to go through a party to get to your government you have too many parties or not enough access.

Tell where this party crap sits in the constitution. I usually only read the preamble and that is enough to tell me what follows is garbage. Parties are most of the problem and none of the solution.

Sweeney

[iHowever [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. (Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796)

How is that working out?

Profits over country

It's begining to look like the Ferengi are in power
http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)

and true on so many levels and so many ways, when it comes to the great capitalist system. How are we going to be able to change the Party when the Party is more about money and giving less than a damn about the people(base) that makes up the majority of the Party. The fantasy is creating a true, non-libertarian, non racist tea party, Party. The need is to create a true progressive movement that can turn into a new Party immune to the uber money backed RW/LW infiltrators, provocateurs that will try to paint the 'new' movement in the worst light to americans, and really be progressive and liberal in actuality. Equality for all who believe. How? It takes numbers believing it's possible will be the beginning......I know I'm dreaming. Money is god in this country and that god is a VERY JEALOUS god. That god will allow no one or anything to challenge its influence...right?

Politics which is the personality of all organizations saps the strength of any movement. Do not organize revolution. Disorganize revolution. Change something. Like the Muslims say: If you would change the world, first change yourself. Start by thinking about a new society, and how to bring that about. Think about what a new constitution would look like. Start thinking about a new form of relationship with the American, and one in which we all have necessary democratic protection of right and democratic power to affect necessary change.

Sweeney

I say sure. Yet I don't want to change anything but to be able to call myself an equal in this democracy, small 'd' intended. That, in this country, entails getting rid of a system and institutions that has bred a culture of inequality based on a white supremacy doctrine toward others of color, starting with the genocide of native-American nations.

Manifest Destiny and it's modern cousin, PNAC and those groups are still trying to create a world that the uber rich and uber racist whites and their allies, of which there are many, will rule this country and all its peoples, poor whites also, with an iron fist. I don't want to allow that to happen. I want this country to live up to its promise and ideals. I am revolting only against the people who hate me primarily for my skin color and the threat I represent in them losing the privilege they glean from this society based on their skin color. The hate mentioned is something I'm beginning to find over the complete political spectrum. That is what I'm referencing when wanting a Party of true liberal and progressives dedicated to eradicating the inequality present because of money, privilege and just generic racial hate based on some outmoded white supremacy doctrine.

I changed in the 50's, 60's when by saying no more inequality in human and voting rights based on superficial racial difference, economic status and religious dominance over a society that has allowed the RW racists to turn god into a ravening beast, as some in the Muslim world's religion has done also, so no thanks. Muslims are dominated by religion, so there is very little I can gain from those cultures, but it's a valid statement.

Revolution began with me in the 60's and in keeping a constant watch on the ebb and flow of political power. When Reagan gained office I KNEW, the small gains that people of color had made in human and voting rights were going to be turned back. And slowly but surely the RW and the racists have been chipping away, since Reagan, at the rights of the many to secure the benefits and privilege of the few. Precedent was/is the continued abrogation of treaties with the native-Americans of this country and the continued attitudes of the RW in openly stating their racist agenda(s)..

My fantasy can become reality not when I change, but when true liberals and progressives of all stripes come together, like they did in D.C. and in the Civil Rights era and say "NO MORE"!!!!!!!!

If you want to go to D.C. For example. Go alone. Maybe others will go along alone too. There is not courage in numbers but cowardice. And I am not telling anyone to do illegal to do right. You do not even have to leave home to do right. All you need is a reason, and an emotional reason is best.

Every revolution I know of was an effort to recapture a mythic past that was denied in the moment. Lincoln tried to recall the promise of our Declaration of Independence in the middle of the Civil War. The constitution representing as it did the counter revolution calling a halt to the American Revolution had empowered slave owners and Yankee traders and manufacturers. The Civil War was made necessary by the failures of the Constitution; but those failure were made stronger by the war and not corrected. Just as the income tax was sold to correct injustice, and make the money rich pay their fair share, it was soon pushed down onto every level of people who could pay anything. Where is the privilege our taxes protect? It is not our privilege.

The government and the people who endure it, are still a house divided over property rights. Those with religious privilege stand with those in defense of property privilege, and but look to see that the government is allowed no power over property but the power to tax and regulate commerce. We have no control over church or property. They have control over us.

Look at campaign finance. This is done to us on the basis of property privilege that they call a right. There is a difference between a right and a privilege, but when people have for fight privilege to have their rights it should be the privilege that gives way. How much do people have to fight the churches to have their rights? How much must they fight the wealthy to have their rights. Without an address of those fundamental ideas, of rights against privilege we are wasting time.

Because the government gives us no defense and no control over these privileged classes we need to trash the government and end privilege.

Sweeney

and in principle and in fact I can somewhat agree because of my experience living the 'american dream'. In doing so, lost my home, forced to retire early, barely getting by with the SSI and a small pension. No, america has NEVER lived up to its promise(s) in my book. Add to that, always fighting against the racists that control a lot of the institutions and serve in the systems, like police and politics for my right to be called a man. The irony of me and many generations of having to fight all those years for the simple right to vote in a system that is, so far, irredeemably corrupted by the uber rich is not lost on me. The black people who were slaves after 'emancipation', should have been citizens, but no, generations of racist hate and segregation without any rights were still to be experienced. Hell the white woman didn't get the right to vote in this country till 1921. And blacks still had to fight until 1964-5.

The "mythic past" as eloquently put by you is an illusion, I agree. A just and equal future is the goal for all people living here in america that have a stake in just and equal being a reality. That means organizing people around that purpose. The Civil War was fought on pragmatic grounds by Lincoln, not idealistic/constitutional grounds of say freedom and equality for the slaves that it ultimately freed. There were 5 principle reasons for the Civil War. 1.The COTTON GIN , 2.states rights,3. slave and nonslave state proponents not agreeing on the number of free and slave states, NOT the fact of enslavement. 4. the Dred Scott Case and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin did cause sympathies for and against slavery to grow. 5. by the times Lincoln was elected 7 states had already seceded from the Union. The freedom/emancipation of slaves was a by product of the confederacy's defeat. The american revolution had no impact on people of color, it was between two camps of whites, one imperialistic, the other trying to find a different route to domination over people, very well spelled out with our slavery laws that were vicious and cruel. We are still fighting that element of the civil war today in the racism behind the murders and executions, in the streets, of people of color, men, women and CHILDREN, by the state sanctioned executioners disguised as police officers. The Constitution has never protected the poor and people of color in america. The so called 'free american citizen' has never had, despite claims to the contrary, any protection(s)from the inception of this country till today, none except the white male and, lately revealed, white citizens.

My emotions are always raw, before and have been exacerbated by the murder of Trayvon Martin and all of the rest since him, all the way up to today. I could answer the property rights issue, but that is a moot point. No one ever owns a house. Lose job because of downsizing, job shipped overseas, can't pay the exorbitant mortgage, house gone. That's the bankers. Don't pay the taxes because of stated reason among many more, house gone, that's the state. No win. It must be changed by the people getting the screws from the bankers and the state. No revolution will cause that, except a revolution by large numbers of disaffected and alienated people who are denied the privileges and benefits that uber rich enjoy in all areas of american society. It's race. It's class.

The privileged class must be put in their place either by NUMBERS of people saying stop the economic disparity based on just your feelings of privilege because you have the money or the system will collapse because of its own corruption, racism and economic inequality, which IT IS in the process of doing.

And it gets worse from there; because people are unwilling to suffer the unfairness of life we all suffer, and so they make others, and some times many others feel it double. Let everyone have their own unfairness, and hold it close and say this is my little treasure of unfairness in life, and I am keeping it all to myself. I have seem many people overcome great odds without bitterness and hate. I have seen people struggle against slight odds, and constantly complain. From my perspective they may have no complaint, but giving them my complaint is less than fair. The saddle is fitting rather roughly on humanity right now, and they don't need my pain on top of their sores.

I have always found that I was myself the greatest impediment to my joy and happiness in this life. If I could get over me I could get some where, and yet that me was the reason I climb at all. I have the Giant gene and I am born a dwarf. All about me in time are great men who seem to reach the finest fruit with ease while I take pickups. So long as every court needs a fool I am in with the cap and bells. Still, if I cannot master injustice I will undermine it. This system; our system had unfairness built into it. It sold out black humanity to give this nation a false existence that should have ended with the civil war except that the very corruption of our purpose that resulted in Civil War was made stronger. We are still a house divided, we still have work ahead of us, and we all need to deal together with the unfairness of all of our relationships. Equality is essential to democracy. We need equality.

Sweeney

"and we all need to deal together with the unfairness of all our relationships", "because people are unwilling to suffer the unfairness of life, we all suffer, and so THEY make others, and sometimes many others feel it double". Your clear application of a seemingly Buddhist principle of the universal law of cause and effect is noted. BUT, that does not address the power that racial hate, cultural bias and bigoted attitudes toward others different from one holding those attitudes, holds over individuals capable of projecting and applying those attitudes through particular systems and institutions that ALWAYS affect the "many others" who feel those attitudes doubly, daily, based on superficial criteria.

Those not willing to suffer the unfairness of life, experienced the others, "that we all suffer" is not addressing the privilege of being able NOT to suffer because of systems and institutions that make sure the privileged don't suffer the indignities and hate suffered ALWAYS by the "many others" of different races, cultures, creeds and religions. OF COURSE LIFE ISN'T FAIR. That is not the point, I feel, of the subject in question. The changes the the Democratic Party has gone through since it Jim Crow day and more recently Dixiecrat days is well understood by me in the implication of what is still possible, not probable, for my Party. So unfairness is not applied to original OP.

More to your point. What? I should tell the mother and father of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and all the rest since JUST Trayvon, life isn't fair? That zimpig and wilsonthepig were just acting out their feelings of life being unfair to them? Do I tell the Palestinian mother whose child lay in bloody pieces at her feet, life isn't fair? Same for the Iraqi mother, the Bosnian mother, the Afghan mother? You extrapolate these types of injustice(s) to the whole of life when without the racial, cultural and religious hate apparent in murders and executions like this, these executions/murders would not have taken place in the first place. Unfairness based on hate is VERY PERSONAL and heartfelt. No amount of Zen is going to change that fact. Everyone, no doubt, has their own personal unfairness of life to hold close, myself included. Joy and happiness is relative to ones perceived status/place in the scales/levels of of unfair, unequal societies. I tell one of the billions or so Indians scrounging for a living, life is unfair and this while the super charged turbo mercedes flies past with someone inside drinking champagne and eating caviar who are also holding close their notions of the unfairness of life? That person scrounging might agree in defeated acquiescence of point....yet inequality purposefully created by human beings is at fault, NOT the unfairness of life.

We are and ALWAYS have been in this country "a house divided" on many levels of race, economic status, culture, creed and religion. All these have always been and are divisive to human beings/life, I repeat again, since THE INCEPTION of this country by a particular group of privileged individuals who held ALL the power in their hands and have continued to hold that power down through the generations by their surrogates, unfairness has nothing to do with the problems purposefully created by some, very few really, so they can hold on to their power and privilege while holding their notions of unfairness close.

You have a fine grasp of the logic of macro universal understanding of the life process, yet I feel you discount the very personal pain felt and experienced by a multitude of individuals on this planet every day and that blunts compassion and empathy necessary for outrage, anger and the call for change for the betterment of all. Equality for all is a long march as has been experienced by many in this country for generations and that only because of the impediment of white racists and those who use these types to ferment discord. The racist is a tool of the smaller, quieter group holding the power. I'm sure you realize that.

I truly understand, 100 percent, what you are explaining since I did in the past put faith in the universe/god to somehow balance the scales one day when pie in the sky is available. Just last week I read a story, here actually, where a father was putting/securing his two daughters age 7 and 10 into his vehicles. A white police officer drives up and shoots him without an exchange of challenge and proper response because he "looked like he was doing something suspicious". What should I tell his two daughters who witnessed his murder/execution because he was black and looked suspicious to a white cop? Life is unfair?

Equality IS essential to any system, especially in one that touts itself and pat's itself on its back as being so. The lie of equality and unfairness of life's process doesn't ring true as a proper response. Holding ones pain close because of the unfairness of life and overcoming great odds in doing so is admirable. I'm speaking to the pain that only outrage soothes when that outrage brings concrete change and equality to all. The Civil War in a very small measure started the road to equality 150 years ago. Yet, many are still marching, dying and getting executed/murdered while unarmed in the streets and holding that pain very close.

Don't bother.

Do something to make the situation better. If you cannot cure the disease, kill the pain. We do not have a destination, but a direction. I know the whole situation is impossible. That never stopped me before. I will study any problem just so long before I give it a kick to see if that don't make something happen. If it ain't broke wait till it is. If it's broke fix it, fuck it, or be thee fucked.

Just don't believe any set of problems has got to be solved all at once. If you ever have to make a choice between saving humanity and saving a frog; save both. The solution to any problem is in the nature of the problem, and some problems are simply manifold and polysemous; and to see only the largeness of the problem is no solution. That is where the fun begins. Understand that there is a point where every problem in the world is resolved, and large or small the solution must begin with that point where we stand. We are each of us the masters of our own destiny. Do not shrink before the problems that confront us. Get right to what ever you think might work.

That is all I am doing, and I recommend it.

Sweeney

and give you a for another way to reduce the stress of just living...very true, I have no problem with that solution among many that are always present....

" Authority is to be ridiculed, outwitted and avoided. And it's fairly easy to do all three. If you believe in peace, act peacefully; if you believe in love, acting lovingly; if you believe every which way, then act every which way, that's perfectly valid — but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the system. You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world, change yourself."

Why do I feel so original. I'm only different I guess.

Thanks...Sweeney

Another Roadside Attraction is just as good a novel, too.

there is a road kill with only limited attraction. I think I fit nicely in the later category.

If you can believe me; I never found that book, and long ago I often looked. I read no fiction now where once it was all I read, and haven't the time I need for non-fiction. Some people will never know enough. That is my category too.

Sweeney

If you considered the hell that was the tyranny of the ideal from the left and the right in the last century, you would not wish it on anyone. The problem with parties is still the problem of people, and while the republicans are far too ideological and principaled, this people is still practical, and we need practical solutions that might demand that parties get out of the picture, and let the people govern for their own needs.

They are not constitutional but extra-constitutional, just like the limits on the growth of the people's house were made outside of the constitution. Can anyone really justify these organizations standing between us and our government?

Thanks

Wall Street, bankers and big money people haven't just seized control of the Democratic Party. They have control of all parties and all lives. I understand the hatred of wall Street but it is what we have at the moment. Teachers retirements, union pensions, and even paltry 401K's like we have are all tied up in Wall Street. As a Democrat, I would love to hate Wall Street but I know in my heart that without that little bit of 401K money coming in monthly, I will never survive on my social security alone. That is why we saved. If Wall Street goes bust, millions of retired teachers like myself, won't see another dime of the money we paid into our retirement. Can I take my money out? Sure, and pay 50% back to the government, then put it in my small local bank where it draws 3/4 of a percent and will run out before I am dead. No thanks. Big banks? Of course I hate them, which is why I bank small and local or choose a credit union instead. There has always been income inequality in this country and always will be. I have to deal with it and do what I can do to keep out of debt, eat, pay my bills, pay taxes and enjoy my life. I am not confused. I am realistic. As a Democrat, I think I would rather work on changing the things are possible to change, and stop fretting over those things out of my control.

example, to the 'natural' inevitability of income and wealth inequality). I do not believe in a 'Great Man' theory of historical change, and so I agree with you that there is no single "savior." However, the masses (the 90% who control only 20% of wealth currently) are a powerful force and wait to be tapped by the right set of 'leaders.' As a Democratic Socialist, my hopes and my activism are tied to this theory and probably will be until I am dead (not seeing the prospect of a Socialist revolution happening in the 30-odd years that remain to me).

I would encourage you, as time permits, to check out Socialist organizations in your area. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find yourself in the company of kindred spirits, most of whom share your philosophy of 'changing the things that are possible to change' (although, as noted, they would probably disagree with you about what it is possible to change

Wall St and big banks are the organizations that greatly reduced your savings, they are not about making money for you, though you may get a few pennies. They are about stealing your money and taking it for themselves. It's a con. They give you a little bit, then take away most of it and act like they are doing us a favor. The real party (corporatists) that are in control of the government are trying to end free public education, all business regulations, poison our air and water for their profit, and make us virtual slaves. That is the real goal, all for them, nothing at all for us. Bernie and Elizabeth know this, we can side with people like them.

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 02:56 PM - Edit history (3)

....associated with appropriate regulations which curb monopolistic influence.


What maximizes the lucre of hedge fund managers is not the same as that policy which maximizes the operation of a free enterprise economy that benefits all (including small business owners, those of us who supply the working capital of our economy through their retirement plans, & workers).

The regulations of Wall Street that are being proposed (&, in the case of Dodd-Frank, being defended against being cut) by those who are sometime maligned as "hating Wall Street" are NOT regulations that would cause Wall Street "to go bust". To the contrary, these regulations decrease the incidence & severity of financial market crashes, and increase the safety of your (& everyone else's) 401K and other retirement plans.

And those who are fighting to reign in the reckless exploitations of Wall Street are not "haters" of Wall Street, or "haters" of capitalism, any more than Adam Smith (the intellectual father of capitalism) was, when he wrote statements like these;

"We" have to adapt to the New Dem Coalition? Third Way? All the other RWDem Orgs?
Why don't WE Organize and take our Democratic Party Back from these Corporate Whores?

Let them go form the Corporate Wing since these guys do Not differentiate from each other on screwing us for wall street?

The U.S. involvement in WW II didn't happen until 8 years into FDR's Presidency - i.e., at the beginning of his 3rd term. If anything, FDR was the "economic", "labor", and "safety net" President, by instituting OASDI (Old Age, Survivor's, and Disability Insurance, AKA "Social Security&quot and many labor reforms including collective bargaining, as part of the "New Deal". WW II constituted only 4 years out of FDR's 12 years in office (ending the year he was elected to his 4th term).

And don't dismiss the existence of the JFK showdown with the USSR and Johnson's involvement in Vietnam (and its escalation).

What seems to inevitably happen is that one side hurls the "You don't do enough of 'X' or We don't do 'Y'" card at the other side and the response becomes reciprocal. So the (modern) GOP claims Democrats are "soft on military" or "soft on crime" and Democrats end up going hog wild. Meanwhile Democrats accuse the GOP of being "anti-Civil Rights" or "anti-middle class" and oddly enough, policies like "Affirmative Action" or the last increase in the minimum wage, go into effect under GOP administrations. "Liberals" are dubbed "Tax and Spend" yet the "Conservative" accusers are the ones actually doing such.

And as a FYI, big biz has control of both parties. But they still can't manufacture bodies going to the polls - they just do everything in their power to keep them from doing so. There are wealthy liberals who could buy media outlets to put out the message. Many of the bundles of cheap stations that currently run RW loon propaganda, were up for the taking back in the '80s & '90s, but look who took advantage? Certainly not the left.

I have read a couple of biographies of FDR.

As you know, he had polio that left him without the use of his legs and with constant pain. He made frequent trips to the natural hot springs at Warm Springs, Georgia, for relief and to get away from DC.

He had a big "touring car" outfitted with hand controls that let him drive.

According to one of his biographers, as he drove around the rural Georgia countryside in the 1930's he was aghast at the level of poverty and hopelessness he saw there and that experience was part of what spurred so many of his New Deal projects.

My maternal grandparents (and my mother as a child) lived in rural SE Louisiana -- East Feliciana Parish. They were poor and the Depression knocked the props out from under them. They survived -- barely. When the Rural Electrification Administration put electric lines down their road, Granddad was able to put lights, a refrigerator, and an electric cream separator in his little dairy farm, which enabled him to increase his output, buy more cows, increase his sales, and hire a man to help him. Granddad later borrowed $500 from the National Recovery Administration and used that to start a small grocery store. He built the store into a thriving business that put his four children through college (well, yes, his son -- my uncle -- used his WW II GI Bill $$) and allowed my grandparents to retire comfortably -- not grand, but comfortable.

Granddad had two pictures on his office wall -- Jesus and FDR. He prayed to FDR more than he did to Jesus.

My Mom's youngest brother was named Franklin Delano...

and to this day, Mom still talks about FDR as the President that she grew up with. She mentions about the crates of oranges that would suddenly appear in her neighborhood (here in Philadelphia) and the "CC Camps". His wife Eleanor, was a hero back then in the black community here in Philly due to her standing up for Philly-born Marian Anderson (who was denied a singing engagement by the Daughters of the American Revolution at their hall and Eleanor invited her to sing at the Lincoln Memorial). Eleanor also volunteered to fly with the Tuskegee Airman as a support mechanism for the black pilots despite the segregated troops back then (my father was in a segregated army unit in the Pacific theater in WW II).

And yup, he had polio - and that happened when he was an adult. Back then, the media agreed to not show him in braces or a wheel chair, or show the ramp with handrails that he used to get to a podium. Nowadays, I can imagine what they would do to transform his disability into realty-show theater.

Terrific story!

To continue the enablers to justify this plutocracy is outrageous, for the simple fact it moves this country closer to a oligarchy and respectfully we are not slow to change or see the so called change, what we see is a different hat with same face under the hat and its called greed.

We have choices and when you have two parties that make up the rules, and a media that says if you don't have a certain poll percentage to be on the same stage to debate, right along with the presumptuous leaders in the poll is disingenuous and dangerous, then we have a problem and serious problem.

When you keep putting the same fox in the chicken house and they keep kowtowing to the same corporate interests and pass laws to enable this justification of greed, then again it is the same C***p of limiting the debate to be framed by false equivalency and a popularity contest based on a poll and the media handlers to dumb down the debate for ratings gain.

This so called spending bill which was just made and passed says that if you are in a pension plan the corporation can give you only 30-50% of your retirement plan if you under the age of 75, and IF and its a big IF you get past 75 you might get 100%, that is called selective discrimination of my /our earned benefit in the pension plan, right along with others riders based on greed and back door deal making off continued corruption.

These jerks have just quantified for example the demise of the postal system as we know it, and the further race of a pension plan being decimated for privatization, social security and other programs we pay into to help us out later are on tract through this bill to be the next target fro the discrimination of selection.

If my democratic party wants to fall lock step into greed, then it time to vote for the other person and that is WFP (WORKING FAMILIES PARTY) then I will vote for them, no one else.
I will vote for Warren , Sanders and others that basically support this WFP code of political responsibility.
As democrat I am going to vote against the hypocrites that voted for this last budget, we in the public had no debate, discussions, or committee hearings on this bill, what we got was a government operating under a legislation fiat of corruption and outright greed--- enough is enough

... or pretend we can actually compare leaders from the past to those of today.

I'm fairly certain past leaders we look at with such admiration would be completely opposed to such issue like gun control, gay rights and a woman's right to choose.

But not today's progressive movement. Impossible, really, to make the comparison of past leaders to today's leaders but Lincoln peppered his speeches with 'God talk.' He held a church fundraiser in the White House. Yet, many historians say he was a deist, using religion to get votes or political favors. Some Lincoln quotes seem to confirm that. Democrats today who appear genuinely religious or appear to use it for gain are ostracized for those stances by 'progressives.'

Lincoln was also the first President to enact a major 'military industrial complex.' His Union army overwhelmed and crushed the confederacy based on technology from manufacturers hired by the US government. There's a reason the Civil War is called the first modern war.



Theodore Roosevelt was, perhaps, the biggest war monger of the last century, too. FDR and Truman were, as you said, war hawks.



You have to hand it to him - he saw what side of history he was on before these social changes and then he quickly evolved. But, like those before him, he liked a good war.

Pretty much a spot on post, though, but you and I will probably differ on the definition of 'progress.' I believe it has to be slow and incremental change. We need Democrats that can maintain the status quo so we don't lose ground. We also need Democrats that can push the party in the direction we want it to go... slowly but surely.

"Pretty much a spot on post, though, but you and I will probably differ on the definition of 'progress.' I believe it has to be slow and incremental change. We need Democrats that can maintain the status quo so we don't lose ground. We also need Democrats that can push the party in the direction we want it to go... slowly but surely. "

For far too many DU-ers, if a Democrat can't pass their personal 'litmus test', they're not considered to be a Democrat.

events or one strong individual or policy. The current metamorphosis is based on neither. It is just a product of money buying the country from both parties...as if it is their's to sell.
First they bought a Tv station, then a news agency, then one political party, and now the country.

as long as people keep telling themselves and keep repeating what they believe that it cant happen then we will forever be slaves to the corporate mafia of Wall St.
We can't form a progressive party. If those Senators and Congressman that are Democrats and are progressives then we would invite them to switch parties. If the other so called Democrats (Republican lites) want to continue to patronize Wall St then we will replace them with Progressive candidates. Yes it can be done but it cannot be done with wishful thinking or inactions.

First the TPP and now the Wall Street giveaway...Obama just lost any kind of support I ever had for him. I voted for him twice and obviously I voted for a Republican

Obama actions were just one big slap in the face to every Democrat that cast their vote for him.

"We as a Party, are going through some major changes" ???? Who is the we?
I certainly am not included in this. The DC crowd, starting with B.Clinton
changed the party to the right by going to bed with corporations and banks.

May I also remind you of the fact that he did NOT get 50% of the vote?
The changes that have happened since then lost the Dems a lot of
votes. The amount of independents has grown substantially. That will
happen more and more, because the people's basic needs and wishes
are not represented by either Party.

If you want a slow change for the party, you lose more voters, imo.

Personally, I do not wish for a "slow change for the party". I would prefer a more rapid change by the voters. There are only two choices, in my opinion: Follow the Party or make the Party follow you. The Party goes wherever the votes are.

Both are progressives. One is a Senator and one is my House rep. While I didn't do much to influence Al Franken's first election, the outstanding turnout in my precinct and others gave him the 312 vote margin he needed. Betty McCollum, though, runs in my Congressional District and we sure as hell have a lot of influence over who represents this district. I've been to every CD convention since I moved here, as a delegate. We choose our candidates.

Both voted NO on the CROMnibus bill, as did Amy Klobuchar, the other Senator from our state. We voted them into office. Every last Senator and Congress member is voted into office and runs in the primaries in their states and districts.

I can't vote anywhere but where I am. I can't influence who is selected as a candidate anywhere but where I am. Where I am, we elect progressives. I talk personally with those elected officials and communicate with them regularly in other ways. They represent me well. We need to do that everywhere, but only the people in each state and district can elect and influence their representatives. The rest of us can't vote except in our own districts and states.

Who represents us depends on us. If we work for it, we can elect good people to represent us. If we don't, we can't. It's that simple.

If you live in Kentucky, there's not a damned thing I can do about who gets elected there. What they do affects me, but it's up to the people in that state to elect progressives. I can't do it.