Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal
WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal
April 21, 2016

I posted this yesterday and it's apropos here.

Funny how it works...
People tell you over and over what the problem is: you're the same as Rs. You continue to ignore them. They stop voting, drop out of the process all together, or register as Independent because the Democratic Party is serving its masters not "We the People." In short, as a Party, EPIC FAIL of colossal proportions. And yet, all this Fail makes your continue-the-Fail-candidate stronger against outsiders (because the rules leave Independents in the cold). It's almost like the Democratic Party is daring an outsider to make a Third Party run.

God forbid the Democratic Party serves "We the People."

So how will the Democratic Party react to a Third Party run? Here's how I think it should play out. Bernie and Hillary get together behind closed doors. Bernie says, "I'm going to make a Third Party run UNLESS you do many things differently beginning right now. You replace your advisers with these people, and these people you will appoint to cabinet positions. Further, you adopt this platform to run on in the GE."

She gets to be president, we get his platform, advisers, and cabinet. It will be a coup, but no one will be the wiser. If she... after she laughs in his face, he gives her 24 hours to think on it. If she tells him to Eff off, he runs as a Third Party candidate.
April 21, 2016

I was young and naive, too. I look back now and consider myself an

Auto Pilot Democrat. The Reagan Era is over! Democrats are in charge. It's all good. Idiot me. A lot of Hillary supporters are as naive today as I was throughout the Clinton 42 years.

Just think, today's naive young people actually espouse Democratic Progressive values and principles. And in return, they are ruthlessly and relentlessly shamed by Hillary, her wayward supporters, and Rachel Maddow et al.

April 21, 2016

Here's one thing Obama has on Clinton: Trickle Down economics

Obama came to office at the nadir of an economic collapse Democrats conveniently pinned on Bush despite the fact that we bought the 401K Casino economy Republicans sold America.

In one sense, the 401K Casino economy is like a student loan: for kids to get them, their parents, who are already in debt, have to co-sign. And thanks to Democrats like Joe Biden, you cannot escape student loan debt through bankruptcy. That makes them generational. 401Ks work in much the same way in that there's no getting out. Republicans and New Democrats were ingenious in setting up a system that funnels money from the middle class to the 10%.

We've refused to accept responsibility for Bill Clinton, who pretty much resided over the consolidation of everything from media to financial institutions, the creation of Wall Street black markets, and brought us race to the bottom trade deals.

I think 90% of us hoped Obama was going to be the change candidate. Instead, we got another New Democrat.

Where Obama had the luxury of a Trickle Down, 401K inflating bailout, Hillary won't. Her "incrimental" platform will keep her married to the Casino sham with no public appetite for another Wall Street bailout.

April 21, 2016

Gotta love Democrats who carry the water for Republicans

Not only do Republicans get a shit ton of what they want for free, our idiotic government subsidizes them in one way or another. But when a true Progressive says kids shouldn't begin their adult life $20-100,000 in debt, a bunch of Democrats stand up for banksters.

Fucking never thought I'd see this at DU. Hillary supporters have a bankrupt set of values.

April 21, 2016

I have to say, Thom has definitely exhibited he's got

Dr. Frankenstein Syndrome TM (c)
He feels responsible for creating a monster (Bernie or Busters) and is in full damage control mode. His whole "Let's all just get along" schtick with Stephanie Miller was the first indicator.

He obviously never listens to her show. She's been trolling Bernie and his supporters for months and only reports pro-Hillary, anti-Bernie pieces. She had Ed Schultz on once and he steamrolled her. She was totally deflated. She thought she could butter-up Ed like she does Thom (she's so insecure), but Ed wouldn't have any of it. On the other hand, Thom acts like a desperate man succumbed by flattery.

I didn't catch him yesterday. Did he actual say Bernie needs to drop out now? That would be the only reason I could see for creating the OP. He's said all along that he'll support Hillary and Bernie should stay in until the convention. If he's asking Bernie to drop out, wow!

April 20, 2016

Upshot from last night: Independent FAIL

Who knew that leaving a Party you've grown disenchanted with, or never joining it in the first place because it mimics the Republican Party in many ways, would only increase the relative strength of the establishment? In other words, those out of the party whose intent was to send the Party a message kind of sealed their fate and ensured they're stuck with the lesser of two evils. This primary has been very enlightening, mostly for the wrong reasons, and no one should expect anything to change. At this time, I look forward to seeing how Bernie's movement impacts the Democratic Party platform (or will it at all), and who Hillary picks as her running mate; will (s)he be a Progressives all Democrats can be proud of, or a "Progressive" only the establishment can be proud of. There are many good reasons for Bernie to fight on, most important IMO, the lasting impact he's had on the Party. Do I think he'll have made a lasting impact? No. But I'll reevaluate when I see who she picks as advisors and cabinet members. More of the same Wall Street like Clinton 42 and Obama? Most likely; why should we expect otherwise? But for some reason, she got a ton of Labor endorsements. Will she have a pro-Labor cabinet? Obama sure kicked Labor to the curb. So, more of the same...?

April 18, 2016

Proof that Hillary is influenced by Big Money Not Necessary (Sugar coated version)

When making a decision in the an scenes of "definitive proof," one relies on reasonable inferences. And Hillary's claim, that we can't prove she's influenced by Wall Street and Big Money interests, doesn't pass the "reasonable man test."

Like it or not, and not just when it's convenient to do so, Hillary was part of the DLC Third-Way Clinton 42 Admin. So that puts her in the company of:

Robert Rubin

Larry Summers

Rahm Emanuel

Alan Greenspan (oh yes, nominated by Clinton)

Bill Daley

John Podesta (In 1988, he and his brother Tony co-founded Podesta Associates, Inc., a Washington, D.C., "government relations and public affairs" lobbying firm. Now known as the Podesta Group, the firm "has close ties to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin.&quot

Tim Geithner (Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs)

Do these names look familiar to you, too? Add Wall Street's top defense attorney, Eric Holder, and it is idendical to the people with whom Obama surrounded himself, and there's even a Clinton touting shitty trade deals (Hillary sold as TPP "the gold standard" until Bernie said it's another Clintonian crap trade policy).

Which brings us to today. John Podesta is Chairman of Hillary's Presidential campaign. Why would we expect anyone different. Politically, ihis is the bubble she grew up in. These are the people she knows and trusts. When you attack her about her Wall Street ties, she doesn't take responsibility. What does she do? She shames her detractors by (1) saying they're attacking President Obama (who, obviously, was way too close to Wall Street and arguably closer to WS than Clinton 42 when you consider Clinton's AG was Janet Reno) or (2) applying a sexist double standard to her, e.g. demanding her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts (her lack of transparency here could also be used against her as avoidant behavior).

Based on these facts, the "reasonable man" would expect more of the same too-close- for-comfort relationship with Wall Street. Further, she's promising more of the same at every opportunity.

I've seen Rachel et al and WaPo run with Hillary's "Prove it!" claim, but it's all lazy, biased, busch league journalism. The reasonable man can easily sink this claim.

April 16, 2016


Everyone bought in to the GOP's war on pensions and Social Security. Democrats are more interested in "Obama's stock market" than the slow trickle down of jobs.

April 15, 2016

You got it right. No one likes change. An alcoholic has to replace his lifestyle. The white-make GOP

is having 'murcia taken from them. The Democratic Party didn't see this coming. True, the largest caucus in within the Party is the Progressive Party, but they don't have the infrastructure of the DLC, so they're clinging tight to the establishment.

What will happen in 4 years is anyone's guess. Democrats are terrified of labels, and the new label to keep everyone in line is "sexist." And that's friendly fire. Can you imagine a "coup" occurring during the administration of the first female president. The Progressives will be kept in line for fear of being labeled sexist.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 10:00 AM
Number of posts: 5,252
Latest Discussions»WhaTHellsgoingonhere's Journal