Thursday Toon Roundup 1: War for Peace

[n2doc]

[99Forever]

1. Mr Fish has it exactly right.

Someone remind me again why I am supposed to keep voting for "Democrats."

[n2doc]

4. Because you aren't given another choice

other than to vote for a nutcase, or vote for some unfunded, obscure third party who has no chance of winning because everything is stacked against them. And who often has some sort of skeleton in their closet that is brought out and spotlighted if they do gain traction.

Watch what happens to Sanders if he shows signs of being a threat to HRC.....

[99Forever]

5. Precisely...

... but I'm finished with that game. I guess I'll just have to support a lost cause from now on.

[MohRokTah]

8. Well, bye.

This site is for supporting DEMOCRATS.

[pocoloco]

10. Don't let the door hit you in the ass!!

Support for REAL Democrats!!

[99Forever]

12. That's exactly what I do.

Just not DINOs.

Have a nice day.

[MohRokTah]

17. There are no DINOs.

Unless you count Lyndon LaRouche, there is no such thing as a DINO.

[99Forever]

32. That's your opinion.

I don't agree.

[MohRokTah]

34. That is a fact.

It's bullshit throwing out the "Democrat in Name Only" crap because there is no such thing.

[99Forever]

42. No sir.It's your opinion.

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

You can scream all of the hate and filthy gutter language you please, it won't change my mind.

If you had a reasonable argument you wouldn't need to resort to such poor debating tactics.

[whatchamacallit]

107. Oh yes there is

You're living proof.

[MohRokTah]

108. Calling me a DINO is the lowest most vile insult I've ever encountered.

You, sir, are no longer worth any consideration of mine.

[Cha]

134. They like their little name calling.. maybe it makes them feel all superior.. lol

..their purity for whttevrr is the only thing that is acceptable. Everyone else is just a DINO.. Rofl!

Here's from Bernie Sanders on ISIS.. Would they dare throw him under their Purity bus with the rest of us?..

"I think airstrikes are important, but we need the international community."

~ snip ~

"He understands how complicated this issue is, that we need the international community, that at the end of the day, if we defeat ISIS it will be the people in Iraq and Syria do that, with the support of the United States, and with the support of the international community. So to my mind, this is an enormously complicated issue. I think the President is right. We have to help the so called Syrian moderates, G-d knows how many of them that there are. I think airstrikes are important, but we need the international community."

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025518118

snip//

"In a statement on Iraq, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said that the world needs to step up in dealing with ISIS, and in the process he sounded a lot like a 2016 presidential candidate.

In a statement, Sen. Sanders said, “The United States is not the only country on Earth with an air force. While I support President Obama’s decision to use airstrikes to protect the lives of thousands of innocent people of the Yazidi minority, the U.S. should not have to act alone militarily in this crisis. ISIS is a danger to the entire region and to the world. The international community must work with the U.S.”

MOre..
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/13/sounding-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-u-s-act-iraq.html

[Bohemianwriter]

137. You willing to push the button yourself?

`Want another invasion and leave the Kurds, and the Shias and Iran out of it?

So if an alliance with Assad should be an option. Would USA start another war to oust Assad after another few hundred thousand have been killed?

As a veteran, I am SICKENED by the lapdogs of the powers to be running into wars, playing partisan, while forgetting that ISIL is a direct consequence of what USA with GOP (and a hell of a lot of Democrats too) played the war drum, competing on who was the most hawkish, eating the words of president Chimp on the Eve of the invasion...

Unless you are willing to push the button, put your boots on the ground yourself, or have your kid do it, then I suggest we take a long breath, and think...

First mistake was NOT holding your own Nuremberg trial after Obama took office.
We have more.
Drone attacks on civilians. Extra judicious executions.
Prosecuting whistle blowers for war crimes.
Hold your own people accountable when they commit war crimes. Have I seen any Democratic voice calling for the extradition of Bush and Cheney to Hague yet?
Is Gitmo closed yet?

And what are the excuses for NOT doing things right for a change?
Why insist running around like headless mental patients expecting a different result from the same repetitive mistakes?

On the note:

Iraq is history. There is no more Iraq. The Kurds have their interests, ISL got theirs, and so does the other Sunnis as well as the Shiites.
Iraq has become an ex. Yugoslavia.
And I went there AFTER seeing horrific images on the screen, resembling the death camps of WW2 in 1993.

But don't trust me. One single veteran.
Don't trust this veteran either. Or perhaps you should take our words and experience over chickenhawk pundits who's never seen combat?`

&index=10&list=WL

Your choice sir...

[Bohemianwriter]

13. So when will Obama start acting like one?

[MohRokTah]

18. He's always been one. eom

[Bohemianwriter]

103. Well, he and his team seem more concerned...

about not pissing off the ones who hate him, and disregard the ones who voted for him.

[MohRokTah]

104. I dont think you are perceiving things correctly.

I think maybe you should revisit Barack Obama's record. HE has been the single most progressive US president in history.

[Bohemianwriter]

133. His record?

Pandering to Wall Street, inviting GOP into his power meetings, while excluding the real liberals with real solutions. Since when did you hear about progressive budget in the MS which would make you debt free within a few years?

I'll be waiting.

On another point, Obama has sold out the Latino base, pushing for immigration reform until 2017.
Continued the Bush policies with NSA and spying.
Prosecuting whistle blowers, basically condemning Chelsea Manning guilt even before the trial started, claiming her to be a criminal while covering up for the crimes of his predecessor by stating that in this case, one "must look ahead, and not backwards".

He has also sold out the unions, demanding they take a lower pay while letting the fat cats keep all the profits.
Oh, and did I forget to mention the tax breaks for the rich?

Not to mention the watered down "Obamacare" that GOP pushed for but still voted against. Why didn't he push for a single payer system well knowing that GOP would take a piss at him anyway?
Because he is not a progressive! The progressives have been pissed on ever since Reagan got into office, and Rush Liumbaugh got his own shock show on the radio!
And now, you got the audacity to blame the Progressives for the failures and sellout that Obama has done?`

Hell! As a Norwegian citizen, and a REAL Liberal, I would demand he return his undeserved Nobel Prize, and put himself in the same cell as Bush and Cheney belongs in! They must have plenty to stories to share...

[L0oniX]

15. Progressives need not apply or participate. Got it.

[MohRokTah]

19. Progressives make up a portion of the Democratic Party.

They are a minority of the whole.

There is no way to make any party a majority progressive party and still win elections on a national basis.

[L0oniX]

21. Maybe you will find out just how much of a minority the progressives are come 2016.

[MohRokTah]

23. Progressives abandoned the Democratic Party for Ralph Nader in 2000

All that accomplished was pushing the Democratic Party further to the right, a push that has yet to be fully corrected back to the position of the Democratic Party in 1999.

So go ahead, push the party even further to the right. That'll teach 'em.

[L0oniX]

24. ...and Obama abandoned the progressives the day after his first election.

[MohRokTah]

27. Bullshit. Progressives abandoned Obama the day after he was elected

So don't feed me that bullshit line. Progressives NEVER had Obama's back, so why the fuck should he give a shit about Progressives and their pet issues?

[Z_California]

36. Pet Issues?

What are these meaningless "pet issues" of which you speak. Very curious to hear what the Democratic party machine doesn't give a fuck about.

[MohRokTah]

37. Single payer or a public option for two.

Politics is the art of the possible.

Progressives have been demanding the impossible for too damned long.

[MohRokTah]

38. Prosecuting the Bush administration for "war crimes"

It is idiotic to think any presidency is going to set the precedent to place predecessors on trial.

No, I take that back. It's the height of stupidity to think that would happen.

[MohRokTah]

39. I could go on, but it would take me weeks to lay it all out. eom

[Z_California]

43. How about "income inequality"

and specifically the supreme power of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street banks? Is this a progressive "pet issue" that the machine doesn't give a shit about?

How about ending perpetual war and de-militarizing our domestic armies (aka: police) to reduce peacetime casualties of innocent civilians here at home? Is this a "pet issue"?

I just want to see what "pet issues" I should abandon so that I can be a compliant Democrat.

[MohRokTah]

45. How about fucking with banks at the level demanded by progressives equals economic disaster?

The process has to play out. IT cannot happen immediately.

It's about as realistic as the foolish demands to "just pull out" of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Z_California]

49. "Fucking" with banks?

I'm glad the Democratic party has you as a spokesman since you say it like it really is.

I don't think restoring a law that worked brilliantly from 1933 to 1999 would equal economic disaster (other than slowing the flow of freshly printed money to the Party). I don't think a couple prosecutions for the worst of the worst crooks who sabotaged our economy would equal economic disaster. Great talking point though. "Economic disaster" sounds real scary.

The message from the Party is very clear: Dont think. Just obey.

[L0oniX]

53. Can ya feel all the warm fuzzy Democrat love for progressives?

[LondonReign2]

66. Spokesman for the new Republican-Democrat party

[L0oniX]

77. "Fucking" with banks = ratfucking ...you know like with Timothy Geithner.

[L0oniX]

41. Shhhh! We aren't allowed to have a voice or influence in this party. They only want our votes.

[MohRokTah]

46. Prove your reliability.

Get a seat at the table.

[Bohemianwriter]

139. We have seen...

How unreliable most establishment Democrats are.

They don't give a damn about progressives, or the progressive ideas they mouthpiece on the trail.

As soon as they win, they start pandering to the REAL opposition instead of listening to the people who actually voted for him.

Take a look at ACA for instance.

Most people wanted Obamacare as it is now, or MORE progressives. Instead of listening to this, Obama listens to FOX and GOP and does horse trading with the GOP.

And you blame PROGRESSIVES for selling out "your" party of "reliables"?

The only reliable with establishment politicians like Hillary is how much she is on the take...

I think you should start kissing the ass of the ideological base of the Democratic party instead of sounding like a FOX contributor...

And what are progressive ideals?

Universal healthcare!
Paid sickleave!
Paid 4 week vacation!
Gutting Pentagon!
Keeping criminal elements in the government accountable!
Not starting wars based on lies!
Legalize weed!
Having trade unions in every business.
Keep business accountable!
Keep religion out of government.
Defend people's privacy.


Or as John Grisham so elequently put it in Pelican Brief in the 2nd page:

People over government.
Government over business
Environment over everything.
Whatever the Native Americans want, give it to them.

What seems to have become the trend here is the opposite. And that opposite is the GOP. Many "progressives" have started moving towards that direction since Clinton's Neoliberalism in the 90's....

When the Democratic party start acting upon REAL progressive ideas, then we can talk whether Hillary or anyone else wanting to put D in front of their name on the ballot is worthy of the trust of their voters...

[L0oniX]

40. Your message: Progressives can go fuck themselves ...but we still want your votes. Good luck.

[MohRokTah]

44. Wow

You have no clue how this politics thing works, do you?

Progressives have proven to be unreliable voters for Democrats.

Until progressives demonstrate they are reliable, Democrats will be forced to seek votes elsewhere.

Until you can get back to that reliability point, you'll be incapable of moving the party back to the left.

You're still at "unreliable" and you expect to be at the end game.

[L0oniX]

47. Good luck with your dinos then.

[MohRokTah]

48. There is no such thing as "DINOs"

Unless you count LaRouche, "DINOs" do not exist.

[L0oniX]

51. Bwahahah ok whatever ...enjoy the illusion.

[MohRokTah]

54. The only illusions are the illusions that there are DINOs. eom

[Z_California]

55. Clearly it depends on your definition of "Democrat". eom

[L0oniX]

56. Oh so now Charlie Crist is an illusion?

...and please continue to attack progressives ...maybe it will encourage them to go else where and make the Dem party pure enough?

[MohRokTah]

58. Charlie Christ is a good Democrat.

See what happens when you abandon the party and push it to the right?

I'm amazed that the left still refuses to learn the lessons of 2000.

Here's a hint. I would have loved to see Bush and company prosecuted for war crimes.

I want single payer above all.

I want unfettered access to women's healthcare.

I want just about everything YOU want.

The difference is, I understand the reality of our country and refuse to abandon the one hope we have to move towards those goals. I accept I probably will not see most of what I want in my lifetime.

I accept that I must play the long game and will never get instant gratification.

[L0oniX]

61. "Christ" Bwahahahahah ...yea you be change'n that soon.

[MohRokTah]

62. And you didn't even read my post.

[Unknown Beatle]

125. A prime example of a fine dem is

Joe Lieberman, it's not like he continually voted with repugs.

[MohRokTah]

126. Lieberman's big issues where he was constantly with the REpublicans included...

War in the middle east and anythign to do with Israel.

He was somewhat reliable on domestic issues, most notably issues related to LGBT rights.

He was horrible on healthcare.

Lieberman was an excellent example of a Democrat far more conservative than the electorate that put him and kept him in office. This is the type of Democrat to target specifically in primaries.

If Lieberman had been a Senator from Texas, you'd have to be an idiot to target him in a primary.

There are many good examples of Democrats in the House who should be primaried as their districts are far more liberal than they are.

[Unknown Beatle]

129. In other words,

DINO.

[MohRokTah]

130. Nope, not a DINO.

He would have been an excellent Democrat from North Dakota, Montana, or a host of other states. Outstanding in fact. He would have been a brilliant Democratic Senator from Florida.

He was not representative of his constituency. As a Democratic Senator from Connecticut, he allowed personal feelings override representing his constituency.

Context is everything here.

Blanche Lincoln was a great Democrat from Arkansas and you could never hope for a more liberal Democrat from that constituency. The left, in its foolishness, attempted to primary Lincoln and that weakened her for the General Election.

The result of that foolishness is now that seat is filled by a Teabagger by the name of John Boozman.

Lincoln was no DINO. She was the best we could get from Arkansas, and we could have kept her seat Democratic had the Left not been fools.

The House and the Senate are numbers games. Now, because of idiocy from four years ago, there's a damned good chance that we will lose the Senate. With John Boozman out and Blanche Lincoln in, that would be a much tougher road for the Republicans to hoe.

Leftists need to stop cutting off their noses to spite their faces. We can do a lot, but only if we have the numbers to drive the agenda.

[LondonReign2]

67. Another fucking lie

You're on quite a roll, conservative democrat

[MohRokTah]

70. I am no conservative Dem.

But if it makes you feel better, believe it. All you accomplish is moving the party to the right.

[LondonReign2]

71. LOL

"If we don't keep voting for ever more conservative politicians with D's after their name...all you accomplish is moving the party to the right!"

LOL

[MohRokTah]

72. Nice made up quote.

The REAL quote would be "As progressives abandon the party, they force the party to seek votes from the right, thus moving the party to the right."

Of course, I doubt you read anything I've posted.

[LondonReign2]

75. Holy fuck

Did *you* just read what you wrote?

Forced to seek votes from the right??!!? Yet again you advocate for moving the policies of the Democratic party to the right to "win votes". Party before policy, again.

[MohRokTah]

81. Holy fuck@

Did YOU even read what I wrote?

Apparently not. To get elected, a candidate must get votes. If a Democratic candidate cannot count on votes from the left, that candidate has no choice but to alter policies in order to seek the votes from the right.

Please, educate yourself on how politics functions.

[LondonReign2]

82. We should engrave this to show exactly what you "conservative democrats" stand for

"that candidate has no choice but to alter policies in order to seek the votes from the right. "

Outted

[MohRokTah]

83. Do you not understand reality?

When the left cannot be counted on to vote for a Democratic candidate, that candidate has no other choice.

Idiots on the left have not learned the simple basics of how politics functions in this nation, further compounding the issue by failing to get involved locally.

The only "outting" going on is you outting your own lack of understanding about how politics works.

[LondonReign2]

86. Keep tellin' that lie!

If you lie enough times maybe someone will believe you.

In the meantime, we'll just leave you here, advocating for "altering policies to appeal to the right".

[MohRokTah]

87. I have not told a single lie

I await your apology for your false accusations.

[LondonReign2]

91. LOL

Tell me again -- while you advocate the Democrats alter their policies to appeal to the fucking right! -- the one about progressives failing to support Democrats.

Hint: You might want to look at the data, posted many times on this very website, about the 2010 and 2012 elections and the voting patterns. Then again, you may not want to since it directly refutes your false narrative.

[MohRokTah]

92. Now you're just making shit up.

I did not ONCE "advocate the Democrats alter their policies to appeal to the fucking right!"

I merely stated the FACT that once the left proves unreliable, Democratic candidates must alter their policies to gain voters from the right.

Is English your first language? I know there are nuances, but I've been very clear in the language I used.

[LondonReign2]

95. Oh please

Your entire premise is built on the LIE that "the left"/"progressives" are unreliable votes for the Democratic party. You then used that false premise to justify the party's continued movement to "alter policies to gain voters from the right". I certainly call that advocating, even though the justification is built on a knowingly false premise, but perhaps you are merely condoning it. Ugh.

So again, maybe you want to look at the actual voting patterns from 2010 and 2012. Then again, you either already know those facts and continue to spin your false narrative or you are choosing to remain ignorant.

[MohRokTah]

101. The Left has been consered unreliable since 2000.

The Left has yet to convince the party otherwise. It's up to the left.

So continue to lie to yourself. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

[LondonReign2]

102. Don't read this

Since it puts the lie to your little narrative

Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”

http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”

“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

[L0oniX]

115. Don't confuse with facts.

[Bohemianwriter]

135. So in your world...

GOP is kissing ass to the insane teabaggers, and the Liberals have to kiss the ass of the ones who want their vote! The crony Capitalists like the one you got on your picture. Yes! She is! She don't give a damn about true progressives unless she eyes a vote and give some crumbles if not too busy talking to Wall Street and how sorry she feels for them being bashed by the ones whom she needs the votes from.

A darling for the Neocons. Hooking for Wall Street while bashing "the left" and then you expect "the left" to kiss the ass of whomever has the most money and wins the primary?

I'm sorry. It don't work that way. This is a chance for the Democratic Party to prove to be "the good guys", and now, you sound like an MSM pundit, belittling the REAL progressives in USA. Way to go!

I'll bring the pop corn while the Bluedogs are selling out the Democrats for a GOP dictatorship, running your country down in the ground...

I'm gonna call it the "Weimar" years these last 8 years..

[MohRokTah]

128. If all you have are insults, your opinion is worthless. eom

[Bohemianwriter]

138. Tell that to the "Reagan Democrats"...

who sold out Carter for the 2nd dumbest president in history...

Thanks to many democrats NOT voting for the pot friendly, pacifist Carter, they voted for the "Moral Majority" Reagan with the mantra from Paul Weyrich in 1980....

They practically voted for a candidate who in practice committed treason to win an election!

Why? Because Carter was too progressive? Not war mongering enough?

So stop blaming PROGRESSIVES for a Democratic party that has mover further right. When politicians become dirty, they lose votes. When they become dirty and have dirty money, they buy elections, and demonize both own part members whom are not "partisan" enough, or not adhering to the party whip.
It's as if you expect progressives to give your party candidates support despite the fact that there is a chance that they are in the pockets of someone not giving a damn about you, the voter....

And if you wanna know about voting?

Let this man give you an insight on voting...

[L0oniX]

113. ^^^this^^^

[L0oniX]

111. Jeeze ...how embarrassing. Enjoy votes from the right then.

[MohRokTah]

114. Um, I'm not a Democratic candidate.

I'm not the person who needs votes to win an election. I'm just somebody who has watched this shit for more than four decades.

Get reliable. They'll give you a seat at the table then. I've been reliable for nearly that entire four decades (started watching this shit as a teenager. Got A's in Civics), but my reliability doesn't count much because so many people who have the same ideology as me (i.e. liberal) are too unreliable.

[LondonReign2]

119. liberals are too unreliable.

Fucking lie. The data shows it to be a lie, yet you continue to lie. Why?

[proReality]

120. Wow is right

As a progressive who has never voted for a 3rd party or a republican, I take exception to your insulting generalizations about progressives.

[MohRokTah]

123. I am a progressive who has never voted 3rd party or Republican

Those on the left who jumped ship for Nader in 2000 did a helluva lot of damage.

[Union Scribe]

59. Last night that dude

tried telling me, "I am a leftist." My response:

[L0oniX]

60. Yea ...like that is an insult.

There are many here that would be happy to see the left and progressives chased away.

[LondonReign2]

65. Stupid lie

Time and again the data has been shown that it was NOT progressives that voted for Nadar. But I'm sure you know that. I guess it is OK for "conservative democrats" to keep trotting out this lie knowingly.

[Bohemianwriter]

105. You are blaming LIBERALS for pushing your party further to the right?

Seriously?

Are the peace mongers and OWS twisting Obamas' and Hillary's arms to behave more and more like Republicans?

So, whose kid do you want to send in and continue the wars that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans started?

Don't ask me. I'm tired of war. Did my hard time in Bosnia in '93....

[MohRokTah]

106. Oh absolutely. Had there not been a mass exodus of the Left to the Greens in 2000, the Democratic...

PArty would be nowhere near as far to the right.

As it is, Barack Obama is the single most liberal president in US history.

[LondonReign2]

110. More fucking lies

Going to address the *actual data* I presented?

And Obama described his economic policy as "mainstream 1980's Republican". Only in conservative democrat land does that qualify him as liberal.

[MohRokTah]

112. The truth hurts, I know.

But what I've said is still the truth.

[LondonReign2]

118. I used to argue with right-wingers on Yahoo boards

You know right-wingers -- that other political group that also is pleased when Democrats alter their policies to appeal to them, just like you.

I finally realized how pointless it was. No matter what empirical evidence you showed them, they simply ignored it if it didn't fit their fantasy world just like you. They were impervious facts. Show them an indisputable, data driven fact, and they'd simply ignore it, just like you.

I've posted the voting results from the last three elections that show your narrative is false. But just like those right-wingers I used to debate, any proven fact that interferes with their fantasy world is ignored. No counter facts presented, just a reiteration of proven falsehoods, just like you.

Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that everything is the fault of progressives' failure to support Democrats at the polls. You've even managed to argue--straight-faced as far as I can tell-- that progressives advocating progressive policies are the cause for Democrats adopting policies more agreeable to the right wing. LOL.

Of course you can't bring yourself to acknowledge actual voting results, actual data. To do so would blow up your careful construction of falsehoods that everything is the progressives' fault.

You know whose fault it is that the Democrats have been moving continually to the right? Those who advocate and support those right wing policies. And there you are, promoting Hillary, who is to the right of the President that described his own economic policies as mainstream 1980's Republican.

[Z_California]

121. Wow, you are so right

There are a group of them here on DU, most of whom I ignore now, who remind me of RW trolls now polluting the internet, smearing those who veer from the party line, twisting words, using false premises, and other intellectually dishonest arguments to squash dissent.

[Bohemianwriter]

136. Something tells me..

That the democratic sellouts asked for it in 2000 submitting to a numbskull wannabe Texas cowboy and cheer leader from Connecticut.

Sorry.But I will not be kind about this. If you are trying to pander to "moderates" which means they really are conservatives in disguise instead of the people who can win you elections, then you deserve to lose.

And now, it seems that Democrats might be losing plenty of Latino votes as well, when Obama is pushing Immigration Reform in front of him instead of dealing with it right now.
Why doesn't he deal with it?
Because he is afraid that GOP might be upset with him!

[LondonReign2]

64. Once more our "conservative Democrats" come clean

Not surprising from the guy who wants the party to continue to move to the right.

So the majority of the Democratic party is not progressive, eh?

So would you say the majority are more status quo, or more regressive?

[MohRokTah]

68. I don't want the party to continue to move to the right.

And yes, the majority of the party is not progressive.

That's why Progressives must formulate coalitions on specific issues to move towards a progressive position while accepting that the totality of the desired outcome can never be reached immediately.

It's called politics for a reason.

When progressives demand ideological purity, all they accomplish is moving the party to the right. That's stupidity, IMO.

The ACA is the best example of a huge progressive win, and yet progressives whine because it did not go far enough. Meanwhile, realistic progressives understand that to get to the end state, which is single payer and potentially full socialization of medical care, steps must be taken along the way. Medicare was one such step. The ACA is another.

Realistic progressives are in it for the long game and refuse to give up and abandon the only party that offers a means to the desired end. Idiot progressives take their ball and go vote for the Green candidate.

[LondonReign2]

73. So is the Democratic Party

status quo, or regressive in your opinion?

[MohRokTah]

79. Both parties are fluid.

Overall, both parties have been moved to the right since 1999. This was primarily due to the fact that a mass exodus of people on the left to the Green Party in 2000 lead to electoral defeat for the Democratic candidate in 2000. This resulted in a massive move to the right for both parties to fill the void left by that exodus.

The Democratic Party shifted somewhat to the left in the wake of the Iraq war, though the ground lost from 2000 has never been made up since. This was further exasperated by the far right's propensity to back George W. Bush's every move regardless during this time period, thus solidifying the power of the right in the Republican Party.

The Democratic party moved even more to the left and was on the brink of actually making up the lost ground when Barack Obama was elected. Then, the left abandoned Obama en masse beginning immediately after the election and continuing ever since. This has forced the party back to the right.

The left has a lot to learn about how national politics works. It would help if the left got involved more with local politics. The right has learned the lesson that by taking control locally, they can exert their will on the majority nationally via mechanisms for drawing districts and voting laws.

The left still ahsn't learned this lesson, and we pay for it with an overall right of center national politics when the country would be more left of center if the left ever got its shit together.

[LondonReign2]

84. Yet another lie

"This was primarily due to the fact that a mass exodus of people on the left to the Green Party in 2000 lead to electoral defeat for the Democratic candidate in 2000."

False

"Then, the left abandoned Obama en masse beginning immediately after the election and continuing ever since. This has forced the party back to the right."

Another lie.

It is impossible to take you seriously when you have such a poor-- one might say intentional -- grasp of facts.

[MohRokTah]

85. Your grasp of the facts is what's lacking here.

The left never had Obama's back, thus the left lost power in the party.

The right ALWAYS had George W. Bush's back, thus the right gained power in the party.

In fact, the far right gained so much power that their insanity runs the Republican party while the left lost so much power that the left has almost no voice in the Democratic party.

The left, for the most part, has yet to learn the long game. The right has been playing the long game for fifty years.

Whining about not getting everything you want gets you nowhere, and actually causes you to lose ground.

Taking what you want inch by inch over decades and decades is how you succeed.

Look at how the right has whittled away at the rights of women. They've done it via the death of a thousand cuts, one little chunk at a time.

[LondonReign2]

88. You continue to tell the same lie, while advocating for the party

to move to the right. Thanks for showing your true colors.

[MohRokTah]

89. I have not ONCE advocated for the party to move to the right.

I have simply stated the FACT that the party has moved to the right and why.

You refuse to recognize the facts, and that's a big part of the problem because there are so many of you who do the same.

Here's a clue, my end goals are nearly identical to yours. I play the long game. You do not. You, and those like you, are a hindrance to the policy changes we both desire.

[L0oniX]

74. Silly! The party must move in what ever direction the money is coming from.

[LondonReign2]

78. Well, whatever it take to "win", eh?

I mean, as long as the "D" wins, regardless of actual policy, well YAY!

MohRak has informed me that it actually us nasty progressives that are forcing the party to the right, because you see then Dems 'seek more votes from the right' in order to win.

[L0oniX]

80. If only we took more baths they might move closer to us.

[LondonReign2]

96. If only we agreed to praise any policy without question

and vote lockstep no matter what position was taken-- THEN we'd be ok. Sure, we'd be "conservative democrats", i.e., 1980's Republicans, but whatever it takes for the ostensible "D" to win. Rah Rah.

[L0oniX]

109. ...in other words #%#*$)_! - message hidden by jury decision.

[actslikeacarrot]

93. ....and war, evidently. n/t

[MohRokTah]

94. War is a horrible and terrible tragedy.

It's also a daily reality on this planet.

[Scootaloo]

132. Which is strange because "party before principles" is SUCH a Republican position.

[Bohemianwriter]

11. A nutcase vs. a necon corporate puppet...

Tough choices you have.

It seems like only yesterday when my American History teacher in Kansas bragged to me about the superiority of the American "democracy" by equating in with commie Russia:

Commie A or commie B.

And then the American government teacher went on bashing our own social democratic system with many parties.

It seems that you are living under the illusion of democracy:

Wall Street Neocon A or Wall Street Neocon B obeying the same puppet masters.

In the meantime, you get all the cheap stuff you want at Wall Mart produced by sweat shop workers in Chine, sold by people on minimum wage and food stamps!

Should I as a Norwegian somehow be jealous and wanting to move over to "the Land of the Free" under those conditions? And you couldn't pop one 3rd option out of a pool of 300 million people?

Nah. I'd take a trip and witness the freak show first hand though...
Or in historical terms: The Weimar Republic of America...

[Xyzse]

14. That's pretty much why this Independent keeps voting Democratic.

I can't see the point till a third party makes inroads in the House and Senate first.

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. "I can't see the point till a third party makes inroads in the House and Senate first."

Inroads are difficult if everyone refuses to vote for a third party until it makes inroads.
kinda circular logic there.

Dems have to be extremely effective on the state level, to counter what the repubs have done at that level.

[MohRokTah]

28. Yeah, but then the left gets mad and abandons the Democrats.

All that is accomplished by doing that is pushing the Democrats further to the left.

There will NEVER be a viable third party. If progressives would grow up and face the facts and stop running away with their ball crying over not getting their way 100% all the time, maybe some real progress could be made.

[LondonReign2]

69. Lie

[Xyzse]

30. What do you mean?

All I am saying is, if they want to run a 3rd party, that 3rd Party has to run candidates for the House and Senate first, and get at least a few of them in there.

If, there are at least 2 in the senate and 4 in congress of the 3rd party, then I would consider voting for that 3rd Party candidate for the Presidency.

I just can't see them as being anywhere near effective or being able to win unless they have that at a minimum.
I'm stuck on the Two Big Parties, till that happens.

[dixiegrrrrl]

57. What I meant was

I hear quite often that people will support 3rd party candidates AFTER those candidates show they are viable by being elected.

But how can they be elected if people are waiting to vote for them until AFTER they are elected?

ie: what if everyone is thinking the same way by waiting?

[Xyzse]

63. Ah...

I have no problem voting 3rd party in the House and Senate.
The only time I will never do so is for the Presidency.

I believe that, unless they have a base on the House and Senate, they would have no chance.

Currently however, I was very happy with my elected representatives in my state of Maryland.

If however I find that a 3rd party candidate would possibly do better, I have nothing to hold me back from voting for them.

It is just the Presidency that they have to reach a certain threshold before I even consider voting for them.

[humbled_opinion]

33. Well I can tell by some posts on here

That those who were so enraged with George W Bush on the issue of war were never really anti-war. It sickens me those phonies will now prostrate themselves for Obama as they follow him to the endless murdering of human beings. I am sure those will be the first ballots cast to award their hero another Peace Prize...

Peace !!

[Octafish]

2. Peace of the Action kick.

The Mr. Fish cartoon says a lot about a lot.

Thank you, n2doc!

[malaise]

3. As usual the cartoonists nailed it

Rec

[Gothmog]

6. Thank you for the cartoons

[hedgehog]

7. Thank-you!

[SteveG]

9. All toons

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025518705

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025518706

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025518707

[Tom_Foolery]

16. K & R. Thank you! n/t

[jwirr]

20. So now we are all not going to vote for a Democrat again. Fine. What is going to change? Not

the "war" for sure - it will just be us alone with Cheney running the show.

Immigration? Sure if all those children are ready to work for nothing because the pugs do not want a real path to citizenship.

The Safety Net? What safety net?

Income inequality? What's wrong with it. Obviously the rich are satisfied.

Racism? Oh, it will go away as soon as the black guy leaves the WH. You think?

The economy? What's wrong with the economy? Look at what has been happening to the stocks on Wall Street. The rich are still getting richer.

No voting is not going to make anything better. We have been there for the last 30+ years. Overall living with a Democratic government is better than raygunomics and trickle down. I hate this idiot war and I do not think anyone but the Arabs themselves can ever stop this nonsense but I do not want to go where the rethugs want to go. I will vote for Democrats in 2014 and 2016 if there is no other alternative that can win.

[n2doc]

29. Funny how criticism of the President's policy is re-interpreted as "don't vote Democratic Party"

Wasn't aware that Obama was even running again. Maybe you have a source? Or are you just desperate to squelch criticism?

[jwirr]

35. There are people talking about not voting Democratic in this post. I am merely telling them that

they are forgetting what we have been through since raygun was elected. And where the rethugs are demanding we go in the future. I do not want to go there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. "Obama's outlining his own Fiscal stimulus package"

Wow......

[adirondacker]

50. That one sure stood out. nt

[KansDem]

52. Yeah, that one jumped out at me...

Says it all about why we got mired in the Mideast in the first place.

[L0oniX]

76. Stimulus for the MIC?

[valerief]

25. Damn, that last one says it all about America. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

99. Never thought I would be embarrassed to be an American.

That's what I get for pursuing the truth in stead of living the dream.

[raouldukelives]

31. Great and accurate cartoons today. nt

[sabrina 1]

90. LOl:

[Raffi Ella]

97. wow, what a world we live in.

I would hate to be in the President's shoes right now.

[ellenfl]

98. thank you, mr. fish. eom

[Electric Monk]

116. k&r

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

117. Thanks Doc

[woo me with science]

122. kick

[Martin Eden]

124. #1 was spot-on, and #2 made me laugh

but Scott Stantis is a RW hack

[alfredo]

131. Knr