Era tax rates.



Given this miserable checkmate of traditional Democratic politics and of common sense, it seems to me the most important step for the Sane Majority is to understand why our President declines to try to overturn this insane paradigm, which was concocted by Norquist and a bunch of other clever wingnut apparatchiks.

I suggest that the answer to this question is simple:

In the year 1980, Carter, Reagan and Independent Candidate John Anderson spent a combined $92 million dollars trying to win votes. [link:https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008|]

This year, the total will go well past $2 billion. [link:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/presidential-campaign-to-top-2b-with-less-than-two-weeks-until-election-day/|]


Obama or any other Democratic President has to raise over a billion dollars to have a chance to be President of the United States. Over a four year term, you have to raise over $680,000 every single day; almost $5 million a week; more than $20 million a month -- and climbing. If the hypebolic trendline continues it will take something like $10 billion dollars to win by 2028.

Imagine what life is like when you have to raise almost $5,000 every single minute of every single day for four years in a row. You can be as right as rain on every "issue," but unless you get somebody to give you a whole lot of money, you will lose unless you raise the money. Look at the Wisconsin Recall for the perfect example.

Who is going to give you that kind of money and why?



I will leave it for another thread to discuss how this happened and what it would take to make a meaningful change. For now, I sign off with this thought: The answer is not letting the GOP have the whole shooting match.

[Liberal_in_LA]

236. great post. I agree that people forget about the money required to run for national office

candidates are beholden to others because of the way our campaigns are financed.

Be glad it's Obama and not Romney.

[MadHound]

245. I agree with the issue of money and the "obligation" that it brings to elected office,

I have long been of the mind that we need publicly financed elections for every office from dogcatcher to president. A candidate gets X amount of money, X amount of free air time(the airwaves are, after all, still part of the public domain, at least nominally) and X amount of months to conduct their campaign(that way candidates don't start running for the next election as soon as the old one ends).

However I disagree with the premise that having another party in the mix is a bad thing or even an impossible thing. Parties have fallen, risen, switched ideologies and been consigned to the dust bin of history. The way things are headed, we'll most likely end of with three parties, a left, a right and the center, consisting of moderate 'Pugs and the Third Way/neo liberal/ conservative blue dog Dems. The party structure as it is simply can't hold.

The point of trying to change the party from within the party system is long gone, bought and paid for by that very system you and I decry. Thus, one has to start looking to effect change from outside the system. That can be a long term proposition, or as in the case of the fall of the Whigs and rise of the Republicans, a relatively short term one. Either way, the people had to start somewhere, namely voting for what was originally considered a "splinter" party. Sure, you might suffer some short term setbacks and defeats, but in the long term you come out ahead.

[ecstatic]

226. Stop complaining and work to change congress

Are you doing anything to make congress more liberal? Probably not. Right now, congress is dominated by the tea party. That is reality. That is the group Obama is forced to work with. Your only solution is to put more republicans in. You haven't said anything helpful or constructive.

[MadHound]

247. LOL! I always love when somebody accuses me of not doing anything.

Let me set you straight, I've probably done more in a decade of my life than you've done in a lifetime. I've played Democratic party politics, gone to the national convention as a delegate, watched as the party screwed the country and its own party members over time and again. Seen the beast up close and ugly. As the old saying goes, there are two things that a person shouldn't watch, politics and sausage making. It's a very true statement, because it disillusions you rather quickly.

These days, I don't do the party politics thing, because frankly, even at the district level party politics is an ugly, and ultimately futile business. Thus I put my efforts into issues I care about, that and local, very local politics. I find my efforts are better rewarded.

Any other dumb assumptions?

[DemocratsForProgress]

264. Nobody would fairly accuse you of doing nothing.

You do a lot.

[jtuck004]

228. Voting for Obama doesn't mean a couple million young and old can't stop the country.

He can listen from the President's office as well as anywhere.

[woo me with science]

229. K&R

[HiPointDem]

231. kr. "Social Security will be a pale shadow of its former self." = setting it up for privatization.

Game plan with all public institutions is to make them increasingly unfair , non-universal and ineffective -- wreck them, then privatize them.

[JEB]

250. I afraid you are correct.

Just look how all the privatizing of the military has led to corruption. They want it all, education, SS, Medicaid, Medicare.

[zentrum]

235. Call the WH

....Email the WH and Reid and all your Reps and Senators. Every day. Be relentless.

Tell them to make O keep his promises to us, and that a loss of cost of living increases to SS is devastating. Tell them to restore all tax levels to the Clinton tax levels and to go over the cliff if necessary. The middle class should not have to be hurt one iota more to spare the richest top 2%. Disgusting.

[saidsimplesimon]

238. MadHound, and others who commented without any suggestions

for action. It is what it is, politics is not a gentle sport. We look to the media to inform, sometimes they bend the truth, sometimes they believe what they hear.

I'm in the same boat as many who commented. My word is my bond. It appears this is an old fashioned moral value.

Elections have consequences. There is also the dance around the Washington DC maypole of half truths, and outright lies for political advantage. We need more there, there before I can admit that anyone voted for the lessor of two evils.

President Obama is not the lessor of two evils. I'm deeply troubled that you feel that way MH. Your time is to valuable for me to list the reasons we are not on the same page. Rest assured, should the President, or any other elected official fail to deliver on a promise, I'll order a pitchfork from the props dept.

[truebluegreen]

242. Oh, but "cutting" benefits is not the same as "slashing" them,

so he's not really a liar.

[Tarheel_Dem]

249. You never disappoint. I remember your last "sky is falling" screed.

[yourout]

253. SCOTUS was the only reason I had and the only reason I needed to....

vote for Obama.

I had no illusions of any progressive legislation ever meeting his pen.

[blkmusclmachine]

255. We've been deceived from Day One with Obama.

He'll destroy the Democratic Party before he steps out of the White House. '14/'16 will be a bloodbath.

[lexw]

258. This put me in a very bad mood, but I'm still so very glad that I got to see R$ pumping his own gas.

[snot]

259. K&R'ing the OP.

[LostinRed]

260. Yup voting for Obama was a vote for the lesser evil

Of course Romney would preserve a woman's right to choose and surely would McCain. Romney would have worked to end DOMA. McCain would have ended DADT just like Obama did. Yes Obama is evil. So glad he and Romney and McCain are so much alike. I would hate to see the ACA passed as it was under Obama. Did I say Obama? I meant Osama. Obama == evil. And you == asshole

[truebluegreen]

277. Social issues are all very well, and certainly Obama is better on those.

But how about economic issues? They are at least as important and what is his record like there?

For example, the ACA. Leaves us with a rapacious private industry (actually several) skimming profits, without ANY KIND of public option. No early buy-in to Medicare, nothing.

Where private companies and profit are concerned, especially Wall Street, Obama is not on our side.

And now the Grand Bargainer is proposing cutting Social Security, which has never added a dime to the deficit, in order to maintain current, absurdly-low tax rates on rich people (up to $400,000 or $1 million per year, depending) .

Seems to me we just had an election On That Very Issue, and our side won.

So why is he giving away the store, AGAIN?

[Divine Discontent]

261. we'll have to see what's finally decided upon, but dang, if he does anything that effects

SS badly for those who will need it to survive, it will harm 2014 elections badly for the Dems.

Hope the chained CPI doesn't happen. Why not cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy 2%, will solve a lot!

[JDPriestly]

262. The odd thing about this betrayal is that many if not most Republicans also oppose cuts to Social

Security COLAs. So we the people are united in opposing this austerity measure.

I remember how Carter was ridiculed -- for trying to cut what we were spending on energy.

Obama will become not just the object of our ire but a laughing stock in the country if he goes along with Republicans or gives in to their pressure on this.

If Obama goes along with this, he will lose the support of his rank and file Democrats and be completely impotent for the rest of his term. Yes. Impotent, powerless, weak, ineffective. This would lose him all respect.

He would look like a dishonest patsy for the Pete Peterson crowd.

And that is a very credible conspiracy theory. After all, Timothy Geithner was appointed to the Fed by a committee HEADED BY PETE PETERSON, arch-enemy of Social Security.

Perhaps Obama has been a set-up all along. It's up to him to disprove that theory.

[tblue]

263. Write this as a letter and mail to the local, state, national Dem party.

I am with you. I dispair.

[pecwae]

269. Reccing

even though it puts me on the 'watch list' as being a Democratic Party and President Obama hater.

[quaker bill]

270. No

Apparently you don't recall having been to this Rodeo before. Boehner could not get the votes last time and all the seats are still in the same hands. We spent weeks here grinding on each other over stuff that never saw the light of day.

[RBInMaine]

271. Hyperbolic nonsense. Too many DUers are becoming the TeaLeft Party.

[Iggy]

272. SO... RALPH NADER IS CORRECT??

we have a two corporate party system.

NOBODY, not Obama, nor the deadbeat "democrats" or repugs in congress are serious about cutting the obvious, hideously bloated budgetary sacred cows: our "defense" budget, agriculture, etc.

Thus there is ZERO difference between the "democrats" and the repugs. on this issue and on several other major policy issues.

"democrats" and repugs are OK with cutting COLA increases to the poorest people in our nation, in order to keep the MIC frankenstien monster going forever. what a complete and utter joke our nation has become.

FAIL.

[cecilfirefox]

273. Welcome to politics, its compromise and sometimes, often, you don't get 100% what you want.

Welcome to yesterday!!

[Javaman]

278. I, on the other hand, choose to wait and see

before spouting hyperbole.

[durablend]

283. Yeah, best to wait until it happens

Then say "Oh well, what's done is done...time to shut up and move on"

Got it.

[Javaman]

284. LOL

Nice try, but your hyperbole still isn't working.