I've kinda had it with all of the BS

[MannyGoldstein]

From where I'm sitting right now, other than a few bright beacons such as Senators Warren and Sanders, the upper echelon of power in the US seems to be a collection of megalomaniacs, thugs, loons, knaves and grifters, unified only in the belief that the 99% should be served for dinner.

How the #%^* did we let this happen? And make no mistake, *we* did let this happen. We did this to ourselves. Yes we did. We are fools. Schmucks. Yes, me too.

Time to get up off our duffs and do something before the poo rises higher than our nostrils. Suggestions appreciated.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Oh Fuck Rec Manny.

OFRM.

[hfojvt]

123. I'm still tired of all the 99% b.s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023937994

Yeah, life is rough for that 90-99th percentile.

The top 1% gets 22% of the pie, the top 9% gets 26%.

Oh, and they have some political power too. It was not a coincidence that they got the lion's share of the Obama tax cuts. It was not an accident that the Making work pay credit, which favored the bottom 40% more than it did the top 5% got scrapped in favor of the payroll tax cut, which reversed that.

It's also not an accident that a majority of the top 10% vote Republican, in spite of their college educations. Apparently they learned in college which side their bread is buttered on.

[gopiscrap]

2. we let it happen by not being vigilant

we let it happen by not rioting and going crazy when we were getting fucked

[zeemike]

13. And we sat quietly while the Tea Party did it.

And we laugh at them and did not respond...so they came off good and got the press coverage and we were left holding the bag.
We were satisfied with getting a democrat elected and thought we had won something...but the Bush policies ground on just like nothing had happened at all.

Manny is right, WE are responsible and as soon as we admit it we can start to recover.
And I have no idea of how to do that...there is so much resistance from our own...as well as the crazy tea baggers.

[Shemp Howard]

20. The Tea Party is not the problem. Not really.

One reason this country is in trouble is that those Democrats in power are not being held accountable. They know that they really don't have to do much, or take many chances.

Failure caused by their inaction is explained away by blaming the Tea Party. Or Bush. Or Rush Limbaugh. And we just accept that.

Here's the bottom line. The Democrats control two of the three branches of government. So they deserve 2/3 of the blame.

Solution Step 1 is to hold the currently elected Democrats accountable. We need results, not excuses. We need to tell them they simply have to try harder, and perhaps take a few chances.

Solution Step 2 is to elect progressives who will not blame the Tea Party, but fight the Tea Party.

[zeemike]

23. Oh I don't blame the Tea Party

I blame us for not responding to them....if they had a rally we should have had one too and had twice as many or more right there to counter them...but we just laughed them off and the press covered them and not us.
We held ours at a different time and place and did nothing the press was interested in...so we let them have the stage all to themselves...and they created the illusion of a grass root movement.

What if when the tea baggers where having their protest against government socialized medicine we had a rally right across the street from them with twice the people demanding Medicare for all?...could the press have ignored us?...would we have provided another POV for the American people to see?...I think yes.

[quakerboy]

237. Could they have ignored us? Yes. They did

We did have counter rallies. Some of which outnumbered the TP rallies. They did get ignored. Or portrayed as part of the rally to make failed, unattended TP rallies seem bulkier. the press went out of its way to use the right camera angles to make TP groups look far larger than they were. On the flip, when we were out there, we got completely ignored unless there was a way to make the story about a negative, to diminish the left.

[bvar22]

287. Yes they did (ignore us)!

Some help from Party Leadership would have made it impossible for the Media to ignore us,
but the party leadership abandonned the field to the Republicans during Tea Bagger Summer.

Can you imagine if President Obama had called on his Army for Change to march for Health Care during Tea Bagger Summer?
THAT would have changed the narrative.

[font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[quakerboy]

310. We will never know

Part of me thinks they would have minimized and ignored it to a very high degree anyway.

But we will never know. That's not how our president operates. He only mobilizes people for elections.

[dotymed]

105. ELECT PROVEN PROGRESSIVES

I don't care about their "party", that has not worked well for us.
We elected a "pretend (or perceived) progressive and that didn't work well for us either.
We need battle-tested Progressives and maybe we can fix America without violence.
If that does not work, we Have to take to the streets, hopefully non-violently, we know that "they" Will be violent.

[DhhD]

119. Winds of War-Winds of a Third Party-Progressive Party

[fadedrose]

222. No such thing. They lie

As soon as they see another handful of money, they change.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

106. Hit the nail precisely on the head.

Welcome to DU!

[blue14u]

212. Welcome to DU Shemp Howard!!!

[MADem]

80. The Bush policies ground on...? Really?

You really think we would have had an ACA under Bush? Repeal of DADT? That we'd be out of Iraq and on our way out of Afghanistan?

I hate hyperbole, especially when it's not accurate.

Imagine what POTUS might have done had we given him a DEM House to go with that just barely DEM Senate he's got.

[sendero]

86. You are easily satisfied..

.. and look where that has gotten us. Just look. Stop sugar coating everything and LOOK AT WHERE THE COUNTRY IS RIGHT NOW.

DADT doesn't feed people. We'd have been out of Iraq regardless because there is nothing else we can do there. The ACA is less of an achievement in terms of transfer of wealth than Medicare part D. Our president is presiding over the worst surveillance state in the history of mankind. We still have GITMO. We still have a DEMOCRATIC party talking about cutting SS and/or Medicare. We have a president so NOT in control of things that a handful of losers almost put us in default. At LEAST he didn't cave for once so there is that.

I would love to see a Dem house and maybe we'll get one someday. But if you were remotely honest with yourself or clued in, you would realize that it probably wouldn't have made much difference, because half-measures like the ACA and grand bargain are WHAT OBAMA ACTUALLY WANTS.

You are the one dishing hyperbole.

[MADem]

202. And you are NEVER satisfied....and all your griping does is help the opposition.

The end of DADT and the ability of gay people to serve openly does feed people--it feeds their souls. For you to dismiss that, like it's NOTHING, when it's taken over 20 years to make it happen, tells me that you're not terribly progressive when and where it counts. You say I'm not "clued in?" Look in your damned mirror. That was a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not "just a thing." Good grief. Show us your true colors, why don't you (they're obviously not rainbow-tinted).

Equality matters. It's a big deal, even if you think otherwise.

We would not have been out of Iraq--the GOP players would have continued ripping off the US taxpayers and dividing up the spoils with their Iraqi co-conspirators with all the enthusiasm of Hugo Chavez and his boligarchs. The SOFA would have remained in place, a hundred and fifty thousand troops, plus contractors and hangers-on, would still be at the trough, because Bushco would have bribed the right people to make it so. They changed out the thieves for honest politicians, that's why the Iraqis stopped cooperating--the gravy train ground to a halt.

Good grief, some truths are just self-evident.

Why do we still have GITMO? Gee, why? Do your homework before you do the standard "Waaaaaaaaah.....it's OBAMA's fault!!!" Because it's NOT his fault--he wanted to close the place (ooops, there's an inconvenient truth for ya).

CONGRESS--the HOUSE, specifically, where all appropriations start (Ways and Means, hello????) made sure of that. But hey....It's Obama's Fault!!! Yeah that's the ticket--King Obama HATES you and that's why he decreed that Gitmo stay open!

I'm from MA, so don't even try to lecture me on how the ACA is a failure. It will take time, but it will change lives. I've seen it happen in my state, and the sky didn't fall, people didn't go broke, life went on...only people are healthier and less scared about a catastrophic illness ruining their lives.

If you want a DEM House, get off DU and go volunteer for a campaign. It's too damn late this time around, though--so you're safe; no need to put your time, your effort or your money where your mouth is. You can sit behind your keyboard and tell everyone how awful it is and how you know better, and how the people actually doing the work are wrong/bad/evil/stupid and only you know the Way and the Light. You can gripe, gripe, gripe and offer ZERO solutions.

You want change? Try helping instead of griping--for a "change."

[sendero]

209. The standard apologia..

..... congress won't let me do anything, wahhhhhhhhh.

I won't argue that this has not been an obstructionist congress, I WILL argue that Obama rolls over without even trying most of the time.

ACA - it is better than nothing but then again, Obama seemed to have little to do with it and the entire Democratic party is guilty of not selling it's advantages to the public. And it is too complicated and that is why getting something as generally mundane as getting a web site working for it has become an achilles heel nightmare. Should the president have to worry about nonsense like get a web site working? No, but he better because in the war of words the ACA is not faring well and this has become a main distraction.

Many many presidents have gotten real things done with less congressional support than Obama has, I'm tired of hearing about it. And his playing footsie with and trying to appease the Republicans for 5 effing years didn't help either. I think this last debt ceiling fight has maybe opened his eyes as to what playing nice will get him, but everyone else figured it out 4 years ago.

Call it griping all you want I CALL IT HOLDING HIS FEET TO THE FIRE. We are never going to agree so you can have the last word. I do not dislike Obama at all but as a president he has been about the biggest disappointment I have could have possibly imagined.

[MADem]

218. The standard "do nothing" gripe.

Obama coulda done more....waaah....never mind that all appropriations begin in the House and a bunch of racists are holding the House hostage....pay no attention to blunt reality! Pretend Obama is the King!!!

You aren't holding anyone's feet anywhere. You're holding court, pontificating.

You want change--get out there and do some actual work for it. Trying to demotivate Democrats who want to elect MORE Democrats and FEWER Republicans to public office is not a good look for you here.

And I challenge you to name those Presidents who "got more done with less Congressional support"....assuming they got anything done that was worth doing. That was a toss-off line by you. If the Congress isn't willing to play ball--as the racist, right wingnuts in the House (the ones who control the SPENDING, doncha know, who have control of our nation's purse strings) have avowed--it's a tough row for a President to hoe. You can't do shit without appropriations.

[Isoldeblue]

230. +1000%!

You knocked it out of the park, MADem and said it far better than I ever could!

Good for you!!

[druidity33]

241. the only reason we are "out of Iraq"...

is that the Iraqi gov't would no longer allow US Military personnel to act with impunity. We couldn't legally kill people arbitrarily... so we left, basically.

[MADem]

244. No. Your cart is before your horse.

The only reason the SOFA was repealed is because no one in the US government agreed to bribe the leadership anymore. They had to deal with US government officials who played by the rules, not corrupt shitheads who would look the other way while the Iraqis skimmed off the top of the aid provided.

[zeemike]

93. Yes really

We are still torturing people in Gitmo, after Obama ran on closing it...we are still in Afghanistan and droning people from the air...still spending nearly a trillion dollars on war. still letting Wall Street call the shots, appointing right wingers to high places...Massive spying on ever person in the world...but just the things the 1% care about.

The affordable care act mandates you buy insurance from the insurance industry...now what is not to love about that?...and they don't give a rats ass about gay marrage...there is no money in it.
I am sorry, but we got shit except for things the 1% had no interest in...but you can tell us it would be so much worse if Bad Cop became POTUS...that makes it more acceptable.

[Peacetrain]

129. Okay stuff like this is what drives me crazy

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/01/obamas-torture.html

If you had said the President ran on closing and it was not closed yet.. I would have given your post some credence.. but this kind of lie takes on a life of its own..and then all things stop instead of continuing progress like getting that sewer permanently closed.. (and you might want to take that up with congress.. who keeps blocking that closure)

Executive order passed 2009

Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

[zeemike]

143. "But leaves some wiggle room"

The EO revoked Bush's 2007 EO 13440 (tightening restrictions on interrogation techniques, but leaving some wiggle room) and "[a]ll executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the [CIA] from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals . . . ." It also effectively revokes Office of Legal Counsel opinions authorizing abusive interrogation techniques: It prohibits the Attorney General from relying upon "any interpretation" "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009," in interpreting any interrogation law--"including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document . . . ."

But the argument that congress would not let him do it is a phony one...he is commander in chief and this is a military operation and not subject to any control by the congress...he got around it by insisting that a new facility be built in the US to detain them and of course congress had to fund it which he knew they would refuse to do.
Meanwhile Gitmo is still there, and men, human beings just like us are still held with no charges against them and being forced fed when they just want to die in order to relieve themselves of their suffering...and there is no end in site for it.
It is shameful and outrageous and against all or moral principles and we have to stop making excuses for it....we have lost our soul.

[Peacetrain]

181. This is what you "specifically said"

Your post:

We are still torturing people in Gitmo, after Obama ran on closing it...we are still in Afghanistan and droning people from the air...still spending nearly a trillion dollars on war. still letting Wall Street call the shots, appointing right wingers to high places...Massive spying on ever person in the world...but just the things the 1% care about.

I am serious here.. you got proof of that.. anywhere.. put it up..

[Maedhros]

190. Force feeding in Guantanamo.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/18/force-feeding-gitmo-detainees/3009163/

[MADem]

204. Yeah....let 'em STARVE!!!!! That's MUCH better....

Keeping someone fed and hydrated is now "torture."

Ohhhhhh ..... kay.....

[Maedhros]

240. He asked for an example, I provided it.

Here's more:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/01/1946641/un-gitmo-torture/

Given that many of the force-fed prisoners are still being held after having been cleared for release, you're petulant indignation would be better directed against the people who are preventing those prisoners from being set free.

[MADem]

245. That is NOT torture, to prevent a person from starving to death. So you will have to try again. nt

[Maedhros]

250. Don't take my word for it.

According to AFP, the United Nations’ main human rights office has taken notice:

“If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment — and it’s the case, it’s painful — then it is prohibited by international law,” Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, told AFP.

A bipartisan task force on detainees assembled by the Constitution Project earlier this month condemned force-feeding and one member also suggested that it could be torture. “The World Medical Association and international officials have clearly identified that process as cruel, in human and degrading treatment,” said Dr. Gerald Thomson. “And given the level of brutality could extend to torture.”

(from: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/01/1946641/un-gitmo-torture/)

[MADem]

252. "Could be." "Could extend." You will have to do better than that.

When someone is starving to death, it's not torture to give them water and food--even if they don't want it.

So, if you think it's more "humane" to let people kill themselves by starving to death, you knock yourself out.

You're just wrong.

[Maedhros]

253. I presented a medical professional's opinion as reasonable justification for my point.

Your opinion of the validity of my point is noted.

[MADem]

254. It was an "opinion" full of "coulds." Distance diagnosis by a "medical professional."

It's Fristian, that kind of thing. At least this "medical professional" had the decency to use the conditional tense.

If it's not "OK" when Frist did it, this deserves the same level of gravitas as his "distance diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo.

[Maedhros]

257. The effects of forced feeding are fully understood.

Frist's attempt at a diagnosis of Terri Schiavo is irrelevant to an analysis of the opinions of the World Medical Association and the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights. Frist was operating with an absence of information. There have been many instances of forced feeding that have been observed and analyzed, thus ample data for forming a professional opinion.

Why are you ignoring the real issue - that of the Guantanamo detainees that have been cleared for release, but whom the Administration refuses to authorize a release?

[MADem]

264. So are the effects of starvation.

Please, give it a rest.

If you want those people released, talk to Congress. They're the ones holding up the closure of Gitmo.

[Maedhros]

267. Why not just release the inmates that have been cleared for release?

Why do you avoid the real issue? You'd rather justify cruelty than question the Administration?

[MADem]

269. Because Congress ain't letting that happen.

No one's "avoiding the real issue" except you.

Congress is standing in the way--not POTUS. But go on and continue to absolve them while you excoriate him.

I never thought I'd see such a full throated defense of the GOP House here on DU.

[Maedhros]

289. Can you explain how Congress can prevent a military prison from releasing innocent people

at the order of the Commander in Chief?

[MADem]

291. They can refuse to fund it, which they've done.

They need to be transported to their home countries, there needs to be an investigation/assertion that they won't be tortured or killed if there is a transfer, and any who have unresolved legal issues in their home nations--or the third party nations that accept them (and that's another thing that has to be worked out) have to be vetted by the receiving nation.

All that costs money. All the money for that is in the purse of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House. Congress -- and remember, all appropriations start in the HOUSE -- has to tell the Chairman of Ways and Means to loosen those purse strings.

That ain't happening.

[Maedhros]

293. But the commander in chief can launch air strikes against Libya

when Congress explicitly denied its approval.

Presumably that took money as well?

I find that to be an excuse, not a reason. If this Administration had the political courage to do the right thing, it would.

"We know you are innocent, but there just aren't any funds available to set you free" is a farcical statement that reads like a sound bite from the movie "Brazil."

[MADem]

297. Yes. He can. What's your point? Except perhaps, to compare an apple with a screwdriver? nt

[7962]

255. Fine. They dont want to eat, let 'em starve. Their choice. NOT Obma's fault.

I'm sick of hearing all this "hunger strike" BS anyway. Let a few of them kill themselves and the rest will start eating again.
SOrry if I sound cold hearted, but I'm also tired of the "He lied! He ran on closing GITMO!" crap.

[Maedhros]

258. Many (most?) of those on hunger strike have been cleared for release

yet remain incarcerated. No charges have been filed against them. Yet you are happy to have "a few of them kill themselves."

Maybe you should reexamine you're position.

[MADem]

272. Wow, a real word-twister, you are!

No one's happy--you're the one calling feeding people rather than letting them starve to death "torture." You're offering a false choice that isn't a choice at all...torture them by letting them starve, or torture them by feeding them.

Maybe you should examine YOUR--not you're--position. because your (not you're) arguments are just lousy.

And talk to Congress about closing Gitmo, why don't you?

[Maedhros]

277. I'm not calling anyone anything.

I had quoted Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, and Dr. Gerald Thomson of the World Medical Association in response to the request for evidence ("I am serious here.. you got proof of that.. anywhere.. put it up..&quot by Peacetrain.

You respond by attacking me. Go figure.

[MADem]

278. Yeah, right...."Yet you are happy to have "a few of them kill themselves."

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 05:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Talk about characterizing a DUer as being a heartless ass, with no evidence that the poster is "happy" or anything of that nature.

You don't have to "call names." You're attacking 7962's character. Real nice.

And I'm not "attacking" you--I'm pointing out your behavior.

Go figure, indeed.

[Maedhros]

288. And I'm pointing out 7962's behavior.

The words used included "let 'em starve" and "Let a few of them kill themselves and the rest will start eating again."

That's incredibly flip and callous, given that the people to whom he is referring are protesting their ongoing incarceration when all charges have been dropped.

I don't know anything about 7962's character, but those statements are repugnant.

[MADem]

290. I took his/her behavior as saying, to you, you've presented a Hobson's choice. I'll pick one,

and how do you like THEM apples? It was absolute sarcasm, out of frustration with your obtuse approach, and nothing more.

See, no matter what Obama does, you are NEVER satisfied. Let 'em starve? He's a TORTURER!!! Force feed them to save their lives? He's a TORTURER!!! Get boxed in by Congress?

It's OBAMA's Fault!!!!

[Maedhros]

294. These people are being held without charges, and have been cleared for release,

yet they are still incarcerated. Every legal means at their disposal to redress their situation has been shut down. They are on a hunger strike as a desperate last attempt to earn the freedom that they are due. There is no Hobson's choice - the Administration has cleared them for release; they should be released. That's not obtuse, it's a simple statement of fact.

I don't particularly care what excuse is being trotted out for continuing their incarceration. The "congress won't fund it" excuse might apply to an attempt to relocate the prison, but that fight was lost long ago. The current issue relates to simply releasing innocent prisoners, and the expense for doing so could be paid for out of the Pentagon's petty cash.

[MADem]

296. Take that up with the Republicans in the House of Representatives. THEY can fix that with one vote.

Stop blaming Obama for what Congress has failed to do.

[Maedhros]

298. Guantanamo Bay is a military base on foreign soil.

The commander of the base reports up the chain of command, ultimately to the President. The President could order the commander to release the prisoners. Congress plays no part in that decision.

Funding is not an issue. The President can redeploy the 7th Fleet to anywhere in the world without seeking Congressional approval to pay for the associated costs. Likewise, the President could order the prisoners released without seeking Congressional approval to pay for the associated costs.

You are referring to Congressional refusal to allocate funds for the relocation of the Guantanamo Bay prison to Illinois, which is a separate issue.

[MADem]

300. It's not "foreign soil" like Ramstein or Mildenhall are.

It's a slice of leased US territory.

It's in a black hole, legally speaking.

And the base commander can't just "release the prisoners." What, will they wander down to the food court at the base exchange? Have a slice of pizza, maybe take in a movie at the base theater?

The 7th Fleet is in the Pacific. The flagship is in Japan. Apparently you don't understand where the regional commanders are anymore than you understand that fuel for ships and aircraft is a very carefully allocated commodity--and when you run out, you have to go ask CONGRESS for more or take it from training/deployment budgets.

Who's going to pay to vet the nations where these folks are dumped? Who's going to pay to get them home or to third party nations where they will be accepted? How can the President "certify" that they'll never work for AQ or any terrorist organization ever again--a requirement for their release?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop before you embarrass yourself further.

But hey, It's Obama's Fault!!!!!

[Maedhros]

302. This is a human rights issue.

I care about human rights so no, I won't just shrug my shoulders and say "meh - what can you do?"

You are still conflating Congress' refusal to allocate funds for the relocation of the Guantanamo Bay prison to Illinois with the expenditures related to freeing innocent detainees. Obama could easily make that case that, by law, innocent detainees must be freed and he could use existing Pentagon funds to pay for it. He could, for example, reallocate funds assigned to another item on the budget to pay for releasing the prisoners. How about we not drone Yemen for one month? The money saved on unused Hellfire missiles would pay the costs of release ten times over.

[MADem]

304. Then call Congress...right effin' now!

It doesn't matter if it's a human rights issue, a legal issue, or a funding issue--it's an issue for Congress to resolve.

[Maedhros]

309. I'll just agree to disagree with you. [n/t]

[MADem]

315. Well, maybe one day you'll realize that blaming Obama is just wrong.

Here's some light reading for you--the latest as of yesterday:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57610790/obama-recommits-to-closing-guantanamo-bay/


Give him some help--call your congressman.

[Maedhros]

318. Obama appears to be taking action. Good.

If he follows through on his promise, then he should be commended. If he fails to do so, he should be criticized.

[MADem]

319. Clearly, based upon your response, you didn't read THAT link either.

He will go so far and no further, without Congressional support.

Here, let me cut and paste the part you plainly missed:

Obama vowed to close the prison but has been thwarted by Congress. He announced in May he would appoint envoys and ordered the Pentagon to designate a site in the U.S. where detainee trials could be held.

"The Guantanamo facility continues to drain our resources and harm our standing in the world," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

The White House says the administration will keep transferring detainees who are cleared to go to other countries. Obama wants Congress to remove restrictions on transfers.

When will we hear criticism for Congress for blocking his efforts from you? Ever? Or never? And when will you stop blaming Obama for something that Congress has deliberately obstructed? Ever? Or never?

[Maedhros]

320. There is another side to your story...

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/29/dispatches-guantanamo-two-down-164-more-detainees-go

Indefinite detention without charge or trial – at Guantanamo or anywhere – violates international law. It’s also bad policy: Guantanamo acts as a recruiting tool for would-be terrorists, so ongoing indefinite detention does not further US national security interests. There are still 164 men detained at Guantanamo, half of whom have been cleared for release for years. The Obama administration claims that Congress has tied its hands on transfers from the facility through various restrictions. Yet, as we have explained, these claims are overstated: the restrictions place obstacles in the way of transferring detainees from Guantanamo, but transfers are still possible.

The administration should not use the congressional restrictions to justify inaction. The transfers to Algeria show that the administration can transfer detainees out of Guantanamo even with the restrictions in place. Congress is considering overdue changes to the law that would lift the restrictions. But in the meantime let’s hope these transfers are an indication that even without changes in law, the Obama administration has finally shown a willingness to do the extra work necessary to make the transfers happen, and begin to fulfill the promise the president made on his second day in office– to close Guantanamo once and for all.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/02/how-close-guantanamo

While it's true that Congress has certainly placed obstacles in the way of closing the facility, such as restricting the use of funds to transfer detainees to the United States for trial, there are still a number of steps the Obama administration could have taken -- and can still take now -- to begin closing the facility and ending indefinite detention without trial.

For one, it can begin to transfer the 86 of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo already slated for release to their home or third countries. In 2011 and again in 2012, Congress enacted some restrictions on the transfer of detainees from the facility, but those restrictions are not insurmountable. They require receiving countries to take certain steps to ensure that those being transferred do not engage in terrorist activity and that the secretary of defense certify such steps have taken place. If, however, the secretary of defense cannot, for one reason or another, certify those steps have been taken, he can waive the certification requirement in lieu of "alternative actions" -- a term which has no clear legal or procedural definition. The only guidelines are that they "substantially mitigate" the risk that the detainee being transferred may engage in terrorism. Clearly then, the administration's ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo exists now, even with congressional restrictions. And with Obama again reiterating that keeping Guantanamo open harms U.S. security, the certification -- and even more so the waiver -- process seems to offer a clear path forward to emptying the facility of more than half its prisoners, if not closing it down.

Certainly Congress should own its share of the blame for this travesty of justice, but if Obama were aggressive about releasing these innocent prisoners he could get the job done.

[MADem]

321. HRW isn't sitting in Congress. It's fine for them to mouth off with shoulda-woulda-coulda, but they

aren't members of the US government. I don't remember ever voting for a member of HRW to sit in Congress, and I know you haven't either--nor has anyone.

It costs money--not "Pentagon" money, either--to certify that a detainee won't join AQ and come back and kill US citizens, first, and it also costs money--and again, not "Pentagon" money, either, to certify that the nation--either primary or third party--to which the detainee is released will not torture or abuse that individual. Those certifications are mandated before anyone goes anywhere. That money to do those certifications comes from House Appropriations, the purse strings of which are held by the Republican Ways and Means chair.

But hey, keep singing your weak "It's Obama's Fault!!!" refrain, even though he has been on the record, consistently, as wanting that damn prison facility closed.

[Maedhros]

323. They have the same right to "mouth off" that you have.

HRW has, frankly, much more credibility on this issue than you do.

[MADem]

329. Funny--on some segments of this board I have been told they carry water for right wingers.

Particularly vis a vis their reports about Iran and South America.

I don't agree with that, but I've been told that. Here, on DU. So any suggestion that HRW is "universally" regarded as even handed isn't accurate.

I don't have a vote in Congress either--so all the mouthing off I do is of no use unless and until MY rep (along with a majority of House legislators) votes to help POTUS close Gitmo. Something he's been trying to do for a long time now....but you continue to "blame" him while you let Congress off the hook. Funny, that.

I'm not too thrilled with your credibility either.

[Maedhros]

330. Let's just stop.

I know where you stand, you know where I stand.

No need to continue this.

[zeemike]

191. Well what would you call forcing a tube down someones throat

Twice a day and pumping liquid food into their stomach against their will?...do you think that is pleasant thing to do to someone?...would you like to volunteer to have that done to you so you could tell us it is not torture?

Here is my proof...watch it all and get back to me on it.

[Peacetrain]

215. And what the hell is your solution.. letting them die

so this just goes under the carpet.. once they are dead, we have the stink of GITMO off our shoulders.

[zeemike]

232. Justice is my solution.

And it is not even being considered.
And when you make someone so miserable that they want to die, and then make them even more miserable to force them to live is not only unjust but criminal torture IMO.

[Maedhros]

251. Since many of those protesting their incarceration with a hunger strike

have been cleared for release, the solution is RELEASE THEM.

What an ironic user name.

[Peacetrain]

280. Ironic that you did not read the entire set of posts

The solution is a trial back in the states, and not a never ending incarceration. That goes 180 degrees counter to our Constitution.

And do not let the name of anyone fool you .. I just happen to like the song.

[Maedhros]

286. Agreed. Trials are way overdue. [n/t]

[MannyGoldstein]

154. "nor... humiliating and degrading treatment"

Would you care to elaborate on this with regard to the treatment of Ms. Manning?

And if Manning received such treatment, then what kind of treatment is being meted out to those we use "extraordinary rendition" on?

[Peacetrain]

173. I did not realize he was in GITMO

Would you like to try this again..

Editing to add.. I was addressing specifically GITMO.. and the difficulty in getting that hell hole closed..

[MannyGoldstein]

187. So it's OK to treat Manning in a way we can't treat POWs?

I don't think that's really what you believe.

[Peacetrain]

188. This does not work on me..

What I think about the Manning case has nothing to do with getting GITMO closed.. Trying to restate my posts and what you "think" I believe does not work either..

GITMO is a black spot on our souls. The President put through by executive order the stopping of torture at that place.

Getting it closed and those prisoner brought to the states for trial is the only thing that will even begin to wash away that stain.

The congress has stopped..people ordered to review it gave up.. and we still have people being held in a never ending limbo.. They could be guilty as hell.. but holding people in a permanent non ending detention has got to stop.

[MannyGoldstein]

201. Why did you cite that executive order earlier?

Was it to demonstrate that the Obama administration ended the cruel treatment of prisoners?

[Peacetrain]

214. Because it was germain to the original post to another

and it was about GITMO.. and since this is your original op and you jumped in you know exactly what I am talking about.. Someone post that Obama was torturing prisoners at GITMO..

"We are still torturing people in Gitmo, after Obama ran on closing it"

I will then say the same thing to you I said to him.. if that is true.. show me the proof.. show me the reports.. what I have is the executive order to end torture at GITMO.. you got something else.. put it up..

[MADem]

205. Not true, but whatever. nt

[MADem]

219. People who threaten to kill themselves are prevented from doing that.

If that's "humiliating and degrading" imagine how humiliating and degrading it would be to let a prisoner act out their suicidal ideations? That's some humiliation and degradation that can't be 'walked back,' doncha know.

Notice that when PVT Manning stopped saying that she was going to kill herself, she got all her "stuff" back and didn't have to sleep in the packing blanket outfit anymore.

But hey, way easier to say "They're being mean" than "They're preventing a suicide."

[MannyGoldstein]

227. Manning threatened suicide? You're fabricating that, I think.

The brig psychologist testified that he was not a suicide risk, but that his assessment was overridden essentially so Manning could be tortured.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmRWWqUV6sFOmHz2N6Dl2G7OWOiQ?docId=CNG.9d08aec23a6bd7d4cefe4f8787547a2b.221&hl=en

[MADem]

248. He said he wanted to kill himself, and he made a noose from a bedsheet. I'm not fabricating a

damned thing. But you're using "evidence" from a doctor who let at least one person die in prison, who got it wrong previously, and you are ascribing credence to that fuckup and expressing confidence in his flawed diagnoses because it suits your false narrative.

When a person in prison says they want to kill themselves, it is the duty of the guards and the warden and the staff to prevent that from happening. And it's not "torture" to prevent someone from self-harm. That's appropriate medical care.

Good grief. From your own damn link, we learn that the shrink wasn't "all that" when it came to predicting who would kill themselves, or not, and that the entire chain of command was being very careful to ensure that Manning stayed alive:

Oltman also indicated he had instructions from senior officers to follow the tough approach to avoid any risk of Manning committing suicide.
But Oltman testified earlier that the doctor's view was "only one data point" and that there were other factors to take into account, including weekly reports from prison guards.
"I wasn't going to base a decision on his input alone," Oltman said under questioning by Manning's defense lawyer, David Coombs.
Oltman also said he had concerns about the doctor's credibility as Hoctor allegedly had concluded another detainee did not pose a suicide risk but the man ended up killing himself.

You don't get a "do over" if you fuck up and take a person off suicide watch prematurely. This doctor got it wrong once before--and you're citing him as an authority?

I'd say death is the ultimate "torture." You can't undo that.

And since Manning admits to being suicidal, and even fashioning a NOOSE to do the deed, I'd say those awful "authorities" were right to take extraordinary measures:

Wikileaks informant Bradley Manning admits he tied a sheet into a noose and considered suicide during confinement
Wikileaks informant testified about the treatment he received both in Kuwait holding area and once he returned to Virginia in the U.S.
Told court 'I'm going to die, I'm stuck inside this cage'
Said he was increasingly 'hopeless' and considered suicide


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241138/Wikileaks-informant-Bradley-Manning-admits-tied-sheet-noose-considered-suicide-confinement.html#ixzz2jdbtAKhF

Fabricating....yeah right. The only "fabricating" happening was that Manning "fabricated" a noose out of a bedsheet, and got his stuff taken away.

[MADem]

322. Love the "crickets" after I was falsely accused of "fabrication"....but whatever.

[markpkessinger]

326. And putting someone who may be suicidal in solitary confinement . . .

. . . is just about the most cruel and inhuman thing you could do to them. Long term solitary confinement IS torture. FULL STOP.

[MADem]

328. And putting them in the general population when they are transgender is an invitation to getting

them killed. No one wanted PVT Manning dead.

But the point remains--Manning WAS suicidal and said as much, on more than one occasion. I wasn't fabricating a thing, as I was accused of doing.

[MADem]

203. +1 nt

[duffyduff]

184. Don't forget his move to destroy public education

and his desire to gut SS and Medicare.

The big problem now is the Democratic Party is infiltrated with fakers who are neoliberals.

[MADem]

199. If you're going to fling out stuff like that, let's put the blame where it belongs, shall we?

On YOU...yes, you. Where were you when it came time to keep the House? On DU, griping that Obama wasn't "left" enough?

Who decided to keep Gitmo open? (HINT--the answer is NOT "Obama.&quot

Are you naive enough to think that we could have gotten single payer? I will have what you're smoking if you believe that for an instant. We got the best deal we could get--no, it's not perfect and we have a ways to go, but you don't walk from NYC to Los Angeles in a day. You have to make stops along the road. ACA is a stop on the road, just like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were, on the path to a respectable social safety net for this nation.

I'm sick of "I want it NOW" people who are good--no, GREAT-- at complaining, and not much else, frankly. If you don't like how it is, get out there and work for change instead of carping at the team that's actually trying to do something. Otherwise, all you're doing is helping Chris Christie in his quest to become POTUS.

[zeemike]

206. Well Obama could have closed Gitmo with a simple order.

To the joint chief of staff of the military...saying something like
I want you to close Gitmo right away, and if you have charges against any of them start immediately trying them and if not then fly them back to where you got them and release them...that is an order.
And if they did not follow that order he would do to them what Truman did to McCarther...
It is that simple.
And the congress has no say so in in at all under the constitution.
So if Obama did not make that decision then there is someone higher in rank than him....Who would that be?...Goldman Sacks?

As far as single payer there is one way to insure 100% failure, and that is not to try, and he did not try, so no doubt about it...it failed.
But I would bet that if the plan was to open Medicare to all he would have had the support of the majority of people...and it would have been the easy fix, sense it is already in place ready to go. And we would not have to spend billions on software that did not work and a system that is now in real doubt as to when it will work.

[MADem]

208. Yeah, ruling by decree works SOOOOOO well.

McArthur was a disobedient asshole who challenged the CinC and tried to involve himself in the diplomatic sphere and he deserved to be slapped down.

That said, you do know that Truman couldn't get elected dogcatcher in his last term? He could have run again, he chose to not do so because he saw the handwriting on the wall.

And as for Gitmo, you should really read up on the details because you plainly don't have the full picture--Obama cannot issue "decrees" that trump legislation, he's not above the law--Congress has tied his hands, in essence: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/15/why-obama-cant-close-guantanamo/

Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial - a sort of Guantánamo North. The current defense bill now before Congress not only reinforces these restrictions but moves to mandate military detention for most future al Qaeda cases unless the president signs a waiver. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of likely passage Wednesday, saying the latest language gives the executive enough wiggle room to avoid military custody.

On paper, at least, the Obama administration would be set to release almost half the current captives at Guantánamo. The 2009 Task Force Review concluded that about 80 of the 171 detainees now held at Guantánamo could be let go if their home country was stable enough to help resettle them or if a foreign country could safely give them a new start.
But Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives elsewhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country.
Neither is likely: U.S. District Court judges are not ruling in favor of captives in the dozens of unlawful detention suits winding their way from Cuba to the federal court in Washington. And on the occasions when those judges have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Meanwhile, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's top lawyer, believes that Congress crafted the transfer waivers a year ago in such a way that Panetta (and Robert Gates before him) would be ill-advised to sign them. (In essence, the Secretary of Defense is supposed to guarantee that the detainee would never in the future engage in violence against any American citizen or U.S. interest.)

But hey, "It's Obama's Fault!!!"


You're talking "pipe dream" if you think there could have been any traction behind single payer (or "opening Medicare to all" when half the GOP thinks the people who avail themselves of Medicare/Medicaid are leechers and slackers) --it just wasn't going to happen, and stomping your foot and insisting that he should have tried a path to certain failure is naive.

No matter, though..."It's Obama's Fault!!!"

[zeemike]

235. Well I hate to break it to you but the military runs on it

In the military they are called orders not decrees and the chain of command is clearly set up by our constitution with the CIC as the president...and it has been that way from the beginning.
Congress cannot order the military, nor can they countermand orders.
So just what legislation created Gitmo and mandated that the military run a prison there?...I want to know when the constitution was change to allow that.
The power the congress has over the military is the power of the purse...If the CIC asks for more money to do something then they can say no....and that is exactly why Obama asked for money to create a new Gitmo in the US, so they could say no and he could wash his hands of his promise to close it...there was no need for a new prison...we got lots of them and they are for profit prisons that would love to skim more money from the governent...and his promise was not to move the prison it was to close it, and do the just thing and give them a speedy trial or let them go...someting that is the foundation of our law.

But if half of the GOP does not like it does that mean they win?...what about the rest of us, don't we have a say at all? By far and away, the majority of people support medicare and SS, but you seem to say that only the majority of the GOP counts and if they say no we have to suck it up.
WTF is that, but rule by the minority...is that the reality you are talking about?...and Obama has to go along with it?...and we have to accept it too because we love Obama and must defend him from all critisizem?...that is some fucked up reality.

[MADem]

236. Good grief...there are NO words!!! The military might "run on it," but the USA doesn't.

And perhaps you don't understand the nuance of a "lawful" order...? That is what seems to be your issue, here.

We have brigs all over the world, ya know. Gitmo is "US territory" too. Not sure where you get the idea that it's "illegal" to have military detention facilities on military bases, but ... whatever.

I am retired military, and I'll wager I learned a thing or two during my decades in service about that sort of thing, but, again .... whatever. You're the expert!

Why doesn't King Obama just round up the Congress and imprison them until they do what he says? It's kinda like the sort of thing that Saddam Hussein did, only he took 'em out and shot 'em...

Yeah, that's the American Way!

You want change? Really? Get out and help the Dems shift some of these assholes in the Republican Congress. Stop blaming the POTUS for the sins of the House. That does seem to be the modus operandi here. Anything that isn't optimal, hell, It's Obama's Fault!!!!

That's the ticket....

[zeemike]

238. What is unlawful about an order to close a prison?

did congress pass a law that the military could not close a prison?...or that they could not try or release prisoners?...are we in the era where congress is the real commander in chief?
I never said it was illegal to have detention centers on military basses...I said the congress cannot tell the CIC that he cannot close them by ordering it...they can refuse to fund new ones, which is what they did that gave Obama an excuse not to.

But I guess we will now descend into hyperbole with the "king" thing...and I don't want to waste any finger energy on typing a response to hyperbole.

[MADem]

249. You don't understand the issue, plainly. Not even slightly. And yes, the "king" thing

is the bottom line, and it's not "hyperbole" at all.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/president-obama-sides-with-his-guantanamo-bay-protesters/

In response to Obama’s announcement, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Howard “Buck” McKeon said Obama needed to develop a comprehensive detainee policy before the base could be closed. “The president faces bipartisan opposition to closing Guantanamo Bay’s detention center because he has offered no alternative plan regarding the detainees there, nor a plan for future terrorist captures,” he said. Obama’s plan in 2009, which asked for $80 million to transfer the detainees to U.S. prisons, was rejected by the Senate 90 to 6. Last November the Senate voted 54 to 41 to prohibit the Department of Defense from transferring the detainees.

But the political calculus could begin to shift in the coming months, on the back of an unlikely alignment of voices concerning a most unusual detention facility. The President of the United States is siding with the prisoners starving themselves to protest his government.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136781/carol-rosenberg/why-obama-cant-close-guantanamo

Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North. The current defense bill now before Congress not only reinforces these restrictions but moves to mandate military detention for most future al Qaeda cases unless the president signs a waiver. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of likely passage Wednesday, saying the latest language gives the executive enough wiggle room to avoid military custody.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/

The challenge in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is not actually the detention facility itself. The problem is the 166 detainees, each of whom has to be moved somewhere else. A basic premise of Gitmo, after all, was that these are people would be kept in perpetual limbo. Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country's prison system or freedom.
Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.
The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country's prison system, is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there. Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make. And there have been doubts about foreign governments' ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees. A 2008 Washington Post article portrayed Yemeni officials struggling to convince their U.S. counterparts that they could safely accommodate prisoners from Guantanamo, while U.S. officials worried that they might be released.

[Maedhros]

263. If the President can drops bombs and kill people in Libya

when Congress specifically voted not to authorize it, then what keeps him from closing a prison?

[MADem]

268. We aren't talking about limited authorities. You're trying to compare an apple with

a screwdriver. The issue is appropriations--the President has no money, Congress does. Without money, the President can't buy or rent a facility in USA, he cannot move the prisoners to a stateside prison; he can't establish that the ones transferred to their home countries will not be tortured (a requirement), and he cannot pay to transport them.

I provided you links that explained the box POTUS was in. You ignore them and change the subject. "Waaah, waah, BUT..." deflection does not make the case.

The bottom line is this (to respond to your complete change of subject, which is noted) --no declaration of war, no need for Congress. We haven't declared "war" since WW2. Any time a President has consulted Congress without a declaration of war has been a courtesy, not a requirement. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your approval, you aren't the decider, and bombing Libya, or Syria, is not the same as trying to get an appropriation out of Congress for purposes of closing Gitmo.

Here, another link that you shouldn't ignore: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/how-obama-can-bypass-congress-on-syria-strike/

Let me provide you with the "money quote" to spare you the necessity to click:

The constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. The U.S. operations in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were all conducted without any formal declaration of war.
The decision to bypass Congress on military action started with President Harry Truman in 1950 when he sent U.S. forces into Korea. Truman defended his decision by saying it aligned with the recommendations of the United Nations.
When the U.S. intervened in Libya in 2011, the Obama administration justified its decision to not request congressional approval beforehand by citing the 1973 War Powers Act, which allows the administration to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress.

[reACTIONary]

246. +100 (nt)

[TreasonousBastard]

99. Remember when he had a Dem house for the first two years...

and we were on the right track?

But that doesn't count now when we can blame him for everything that's gone wrong since instead of going after the insane right wing.

[fredamae]

141. The Dems, in all fairness

only had the "super majority" for about 72 days-Not two years. We must remember the GOP now requires a filibuster proof win /a simple majority vote has been usurped by the Minority in the Senate. Remember GOP Sen Scott Brown was elected to fill Sen Kennedy's seat?
Plus, getting GOP Lite Dems to fully support every vote was like trying to herd blind, wet cats through a room full of rocking, rocking chairs.

[gopiscrap]

176. some were DINO's

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

178. And many of them are gone.

Why vote for a Democrat that pretends to be a Republican when you can just vote for the Republican?

Paraphrase of Harry S. Truman

[MADem]

198. Yes, indeed. Obama ran on bringing the country together, but the nutjob-wingnut-racists weren't

gonna let that happen. He gave it an honest shot; they acted like shit heels. Amazing how so many forget this--it wasn't that long ago!

About the only good thing that has happened from all their hate is that they've eaten their own tail. They've destroyed themselves with their hate of POTUS and the Dems...and people who don't eat-breathe-sleep politics 24/7 are starting to SEE this hatred and nastiness...and they don't like it.

[sabrina 1]

104. We gave him a Dem House in 2008.

We were told to forget about holding War Criminals accountable, that it was better for the country to move on. Same thing with Wall St. Criminals. As Elizabeth Warren has said, among millions of others, Wall St Criminals belong in jail.

We lost the House in 2010 because Independents and young people were disillusioned and then the WRONG message was taken from that as some people falsely blamed Progressives when the facts are, if Progressives HAD stayed home, we would have lost the Senate and all the Progressives who won in the house.

Then we were told that it was necessary to Compromise with lunatics in 'order to get things done'. That we needed to put Republicans back in positions of power, I'm not sure what the excuse for that is, other than to confirm the Right Wing Lie that Dems can't protect this country.

So winning doesn't seem to mean winning. That is what a majority of people are thinking and saying. We won, everything, in 2008 and were told to 'give it time', 'we've only be there a month, two months, a year etc etc.

Why is it that the Republicans even in the minority, get so much of what they want?

A serious question that many have begun to answer for themselves.

[BrotherIvan]

160. ^^This!^^

Especially with the obvious healthcare bungle coupled with comparative silence, it's almost as if they wanted to lose. Now why would that be?

[MADem]

193. He ran on "There are more things that unite us than divide us."

You wanted him to go slash-n-burn before he even tried for comity?

[sabrina 1]

259. Yes, knowing Republicans for what they are after eight years of Bush

that is exactly what those who threw them wanted. And we see where all that comity got us. As always, the Left was right. Experimenting to 'see if compromising with uncompromising, slash and burn morons was never an option as has been proven.

Winning means YOU get to decide what is important for a change.

[MADem]

262. Republicans are people who double down, who never change, who never reach out, who never extend

the olive branch, and who always are shitty, mean, awful and intractable.

You're saying we should be like that?

He gave it a shot, in 2009, after he was elected, like he promised us he'd do. He gave it the Old College Try.

But hey....sing it loud....

It's OBAMA's Fault!!!!!!!!

That's the name of the tune, here. I've never seen more people who profess to be progressives shitting on their best hope for change with such enthusiasm than I do here on this board. I have to say, it makes me wonder. No wonder he has a tough time of it--he gets it from all sides.

[sabrina 1]

266. So you think we should cave to bullies? Is that what you are saying?

Why do you think all those people came out in 2008 to throw Republicans OUT? Were they told that 'we will have to play their game even if we win because caving to bullies is the best way to run the country'? Do you SERIOUSLY think that if the people were told THAT, Dems would have won?

What I am saying is that it's way past time that Democrats started acting like the won WHEN they win. If you think there is something wrong with that, then how are going to ask people to vote for Dems so that WHEN they win they can cater to Bullies?

Those days are over. We tried it, it failed, now it's time to move on and do it the right way. When we win, we push our agenda, that is the ONLY reason why people vote.

What is your idea of winning? Republicans ARE uncompromising when they win. Take a lesson from, it's not rocket science, it is how it IS normally. Only Third Wayers seem to believe that when Dems win, they should cater to the losers. What kind of nonsense is that?

Like most Americans, I am not especially interested in politicians on a personal level. I am a Democrat because that is the Party that most represents my political views. I support politicians to do a job, not to become part of my inner circle. If they do the job they promised to the best of their ability, that is all we ask of them. Other than that, I have a family and friends who mean a whole lot more to me than any politician. Like most Americans. Few are going to support anything that directly affects the lives of their loved ones. Such as SS eg. And that is a fact.

[MADem]

271. Here, let me talk like you do...."So, do you think the POTUS should go back on his promise to

reach out? Hmmmmm??"

Why do you think all those people came out in 2008 for Obama? Do you think his saying he'd reach across the aisle and get people to work together had anything to do with it?

It's not about "caving to bullies," it's doing what he said he'd do. He went up to the Hill. He met with them. He had the GOP leadership up to the WH.

He TRIED.

Like he promised he would.

And then, people like you, who love to find fault, who criticize incessantly, didn't show up for him in 2010.

And here we are with a GOP House as a consequence.

But, if you want me to "take a lesson," I'll take a lesson from the disarray that is the RNC's Party of Mean.

It may take longer, but doing what you say you'll do, trying to find points of agreement, and leading an entire nation and not just a fringe five percent of angry, bitter, dividers, is the way to go. Obama takes the long view, and good thing, too--if he listened to you, we'd be putting up with President RMoney and VP Ryan.

[sabrina 1]

276. Do we have to go through this again? PROGRESSIVES showed up in 2010

that is an indisputable FACT and anyone who continues to spread that false meme after it has been debunked over and over again, has ZERO credibility. Anything else they have to say becomes extremely questionable.

Independents and young people, disillusioned by the four years of 'compromises' stayed home. And that will happen again, and this time your dream about 2010 very well may come true if they compromise on the Social Safety nets, and Progressive may join them.

Dems would have lost dozens more seats in the House, (most Progressives WON) and would lost the WH and the Senate if Progressives like ME had stayed home.

There is nothing more to say to anyone who is still trying to spread that false information.

Dems need some new political advisers obviously, they lost the House because of what I said in my previous post. People vote for their best interests and Independents without whom anyone can win, don't care about party loyalty. Those who have been Dems all their lives are getting pretty sick of being treated like the enemy also.

I will support ONLY Progressive Dems from now on.

[MADem]

279. Really? Where's the Democratic House, then?

Clearly, if there aren't the numbers, they might as well stay home, if that's the kind of "showing up" they do. You're saying all young people and independents can't be progressive?

"Four years of compromises?" in 2010? Really? Obama took office in 2009. And no one was running for POTUS in 2010 so I've no idea what you mean when you make this claim:

Dems would have lost dozens more seats in the House, (most Progressives WON) and would lost the WH and the Senate if Progressives like ME had stayed home.

I haven't seen any "proof" that progressives showed up to help in the off year. It was those rank-and-file Dems, those old people I drive to the polls, those "reliable voters" that showed up, not the Yes We Can crowd that got quickly disappointed when they didn't get everything they wanted right effin' now.

I've been a Dem my whole long life, and I don't cut-and-run when I don't get everything I hope for. I GOTV, I bring voters to the polls, that's how I help.

And do you think this will accomplish?

I will support ONLY Progressive Dems from now on.

Take your ball and go home. Be part of the problem! That's the ticket! Since you're unclear which elections included a presidential race, I guess it doesn't really matter what you do.

[sabrina 1]

281. Telling Progressives to stay home now? THIS is what has caused the Dems

to lose the youth and Independent vote. I'll do what I believe to be right for this country with or without your permission.

Do you know anything about politics?

Clearly, if there aren't the numbers, they might as well stay home, if that's the kind of "showing up" they do. You're saying all young people and independents can't be progressive?

There weren't the numbers because INDEPENDENTS stayed home. They cannot win without Independents and the youth vote and Dems better read a little about this generation who are extremely well informed and who are the victims of the bad policies that have cost many of them their future.

You are correct about one thing, Dems can't win with only those who will vote blindly for anyone with at D after their names.

"Four years of compromises?" in 2010? Really? Obama took office in 2009.

Dems won the House in 2006 and continued to vote to fund Bush's wars among other things. If you think people didn't notice, they did. The excuse then? 'We need it all, the WH, the Senate and Congress. As if that explained their individual votes. So, we gave it all to them. And the DLC 'leadership' told us to stfu. Way to get support for your party. And Independents who won't hold their noses, as Progressive Dems did in 2010, stayed home. Too bad the wrong lesson was taken from that or we would HAVE the House right now.

You just keep telling people to 'stay home'. That ought to help Dems win!

[MADem]

292. Excuse me? You're the one with the self-imposed "purity test."

You'll ONLY vote for Progressives! How many of those will you find in Missouri?

Might as well just hand the whole mess to the GOP if you want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Sometimes people have to cut the cloth according to the measure.

[sabrina 1]

312. Sometimes people have to fight for what they believe in and convince

others to face facts. And sometimes that happens, when people are not too lazy to go out and change minds, which I KNOW I have done and it was people like ME who refuse to accept the status quo, for ever and ever, who helped get Dems the big win they had in 2008.

How are things ever to change if you just accept 'this is how it is'?? Thank the gods that there have been those in the world who refused to accept that, and have CHANGED MINDS enough to change the way things WERE.

People are people and most, when faced with facts are willing to accept them.

Grayson has won twice in a district where we were told a 'progressive dem can't win'. He lost when Corporate America spent millions to get rid of him. And if he were like those who prefer to just accept the status quo, that would have been the end of his career. Instead he went back and learned from that loss and won again.

HE is the kind of Dem we need. A fighter, who has the facts and the truth on his side and who won't shut up about it.

So sick of the failed, defeatist attitude that has put Republicans in power because we are told not to fight, just to accept failure.

Hundreds more Graysons in this party is what we need. Enough with the DLCers trying to stop Progressives from winning, every single time. But not any more.

[MADem]

313. I'd rather have a House-ful (and a Senate full) of Democrats, even if some of 'em were imperfect.

I don't know much about Grayson, but if he sponsors legislation, works with his peers to get good laws passed, and does more than just "fight" in the style of Anthony -- I didn't do shit but talked a lot--Weiner, and Dennis--Let Me Run For President As a Side Job and Not Propose Any Legislation--Kucinich, then he's doing his job. People who rail at others like they aren't doing enough--and that was Wiener and Kucinich--are just motor mouths. I don't have time for those kinds of
"fighters."

I prefer Wellstones and Kennedys who will work with their fellows and even their opponents to get laws passed. They aren't there to pontificate; they are there to LEGISLATE.

[bvar22]

150. Do I believe we would have been out of Iraq? Yes. I do.

President Obama precisely followed the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with Iraq
negotiated by the Bush Administration in 2008 which specified that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009,
and all American Forces out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
The Obama Administration requested an extension which was denied by the Iraqi Parliament.

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq&quot was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

[gopiscrap]

179. I do too

[MADem]

194. The Obama Administration didn't know where the bodies were buried like BushCo did.

The entire diplomatic structure of the US changed when BHO became POTUS. The corrupt partners left, the honest ones took their place.

Of course Iraq would double down and do the boot if they couldn't get any "vig" out of the deal.

The SOFA was a canard. Believe that was the issue if you'd like, it was really all about the benjamins.

[bvar22]

229. Did the Obama Administration request an extension of what you call a "canard",

...and did not the Iraqi Parliament cite this "canard" to require the removal of American Troops from Iraq?

Man, THAT is SOME "canard".
I want some more like that!

[MADem]

275. They didn't allow criminals to keep skimming the "vig" off of the aid going to the country.

And by "criminals" let me clarify--politicians with the power to make that shit happen.

Here ya go, you love those alternative news sources--a report from Iran, saying just that, that Bushco was bribing members of the Iraqi parliament to pass the SOFA:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/06/iran-alleges-us-bribing-iraq-mps-on.html

Obama requested the extension--he just would not pay the BRIBES.

The Iraqis said no ticket/no laundry...and home we came!

It helps to keep up with what goes on at the legislative level. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

[bvar22]

303. You FAILED to answer a simple Yes or No question.

Did the Obama Administration request an extension of the SOFA agreement signed by President Bush in 2008 in order to keep American Troops in Iraq longer?

Very simple.
Yes or NO will answer not only THAT question,
but many other questions as well.

The Hallmark of an Honest Broker of Information at DU is the ability to answer a simple Yes or No question.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[MADem]

307. I DID answer it--they were shot down because they didn't pay the bribes.

They wouldn't have gotten shot down if they never asked, now, would they? Come on, use a little basic common sense, a little bit of critical thought process, and stop playing halfasssed, childish "gotcha" games that --speaking of FAIL--"failed" miserably owing to your apparent "failure" to apply very basic, contextual reading skills. If I have to reduce every comment to a 2nd grade reading level, we're wasting our time, here. A little basic familiarity with the issues would not go amiss.

I don't know what planet you come from, but we always operate with a SOFA in place. I've been deployed all over the world, and where we base, we SOFA.

It's not a "surprise" or a shock for State to negotiate one--it's SOP.

I'd say We Know Them By Their Words....and their word games. So just stop playing them.


Here, just in case you're still unclear (or reading rightwing Murdoch-based revisionism on this topic) let's go back to the source, to the transition to the Obama - Biden team....this was their GOAL for Iraq vis a vis a SOFA:

http://change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/

The Status-of-Forces Agreement
Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.

If you're still unclear as to what BHO's plans were for Iraq, that link should clear it up for you, so you don't need to hector me with "Waaah YES OR NO" whines. Google is YOUR friend, too, ya know.

But for the parliamentarians, there was no more cash, so we had to dash. C'est la vie!

Personally, I'm glad it happened. It was a good result for us that Iraq was intransigent on this issue (absent bribe money). We're outta there. Just as well.

[sabrina 1]

314. The answer of course is 'yes'. If only people would simply deal with

the facts we might get somewhere.

Thank YOU for your adherence to facts, to integrity, to morality in government and for NOT spewing the jaded excuses for why we cannot win EVEN WHEN WE WIN.

It is a breath of fresh air when people simply acknowledge facts without all the avoidance rhetoric as if we were all stupid.

[bvar22]

317. This is more fun than going to the circus and watching the side show contortionists...

...twist themselves into amazing knots. At least they get paid for their performance.

[sabrina 1]

327. Lol, I know. I used to do this because I learned so much from people who posted

on forums like this. Not so much discussion or learning going on anymore. But after a period of sadness and disappointment I now find it extremely interesting to watch what is going on. I wonder why no one is willing to pay Progressives for what they do online?

[gopiscrap]

159. that's part of it

[bvar22]

134. We let it happen by believing that supporting "the lesser of two evils" was sensible and pragmatic.

[lunasun]

140. +100 = so much truth

[840high]

145. I don't believe that anymore.

[Vanje]

168. Me neither.

The lessor evil is not representing the people's will.

[Vanje]

166. I wholly regret that there were'nt general strikes, blockades....

....and every sort of non-violent disruption, on that horrific day when Bush/Cheney stole the election that first time.

My own excuse was that I was stunned into paralysis. And I trusted the system and the good citizenry of our nation to make it right.

Once my disbelief turned to realization of what happened, it was too late.

I have regrets. Personal regrets.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

175. Against which side?

Third way triangulation was/still is a big fucking joke.


If you outright call anybody under that banner a fucker then you will easily be tarred as a troll by the personality cultists.

[SchmerzImArsch]

200. We let it happen by choosing the lesser of two

We let it happen by letting the mediocre be the enemy of the good.

We let it happen by starting with compromise and the compromising from there.

We let it happen by choosing not to act because of some future what if. Like don't kill the filibuster because some day we might want to filibuster.

[Harmony Blue]

3. My theory as to why our politicians are not as progressive like other

countries is because a portion of the U.S. population still clings to puritan/religious beliefs. Europe went through the phase where politics and religion were intertwined but that is no longer the case for most of Europe. Until science is valued once more and religion is disassociated from politics we can't make progress with green energy, universal health care, etc.

The economic conservatives will always be there, but that voting bloc is only supported by the religious bloc giving them the necessary human power to propel their goals.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Only 15% of our country believes in evolution

How crazy is that?

[Harmony Blue]

6. Yup and most don't understand that evolution

is not about the origin of life. But how life changes and adapts, if isolated over a long period of time.

This is the problem we have to overcome. Education is the big one as well as building and cultivating critical thinking skills. The more progressive countries of the world understand how critical education is.

[cui bono]

7. Really? I had no idea it was anywhere near that low.

Living in Los Angeles and working with educated people keeps me shielded save for the Jehovah's Witnesses who will not stop coming by on weekends.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. You're troubled with Jehovah's Witnesses? Try to sell them something. Life insurance perhaps.

They'll take off and tell their friends to avoid your house.

(Whatever you try to sell them, you've got to keep a straight face.)

[53tammy]

90. Or better yet

talk politics.
Nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses but if someone is at your home you have a choice in the conversation. When you are told something silly like politics are the work of the devil ask why they would surrender the future of this beautiful earth or the future of their grandchildren to the DEVIL. Gently reach out and touch them as if they were a good friend and you are trying to console them. Now your new friend is wanting to get away but you have to keep it going as long as you can possibly can.
It will be a good 3 years before another will ever knock on your door.

[Vanje]

171. Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote.

So, I can't blame them for the sad outcomes of our elections.
They also have a pretty good conservation ethic. They believe that the Kingdom to come will be on our old Earth, so they don't want our planet and it's various flora and fauna to be wrecked.
Though , what good is a great conservation ethic, when they will not involve themselves in the political processes that would forward these beneficial desires?

[lunasun]

136. How crazy is this too?? we are at an intellectual low

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023959290


How we are governing as a country reflects the idiocracy plague that is on us
oh and the threat of bully police action, violence, prison or even death if thou doth protest too much doesn't encourage most folks

[TreasonousBastard]

100. Pretty close. When textbooks are wrtitten...

to not offend the religious wingnuts in Texas, we get the dumbing down of the whole country.

[Moostache]

125. Its a lot harder to peddle bullshit to educated people...

The state of education in the USA has been declining for decades, and I do not think for one second that its the teachers' fault.

Our society in general is to blame. I recently was re-reading Carl Sagan's "Demon-haunted World" (which is a phenomenal read if you've never read it - Sagan at his popularizing science best!) and in that book he makes reference to some of the television programming that was promoting science at the time he was writing (1995). One of the channels he references is "The Learning Channel". Most people today stare at you with a dull, blank expression when you mention "The Learning Channel" because its no longer known for topical scientific programming, its now known as "TLC" and the horse manure they broadcast is the most disgusting kind of human exploitation and car-crash gazing imaginable.

"The Learning Channel" becoming "TLC" is just another microcosm of America's descent into madness.

We value athletes, entertainers, and bankers more than biologists, chemists and engineers. Is it any wonder that the result is a belligerent, over-weight, ill-informed and easily-distracted waste of potential?

[hay rick]

5. We will vote for Hillary...

because she is running against Ted Cruz. See how it works?

[rhett o rick]

9. Yes, you have figured it out. The Powers To Be have it worked out so you get

a choice between a conservative and a wack-job. Progressives are left out of the process.

But some among us are still living in denial and just happy to get to vote. Thinking, "we are free as long as we can vote." The idiots dont realize that a lot of tyrannically run countries let citizens vote.

Vote Ms. Clinton for 8 more years of middle class destruction.

[Enthusiast]

84. I agree.

It's an old game and it still works every time.

[whatchamacallit]

197. True

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

And this board will go into overdrive supporting whatever corporate-owned, warmongering, heir presumptive democrat gets coughed up.

[SunSeeker]

19. That is certainly what Manny's "bright beacon" is going to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023950130

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Some guy said some guy said he saw a secret document...

...that encouraged Hillary to take a stab at it...

Sounds like it's a wrap.

[Nay]

97. Yeah. They play us like a freakin' violin. I've been disgusted for about 20 yrs. nt

[Beacool]

273. Since you are such a big fan of Warren, haven't you read her NYT interview?

She has already said that she has not interest in running for president. She's barely on her first elected job. Not every politician dreams of becoming president. It's a huge, thankless job. I like her, but think that the Senate is a great perch for her. She could be like Ted Kennedy, the liberal conscience of the Senate.

"In the interview, Ms. Warren, 64, said twice that she had no interest in running for president, a point her aides amplify privately. But she said she would continue to focus on economic fairness, saying it is the signal issue of the day."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/politics/warren-is-now-the-hot-ticket-on-the-far-left.html?_r=0

[MannyGoldstein]

274. Some other senator - Obama was his name, IIRC - said he wasn't interested in running for President

Then he was. Happens all the time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. And some, when Hillary is running will vote for Al Franken.

(He must be a "liberal" because he smiles when he talks to people and he's an excellent speaker.)

[polichick]

96. We can choose someone else in the primaries -"draft" someone...

like Bold Progressives drafted Warren for the Senate.

We don't aways have to buy the corporate con.

[bvar22]

157. That isn't near as easy as you make it sound.

The Big Money "Business Friendly" Establishment Dems control the Primaries too.

The Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

*Blanche had NO chance of winning the General in Arkansas

Guess what happened.
Our BIGGEST enemy to bring "change" to The Senate was NOT The "Obstructionist" Republicans.
NO!
Our BIGGEST enemy to bringing "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

The smiling Oval Office Endorsement of Blanche Lincoln played 24/7 in Arkansas the week before the Democratic Primary, and it was like a knife in the guts overtime I had to watch it.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they threw their support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the answer was ridicule and insults to Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

After the Arkansas Democratic Primary, many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to give this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican
than to let an actual Pro-LABOR Democrat have a chance to win it.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR from the White House after the Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

Of course, as predicted by EVERYBODY, Lincoln lost badly in the General Election, giving that Senate Seat to The Republicans.
So what did the White House gain by Stomping Down Labor and the Grass Roots?
We don't know. The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults and ridicule.



Union Thugs take an ass whipping from time to time,
[font size=3]but we NEVER forget a Sucker Punch..[/font]

[polichick]

162. Great post! All this is exactly why we can't trust Dem leadership anymore...

This WH has trashed the very people who elected Obama in about a million different ways. We have to be much more careful about who we're getting behind.

Liberals/progressives have to either take the party back or start a new party - and it would be easier to work with a coalition (Bold Progressives, unions, etc.) to take the party back. (Not that it would be easy to do that either.) And imo we have to either draft or get behind candidates at ALL levels early - and get the younger generation with their incredible networking skills involved as much as possible.

[bvar22]

169. I agree with the sentiment,

....but after my involvement in the Arkansas Democratic Primary
I am leaning closer to believing that Taking Back the Democratic Party may be a lost cause. The entrenchment and corruption runs much deeper than I feared.

ALL we are allowed to see is the Kabuki Theater (Red v Blue) scripted to make the rubes believe that they have a chance as the country slides ever further to the Conservative 1% Right no matter WHO is in the Oval Office.

[polichick]

170. That's why I always say one party/two faces...

I'm also not sure it's possible to take back the party, but figure the only way to do it would be to back people like Warren early and use online networking to get around the usual channels of communication.

[questionseverything]

207. we have tried everything but counting our votes,ourselves

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

Results Drastically Changed

The election numbers have radically changed in Monroe County since the May 18th election. At least as reported on the SoS website, and as confirmed by local officials.

It's not all that unusual for the unofficial numbers to move a bit following election day, as absentee and provisional ballots are counted and added in to the totals, and as precinct numbers are double-checked for accuracy in the post-election canvass. It is, however, unusual, for vote totals to get a great deal smaller rather than larger in the days following the election. And that's what seems to have happened in Monroe County --- radically so.

Somehow, more than a thousand votes disappeared entirely, as the election results in the Dem and GOP Senate primaries have almost entirely changed.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

i know i have showed you this several times,i do not understand why you do not mention it when talking about halters lose..i understand it does not prove election theft but it begs the question,when numbers flip all over like this ,how can any1 believe them?

don't we deserve an accurate,transparent count?

[truedelphi]

243. Wishing everyone on DU saw this and read this.

When those who control the very mechanism of who gets to run for office on the Democratic ticket are to the right of the Republican crowd from the 1970'ss, we're in big trouble.

[Celefin]

305. Please make an OP out of this. -nt-

[woo me with science]

308. [phone] Thank you.

[jsr]

133. Bingo!

[Blue_In_AK]

217. In 2010 good Alaskan democrats voted for Lisa Murkowski

because she wasn't Joe Miller. I'm sure there are more comparable instances around the country. It's sickening.

[sabrina 1]

261. They might be surprised this time. Too many people have figured it out.

I will never support anyone whose judgement was so poor that she supported, and still does, Bush's illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. I want someone who got that most important decision right.

If Hillary is the candidate, I will put all my efforts into Congressional races, money, time, whatever it takes to get Progressive Dems into Congress. If we succeed in doing that, Congress will take care of the issues.

We waste far too much effort on the multi-billion dollar race for the WH and while everyone is distracted, good Progressive Candidates are being undermined by Big Money.

If we want change, Congress is where we have to look for it, not the WH.

[Capt. Obvious]

301. Thank you Boxer

Off to the knacker's yard with you (once you've voted).

[Electric Monk]

8. Honey Boo BOo? nt

[PETRUS]

10. As nearly as I can tell, Manny -

Civil disobedience, really gumming up the works, and keeping at it in spite of being beaten, jailed, and shot, is pretty much what works. This tends to cause enough concern among the .01 percent to fracture their tacit alliance and soon you'll find the moderately right wing billionaires pealing away from the extremely right wing billionaires and supporting things like Social Security and decent wages. Joe Kennedy said he'd give up half his fortune if it meant he could keep the other half, y'know?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Kennedy said that?

Great quote.

[PETRUS]

16. I was going from memory.

But a quick search turned up this:

"Kennedy observed that he was probably the only man in the country with more than $12 in the bank who was for Roosevelt. He also said he would give up half his wealth in order to be assured his family could enjoy the other half in peace and safety."

from http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/10/joseph-p-kennedy-a-portrait-of-the-founder/

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Awesome.

Like the Roosevelts, a very odd family. Mostly in a good way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Add what the son said

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn101159.html#zhuICMvgKcBIEBKL.99

[JDPriestly]

70. Actually, civil disobedience isn't automaticallly effective.

It makes the person being disobedient feel real proud, but the anti-war movements illustrate how ineffective civil disobedience can be. The integration movement shows how effective it can be.

Civil disobedience has severe limits. That is what I am saying.

It's much better to run good candidates and work to get them elected. The best way to get good people running the country is for good people to be active at the local level in politics. Join your local Democratic Club. Get to know the politicians, your state and local and federal representatives -- your employees -- personally. If your congressman doesn't recognize you in the crowd, you are not active enough.

We can't expect our politicians to support us unless we talk to them on a personal level and let them know how we are thinking and why. And yes, you can do this. But you have to be willing to work for candidates who are good people -- honest and wise.

I often disagree with the Democrats in the federal government on specific policy issues, but I have to balance that by appreciating just how much pressure they are under.

Corruption is one of our biggest problems - -maybe in the end, it is our fundamental problem. If you volunteer and get to know your political leadership as the human beings they are, you have a better chance of letting them know that you expect them to be honest and not corrupt.

Don't vote for a candidate who refuses to meet with constituents.

And make sure that when you meet with candidates and politicians you thank them for their time and are gracious to the good people. I am lucky because my congressman and state representatives are good, ordinary people you can talk to. I bet the Democrats who serve for you are too if you get to know them. Tell them what you think about the issues. Ask them their opinions. It's your right.

Don't be mean with them. Civil disobedience is only for very limited situations -- and doesn't usually win the hearts and minds of the targets.

And violent disobedience gets you where you deserve to be -- in trouble.

[bread_and_roses]

98. That all MIGHT work - if it were not for $$ in politics

as it is, it won't. They are virtually ALL in the pockets of the 1%. No matter how "good" they seem to be. Nor, in reality, do we have time for all that "start with local" (school boards, county supervisors, etc.) to work. The 1% already have an ironclad hold on our system, and elections are practically a sham. Witness what we are likely to end up with in '16. Not to mention the elephant in the living room, that being that we are destroying ecology that has made our lives possible.

And we are long past the time to win "the hearts and minds of the targets" if by "targets" you mean the Reps themselves. They are already bought and paid for.

I do not and never will advocate violence of any sort. But it is long past time for something more effective than our sham elections, and I see no option but civil disobedience.

[chervilant]

113. Oh, really?

Civil disobedience is only for very limited situations -- and doesn't usually win the hearts and minds of the targets.

Tell that to the citizens of India, whose parents and grandparents died during courageous civil disobedience that won India's independence.

(And, I'm one uppity woman who won't buy into your insupportable adjuration.)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. in 1800, only landowners could vote. Women had no rights. Black people were slaves.

The laws seemed to be focused on allowing for rapid destruction of indigenous peoples and profiteering by white males.

So.....what exactly makes you think this is a new thing?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I don't think it's new at all.

It happens every 80 years or so, like clockwork. But I'm still amazed at the staggering stupidity of the prey - you'd think we'd have learned by now.

[lunasun]

142. Yes -waiting til noone remembers what it was like " the last time around "

[bvar22]

225. That is exactly why the History of the LABOR movement...

...has been erased from the school History Books,
and is not mentioned by the Leadership of the "New Democrat" Centrist Party.

However, we DO get to hear how Reagan "transformed" America,
so there is that.

[zeemike]

18. This is not about the past this about the present.

Unless you are saying that we are so much better off now that we should be happy with it.
Women and people of color can vote, and gays can marry, so all is well in America.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. nope. stating the plutocratic leadership of our country has ALWAYS been about the privileged

and sticking it to the little guy since Washington. So what is new?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. There was this FDR guy...

Not always perfect, but he got better with age.

A traitor to his class.

And the 99% flourished for 40 years.

Then triangulation.

What next?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. 'What next?"

You mean besides the revolution of a bunch of hillbillies convinced they're fighting the good fight against commies?

There was a time when those same people voted for Carter.

[MADem]

221. Gee, how much support did that guy get from Congress?

Did they obstruct his every move? Did they refuse to pass a budget every year?

Did they routinely talk about impeachment and making sure he never got a bill passed? A cabinet official nominated? I just don't remember FDR having the same kinds of shit flung at him as Clinton or Obama.

Funny, that.

What's also foolish is pretending that both the comity of sixty or seventy years ago in Congress, to say nothing of the party discipline, where the leadership could actually FORCE a fringe legislator to vote the way they said or be tossed out on their ass, exists today.

The rules in Congress aren't the same, the way the place is run is not the same. It used to be based on seniority; now it's based on who has the biggest mouth and who can capture the news cycle with outrageous posturing.

[MannyGoldstein]

226. How many vetoes do you think FDR had?

Think he and Congress always worked as a team?

[Warpy]

81. No, we're at the nadir of oligarchic rule hiding behind bought off Congressmen

We as a country have been here before. Luckily, we have been allowed peaceful revolutions in the past.

I hope we are allowed one this time because violent revolution rarely works as advertised.

[KoKo]

15. Throwing Howard Dean "under the bus" and trashing the 50 State Strategy with

him did it. And, Rahm Emmanuel and Third Way Dem Policies were the contributing factor, though.

I refuse to take blame for this stuff that's going on.

Where are the Back Bencher Crew for our Democratic Party? There's no one. The Clintons and Obama have sucked up all the air and didn't work to build the Dem Party so that there is a Young and Ready pack waiting to take up the Baton of the Dem Party.

But...the Repugs have a Back Bench...Fired Up...READY TO GO!

How is that? It's our Party Leaders who didn't want to build Grassroots and work to find and promote the Best and Brightest to replace the CHOSEN ONES.

I'm not to blame nor are the others of us who worked our buts off trying to rebuild the Party but after Dean and Kucinich Efforts ...we were blocked out. We work now without help from the Grand Party of Clinton/Obama. We have ACLU/COMMON CAUSE and a scattering of Foundation money trying to fight the Repugs with lawsuits as they dismantle the NEW DEAL LEGACY in all our States.

We fight with what we have......and our Dems didn't give us anything except HILLARY FOR 2016!. What kind of thing is a DYNASTY?

[zeemike]

21. It's monarchy without the crown n/t

[sheshe2]

25. Please, who exactly are the back bench crew for the Repukes?

The ones sitting on the bench fired up and ready to go? Cruz and Christie?

Yikes! They are going to be the saviors of the GOP?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. I confess to having had a glass of merlot...

but what is your point?

[sheshe2]

31. KoKo said they have people on the bench,

curious to know who they are. It wasn't a trick question Manny.

I know that on our bench that you wish it to be Warren, yet I wish her to stay where she is. She will wreck havoc with Wall Street. The GOP did everything they could to strike her down, yet she became a US Senator. She has power there and they fear her. She will knock them on there collective asses, mark my words.

Warren is going to make a difference and she will do them more damage from her Senate seat than the Oval Office. She rocks! I saw her speak, a small gathering when she came to campaign for Markey. I spoke with her and had a picture taken with her. She is one feisty lady, Manny.

[JDPriestly]

75. Hillary Clinton is just more corruption.

Elizabeth Warren is no or at least less corruption.

We just have to have one president who says no to corruption.

I want Elizabeth Warren in the White House. She will take a fresh look at all kinds of things and ask for real analysis. For example, I would like to see her sit with the leadership of the NSA and analyze what surveillance is really useful and needed and what isn't. I don't think anyone has done the. They are all afraid of each other.

Hillary is just another jaded politician. Elizabeth Warren is no revolutionary. She is not anti-Wall Street. She is just fair-minded. We need Elizabeth Warren. We really do. I kind of feel that at this time she is our only hope for clean, just, wise but humble leadership. And if we don't get clean, just, wise and humble leadership in the White House in 2016, we will probably face a terrible fate as will our children and grandchildren. Under the corrupt leadership that we have had since maybe 1963, we have done some really awful damage to parts of the world and in some cases here at home. It is going to take an Elizabeth Warren to heal the damage we have done.

God help us if we get more of the Clinton/Obama corruption. Both nice people, but too close to too much corruption. And I say that as one who likes Obama. I think he is a really good man, but I recognize that he is surrounded by corruption. He owes or at least thinks he owes too much to the corrupt system he finds himself in. It's a terrible pressure. We need someone independent like Elizabeth Warren. She would be a terrific candidate. And she is really fair. Wall Street would have nothing to fear. It would probably thrive more than it would under Hillary. Why? Because people would have more confidence in the economy.

[Maedhros]

196. Warren just declared her support for Hillary.

I don't think Warren's in play this time around and honestly, her endorsement of Hillary depresses me.

[BrotherIvan]

32. Jeb Bush

He is the end game.

[sheshe2]

34. Do you really believe that people will stand for a third Bush?

GWB is not even mentioned anymore, unless people are making a joke.

[BrotherIvan]

43. Absolutely

He's waiting to see if Hillary runs. If she doesn't, he will. If we're not afraid of him over every other Republican candidate we should be. The R machine and all their donors will line up behind him and put the full force of everything they have to make sure it happens. They didn't care about McCain and they hated Romney. They knew Jeb couldn't run...yet.

He's been making deals and promises for a very long time. It was always supposed to be him. The Chimp was actually a surprise. Barbara and Daddy have always been paving the way and calling in favors for Jeb.

The real power in the R party doesn't give a crap about religion, they care about money and Jeb can deliver it all with a shovel. NEVER underestimate that man.



ETA: You do notice they have been trying out the Latino candidates, Rubio then Cruz. Why? You don't think it's because they actually want them to be the leaders of the party? It's to run as VP for Jeb, to pull in the Hispanic vote to tip the tables. Too bad the teapubs have been doing everything they can to piss of the Hispanic vote.

[JDPriestly]

72. Form a local Democratic Club.

In the 1960s, young, active California Democrats caused a reformation of sorts in the Democratic Party of California that gave a lot more clout to local clubs and their members. If your state Democratic Party is not organized, at least in part, from the grass-roots up, change it.

Get together with your liberal friends from the ACLU/Common Cause/ Move-
On/Democracy for America, whatever, and join with other local Democrats in other areas of your state to demand change in the way your state party is organized.

Act fast. See if you can get some of the 1960s generation of California Democrats to tell you how they did it.

Try. It's great to be active in the ACLU, etc. I've done that too. But the ACLU does not nominate the candidates that run as Democrats and write the laws. You need to be in the grass-roots of the party to even get to know you representatives, senators, etc. Just get active. It isn't enough to be in other organizations. They work for issues or causes, but they don't pick the candidates or back the candidates so that they get elected.

[KoKo]

153. I am active and have been active.....

That was the point of my post. But, it's not our Democratic Party in my state who has the ability to fight back against what the Republicans are doing...because they don't get the money and activism from the Democratic National Party to help them.

That's why we are dependent on Foundation Money, ACLU, Common Cause and local efforts outside the Party.

I wasn't going to write a detailed review of my years of Dem Party efforts because I've posted for years on DU about the details.

You misinterpreted my post...

Peace!

[Le Taz Hot]

82. ^^This^^

I am NOT to blame. I've worked my ass off for 40 years DESPITE the corpo-Dems. To use a tried and true axiom (thank you, Howard Dean who the corporatists threw under the bus), "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

I'm going to re-register with the Dems again just so I can work on the CA-21 campaign as I think we have a real shot but other than that, I find causes that I'm passionate about and work with those. Working to get Hillary elected? There's no way in hell.

[woo me with science]

92. +100000

We didn't do this. It is being done to us.

[PassingFair]

182. +1000 nt

[RobertEarl]

22. Diebold

The manipulation of the vote via corruptible vote counting computers.

A few percent change and we have a government over half full of republicans.

That and the fact that we have so many moderates who think Reagan was a blessing.

[2banon]

29. good thread.. k&r

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Third Way Manny would be swapping recipies on how best to serve the 99%,..it's all in the battering.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. TWM is off working on Hillary's campaign.

He's looking forward to the battering they'll be giving the 99%.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. Starting with a good buttering up.

[msanthrope]

158. Third Way Manny wouldn't be in mourning for two-way dkf. So let's not knock

TWM....at least he's willing to go door to door for a Democratic candidate.

[davidthegnome]

35. A conclusion long ago reached.

There are times, Manny, when I sit up and think to myself... "Okay, let's do something about this! Let's organize, let's protest, let's shut down business as usual... strike, something!" Then I try to talk to people about it, to organize some kind of effort, heck, even to get people to agree that we SHOULD do something. Thus far, I have met with absolute failure on every such occasion. It's not because people don't care, or because they're not angry and frustrated...

It's because most of the people I know are working too damn hard for too damn little, but if they stop, even for a short time, most of them will lose what little they have.

In the sixties, I think people didn't have as many comforts, as many technological toys - outlets for expression like the internet. So a bunch of the brightest and most compassionate got together to change the world, the only way it can be changed - by forming up together in large groups and taking action. Today, the best and brightest among us rant on facebook, on DU, maybe we write about it in college essays. Maybe we argue with Republicans or take part in get out of the vote campaigns.

The simple truth is that the 1% won. Perhaps one day we can take back this Nation from the corporations, the lobbyists, the disgusting bastards that keep looking for new and interesting ways in which to take what we have and give nothing back. For now though... I do not expect very much. It is hard enough simply to survive.

Perhaps when the economy truly crashes, and larger numbers of people end up homeless, unemployed and starving... perhaps then we'll all be angry enough to do something that might make a difference. But not yet, I don't think.

[JDPriestly]

79. It's interesting to me as one who lived through the 1960s that you point to their

demonstrations and protests as the way to change things. At the same time, both you and I know that it was those very demonstrations and protests that brought a right-wing reaction, not the kind of political change that was needed.

The 1960s brought cultural change, the women's movement, civil rights legislation -- which occurred more because of changes in the level of education and the experiences of people during WWII than because of demonstrations.

There is not point in demonstrating if you haven't done the one-on-one talking and helping that changes points of view.

If you want to change things, join with other Democrats, set up a table, register voters and talk to people about the issues and why you think Democrats, the more progressive, liberal the better, are the best to lead the country, you state and local governments.

The demonstrations of the 1960s ended in 1968 with Nixon's election. Then there were the shootings at Kent State and other negative reactions to the demonstrators.

There is no easy solution. You have to work to persuade people one by one that the media is misleading them, that Republicans, their philosophy, their economic theories and their phony moral superiority are all wrong.

Read, read, read. Know the issues. DU is a good resource as are a number of other websites.

Demonstrations have only very limited if any value. Occupy Wall Street was a different matter. It was trying to raise consciousness. It succeeded. But it was not politically really effective beyond raising consciousness. That raising consciousness is very helpful. But once people are conscious, you have to give them something to vote for.

[Fumesucker]

91. The average American watches around 34 hours of TV a week

When the TV is on, conversation just dies, you can't talk to people when they are watching TV and they are for the most part absorbing corporate propaganda in one form or another when they are watching TV.

It's the rare American who can put the corporate propaganda aside and start to see things as they really are, damn few of them watch much TV.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/television-watching-statistics/

[davidthegnome]

118. It wasn't just the political change.

I'm too young to have lived through the sixties, but I have spoken with many, republicans and democrats, who did. I've made something of a study of that era. Granted, this secondhand knowledge isn't the same as having been alive during that time, but I think that the revolution of the sixties was about a lot more than just politics.

So many great people lived during, and around that time - Martin Luther King, JFK and Jackie, Robert Kennedy... the "Best and the Brightest". Politically, there was great momentum for progressive change, civil rights, peace, assistance for those in poverty, a deal between Nations that, somehow, averted what might have been the end of the world (the Bay of Pigs). What really inspired me though, was the way that so many regular people simply started getting together, for music, for conversation, for companionship, and actually talked about what was going on. I believe that their passion changed the world in a variety of ways. It was a sexual revolution, a social revolution, a revolution in the name of peace even during a time of war.

Perhaps I romanticize it to some extent, I can't deny that. I don't think it's essentially about politics though, I believe that social revolution must come first among the hearts and minds of those who are living under any political regime. Once there is a common goal that enough people believe in, once there is enough passion and energy directed in the right way, by many minds working in unison - then I believe that the political change will occur.

Regarding demonstrations, I respectfully disagree. I think there was great change during the sixties, but I'm thinking more of Gandhi's sort of revolution. There was a primary goal - to rid India of British rule. In this particular case, I believe that the goal needs to be workers rights, an improved and fully functional social safety net, regulations put into place to reduce and prevent the great corruption in the government that is today's reality.

We do need to give people something to vote for though. Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, these three would be great candidates for progressive change. Somehow though, the people with the most honesty, compassion and leadership ability, only rarely decide to run for office. Perhaps we need to draft one of them...

[demwing]

36. They've got the money and guns

but we've got the numbers. That's our strength,

Let's ask: How do we intend to use our strength?

[DeSwiss]

40. By withdrawing our power from their system.

- Their system ONLY works because we run it for them.

[demwing]

45. There's 3 ways our greater numbers can hand us the win

we can try to match their money by combining all of our financial resources (cost sharing), we can use the democratic process, and we can do as you suggest - drop out. Stage an enormous general strike.

I think your way is the only feasible way to force real changes.

[DeSwiss]

50. It is.

Dr. King knew this. We can't match them for fire power and that's ultimately all they've got to back them, without us.

- That's why the revolution has to start inside. The leader we're looking for is in the closest mirror.

[demwing]

111. the one draw back to a general strike

is the global economy.

Workers strike in Michigan? Move those jobs to South Carolina.

Workers strike in the US? Move those jobs to Indonesia.

We need more than a slow, localized leak of dissatisfied workers, we need to shut down the global machine.

[Vanje]

177. Thats right. Its 99 to 1.

[DeSwiss]

37. Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you!

- The revolution starts within. Hold on tight......

K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

42. That is an awesome quote.

Brilliant. Thanks.

[DeSwiss]

47. De nada.

- Quantum mechanics states that ''the observers act of observing influences the outcome in the expression and movement of waves and particles,'' vis-a-vis The Double-slit Experiment. Therefore we create our outcomes (futures) through what we're observing. That's an important point we usually miss.

I've posted this before, but here's more for those ready to hear:

[font color=gray size=3]A Different Perspective[/font]

''No one who lives in error is free.'' ~Euripides

"Battle not with monsters - lest ye become a monster." ~Friedrich Nietzsche

"To fight the empire is to be infected by its derangement. Whoever defeats part of the empire becomes the empire; it proliferates like a virus... thereby it becomes its enemies." ~Philip K. Dick

"When masses are made to believe something negative, they may create what they did not want, which is how for instance the 'N.W.O.' works. You are believing it is taking shape, so it will take shape and so-called think tanks and political theorists are major players in helping this take shape by bombarding us with the 'facts' that it obviously is taking shape. Those facts claim that you are giving-in to their power everyday, and they control you more... while in reality you are in full control.

So the people who are 'waking up' to it are the ones who are creating it. They say: ''Resist, the control being forced upon humanity. React, when they do their political manueverings to bring about less sovereignty and greater suffering for the nations of the world.''

But we mustn’t resist and react to this control. As Carl Jung said, ''What you resist, persists.'' What the powers that be want is for us to become that radical element (again it doesn’t matter which side we choose -- [font color=red]they always play both sides[/font]).

We can be either for them or against them. It doesn't matter. If we react and if we resist, we give them the manipulative power to push the agenda along. By resisting and reacting, we are demonstrating that we believe in the underlying, subliminal and hypnotic suggestion of this reality, thereby making it our reality, and the events they wish to occur concerning humanity, and that they wish to appear real, will occur and then it ''becomes reality.''

Do not pay attention to the 'world events', they are all orchestrated to make you pay attention to them. The struggle you should pay attention to is on a personal level. The way out, is in." ~The Insider

[MannyGoldstein]

51. With all due respect...

while I basically agree, I think it's also true that if some asshole is throwing baseballs at my head, I'd better stop him and make sure he doesn't do it again.

(I've had some wine, so please forgive me if I'm being dense.)

[DeSwiss]

53. Or.....

...you can stop making your head a target.

- Whatever works for ya, is what I say!

[MannyGoldstein]

54. I guess it depends on what kind of asshole we're dealing with.

If he poses a future threat to anyone, I'm all for neutralizing him. Preferably through his realizing The Right Way, but if that fails...

[DeSwiss]

55. If it fails.....

...we're screwed anyways.

- I prefer to go out middle-fingers up!

[Warren Stupidity]

220. Generally when quantum mechanism is used as an explanation for anything

other than quantum mechanics, what results is nonsense.

Therefore we create our outcomes (futures) through what we're observing.

For example.

[DeSwiss]

223. It's only nonsense to some. ;-) n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

132. Five to One

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023970609

[BrotherIvan]

38. I think the number one thing in my lifetime that has contributed to apathy is downsizing

People of my parent's generation could raise a family on one income, afford a house, look forward to a better future for their children and not have to worry that all of that would literally vanish from one second to the next due to the caprice of your boss--or the the boss's son--or your job being shipped overseas. Because you were in a union; because you had a skill and experience. The very clear cut message that you are a wage serf, beholden to these powers who at any time could pull the plug it what has made us passive and afraid.

My European significant other observes so often how Americans are filled with fear. But nothing is worse than the fear that you and your loved ones could starve or be out on the streets. That there is nothing in your life that is solid, dependable. Everyone I know in my generation and below, to a person, has at some time been laid off and most likely bullied out of their job. My mother, on the other hand, was a teacher for 41 years in the same school district and retired with a lifetime pension--she was taken care of and didn't have the same constant background hum of financial stress.

This last recession was just a reminder taste for many of us that you don't control anything, the bosses do, so you may as well sit down and STFU. We are beaten and broken and left to demand very little because we have forgotten our own worth.

[senseandsensibility]

49. I agree with everything you wrote.

It's just hard for me to understand why the decimated middle class responds to this with apathy. Not all of them do, of course. But if everyone stood together things would be very different.

[BrotherIvan]

59. Thank you

I refer us all back to DeSwiss' excellent post #47 as that is the answer. The paradigm that has been built, this shock doctrine, reality TV celebrity lifestyle of the rich and famous knockoff bullshit is not real. If every person refused to buy into it, the game would be over.

I can't tell you how many blank stares I get when I tell people they don't have to buy crap from corporations that keep us slaves, that their children will not be scarred for life if they don't receive boatloads of presents made by slave labor sold at a big box store. That standing up for what you believe in is losing NOTHING. We can redefine a fulfilling life that has nothing to do with the one they are selling at such a great cost. We can help and take care of each other. But our fear has made the world so loud; our seeking the false perfection of a photoshopped life makes us deaf.

Oh jeez, it must be getting late...sorry.

[senseandsensibility]

195. Very eloquent.

No need to apologize, silly.

[Not Sure]

71. Damn...

That's it. You are exactly right.

[dougolat]

77. An enormus factor, to be sure; but add the corporate media...

..which downplayed the peace marches of Feb & March of '03
.. ignored the monkey-business with elections
.. was in bed(ed) with the Iraq carnage
.. kept the discussion (and therefore awareness) of single-payer
off the table and out of the building for all of '09
etc. etc.

Plus the incessant RW "talking points" bullhorn talk shows.

(At least "Occupy" slipped thru a bit: the 1% is common
vocabulary now)

So many are too harried for the luxury of politics, but they're woefully misled, too!

But, just think of the determination of all those voters who had to stand in line for hours - people do care, even then.

[annabanana]

102. downplayed? DOWNPLAYED??

The marches of '03 were shamelessly ignored. If you wanted to see a picture of the hundred of thousands in the street, you had to look for streaming traffic cams.

I am still furious.

[Vanje]

180. I didnt participate in Occupy Boise....

because I was afraid I would lose my job.

[Festivito]

39. How: Campaign finance reform, non-paper ballot counting, bad media w/o 50 state strategy.

No donations to individuals. Donate to issues/races, opposing sides share the money.

Paper ballots, computer printed at voting site, scanned to pdf, access on internet alongside totals.

Fairness doctrine return. Increase variety of funding forms for media. Or, 50 state strategy becomes the media outlets for states in need of information.

[cantbeserious]

41. You Have Woken Up - Now What?

[DeSwiss]

52. I love that vid and the song!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. No. We did NOT "let this happen." We did NOT do "this to ourselves."

I will not join in excusing what any of the economic traitors have done to us by sharing the blame with them.

[davidpdx]

56. Wyden and Merkley both qualify as bright beacons in my book

Start looking at California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Montana, Iowa, and Nevada where we need to start winning a seat or seats with progressives.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Maybe we can pull Dr. Dean out from under the bus

and ask him to rebuild the 50-state strategy.

[davidpdx]

68. I admit he did do a hell of a job

We dropped the ball in 2009 and 2010 big time with losses on the state and national level. 2012 was a good year, but still didn't make up for what we lost. I think we could be talking about 2 more elections (2014 & 2016) to actually be able to reverse the damage from the 2009/2010 elections.


(by the way if anyone wonders why I mention 2009 we lost key races: NJ Governor and Virginia Governor. At least we'll get back one of those two).

[liberal_at_heart]

69. As long as all he is doing is helping with strategy. He is too fiscally conservative for my taste.

[Bluenorthwest]

135. I like Warren, but I do get tired of hearing that she's alone there when Oregon has Merkley

in particular and also Wyden. Elizabeth did not oppose Summers alone, she did so with Jeff Merkley and others. I love my Senators. Jeff in particular, and I worked hard with my neighbors to put him there.

[MannyGoldstein]

155. I think Warren and Sanders are the only two consistent Liberals

For example, I love what Wyden is doing in some areas (TPP, NSA), but I believe that he's done some eyebrow-raising stuff like co-sponsoring a bill with Paul Ryan to "fix" Medicare.

I could be off the mark here.

[Vanje]

183. I have been disappointed in the past over Wyden's federal lands votes.

He seems to want to log the pacific NW. He has timber industry backers. For a while, he had more timber industry money than any other congressional.

That said, Wyden has been GREAT in his vocal opposition to NSA abuses, TPP, and other important issues.

[fredamae]

282. Before Wyden comes up in 2016

We should examine his Whole record...
If memory serves:
He gave us Drones in OR-
He hooked up with Paul Ryan to "voucher Medicare"
I recall he also voted to reauthorize PatAct/voted for the crazy sequester, didn't raise a Finger to Object to refunding sequester cuts to the FAA as they All ignored Horrific cuts to Meals on Wheels, Head Start, Cancer Treatments etc..It was a Unanimous Consent vote which all Any one of 100 Sens had to do was Object to bring this to a debate and not One US Senator defended the poorest of the poor! FAA funding restoration was a Vote for Personal Benefit. If you believe Bi-Partisanship is dead in DC? Think again! If you recall that was passed out of Both houses with a swiftness-so fast that IF you weren't watching it happen? You'd have missed it--just a quick little blurb for a day or so on MSM
Then, around that same time---remember the STOCK ACT? Well, there you have Another example of Self Serving-For basically all 535 of 'em said "What We Do Here-For Personal Gain-Is none of Your F'ng Business"....Another Bi-Partisan-Fast Vote by Unanimous Consent in the Sen...and a "faster than the speed of light" vote in the house..

Vet often. Vet Carefully. Challenge their votes. Forget Which Party They Register With and remember--if they don't vote For You? They're voting for Wall Street. Get them Out of Office.

So many times and in the face of electoral Objection--they made some really bad decisions - Capitulation, over and over and over and over again-did NOT bring comity, did NOT produce Bi-Partisanship, Reid made so many "filibuster deals" with McConnell--who Reneged Every G'Damned time--and Reid would NOT ever hold their feet to the fire--nope, he'd make yet Another "gentleman's agreement" with McConnell and we, the people were Dragged down Again. If you believe that the GOP/Wall Street didn't make gains Without the Help of Corporate Dems? Think again. Look at How Well Wall Street, Kochs/Corps etc are doing with Bi-Partisan help from SCOTUS/POTUS/House/Senate VS the rest of us. More people who Used to be part of the Middle Class are now amongst the Poor/Working Poor...
Wall Street/Corporate Criminals are Still Free because those we elect to serve the Country-Are Not. They, in Fact are Part Of The Fkg Problem. All Political/Legislative Benefits/Consideration are made For the Wealthy. Connect the Dots.

[mnhtnbb]

57. A major contributing factor has to be the ownership of the press.

There no longer is a free press--of any size or distribution--in the country.
Media has turned into propaganda 24/7.

Money has become power on all levels and power seeks to serve itself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. And constant attacks on independent outlets

Yup

[CanSocDem]

164. They're becoming irrelevant...

...in this electronic age. A co-ordinated attack on their credibility wouldn't cost much.

The publishing power of the mighty press barons can be assembled on the kitchen table for under a thousand bucks.

We ARE the "free press".

We get to publish our own "propaganda".


.

[NoOneMan]

60. Oh Manny, none of this shit really matters. Conventional politics are irrelevant

By the time we figure it out, climate change will wipe out our children. But thats ok. Obsess about the distraction while you're at it. If you have time to burn....

[blkmusclmachine]

63. So, 11 Dimensional Chess is a failure? Bipartisanship has gotten us nowhere good? We were lied to?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Deep13]

64. I've gotten off my duff, and when all that effort and money...

...fixed absolutely nothing, I sat down again. The Constitutional system does not work for the people, because it was never intended to work for the people. Our entire paradigm needs to be dismantled.

[Hubert Flottz]

66. Meanwhile, the NSA knows more about your

peter and balls, than you yourself know!

Where in the fuck, is all that hope and change we were promised? Pissed away on a crack pipe dream of "bipartisanship" and the foolish idea of being able to make deals with political terrorists.

It would be nice if you could trust republicans, but you can't. The GOP would love to do the same things or worse to Obama, that they did to Clinton and Carter. And the democratic "leadership" in Washington still says, "My good friends across the aisle," so our leadership can't be to damned bright. In case our democratic "Leaders" haven't noticed, the Enemy across the aisle, wants to destroy the American dream for over half of America, FOREVER.

[bvar22]

284. The REAL problem is not The Republicans.

"It would be nice if you could trust republicans,..."

The REAL problem is not being able to trust The Democrats.

I trust Republicans to be Republicans,
and to advance the agenda of the RICH & Powerful 1%.
I am never disappointed.

I trust the Democrats to represent Americans who Work for a Living,
and have been disappointed continually for over 25 years.

[JDPriestly]

67. I belong to my local Democratic Club and attend the meetings pretty

regularly. I've made a lot of good friends there. The other members are just wonderful people.

But I have many, many liberal friends who aren't members. When I ask them to join, to attend meetings, to get active and become involved in the organization, they usually tell me that they don't like the people in the Democratic Party because the organized Democrats aren't nearly liberal enough.

There are a couple of problems with that.

First, I know the people in our club. They are genuinely liberal. They are committed, and they work hard. Do we have slight disagreements here and there on issues? Who doesn't?

Second, if you don't think club members are liberal enough, why don't you join and speak your mind? Maybe you will persuade someone to agree with you? In any event, what do you have to lose if you just try and participate?

It's really important to be active in your Democratic organizations at the local, and if you can, at the state and federal levels. The Democratic Party in California is pretty democratic. Do the Party officials have a lot of control and sway? Yes. But you can be part of picking who they are. You can get to know the leadership, the candidates, ask them questions and give them feedback in a forum that is not open to the whole world.

Frankly, unless you really, really don't have the time for anything, not even posting on DU, I have no sympathy for self-styled Democrats who aren't active and volunteering (at least enough to attend the meetings and get to know people) in the Democratic Party at their local level.

Hey! If you are interested enough in politics and articulate and smart enough to be on DU, you too could run for office or be active at the local level.

Don't complain about what is going on if you aren't active. With the exception of Dianne Feinstein, the Democrats we elect in California are pretty liberal. That is the effect of having strong local Democratic Clubs.

[Le Taz Hot]

83. With all du respect, JD,

"joining your local Democratic party" is not the be-all, end-all. I'm glad you've had positive experiences in your area but my local Democrats are a COMPLETE waste of time. They spend ENORMOUS amounts of time arguing amongst themselves as to who is going to be chairman of what, jockeying for position and generally getting NOTHING done. Oh, they write a Resolution every now and again but let's get real, a Resolution is a way of looking like you're doing something without actually doing anything. Trying to organize voter registration I was told was a waste of time, that they already had their venues where they do that and anything else is a waste of time. I tried and tried to organize volunteers and was told I was stepping on people's toes (I'm an ACTIVIST -- one of the things I do is ORGANIZE). I have to say they were the most uninformed political group I've ever encountered. When I go work on labeling GMO's or work against fracking, people are savvy about the subjects, they've done their homework and you can actually hold an intelligent, PROGRESSIVE conversation with them. When I worked with the local Democrats it was exactly the opposite. Their whole spiel was basically, "Rah rah Democrats, boo boo Republicans." Half the time they won't even put up a Democrat to run against the Republicans in a county that is a majority registered Democrats. I tried to organize voter outreach and, again, was told that that was not my jurisdiction. Basically I got tired of trying to organize and WORK with people who were more interested in forming factions against each other and being cheerleaders than to try to accomplish anything.

Again, I'm glad you have positive experiences with your group but not all groups are equal. I walked over 10 years ago because of the above and now spend my time WORKING on actual causes, hopefully one day making a difference.

[msanthrope]

163. You have encapsulated the problem...we need younger, involved members. nt

[ljm2002]

73. "unified only in the belief that the 99% should be served for dinner"

Well said Manny, well said!!!

K&R

[Corruption Inc]

74. We traded civility for corruption

People think we can just let things like torture camps go by without anyone being tried for war crimes. Same goes for criminal banks.

Try a few war criminals and criminal bankers for their crimes and the entire country would turn around for the better.

[cali]

76. recognize that sanders and warren aren't the only ones.

[Miss_Underestimated]

78. When a bully (GOP) strikes, should you blame the victim? GOP keeps us in whackamole mode

Using what has happened to elections as an example of the multilayered destruction we are fighting - the GOP installed GOP secretaries of state in strategic (electoral-college rich) states and they certified elections where recounts should have occurred or ran dirty recounts, or overcharged for recounts to deter accountability, passed legislation that required every voting place be outfitted with device that disabled could use -- electronic voting machines (which can be programmed easily to switch votes), arranged for incorrect cardstock to be used for punchcards in Florida for 2000 election -- caused hanging chad problem, arranged for shortages of voting machines resulting in exceedingly long waiting periods to vote in highly democratic districts; rigged votes so that redistricting would be voted in by voters and proceeded to gerrymander districts to their advantage; left machines vulnerable to installation of uncertified software/hardware; contracted companies to purge approximate names from voting rolls -- which happened to be democratic leaning demographic; when advocates for clean elections show up to public meetings, they are intimidated by security and elections officials; they install GOP leaning judges in court system and hold up nominations of dem judges...

The same multi-pronged strategy applies to environmental issues, food, education, health, social safety net.

We need a multipronged strategy to fight back -- how do we turn the game of whack-a-mole around?

[xchrom]

85. du rec.

[joshcryer]

87. Hey, Manny.

I've tried to engage you so much in the past.

At this point... no. I can't take it seriously. The US is literally founded on the backs of plutocrats. The idea that it wasn't so is a joke and a half. We're talking slavers and millionaires, even in their time. The US was never egalitarian, and it struggles for egalitarianism to this day.

When Hillary is the nominee I expect your resignation as 1st Way Many. It's going to suck, I hope you don't combuste. I like you. The entertainment is gold. Literally, ManyGoldstein. I look forward to the many other posters here who won't be able to contain themselves, because, a Hillary nomination would blow their minds.

Note: my preference is not to nominate Hillary as President, and I will vote against her in the nomination, but I can't see any other future except in the event her health deteriorates. Neither future I would celebrate (who wants to see a leader suffer from ailments? Or one where she wins the nomination?).

[marble falls]

88. Not only vote, but work for a candidate you support even if you know its a long shot....

as a Republican I will work for the Democratic challenger to Cruz in four years and I will work for whichever Democrat who runs against Rep Conaway next year.

Its a long shot in both cases. But any opposition has been seen a futile and we need to get our heads up and provide a rally point for those whose interests are being ignored by our representatives.

I will put a bumper sticker that says "Republican for _______ for Senate" or Congress and I will have my registration and proof of insurance handy and updated and in reach, all lights working for the reception I'll get here in the TeaCentric Hill Country of Texas.

We need to let them know they are opposed.

[nightscanner59]

89. Other than the few bright beacons

many of my next selections will tend to go a whole lot greener. And I hope this reply doesn't get juried outta here like others of that bent.

[Rebellious Republican]

94. How about we come up with a way to get rid of......

Electronic voting machines with no paper trail.


ATM maker Diebold pays $48 million to settle foreign bribery case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023903639


Voting equipment maker Diebold settles accounting fraud charges for $25 million
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204509.html

ES&S is a subsidiary of McCarthy Group, LLC. In 2013

Reported problems during the 2010 election[edit]
On April 14, 2010, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that “About 10 percent of Cuyahoga County’s voting machines … [had] failed a pre-election test.”[15] After 20 months of investigating the DS200 Precinct Count Optical Scanner in the EAC-certified Unity 3.2.0.0 voting system, on December 22, 2011, the Election Assistance Commission recommended decertification of the ES&S voting machine if it cannot be fixed. From the findings:[16]
“The DS200 accepts a voted ballot but does not record the ballot on its internal counter. In addition the marks of the second ballot are not recorded.”
“When a 17” ballot was inserted at an angle, the DS200 did not consistently count the mark properly. The mark registered either as a different selection than intended or did not register at all.”
The system randomly freezes and does not record the freeze in its log files. There are other events not logged, such as touch screen calibration.
In May 2013, however, the Election Assistance Commission certified the DS200 as part of ES&S' EVS 5.0 election management system as meeting its 2005 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG). Image of EAC certificate

Oakland County, Michigan[edit]
Early voters in the 2008 Presidential election reported instances of malfunctioning machines.[4] People complained that they voted for one candidate, only to have their selection switch to another.[8] The clerk of Oakland County, Michigan reported inconsistent results with some machines during testing in October.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Systems_&_Software

[Nay]

110. Exactly. It's been 13 years since the debacle in Florida, and what the hell

have DC Democrats done to get rid of these pernicious electronic voting machines? Nothing that I can see. It's as if they have brushed it under the rug.

[Rebellious Republican]

114. Until this matter gets resolved, we will continue to loose.

If even its only being done on local and midterm elections, where no one notices glaring errors as much. The 1 percenters can still steer national elections. Politicians have to start somewhere, most do not start out in National elections. Remember the old saying, politics are local.

[CrispyQ]

126. This is why I don't think we'll get our country back via the ballot box.

The entire electoral process is so corrupt, it's mind blowing! Digital votes, gerrymandered districts, Citizens United, a public that is ignorant or misinformed about the issues, thanks largely to a corporatized media, & voter apathy. Our democracy is barely hobbling along.

[Rebellious Republican]

131. It is very key, however no seems to interested in this minor flaw....

in the system!

[Bluenorthwest]

137. Not a single voting machine in Oregon. Every ballot is a paper ballot.

Elections are run by the States. My State does it well. So do some others. If you are still doing video game voting, that's because your State lacks the will to make positive change and is expecting DC to do it for them, but again elections are run by the States.
Which State do you live in?

[Rebellious Republican]

147. I live in the state that has the best reputation for elections.....

FLORIDUH! I didn't say what kind of reputation!

?1374631370

[Vanje]

186. Same in Idaho - paper ballots for everyone.

But Idaho is SO conservative, they dont have to steal elections to have a right-wing landslide.

[Egalitarian Thug]

270. It works great for the republicans and the Democrats are terrified

that any questions that might raise doubt as to their own legitimacy, so they go along to keep their own gravy train going.

[polichick]

95. One good thing that's going on is Bold Progressives - the group that drafted...

Elizabeth Warren for the Senate. They made The Nation's Progressive Honor Roll in 2011:

MOST VALUABLE CAMPAIGN: Draft Elizabeth Warren

After President Obama decided not to fight to make Elizabeth Warren the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency she had conceived and gotten off the ground, most of official Washington assumed she would return to Harvard and teach law. But the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and National Nurses United had another idea: they wanted Warren to run for the Senate from Massachusetts. The PCCC push, and an early endorsement from the nurses, created an old-fashioned draft campaign. And it worked. Warren announced her candidacy on September 14. She is now one of a quartet of Democratic women—which includes Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp—whose economic populist campaigns hold out the hope that the Senate could be occupied by servants of the people, instead of what Senator Robert La Follette once dismissed as “the feudal serfs of corporate capital.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/165314/progressive-honor-roll-2011#

http://boldprogressives.org/


Instead of allowing ourselves to be conned by charismatic corporatists, WE HAVE TO DO A WHOLE LOT MORE "DRAFTING."

[RKP5637]

103. K&R! n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

101. You have three national representatives to worry about...

and whoever runs in you state and county.

Other than that, all you can do is talk and send money.

[MoonRiver]

107. Frog in the slow boiling pot.

[Zorra]

108. When the inevitable general strike is called for, participate.

Get Capitalism Out of Politics by Joining the #March AgainstCorruption

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

109. I operate from the premise...

...that tomorrow will be another day. That is the mindset we must use coupled with the idea that there is always work to do. I, for one, will never give up. A day at a time.

[heaven05]

112. manny, you're right

we fucked ourselves by not standing up to the bully's the first time they started intimidating and screaming against the truth. Those town hall meetings before and during the last two national/local election cycles come to mind. Every time they got in my face, I told them, not nicely, fuck off. I shall continue to do my small part against the barbarian hordes at the gates of democracy. Been fighting against them for 57 years, nothing new. Younger people. Time to step up.

[HoosierCowboy]

115. Do the Math, find the answer

Half of the general population are registered. Half of those registered vote in any election. That means that we have minority government no matter who gets elected.

Of those voters the split between Dems and the GOP is about even with the Dems only leading slightly.

So:
You need 12.5% + 1 of the population to get elected.

That means that all anyone needs to do to get elected is to appeal to a small fraction of the voting public.

That means appealing to the fringe instead of the mainstream. Because everyone has hot button issues..

So if you've ever wondered where all the noise about Homophobia, Sharia Law, Immigration, taxes, Obamas Birth Certificate and what you call BS comes from, do the math. That's why it took so long to get any kind of universal health coverage in the U.S.A..

Politicians don't have an incentive to address issues that affect the general population, they can concentrate on the small percentage of issues that get fringe support in any election. Millions of dollars are spent in any election to appeal to a small number of tin foil hats that vote. If we had 100% participation in voting the fringe issues would disappear overnight and the hacks and loons would leave the political stage in an instant.

...and that's why registering voters and getting them to vote might be the only solution to getting politics on the right track.

[geek tragedy]

116. The solution is obviously to post threads complaining on the Internet nt

[msanthrope]

156. You win the thread. nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

117. So, how do we stop our Party from moving to the right?

The influx of repubs trying to escape the insanity of the tea party has already begun. These repubs are only slightly less insane than the tea baggers - they will not abandon their positions to put that "D" behind their name. According to the third way centrists, we're supposed to be happy that our "team" is growing in number - never mind that these new additions are entirely against core Democratic issues.

I know people frown on any type of "litmus test" for being a Democrat, but you have to draw the line somewhere or being a Democrat will eventually lose all meaning.

[L0oniX]

130. "being a Democrat will eventually lose all meaning"

Expect it. Centrists keep moving to the right with Dinos as their partners. DLC continues to sell us out to corporations with their owners who vote republican and back repuke propaganda groups. Mindless cult of personality makes it like a damned stupid ass tv show. Attacks on the left, unionists and progressives help diminish and eliminate core Dem values. Big tent? We can see what happened to the GOP because their tent got a little too accepting of their irrational radical righties. The Dems don't have to worry about that but they should be concerned about the infestation from the right. We have enough in common right now with the enemy. War/drones, spying, corporate welfare, cutting funds for the poor, selling out our schools, selling out our jobs ...what's next. pffft

Can't wait to see what piece of corporate shit they foist on us for the next POTUS candidate. I know how I will be voting ...or NOT voting.

[MyNameGoesHere]

120. It happened because no one

remembers how to make guillotines.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

161. Nothing says "true progressive" like murdering...

...people you disagree with politically.

Boy oh boy, I simply cannot imagine why the American public sides with Democrats, rather than people like you.

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

[MyNameGoesHere]

185. You said it I didn't

I provided an image you provided your own thoughts. Good on you.
By the way you do read literature? French revolution era? It would help you immensely in comprehending idioms.

[NorthCarolina]

121. Because we naively voted PARTY and not ISSUES.

A conservative 'democrat', does not a Democrat make. Oh, and don't bother trying to sell me the tripe that we HAVE to run conservative Democrats in red areas. BS, that's what the 1% would love us all to believe so they can weave their chicanery.

[arely staircase]

122. bloody maries. just spicy enough but not too much.

About eight of them. Let me know if that works.

[CrispyQ]

124. We let it happen when we traded in our citizenship to become consumers.

We got hooked on instant gratification, & here we are, decades later, a culture of two year olds, who want what they want, & want it now. We let Madison Ave. define who we are & they want us to be consumers, not citizens. We were so busy keeping up with the Jones' that we didn't notice our public officials paying their friends $600 for a hammer.

When we woke up to the amount of corruption in our various governments, we swallowed the line that privatization was the answer, that corporations can do the job better & cheaper! We forgot a couple of vital facts: 1) Unless you are a major shareholder, you have no control over the management of a company, whereas, if you don't like the job a public official is doing, you can vote them out. Hell, you can even run for office yourself! 2) Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, not the community.

Put on your nose plug, Manny, cuz we're pretty much fucked, imo.

[judesedit]

127. Get out the vote! Go to town meetings. Run for office in your city/town. Keep barking. VOTE!

[drynberg]

128. Granted our leaders and reps and senators are problematic, but before we all put on our hair shirts

And curse ourselves for letting this happen, I think we should look further at the cause of this current state of affairs. Y'know, isolate the root cause of our nation's problems. I have to say that Citizens United v FEC opened the doors of an already corrupt system that sold our republic for pieces of gold, it's just that the Supremes put our corruption on steroids. Yep, I believe that until this disastrous decision is changed (however), our system is just window dressing for the highest bidder gets to make the rules and the big bucks. After the Citizen United decision is neutralized, then we can make further improvements to restoring our democracy, but to focus on these improvements now is a fool's errand, in my humble opinion. Of course, GMOs, Fracking, and Global Warming keep happening and deserve our attention while we work on this root cause of our problems.

[brooklynite]

149. I have to disagree

CU money isn't buying political power: it's trying to protect it. The notion that you can buy political support is silly, because if it were true, you could potentially switch a political vote by offer a larger payment. The candidates that Club For Growth and the Koch Brothers support BELIEVE in the policies their patrons believe in; the question is whether the flood of IE advertising can convince people who don't already believe the commercial's message in the first place. Given how successful Adelson and the Koch Brothers were with their candidates in 2012, I'm not certain this isn't an overblown issue.

[dougolat]

151. Right! Equality before the Law, and The Golden Rule...

... are founding ideals for our representative democracy; The Rule of Gold, officially enshrined by Citizens United, is antithetical to both!

[bvar22]

165. The problems inside the Democratic Party started LONG before Citizens United.

The Republicanization of the Democratic Party really got rolling in 1992.


[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]

[fredamae]

138. I've LONG said there Is

a "River of Shit" running beneath the Dem Party every bit as much as the GOP-It's just been a popular reaction to Believe the Dem Talking Points--ie: "pointing the Full finger of blame" toward "them"---It's easy to believe-so we look no further.....
However if one does choose to look into "it" a bit further-by examining their Votes? It's an eye-opener...(and depressing)

I'm curious, with the suggestion that the electorate is abandoning Both parties en masses-if Independents/NAV's now outnumber registrants in both major party's....
We always see the stories of GOP Leaving their party--I KNOW for a fact, Dems are also but no one tracks/talks about those stats..or at least, I cannot find these reports/stories etc.
I tried for Years to communicate with my State DP leaders-phone messages were ignored as were my emails requesting a meeting etc.
As I contacted the DSCC/DNC/DCCC they either hung up without comment and the last one? The rep basically said "Buh-bye" don't let the door hit you on the way out...The bottom line is--Get in Line/Tow the Line-we don't want to hear about your "issues".....
Clearly--voters staying home in the 2010 election did Nothing to cause them concern.
I still support a few Dems--def Sen Sanders--but as far as the integrity of the Party? It's long been gone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. I am one who abandoned it over healthcare

That was one vote too far.

As to the a Rest, California fastest growing party, decline to state, aka independent.

The talking point is that indies are all, I tell ya, centrists. The reality is far more nuanced than that.

I know my current rep, in his efforts to show independence from the bosses, not only angered his left, but also his right. But the party never supported the real progressive in the race. Ergo, even in a year the seat should not be in play, it is. Dems say, having this guy or his predecessor makes really no substantial difference. Rs he is a DemocRat, run!!!!!!

It 's not like he needs the job to be honest. He is the sixth wealthiest man in Congress. To me that actually explains a lot of it.

[fredamae]

152. Oh, ye$ it matters-a Lot

The final issue for me was multiple (and not in chronological order) --Restoring sequester cuts to the FAA for their own convenience of flight While ignoring the devastating Cuts to Meals on Wheels, Head Start Cancer Treatment etc--then the gutting of the STOCK Act...Failure to reform the filibuster in 2011, the extension of buschco's tax cuts, the removal of our seat at the table and the Dems failure to push for what we, by apparent majority wanted re" Public Option, then the reauthorization-multiple times-of the PatAct, Fisa/NSA etc, the Cuts to vital programs, the bail out Chained CPI being Offered by Dems--shoot, the list is endless...
It really shouldn't have taken me so long to walk out--but after 54 Years of support, it was a painful decision, none-the-less.

I watched a Great progressive-a Dem-run for Dist House Rep. He went up against a long standing GOP/Tea Bagger type who wants to take Away Oregon's Vote By Mail--due to concerns of the "feeble minded seniors" casting uninformed votes or some bs like that...stated in front of a senior group--as they gasp at his statements...
A guy Who also Supports "Vehicular Stop and Frisk" aka: "Sobriety Checkpoints". But this Dem candidate who would fight to Protect Voting Rights (all civil rights) received No Dem Party Support or Endorsement or Funding--Nothing
He ran a campaign out of his own pocket, less than $2 grand and Still got 31% in his dist. With a little help from his own party? He just might have Won.
I'm willing to guess that your story and mine are Not isolated nor unique.
I don't urge others to Leave the Dem Party--No, I'd like to see the Party Leaderships Challenged on their votes, Hypocrisy-policies-Lets ask them for credible evidence, science that supports their rationale-lets do it publicly-Lets get the conversation out there and as bared to the electorate as the GOP is.

[gulliver]

146. A bunch of "us" (Americans) voted Republican.

And a bunch of us didn't vote or voted for Ralph Nader.

On edit: Modified title to be clear. I'm a straight-ticket Democrat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. And five voted for bush

I am surprised how long it took for the canard to be foisted.

Horse is beaten to the point of being hamburger.

[elehhhhna]

167. Beg Anonymous to hack the crap out of our "secure" lol vapor votecounting machines.

This is the only quickfix I can think of.

elected OFFICIALS ARE JUST DOING POLITICAL THEATRE oops caps FOR OUR DISTRACTION AND ENTERTAINMENT. We're being shockdoctrined at every level of government. Our votes are being manipulated. If we don't take back our votes we shouldn't waste money on elections at all.

Did you know that there is no voting precinct in the US with more than 2,500 voters? That most precincts have about half that? That less than half of qualified voters even bother to vote?

Is there any reason we need mysterious code and etc. to count maybe 1000 votes per site?

Dem leadership's silence on this is deafening.

We are being played.

[Caretha]

316. That's the first suggestion

I've seen in this thread that might have some merit. Seems pretty non-violent to me too. What do you think the consequences of "vaporizing the vote counting machines" would be?

[elehhhhna]

324. the votes are vapor. No violence, just Anon threatening to hack it

would cause some major concern. Perhaps enough for people of all parties to want paper ballots.

A voter verified paper ballot as the ballot of record. That's the precise legal language we need. Paper, not vapor! Andy Stephenson told me so.

[Caretha]

325. Andy was right

and he was very intuitive.

[JanT]

172. here is info on Jason Thigpen

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/nc-candidate-switches-parties-room-hate-represenation/

seems to be what this post is all about. i would be VERY CAUTIOUS of any REPUGlican who defects to the democratic party.
just because you have a D after your name does not mean you support the causes.

[Dustlawyer]

174. Demand Publicly Funded Elections. Everyone understands, at least on some level,

that our politics are corrupt. We need to appeal to everyone, Democrats, Republicans and Independants to back this fight to save our country from this downward spiral of corruption and greed! For all of our differences, people of all groups SHOULD want to bring control of our government back to the people. We will have to fight the brain washing and lies to convince who we can to join the cause. I wish OWS had focused on this root cause of most of problems instead of the after-affects. If our politicians were not doing the bidding of the Plutocrats, issues like education, the environment, infrastructure... would be addressed, and addressed in such a way that they would improve.
After gaining politicians responsive to the will of the people, I would break up the monopolies in the banking, media, and the MIC. You asked for solutions and that is what I suggest. Is it possible, I believe so, but only under certain conditions. It would be a terrible fight since the Plutocrats will not give up their control over government. It will take a strong organization with LEADERS, not some amorphous group that would have multiple agendas with which they can be distracted and attacked on.
We allow legalized bribery of our elected officials and wonder why things are getting so fucked up! I would think that we could grow support for this movement with enough people here to start spreading the idea and come up with a detailed approach. Who agrees with this?

[Veilex]

189. In order to fight the corruption, we have to be able to hold them to account....

I'm pretty well convinced that election season is insufficient to serve in this role.
I mean seriously, think about: You can get away with nearly anything you want for roughly two years before you have to start considering your appearance to all the voters. Then, you commit a few acts of progressivism (or conservatism, in the case of republicans), and suddenly you're forgiven all your past misdeeds.

This has been a consistent trend for ages. Its gotten worse because there is more money involved.

To rectify the issue, politicians needs to be under threat of reprimand and punishment,
dictated by the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Add to that, money needs to be stripped out of politics. There should not be the possibility of a multi trillion dollar incentive that conflicts with what is best for the health and stability of the country. PACs, Super PACs, Leadership funds and K street all need to disappear from the political radar, and be banned in all forms and permutations.

In order to make that a real possibility, there needs to be a grassroots ground-swell the likes of which has never been seen in the US, demanding these changes. Most politicians will certainly not vote against their own wallets. They must be led by the nose to do it, by a unified american people.

Then, we can have the strength that conservatives love, while maintaining socio-economic awareness that we love.

[whatchamacallit]

192. Yep. K&R n/t

[Rex]

210. But isn't it always time to do something about it?

You got a trillion dollars?

[libodem]

211. Yes, my friend

Sometimes the shit gets above the sand. It happens became the internet is a series of tubes filled with cats. So much for scientific theory.

[Jakes Progress]

213. My mother always said we get the government we deserve.

Sure, I didn't select these people. Sure, the poor don't have a real voice about what their leaders do.

But I do get tired of the people at the center where I work with the poor and unemployed telling me how much Obama is making them poor and unemployed. Being poor doesn't exempt you from being intelligent.

(I rarely bother to log onto DU much anymore. But it seems I always have to in order to rec MG's posts.)

[PuraVidaDreamin]

216. We could start here...

http://vimeo.com/59675437

community environmental league defense fund

Celdf.org

I spent all weekend at Democracy School, put on by Celdf. It was eye opening! Corporations
Have nearly everything under lock, stock and barrel. They walked us through how through
History this happened. And these f in corps are beyond evil. To even perhaps stand a chance
We need to irganize locally and work towards getting our communities their own bill of rights.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

224. D J I A , D J I A , D J I A . . . . .

Dow Jones Industrial Average. Our God. And we're it's servants.

[bvar22]

228. There is a new god in town!

[font size=4]The Graven Image on the altar
of the new Church of the Invisible Hand.[/font]


Sorry, Virginia,
but there is no such thing as "Free Trade",
there is no such thing as "Free Markets",
and there is no all powerful giant Invisible Hand.
The RICH made that shit up,
and used smooth talking politicians to SELL their SCAM to a gullible America
so that they could get MORE money without working.

[Flatpicker]

231. Agreed

But I don't have a clue what to do about it.

[reddread]

233. BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAMES

Beat them at their front loading, primary killing, debate stealing, candidacy filling, money sucking game.
Beat them at their vote counting, no paper trail having, vote machine installing, money stealing game.
Beat them, for once and for all.
Write in votes.
When enough people realize they are tired of being played, when money is given the only say,
you better hope they dont kabosh the write in ballot option.
its the only way out.

[reddread]

234. Does any real politically, socially conscious, progressive liberal Democratic Party member

want or need to vote for a corporatist, militarist big money beholden/beholding candidate?
they will steal your vote one way or another if you let them.

[vi5]

239. By putting a letter after someone's name above our morals and beliefs.

And by not playing hardball.
By believing we had to be "better" than the Repubs.
By bringing a spoon to a gunfight.
By too many in our party adopting the savior mentality for Obama that Repubs had for Bush. Rather than calling him out when he needed to be, too many implored that not only should we not criticize, but that we should instead double down on praise.

All of this is what led us to where we are today.

[druidity33]

242. Don't forget Al Franken, he's still a good egg. K&R, nt.

[colsohlibgal]

247. It's Maddening

We need to keep letting the tea party ruin the republicans. What I would like to see sooner than later is the "mainstream" democrats as the new republicans, and a real progressive coalition left of that. That would bring the baseline back to where it was pre Reagan, it all has drifted so far right and we see very little discussion of that.

If I hear one more democrat, like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, say most people are moderate I'm going to hurl. Now I do feel sorry for her trying to explain, on Maher's show, why we embargo Cuba while worse acting countries have no such sanctions. I think she pulled muscle trying to do it.

It's like rationale try 2 or 3, I forget, for the Iraq war - that Saddam was a bad actor. True enough but there are worse actors we stay in bed with. Nice try Dubya, we'll file that with Rummy's 50 cent gasoline in a year.

[B Calm]

256. We have the best government money can buy

and I don't have any idea how it can be changed!

[7962]

260. Sorry but too many here are having the "reverse tea party" discussion. Thats how you lose.

The Cruz-ites will say that the reason Romney lost is because he wasnt conservative enough. "We need a REAL conservative in order to win". The result is that they sit home and dont support their candidate. As it stands now, here is my scenario for '16: The gop runs a "centrist" type guy, the tea party gets pissed and their ilk stays home and they lose. OR- they get their wish and run rand paul or cruz; the moderates wont vote for them and again, they lose.
I'm not going to play that game on THIS side of the ball. Dont lose a leg because you dont want to lose a toe.

[fadedrose]

265. Lots of ideas, Manny

But they are all illegal and would have us put in prison (in most states )

[raouldukelives]

283. The only answer I keep returning to is asking people not be part of the problem.

And instead, start procuring a legacy of compassion and good works. One of working to leave the world better for their existence, not just another brick on the backs of those who come after.
Corporations with the invaluable help of shareholders and Wall St workers have spent years crafting an "American Dream" for themselves and those welcomed into it. Where else can you join hands with the wealthiest in the world and profit from the expansion and denial of climate change, assist in crushing third world workers for an extra buck and claim "If I were alive then, I would have stood with Dr. King.", line your pockets with the blood of victims of wars of choice and resource security, knowing that every dollar held in those markets is helping assure nothing will ever change and guaranteeing things will get worse. These small things are just the tip of the iceberg of course. One can dig into the toppling of leaders, death squads, rampant destruction of the oceans, public education & the free press. Anything touched by the hand of Wall St only becomes worse in the long run.
Pretty heavy stuff when you think about it. That kind of knowledge can be a bummer. Especially for those who have inherited wealth or depend on the funds from that suffering. One likes to think of their ancestors as benevolent and charitable and dealing with the knowledge of where that trust fund originated and the works it accomplished for them and yourself as you sleep would be harsh if forced to view the information as we do. Best to keep that stuff in the realm of alternative journalism. Instead they just absorb reality from corporate approved sources that whitewash away the suffering and focus on keeping the ants engaged, happy and productive.
The entire planet is now feeling the effects of that rampant resource exploitation. Of the works of our fathers. Of the past dreams of the captains & heroes of industry. It is dying. Every animal on the face of the earth, every tree, every flower is suffering. That suffering will soon be shifting into higher gear and the only answer coming from those in bed with corporations is here is more of my money to help you quell any dissent and procure me a hefty return on my loan.
But hey, I'll donate a few of those bucks to the Sierra Club and vote D, were good.

[bvar22]

285. Strongly Agree.

In 2006, my Wife & I sold everything and moved to The Woods in the Rural South.
Our goal is to reduce our Carbon Footprint, and Produce MORE than we Consume.
So far so good.

An act as simple and inexpensive and this

can be an Act of Revolution.

[kentuck]

295. I agree that we are to blame for the present state of politics...

...as much as anyone. But why did we "do this to ourselves"?

And what would you suggest we do specifically? We see what the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party, to the opposite extreme.

[randome]

299. If you've only 'kinda' had it, then you're not desperate enough yet!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

306. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[WinkyDink]

311. You forgot "rogues"!