General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThinkingabout
(30,058 posts)others for their beliefs, I thought it is necessary to elect Democrats.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)We should be allowed to talk about it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)you hear on RW talk shows, talk about the republicans, don't divide the DNC.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Why continue to help the GOP? This just what works for them, do you realize how working Americans have suffered under GOP leadership?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)by our supposedly own party.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)are not issues of just the GOP but the DNC also. There are attempts of policies by members of the DNC which are not in the best interest of the nation as a whole. I am saying if we continue to split the DNC over hairs then we weaken our ability to halt lots of the GOP policies such as their desire to decrease the SNAP program while funding the farm bills. They fight the minimum wage issues and many other things which could help working Americans. They have fought every jobs bills of repairing our infrastructure. They have run wars on working Americans since Reagan got in and busted unions. If we continue to allow the GOP to split our party they know they will continue to win elections. If they can oppress more DNC members from voting, they win. Why are we letting the GOP win?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Now those are fighting words.
And TPP on the fast track to fast track.
I could go on.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To make the changes needed to put us back where we were on the '70's. We con unite and elect candidates who does not want SS cut or we can divide and Republicans gets elected.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)actually stand for something?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why eg, did Rahm Emmanuel call Liberal ideas (going after Petraeus) 'retarded' while protecting a man who was rightfully named 'betrayus'?
Why did Axelrod attack the Left while promoting 'bi-partisan' with the rabid far right wing nut cases?
I have no 'beliefs' when it comes to politics, it isn't a religion. It is a process by which the people hire others to represent them on the issues.
It is very pragmatic. We cannot ALL go to DC so we choose someone to send there. We pay them and expect them to represent us as promised.
When they fail to do that, we fire them. Like any other business.
The people cannot AFFORD to have their hired Representatives betraying THEIR interests by supporting the top most wealthy people in the country.
The people need their Reps to protect their interests, such as SS, Medicare, Economic Equality, Civil Rights etc which are ALWAYS under attack from the Right.
Lately they haven't always done a good job of that. So the voters supported ONLY those who DID represent them.
Sometimes people forget, Politicians are NOT our friends or family, they don't know us and we don't know them. They are employees. All we ask of them to keep the promises they make during the hiring process. And if they don't, they have zero right to expect to keep their jobs. Just like the rest of us.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's necessary to elect progressives. if you're just going to throw your vote at a party without caring about where the politician stands, you will end up voting for Republicans no matter which candidate you select.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Here in BC, Canada, the old right-wing Social Credit so disgraced itself that it was wiped out (provincial politics). So a bunch of Howe St (BC's smaller version of Wall St) corporate back room dealers pumped money and resources (they had all the money and connections and they could buy good employees) into buying out the rump Liberal party, and so voila, the identical Social Credit wheeler dealers now had a new party, instantly. In a matter of a few months they had a new name complete with a brand spanking new leader, and by pumping mega money into the next election what do you know, they won. Not surprising - their controllers owned all the media, the radio, the TV, the newspapers. They call themselves "Liberals" but they're corporatists. It's pitiful but that's all they are, there's nothing more to them. Identical in tone to the Third Way, they include just enough "social content" in their platform as needed to keep the population placid - and not a drop more.
If you want to be a loser then yes, turn your mind off and vote for a name because you think it's a nice feel good name -- and don't look any deeper. For the love of all that's holy, don't think! Oppose all politics that doesn't promote the politicians sporting that feel good name. Marginalize them. Explain about how they aren't "realistic", how they don't know how to tie their own shoes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is also necessary to refuse to elect Republicans with Democratic nametags.
The old song, "Which Side Are You On?" is the question.
Are you on the side of working people and democracy or on the side of the corporations that buy too many of our politicians?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Why do you call it chastising?
Here's a visual:
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)don't even want us to acknowledge the reality of what's happened in this country over the past few decades?
Well, that's not going to happen.
I do understand why many within your political camp want for us to be quiet though.
This is a political fight, and you're not going to get us to shut up about what's happened and continues to happen in this country (i.e. the continuing shift to the right). The results of this occurrence are evident all around us, and they are not good for just about all of us. So, no, we will not be quiet about what's happened. If you perceive that to be us chastising others for their beliefs, well there's nothing we can do about that.
It would be best if you didn't waste your time telling us to be quiet though since it truly is and will continue to be a waste of time.
We. Will. Not. Be. Quiet.
We need BETTER Democrats. Much better. To do that will require us pointing out what has happened within the Democratic Party to avoid its continuance.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)For speaking for me. I endorse your statement.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)The spectrum isn't a line as this comic makes it appear to be. The spectrum is at least 2 dimensions, like a plane. "Centrists" just don't believe the same things as liberals and conservatives do. And they aren't in the "center", either. "Centrists" are actually very very radical, when plotted on a plane.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I guess the point of the cartoon is far left, liberals, really have no place left on the spectrum.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Obviously progressives have a strong position on the American "spectrum".
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Yes, that's the irony...that's where most people are.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Like I did in 2004. So I call myself liberal.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)And, obviously, those neoliberal types *will* try to shun and demotivate their opponents in the Democratic primaries.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on local ballots across the country, they WON, across the political spectrum.
It's simple, no point in pulling any punches.
We are being lied to in order to excuse Centrists posing as Dems from NOT supporting Progressive Issues, and I think people have finally caught on to the rigged game they play.
Those are Elizabeth Warren's words paraphrased, as she said: The game IS rigged, against the working class.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the party leadership.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The GOP with the goofy as shit Tea Party and the Dems with the Third Way group. Bottom line, neoliberalism should never be promoted by anyone with a moral compass.
Conservatives on both sides favor capital over labor. Liberals favor labor over capital. Progressives and moderates try and find a healthy middle. The GOP favors blowing up the planet with nukes.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)We need to be able to talk about it without such fear of being put down. Especially since it was planned that way.
Simon Rosenberg 2001:
SNIP..."Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.
What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Unless you mean right off a cliff.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Just can't go further right than the GOP extremists right now.
Rex
(65,616 posts)To me, there are many groups - we are a big tent party no doubt.
The Far Left - you have your communists...maybe even further to the left (Fringe Left), groups like the Earth Liberation Front.
Then you have the classic Liberal, the person that statistically votes in higher numbers than any other group for the democratic candidate. All for equal rights. Against any social injustice caused by government or corporations. Sees the dangerous mix between business and government. Second most vocal group. The OWS crowd.
Then the Progressive-moderates...they want to see everyone just get along and make progress toward equal rights and have a robust economy under the control of regulated capitalism.
Now we move on to the group that WAS the moderates - now known as Centrist, they embrace free trade and no restrictions over the market. However, they do NOT want to kick grandma off Social Security OR the troops off of food stamps (at one time they were for giving raises, but moved to the right and just giving foot stamps is as good as it gets).
Then you have the most vocal group, the Center-right wing...now it almost seems they are no different than their buddies on the Right OR the Center-left wing (to hardcore GOPers). They feel slighted all the time, because they too still like social policies (a few) but always place them secondary to economic stability. Big on saving banks under any circumstances, because labor can always be gained - but capital is hard to come by.
Lastly you have the Third Way types that are almost indistinguishable from libertarians. Perhaps they have a pet issue that is to the left that they like...but only one. And always money trumps peace, human life, etc..
Anyway, let the pile on commence.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)I personally find Centrist and Conservative Democrats a waste of time and waste of a vote.
If it were up to me and unfortunately it is not, the conservatives and centrists currently destroying the Democratic Party need to be chased out of the party just like the racists that were once prevalent in the Democratic Party.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and when that scintillating stance fails to draw in votes they blame anyone who complained--in fact they pre-blame them!
jopacaco
(133 posts)I am a lifelong liberal who is losing all faith in the Democratic Party. I do not view myself as far left, just rational and supporting the common good, the former Democratic platform.
I have seen some good Democrats run here in Maine who have been given absolutely no support from the national party. Why? Because there were Republican-lites running as Independents and they were good enough for the party or they didn't want to challenge a "moderate" like Susan Collins. Collins was smart enough not to sign the letter to Iran but won't call any of her buddies out on it. She claims to support concepts such as minimum wage increases but always votes against them. There is always a "yes, but" in her answer why she sides with the corporate interests and most people just don't pay enough attention to the differences in what she says and does.
I am tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I have voted in every primary and election since I was 18 and voted for George McGovern. Once I get beyond my local district representative, who is a good union guy, I am not represented by anyone in my state. I really would like to vote for someone who I can actually support. I do not want to have to vote for Hillary Clinton - not even sure at this point if I can. I want a real Democrat, not a centrist.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)and then I realized the House has a lot of folks like that lately. You can not compromise with people like that.
It was not an intentional conversation, but it was disturbing. She saw the news about the DOJ report on Ferguson, and she said oh good they found Darren Wilson innocent. She said he gave that guy what he deserved. I said oh no he did not. I told her he did not deserve to be killed, that it was wrong to shoot him 6 times. I couldn't say more as she got started sounding like a blowhard. I lost track of the lies she spouted, finally told her I was a liberal and she was not telling the truth. That silenced her a little.
She was just spouting nonsense she had heard on rightwing radio.
There are so many like her in our area. They will never change, their minds are made up forever. Trying to compromise with people like that started us on a losing path.