That's what the politicians do. Can't say I blame them. I wish pols on the right would do the same with their fringe. World would be a better place.

politicians and keep them in lock step.

disinforming, motivating and coordinating that fringe has been the function of rw radio the last 25 years

They talk a lot more like Alex Jones-style paranoid Libertarian types, with almost identical fantasies and conspiracy theories.

The anti-Obama hate cultism is so extreme and compulsive, I don't think these people actually have any other agenda.

People with a real issue agenda don't act like they do. People who oppose TPP because they disagree with it don't act like this. They talk about TPP, not accuse Obama of being a Kenyan spy working for the Neptunians to pollute our precious bodily fluids.

I've even had some, in anger, tell me "I'm not a DEMOCRAT." I'm like, no shit you're not. Why are you allowed to post here then?

Then they start the song and dance about how they don't have to be. If it were my site I'd shitcan them in a heartbeat.

I just think if you have to drag down other candidates in your own party using right wing talking points that's must mean you don't have much good to say about your own. to busy on their walls of BS links and CT style screeds i guess.

And issue criticism is valid. But when people just come here to attack and smear Democrats, act like our Party's actual achievements are inferior to their nonexistent ones, and promote paranoid conspiracy theories demonizing our elected leadership that we chose (and thus implicitly demonizing us as citizens), I draw the line there. Those people have no business here. They're just plain old trolls hostile to the purpose of the forum.

Lying propaganda and hate against Democrats are for Republican sites, and they can go sell them there, because I'm not buying.

they talk about TPP *AND* wonder why any Democrat would openly pimp for it

You seem to think that disagreeing with you about something is a character flaw. It's a childish, puerile attitude with no positive consequences whatsoever, and it doesn't serve the issue agenda you claim to represent.

Gee, ya think maybe those phrases are loaded or demonizing?

I expressed skepticism that the people in question are on the left at all, rather than the Libertarian fringe.

Stop trying to wrap their destructive behavior in our values.

Maybe it is attributable to being on the fringe on either side. The conspiracies, the drama, the idea that we could have it all if only the President was far enough to our side, over reliance on the Presidency (they want a leader they can follow), certainty that most of the voters are really on the far end of our side (while mysteriously never voting that way, but that's due to the media, which is biased for the other side) - and the implication that follows that most people are sheep and think as the media directs and its so unfair our extreme side doesn't get to control these sheep.

They're more anarchist than progressive. I mean, don't get me wrong - I've known some anarchists who weren't anti-social pricks with no conscience or anchor in reality; some of them are just genuinely ethereal people who don't like rigid structures. But some folks are just against everyone and everything.

You've advanced that point even.

But they don't take the fringe seriously. Remember how pissed you all were when Rahm accidentally told the truth about that?

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Did you forget about that?

Why don't you tell us the "truth" that he told? Don't be shy.

Do you think that was a truth?

Do you think liberals are fucking retards? Or do you think liberals are just fucking stupid? What truth did Rahm tell? Please do tell.

We expect our politicians to be 100% perfect. We expect them to be supermen (women). We expect them to be purists. They have to be right on every single issue! I mean, every fucking issue is a liberal litmus test, and if there is ONE issue to which we are at odds, the leaders are thrown under the bus and shitted on. We tend to focus on that one issue or a set of issues where that politician fails us. You have Bernie in your avatar, but he has voted with the president on 99% of his agenda. Does that make him a traitor to liberalism? No! But we dumb liberals allow it to be.

So we will demonize, castigate, and turn our backs on this president because on some issues, he disappoints us. But on many more issues, he has never let us down.

And honestly, I think his skin color adds to that willingness to throw him under the bus quicker. Bill Clinton backed many fucked up policies and I do not recall the hate, vitriol, or demonization of that man.

I do believe that Melissa Harris Perry made an excellent point. I agree with her 100 percent!

and it would appear that you agree.

He says "fuck" a lot. But he wasn't talking about the left in general. He was talking about the fringe left.

And that clears up who is to blame for 2010 and 2014.

First, just because the left is necessary to win does not mean every loss is because of the left.

Second, it is the candidate's job to build a winning coalition. If they can't win without the left and they couldn't get the left out, they fucked themselves.

Assuredly. The question is more about the activist left getting out the vote. In 2010 we did it in Colorado. In 2014, despite best efforts, it didn't happen. Midterms are the most important elections when it comes to getting out the vote. If anything the activist left should expend more effort in midterms than in the general.

Udall did not lose because he lacked a "winning coalition." The activist left was demoralized, for whatever reason or another, because the party didn't represent them, or because they just didn't care or what. Apathy. Who knows. It's just mathematically true that he lost because the other guy got more votes, despite Democratic registration being superior. (Colorado has government pushed voter registration drives which is actually why voter registration in the state is at an all time high, so it's not a matter of not having enough people to vote, we had the registrations, we simply didn't get them to go and actually vote.)

Would it be that mandatory voting existed.

You think if they were concerned about republican policies they would vote. I don't even mean vote for the main candidate I just mean vote. It shouldn't take a candidate to make someone who has political principles vote, they should just be voting.

If they aren't happy with who is running make a statement and vote for who you think could do the job, but vote!

News to me.

That's how it works. We are all corrupt, stupid sheeple who need the firm guidance of that person and only that person. But, of course, only guidance from the sidelines, never as part of a candidacy, because they know the people can't be trusted to be persuaded by their perfect arguments into voting for them.

These are the ones who motive and get the middle out the the polls. There is not a robust and active middle.

There may be more voters (or non-voters) who identify in the center or as independent. It takes the active left to bring them along and get them out.

It's only together that they make up the majority of voters.

They have. What fringe left person is in office now?

And their response is that they don't care. They say their ideology is more important to them than reality.

What do you do with that?

I can only assume they would rather be ignored than effective.

Picking fights isn't being ignored.

I still haven't figured out how to not get sucked in.

Not so much here. True enough. My beef is that they seem to have no clue how to be politically effective in real life. I've seen enough of that to last a lifetime. For instance we would never have achieved marriage equality in WA without marginalizing them. Once we got them out of the way it was pretty easy.

Dennis Kucinich would have won the primary in either 2004 or 2008 and gone on to win the Presidency. He didn't, not even close.

He is now a paid analyst on Fox, usually on O'Reilly's show.

something we don't agree with, it seems that a Any good things that person does are ignored

Barack was just making sure he kept his bust off Mt. Rushmore can't say I blame him. LBJ had the greatest defining legislative history of any modern President and he managed to turn it into a footnote.

His achievements as President are beyond staggering, especially for a President who for 3/4 of his administration has had to deal with a psychopathically hostile Congress. He rebuilt the federal government from utter ruins, and brought the country back from the brink of total economic collapse. And the small matter of being the first black President just enhances the social impact of that record.

Whether it happens or not, TPP will be a footnote, and I think most of his honorable critics on the left will retroactively admit he is among the best Presidents this country has ever had. The crypto-racists and trolls who make a sport out of demonizing him will just stew in their own juices, ignored and revealed for what they are in 20/20 hindsight when there are no more immediate excuses for how they behave.

The trade deals break it for me.

I am very cautious about Warren but Obama's treatment of her is despicable. Obviously I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I will never again donate to a Presidential candidate.

I'm not closely tracking this, but all I've seen was standard disagreement.

The complaint from Elizabeth Warren is the secrecy. Comparing her to "another politician" is demeaning considering what passes for politician. That was cynical patronizing and arrogant not called for and like or not a slap at the base. Obama needs to take a look in the mirror for another politician.

Just because we agree with her on the issues does not make her a saint who cannot be regarded in the context of her job. I think you're seriously overreacting because you already disagree with the President.

The Republican Party has descended into quasi fascism and depends on division. I never bought the one America theme. Time and time again Republicans have proven they operate with a different set of values. The history on trade enforcement is dismal. Obviously given the secrecy surrounding TPP those who stand to benefit are not the general American electorate history indicates to me this is another effort by a politician for another ill conceived rushed trade deal. Given that those who relentlessly obstructed Obama now praise him is telling. Pragmatism has its limits one America is a fairytale. I have yet to meet one Democrat in my circle who supports TPP and they most definitely are not professional liberals.

It certainly isn't the subject of something like "The Trojan Horse Presidency," which might as well have been written by Alex Jones.

And acting like saying that Warren has her own agenda is some sort of heinous personal attack is way beyond overwrought. On the one hand, we have heinous whacko shit like "The Trojan Horse Presidency," and on the other the President responded to criticism with (a)defense of his approach, and (b)explained that people in different positions have different political priorities.

That's not only constructive, but eminently reasonable and true.

accomplishments.

This is why we lose elections.

You're dumping on the president because there's one issue above all the rest? Ridiculous!!!

Fraud, cheating, hypocrisy, theft, intimidation, murder are not only tolerated but encouraged on many levels in degrees by a major political party. Obama sought a reconciliation declaring his one America he failed I do not blame him for that. Democrats represent a more benign style of governance and for that reason I will vote for them including the false hope of Obama. There is no reconciliation with those who started a war based on a lie. There is no reconciliation with those who perpetrated fraud and crashed the world economy they are still allowed to walk free and insulate themselves from justice. The oligarchs won they are also Obama's one America. We have been sold out and I am NOT delusional enough to think that was Obama's plan. Given probably another 20 years of life I am willing to pick up what crumbs I can. I fear for my Grandchildren and their third world potential as wealth redistribution and the "level playing field" goes into effect. I am also not delusional enough to think I will stop it. Maybe Obama will have the nerve of Eisenhower and tell the truth as he exits the door. I am not holding my breath.

...rather than confront the Republicans and take them on. They had a lot to brag about, but instead, they run away from this president who has done more for this country than any of his predecessors in the modern era, including Bill Clinton.

Again, there's a deeper issue here that is not being addressed.

And I must state it yet again for clarity: My comments are NOT directed at anyone who is bringing forward critical analysis and thoughtful debate over policy differences they have with the president.

This is about the constant bashing, moving goal posts, never satisfied with what the president tried to get done despite Republican (and many cowardly Democratic) obstruction!

I was upset over his Social Security concessions even though I will not benefit from Social Security. Thankfully Republicans were too stupid to take him up on a major win for them out of sheer arrogance. As for TPP I figure it was an almost done deal before Obama came to office. I strongly doubt any of the Presidential candidates have a clue what these trade deals really mean or what they will become. You can say I don't like it, or follow the advice of those who own you. I fall in the category I don't like it Obama probably has no choice.

Climate change is here and it is progressing as a National security matter will make terrorism look childish. Greed is not going away thankfully poverty cuts into profits. One thing I do hope goes away is ignorance in America which means the Republican Party. Holding secret meetings does not combat ignorance I am disappointed.

exercising critical thought..and who are honest and have honest disagreements over policy.

There are those who live to condemn, live in hope something will arise where they can condemn, yet again, in full throat. It is not done to change anything of substance, it is not done to educate, it is done, by some, to foment dissension and conflict which, in turn, feeds the 'justification' of their never-ending condemnation of anything and everything.

and has become utterly predictable.

The fewer excuses they have, the more intense their hatred of him becomes, and the more ludicrous their conspiracy theories become to explain the discrepancy.

mandatory for profit health insurance, nafta on steroids, continuing the ME presence, drone murder, extending the Bush tax cuts, phasing out public schools, signing the Paul Ryan budget, more fracking, anwr drilling, offshore drilling, proposed cuts to social security, and abandoning labor. Yup, the agenda's been almost perfect.

By reading the BOG posts, I begin to get a tiny glimpse into the minds of the Limbeciles.

if he morphs in to a White Female, with the same Agendas .

Just drink the Kool Aid and you can forget all those things and love BO...and soon you too will claim he is the best ever president...the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow.

and just change one letter?

Someone was banging out a delirious, fervid, Caps-Locked stream-of-unconsciousness screed accusing Barack Obama of playing a role in the Kennedy assassination as a toddler, typing at 300-wpm and causing smoke to come out of their computer due to its autocorrect being unable to keep up, and accidentally said "BOG" instead of "GOD" (as in, who they consider Obama to be the enemy of).

But because admitting error was beyond their neurological capacity, they insisted they meant exactly that, and it stuck among their peers.

Where the Borg was invading the universe...and they told us "We are the Borg, you will be assimilated...resistence is futle"...and you would be assimilated into their common mind.

Obamacare was a vast set of systemic reforms that brought health coverage to millions who could not otherwise have afforded, stopped a multitude of insurance industry abuses, and brought choices to people throughout the country who had none. Lives are being saved every day as a result. And you dismiss that with some cavalier one-line smear about an aspect of it you disagree with, which even then just barely passed Congress? You're basically saying we should have kept the system we had, that's how much you hate this President.

And the rest of your list is a similarly ignorant, careless, and dishonest bunch of transparent excuses to Keep Hate Alive. You have clearly sifted years of vast reforms and tremendous progressive change for every particle of imperfection to assemble into an alternate universe straw man with no connection to reality or liberal politics.

with the public option included...wether it would of brought prices down enough we will never know because

as soon as we on the extreme left (Rachel)started talking about it passing the senate using the nuclear option,we got this mandate with no price protections bill that leaves about 25 to 30 million of us screwed

but even tho i am in the screwed category (over 55 paying 3 times as much as a young person for insurance with a 12 grand a year out of pocket i could never use) i TRIED to be hopeful

i believe we lost the mid terms in 2010 because such a lousy bill was passed

i feel doc j's list is accurate...why don't you post links to dispute them?

i did not say current admin was solely responsible for the aca but for you to pretend there was no other option but to stick with the status que is untruthful too...the 60 vote threshold is a self imposed barrier ....current admin is way too bright not to have known that

and like i said even after i tried to remain hopeful....hoped he would push for fixes that included everyone



i am still hopeful that he is not the Trojan horse but more of a dbl agent...appeasing the 1% to stay alive while hopefully sneaking in lil things that can help the rest of us

You are just plain scapegoating for the state of politics. The President did everything a President can and should to get the most progressive bill we can and should, the Obamacare was a massive step forward.

If you don't like it, take it up with the Congress that created it. Moreover, take it up with yourself for electing that Congress and then failing to stop an even worse one from being elected later. But if you wanted him to veto it so we still had the status quo healthcare system, that's not a liberal position.

Anyone who would even imply something like "Trojan Horse" is making themselves sound like exactly that - like an anti-Demotic, illiberal troll full of contempt for progress-makers, uninterested in real progress, and totally severed from reality.

he did not do " The President did everything a President can and should to get the most progressive bill we can and should,"

so when you say should do you mean you think it is fine that those over 55 are asked to spend 30% of there income on healthcare that is good enough? hopefully you do not think it is ok that 30 million are still left out hanging

when the nuclear option was brought up he could of simply endorsed the idea,he was still wildly popular at that point plus he had Rachel leading the charge.....if he would of spent 10% of the political capital on the public option as he has on this new trade agreement life would be better

The bill put before the President by Congress - that body whose composition WE determined, that has ALL Constitutional authority for shaping legislation - was a huge step forward with massive reforms helping millions of people greatly, so what is your position: Are you saying he should have vetoed that bill and threw away the clear interests of the American people, or not?

Which is it?

Should the millions whose lives have been saved or tangibly improved by it give back what they've gained? Should they crawl into their graves because your imagination tells you something else should have been done?

Shall we punish everyone who doesn't meet your standards of perfection in perpetuity because you would rather do that than take the next step forward, and the next, working with other people to actually accomplish things?

If I can point a flaw in Social Security, does that mean you'll say we should scrap it? If I can point out a flaw in Medicare, shall we take it away from the millions who need it?

I'll bet you don't apply this standard to your own work, and if you tried to apply to anyone else's who you work with in person, they would probably end up refusing to work with you for very long. This is not even perfectionism, this is idiotic hypocrisy. You deny basic facts of the structure of government to give yourself excuses for scapegoating one man.

It's so extreme, you won't even limit yourself to being hypocritical about things that are actually wrong. You attack him for his massive progressive successes. That exposes your agenda for what it really is.

You attack progressives for making progress, because their actual achievemets don't measure up to your fantasy ones that you yourself can't ever do anything about. If you want credit for electing Barack Obama, stop demonizing him, because being a part of putting him in office is pretty much the only claim you have to having had a role in improving the world.

he could of asked for the house bill to be brought to a vote using the nuclear option


how did you edit without it showing an edit?

Were you asleep the day they talked about the US government having three branches?