why are these richie pugs, and accessories, so much in hate with him?

and the majority of the democrats in the Senate, approve the farm bill?

sacrificing the farm bill necessary?

who are going to have their food stamps reduced.

it's part of the job. Get 350 Democrats in the House and 75 in the Senate and you'll still have to compromise.

Our concession was a reduction in food stamps. What did the other side concede in return?

That's hard for these people...

Totally blows my mind.

What is even sadder is that so many here seem to buy into that line of BS!

Anyone who buys into this line of reasoning should stop and think what a world with "Romney" as president would be like right about now!

dollars a year to profit from.

The stuff nightmares are made of...

Illicitly in their attempt to feel like good little protesters. It is also pushed by conservatives who hope independents will believe it and vote for Republicans.

Those pesky, unreasonable, not-right-wing-enough progressives are to blame for everything.

To the ones who engage in mental lazi ess by conflating the two parties as two sides of the same coin.

Btw, how did the progressive Ralph Nader protest vote work out in 2000? Did 8 years of Bush Hellscape usher in Ralph Nader-approved progressive political majority? Why, no it did not.

Hardly a 'progressive protest vote'.

Undeniable fact.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

The Florida Vote

Republican
2,912,790

Democratic
2,912,253

Green
97,488

Natural Law
2,281

Reform
17,484

Libertarian
16,415

Workers World
1,804

Constitution
1,371

Socialist
622

Socialist Workers
562

Write-in
40

Somehow this never sinks in.

200,000+ registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

Not only that, but this, from Emily Przekwas at this link (scroll to the bottom):

(O)ver half of the registered Democrats (in Florida) did not vote at all.

Every one of the eight third-party presidential candidates in Florida received more than the 543 votes cited as the deciding factor in the election.

On some discarded ballots, voters both filled in the bubble for their candidate and wrote the candidate's name in the write-in-space. If these had been included in the count, Gore would have had a net gain of 662 votes, enough to win the election.

...

We can only guess as to why so many Democrats abandoned Gore; I only know that I was not one at the time. But it is ridiculous for any Democrat to claim all -- or even a portion -- of Nader's 97,421 votes in Florida and not acknowledge that more than twice that many were lost by Gore to the Republican. This, more than anything else, is why Gore lost.

Now do Ron Paul.

They sure like to toss around epithets....but when the mirror is turned back on them....they gnash their teeth and rend their garments.

anyone that doesn't measure up to THEIR standard is automatically a "rightwinger" which is bullshit!

Progressives are to blame for all the ailments of America. Why can't all Democrats just be good right wingers?

Koch and big oil for RepubliCons, Wall Street for Dems. (Just as tip-of-the-iceberg examples.)

+100000000

Though it is a roughly even split.

one of the Dems "preferred corporate masters."

heavily toward Republicans

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html

The tech and telecom industries are also huge donors to Democratic campaigns, which is why most of them supported SOPA and why we haven't seen much support for net neutrality.

and the master string pullers behind it all have their bets hedged on both sides, those on top will never risk losing their position, the belief that they really support one set of opinions, ideologies, concerns above their self interest is naive and what keeps us in this cycle of battling one another over bullshit details.

They are just a bunch of nazi lunatics who are following a mob mentality to bring down the entire free world, under the dollars dominated by the oil industry/fauxnews/saudi arabia/the taliban cartels. And they're SO well financed, that the repubmocrats are really afraid of them....seriously afraid. They are winning one state over at a time, and there is not much the repubmocrats can do about it.

They are not winning any states. They are winning bright red districts, and the occasional red state senate seat.

It was koch money/citizens united on steroids.

filled with run if the mill rw nut jobs.

And pope basically bought the state last time around.

The tea party is not some diverse group. It's whack jobs from the GOP base.

That was bad enough. But on top of that, we got a republican (tea party) governor, also. So, no. NC was not a red state. Maybe as far as the federal offices, a lot of the representatives and senators were republican, but not all, by a long shot. But definitely not at the state level. Koch money turned NC into a huge mess. Our legislature this last year took our state tax to a flat rate tax, which anyone who has done the research knows, is AWFUL for all but the wealthy.

So don't tell me there hasn't been a huge change since the koch bros targeted us. I know damned good and well what has happened here.

The tea party is a virus that is sweeping the country, and scaring the hell out of the established repubmocrat party.

The Tea party vote Republican. The tea party agenda is republican. They are the extreme of the republican party.

And for most of the years I've lived here, the Dems have held the governor's and council of state offices

A nearly split legislature was not uncommon during most of that time, either

Some friendly advice: to engage in fact-based analysis, you should first get the facts right

for not going along to get along like most previous presidents.

They are doomed... Middle is beginning to observe their insanity...Demographics are changing, women are getting it...But it will take awhile..

All of their leaders came from within the GOP, their donors also contribute to the rest of the GOP, etc. As Wikipedia and Freud says of the ID:

The id (German: Es) is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth. It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives. The id contains the libido, which is the primary source of instinctual force that is unresponsive to the demands of reality. The id acts according to the "pleasure principle"--the psychic force that motivates the tendency to seek immediate gratification of any impulse-- defined as, seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure (not 'displeasure') aroused by increases in instinctual tension. If the mind was solely guided by the id, individuals would find it difficult to wait patiently at a restaurant, while feeling hungry, and would most likely grab food from neighbouring tables.

According to Freud the id is unconscious by definition:

"It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learned from our study of the Dreamwork and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of that is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations.... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle."

In the id,

"contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out.... There is nothing in the id that could be compared with negation ... nothing in the id which corresponds to the idea of time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This to me is an excellent metaphor for the Tea Party's place in the GOP. It is the dark, raw instinctual Conservative impulse. Tea Party folks tend to be racist, they use the most simplistic arguments about the unemployed and disabled and social programs, characterizing everyone who is on public assistance or unemployment as freeloaders, they cannot seem to comprehend issues right above the most basic and thus make errors like saying don't let the Federal Government touch their Medicare like it is some sort of Federal program, etc.

But they are definitely Republicans.

Look up Dick Army and Tea Party.

The Tea Party are funded by Corporate Interests.

Some of the rank and file may think they are battling "the system" but the funding by corporate backers is what made them possible.

K&R

but they're not stupid. Even they know that there are numerous differences between our 2 major political parties. But what people like them want is for the rest of us (particularly those of us on the political Left) to overlook those differences, become apathetic, and not vote for the Democrat. That is the only way Republicans can win today, since their platform stinks. They have to hope for depressed turnout among the other side.

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

because, I am told, we are pragmatic.

You can tell the difference between the two parties by looking at the empty dinner tables in front of the families. That will show one the difference, I am sure.

and sat on the DLC Executive Council.
The Koch Brothers helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC
Submitted by Ted Kahl on February 9, 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4528864



The Koch Brothers don't try to unseat Democrats.
They BUY them.

Win/Win for the Koch Brothers!
That explains a lot....
doesn't it!

And hasn't the DLC been defunct for a while now?

Sorry but the big money machines are organizing and preparing to bankroll Rethugs of all stripes. They ain't doin' it cause the Dems are their buddies.

That's not to say there isn't a swath of corporatists on our side and yeah, the Clintons are at the head of that pack.

Julie

Like all reptiles, it shed the old "DLC" skin
and has emerged as the "3rd Way"/"New Democrats".
Repackaging is a good marketing scam when your product picks up too many negatives in the market place.

The "Democrats" they helped put in power in the leadership of the Democratic Party are STILL with us,
and still have the same allegiances.
[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


Yes. The Koch Brothers are spending Billions financing Republicans,
but they are also spending money to BUY Democrats too.
Big Money has hedged their bets that way for a long time in American Politics.
Its a WIN/WIN that way.

Do you really believe that Koch Brother Money is NOT finding its way into the pockets of Democrats?
Really?

I would like to be able to find out how much influence Koch Brothers money is having on local Democratic Primaries.

"Hey!
I've got a great idea!
Lets buy BOTH Parties!"


...and, after last week's Drill, Baby, DRILL SOTU,
it looks like the Koch Brothers have bought themselves a pipeline too.

I'm more worried about what has happened to my party than whether there's still a difference between the two parties.
Under the current system anyone who thinks the poor and the middle class are getting the same level of representation they got from the Democratic party prior to Reagan is fooling themselves.

Trade agreements written by corporations in secret from the party that once identified with labor and the environment, would not have been possible thirty years ago.... Democrats should stop trying to make themselves feel better by meaningless comparisons with a party that become so extremist they're dysfunctional and take an honest look at how far to the right their party has shifted in the last few decades.

The Kochs -- fascist billionaires that they are -- support the far right party.

Doesn't mean the center/right party has been looking after our interests.

I think it means "the political opinion of the median voter".

And there is overwhelming electoral evidence that that's between the Democrats and the Republicans, not to the left of both of them.

...which was precisely the goal.

You therefore wind up defending policies that in an earlier era, would have been anathema to self-identified Democrats such as you.

The real overwhelming evidence is that the actual center is to the left of where the media and the corporate parties would like you to think it is.

Hence, the large numbers of non-voters who are never represented, the fact that opinion polls all show popular positions to the left of everyone in Washington, etc.

My definition - the median - is the only sane one.

I'm sure that some non-voters aren't voting because both parties are too far right, just as some aren't voting because both are too far left. But I rather doubt you'd find the difference between the numbers of those two sorts comforting, I'm afraid.

The first step to stopping America being a far-right country is to acknowledge that the problem is the electorate. For as long as people continue to pretend that the problem is some shadowy minority "them", rather than the fact that the man in the street in America is more conservative than here in Europe, that won't change.

Remember: declared preference means *far* less than revealed preference. And revealed preference is about 50/50 Republican/Democrat.
And, of the last 7 Democratic presidential nominees, the two who never lost (Obama, Clinton) were probably more centrist and less liberal than the five who lost or won once and lost once. (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter).

In other words, since you're not willing to hold to any standards or concrete positions, your "center" will keep drifting further and further right -- untethered, again, from what opinion polls show on major issues.

You can keep fulminating, but the facts are the Democrats have drifted much further to the right than they were previously.

While not all of America has.

Nice work getting the 1%ers completely off the hook, however. I'm sure they're appreciative.

If you look at polls or voting patterns, I believe on average the richest 1% of Americans are more liberal than the poorest 99% (although it's a while since I saw that, and I admit I can't cite a specific source for it). You wouldn't know it from reading DU, though.

The reason they're getting so much richer is because people poorer than them favour economic policies which work in their favour.

The drift of the politics of the American electorate over the last 40-50 years has been to the right economically but to the left socially. Carter would never have dreamed of backing gay marriage. But on economic issues, someone who was a centrist in 1960 would be significantly left-of-center today if their views hadn't changed, because the centre itself - not my definition of it -has changed.

...of the 99%?

I'm sorry, which rabbit hole did we just fall down?

DU is fun, but it's important to remember that it's an echo chamber and sometimes has very little contact with the real world.

And I think you may have overlooked the words "on average".

Do the 1% hold positions to the left of the 99% or not?

Which positions, precisely, do you mean?

and how on earth did Occupy greenlight this?

It's just a picture with an Occupy logo photoshopped onto it.

The Koch brothers and their ilk may on the far end of the Corporations Should Rule Spectrum, and thus have pushed the GOP further in that direction. And the Democrats may not be far enough for their taste.

But that doesn't excuse the tendency by the Democratic Party leaders to favor the interests of Big Money over the interests of the people too often for comfort.

They are spending billions to buy them off.

Do the current bunch of Democrats and Republicans both love Capitalism? Yep
Do both love free trade? Yep
Do both support destroying public education with charter schools? Yep
Do both support trickle down economics? Yep
Do both think offshoring and H1B's are a good idea? Yep
Do both think that banksters need to be supported with tax dollars at Americans expense? Yep
Do both look forward and want to try to forget the crimes of the past disaster administration? Yep.


No one is buying it anymore.

The true evil...the corptocracy which knows no or cares not for any political allegiance except the golden bull of wall street.