closest choice. He also claims Democrats have failed at everything and are totally corrupted.

If considering any of the GOP candikates, you might look at Cruz. There's real speculation that he is a destroyer (remember when he risked causing the planetary economy to collapse when it was tottering by trying to shut down the government and grab power?), and anyone who considers that the existing establishment has failed as profoundly as you do should at least consider supporting nihilism/anarchism.

That the Nazis won office in elections ...

However, if I knew what they represented, I would vote AGAINST them, because what they stand for is unimaginable terror and death ....

Even if there was NO CHANCE that a non Nazi would win, I would still vote for the non Nazi, no matter how inevitable the vote might be .. Because that isn't what matters ...

Vote for the just cause ... Because it's right, not because it's popular ...

I don't need anyone to lecture me on what a just cause is--I've been fighting for just causes since I could legally cast my first vote. In that election I cast my vote for Ralph Nader, because I knew Gore wouldn't win my state, and it was to send a message to the Democratic Party that I rejected Bill Clinton and his third-way politics. It was my hope that if enough people voted for Nader--not so much that Gore lost the election, but enough to show that those of us on the left were too important to be ignored--that Gore would abandon Clintonism. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and Florida happened, and the country was royally fucked over.

I cast my votes strategically. I cast my vote based on what is most likely to further the liberal agenda that I support. If the choice was between voting for someone who couldn't win and a Nazi, I wouldn't bother to vote, I would go to armed revolution and kill as many Nazi's as I could. Your analogy is ridiculous.

Not to mention, as illiberal as Hillary is on many issues, she is no where near a Nazi. Hillary Clinton on her worst day is still better than every Republican candidate on their best day. I am supporting the Democratic Nominee regardless of who it is, because that is the only smart thing to do.

What I wanted was people to respond to what I was talking about--not about this candidate or that candidate, but rather, how the Democratic Party actually retakes power and pushes through a liberal agenda. As I said clearly, whatever Hillary and Bernie promises is irrelevant. Unless they have a Congress that is willing to stand behind that agenda, everything they promise is nothing more than hot air.

Just noting that: if you believe your cause is just, and that your opposition has policy positions that are anathema to your own beliefs, then you should vote your conscience, vote for your righteous cause, even if you know the opposition will win ...

Somewhere along the way, a person needs to stand up for what they believe, and cut across the popular grain, if need be ...

So, win or lose, I am voting FOR Bernie, because I believe in his policies, AND I find that Hillary's policies, i.e. Current policies and policies she helped engender ... I find the status quo is untenable and should be completely rejected .. Hillary IS the status quo ...

EDIT: This comment, " Unless they have a Congress that is willing to stand behind that agenda, everything they promise is nothing more than hot air."

You say that as long as you don't get concurrence from a den of jackals in congress, then we SHOULD NOT support good policies? ... If you cannot win, then your deeply held values are worthless and should be discarded? ... Sorry, but that kind of surrender implies an internal weakness ... Your most deeply held beliefs should NOT be justified only if a crazy ass congress his along with it... If you have those beliefs, then you don't relinquish them because somebody might oppose them ...

Hilarious ...

She can't even get young women to vote for her, and the RW will run to the polls to vote against her.

Bernie has proven, PROVEN to get votes from all spectrum of the political divides, even some RW.

I am waiting to see how Bernie will do in South Carolina. If Bernie can defeat Hillary there or at least come in a close second, then her campaign is over. The firewall is breached, and it is best for us as liberals and as Democrats, to rapidly consolidate around Bernie Sanders.

I don't necessarily agree that she will do as poorly in a General Election as in a Democratic Primary. It all depends on who she is going up against. I think Bernie Sanders will do best against a Ted Cruz or a Donald Trump. This is especially true for Donald Trump, because a lot of his lines of attack simply won't work on Bernie, and Bernie will be competitive with middle class white male voters in a way that Hillary won't be. However, if Bernie can't unite all the different factions of the Democratic Party, then any gains he makes elsewhere are not relevant.

Hillary will do best against an establishment Republican such as a Jeb or a Rubio.

The good news for Sanders is that it is likely to be either Trump or Cruz who wins the Republican Primary. So, if Trump steam rolls through the next couple of states, then I may be convinced to throw my eggs in the Bernie basket, as I think Trump would decimate Hillary in a general election.

My biggest fear with a Bernie vs Trump or a Bernie vs Cruz match up, however, is Bloomberg getting into the race as an independent. I think he could gain enough votes to prevent Bernie, Trump, or Cruz from getting enough electoral votes to win the election. This means it goes to the House. It is easy to imagine establishment Republicans and Democrats coming together to appoint Bloomberg as the next President. Of course, this could cause a revolution within both parties... but I find it hard to imagine them coming together to give it to Bernie. Bloomberg would be the consensus candidate.

Regardless, it is frustrating that no one is actually responding to the substance of what I was writing: that the revolution needs to be directed at actually getting Democrats elected at every level of government, and having those Democrats dedicated to furthering a liberal agenda. ...and the fact that neither Sanders nor Clinton seems to have any real plan in that regard.

It's why Gore lost to the Supreme court. The party elites abandoned him.

Bernie's rise is proof he can unify diverse people and inspire them to participate. The largest voter party are the independents and Bernie appeals to them more than anyone.

Bernie is our only hope.

Independents are not individuals who are non-partisan. There are essentially two types.

In my state, there are a lot of people who are Independents, because the law allows us to vote in either primary. Thus, if a Democrat is running unopposed or has already won, I may vote in the Republican Primary for the candidate that is easiest for my real candidate (the Democrat) to defeat. If Bernie and Hillary have already more-or-less wrapped up the nomination by the time it is my state's turn to vote, I will likely vote in the Republican primary to try and throw support behind Ted Cruz. I think Ted Cruz would be the easiest for the Democrats to defeat in a General Election.

However, there are a lot of independents, and this is especially true in states who don't have rules like my own, where independent is synonymous with "moderate." I think this is the type of independent that you are talking about in your post. The problem with moderates is that they are typically ill informed voters who have a strong tendency to adopt extremist positions. Bernie Sanders is doing well with them because of his narrowly focused message which is popular with both liberals and moderates. However, if he starts deviating away from that and toward cultural issues--the direction Trump would try and nudge the race--Sanders loses them quickly. A typical moderate may support Sanders when he attacks Wall Street, the corrupt political system, raising the minimum wage, etc. However, that same voter may also support deporting all Mexicans, banning all Muslims from entering the country, banning gay marriage, and the return of torture. This is why these types of people can wake up undecided over whether or not they intend to support Sanders or Trump.

It is a mistake to believe that we can crawl into bed with those people. They are, at the best of times, sometimes necessary tools. We should never see ourselves reliant on them, otherwise it would require us to compromise our core values in order to keep them. The liberal agenda is best advanced by growing our own numbers, and creating a strong infrastructure to get people out to the polls on election day. In a lot of cases, we don't actually have to out number those who oppose us, we only have to be more motivated to vote in larger numbers than the other side.

Who do you think Obama convinced to vote for him in 2008 besides Democrats? Why heck, it was independents..

What is this "crawl into bed with" statement of yours? All I am saying is these independents who are independents because they think the major parties are corrupted, will vote in mass for Bernie.

They reject Hillary, as do younger women. Hill can not win the GE. Bernie can.

I meant it this way: You fundamentally do not understand independents as a voting block.

You are buying into the myth of the moderate and independent voter. These mythical voters are fetishized by political pundits and D.C. folks as individuals who reject ideology and partisanship, as individuals who yearn for politicians who can get along, govern responsibly, and chart a solid course between the left and the right. They distrust both the Democratic and Republican parties, and operate in the reasonable and rational middle where all truth must magically exist.

The problem is that this mythical type of voter doesn't really exist. Unaffiliated, independent, moderate voters like you describe are largely politically uninformed individuals who take a number of different extremist positions. People constantly mistake people with diverse political opinions for people with moderate political opinions--these two things are not the same. When surveys are conducted people are asked about a wide range of political issues, and those are issues are coded as either left or right political opinions. People who get classified as moderate have a mixture of political opinions that average out to being somewhere in the middle.

What this looks like in reality is that you can have an individual who supports universal single payer healthcare, a huge tax on Wall street speculation, and other seemingly liberal positions. However, this same person would hold extremist views of the far right as well, such as deporting all undocumented immigrants immediately without ue process, draconian measures toward queer people, a ban on all Muslims, and more extreme views traditionally associated with the far right.

As a result, you have an individual who can be swayed to either vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz. They are swing voters. Because Bernie Sanders takes more radical far left positions, he is certain to do better with them than Hillary Clinton--I do not dispute this fact. My point, and my comment regarding "crawling into bed with them" was simply a statement of the consequences of such a political alignment. Namely, if you find yourself reliant on them, then you will have to make political concessions to hold the coalition together. If they are responding to Bernie Sander's far left populist economic message, he can't then deviate and then begin talking about his liberal support for gay and trans equality, supporting a strong pro-immigration policy, or taking in more Syrian Muslim refugees. Doing this would turn such "moderate" and "independent" voters off of him as he steps off his populist economic message. This means something has to give, either the "moderate independents" that he is trying to court have to be tossed over the side, or queer people, immigrants, and Syrian refugees have to be tossed off the side. This is how we have to manage coalitions.

I am not saying Sanders shouldn't try and attract as many of them as possible. I was simply saying that he shouldn't allow the liberal agenda or his message to be dictated by them, and it is far more preferable to build up a strong liberal coalition that can actually be unified around shared causes rather than having to depend on such folks to win elections. In other words, with a real liberal coalition, we could ditch them and still win, and not have to make any compromises.

You fundamentally do not understand independents are not a voting block. Yet you try to describe them as such. Like you know all of them.

Why is Bernie an independent? Begin again there and you may grok what's wrong with your approach.

Sigh. I am actually citing research done by individuals like David Broockman and Doug Ahler. I'm not just making shit up. You can view their current working paper on the issue here. You can view them discussing the issue in relation to Donald Trump in the Washington Post here.

No, I am not saying that they are a traditional voting block. Their opinions and views are all over the map. Bernie Sanders is not a traditional independent voter. I am also a registered independent voter, for reasons I previously stated--the way my state has setup voting in primaries. Yet, like Sanders, I am a hard liberal. Sanders and I are both aligned closely ideologically. Yet, we are a rare type of independent voter. Most independent voters are what you would refer to as moderates--individuals who do not align well with either political party or political orthodoxy.

I am not disagreeing with you that they are more likely to vote for Sanders than Clinton. In fact, I have previously stated in this very thread, that if Trump is the Republican nominee Bernie Sanders would be our strongest candidate to run against him, for all the reasons that I have previously stated. He is inoculated against pretty much all of Trumps attacks, and Trump can't attack Bernie as being an extremist as an establishment Republican like Jeb or Rubio might--since Bernie Sanders will always look more sane, rational, and put together when standing next to Donald Trump.

I honestly have no idea why you are arguing with me on this point. Unless you consider yourself to be a moderate and are in opposition to a liberal agenda?

rebuilding Congress, basically.


Why is everyone avoiding talking about the need to rebuild congress with new progressives? Is it because their interest begins and ends with one vote this November. That is not going to cut it.

Thank you so much! That's really what I wanted to discuss here. The fact that neither Hillary or Bernie have put forward a plan on how they plan to retake Congress, and actually advance ANY sort of liberal agenda. People argue over the fact that Hillary's policies don't go far enough, or that Bernie's policies are unrealistic, and yet they all ignore the fundamental problem that is going to face either of them should they become President: a Republican congress.

It just drives me nuts. I love the fact that both Bernie and Hillary have passionate supporters. However, they should be directing those supporters to do more than to just vote for them. They should be directing their supporters to organize, run for local and state offices, and support local and state Democratic candidates.

Other than that, I should point out that I am a guy. However, I can totally embrace my inner feminine diva when necessary.

over the past week, really just sorting it out in my mind. Your post was much more thoughtful and coherent!

It has really hit me hard that some young people really think they'll be free college in a year or two, so I started asking people what they thought was realistic, as a time frame. I'd also been talking about how perception of Hillary are like a mean Mom, just this bossy negative authoritarian and how (sexist and) unfair that is because Bernie is basically playing Santa Claus, but not explaining the Christmas will take 8-16 years of hard labor.

Aside from that- he wants all new people in office who can't be bribed. So basically it is starting from scratch finding candidates to replace extremely entrenched people. Add to that the complication that many decent progressives are being tossed under the bus for being "establishment" how do you get anything done without the expertise and assistance of good experienced people who no longer trust you. It starts to feel like Lord of The Flies or that episode of Lost in Space where they kill all the old people. I'm waiting to hear how this will work, or if there are enough executive orders in the world to make it tolerable! I do not know. All good questions though.

Nice to meet you, Meldrad! You can call me Bets!

I get where yall are coming from. You are scared that Bernie is going to beat H. Well, that he is, and he will do it because, like Obama, he will get a majority of Independents.

just did?

You walked into that one!

We will take congress. Give Bernie a year in office and he will turn the tide. Or he won't. If not the country is doomed because the billionaires will pull back the curtain.

I am really getting tired of the negativity from the H camp. Like what is she gonna ever do? The young women don't trust her and her only real friends are 1%ers and wanna-be 1%ers.

being set up for failure with no plan- no knowledge of what is actually needed for a sustained change.

Did you read how negative your post is - we are doomed and everyone hates Hillary? Yet I am supposed to believe in Santa.
It boggles my mind.

Currently there are efforts underway. Candidates running as Sanders Democrats are being identified at the state and federal levels. If Bernie wins the primary and then in the general has a substantial win over Trump or Cruz there's the potential to sweep lots of new people who support the agenda into office so identifying and supporting those candidates now is crucial.

https://www.facebook.com/SandersDemocrats/timeline

http://www.sandersdemocrats.com

Not saying this will be easy but we have to start somewhere. We can't allow our fears to prevent us from working to actually change things. That's really what Bernie is all about.

Obama started his presidency with the GOP saying that they would do everything and anything they could to block this president. He continually was pushed back. If he let you down, you can blame the GOP who did everything in their power to hurt his image.

It has to do with the infrastructure Obama built to win his 2008 and 2012 campaign. That infrastructure needed to be transitioned into the Democratic Party, with the express purpose of using it as a means to getting more (and keeping) Democrats in power. He had one of the most effective and innovative campaign infrastructures ever built and he let it wither on the vine.

This is the mistake that I fear Bernie Sanders is making. He is making the "political revolution" all about himself getting elected. However, him getting into power is pointless if he does not have a congress that is amenable to his agenda. He needs the political revolution to happen at all levels of government, and he needs to demand that liberals not only support him and donate to his campaign, but also organize and run for elected office locally. He should be trying to create resources for that to happen, and thinking in terms of a liberal wave sweeping across the country.

It is not good enough for us to just hold the Presidency. Most of the power to really change government rests in the states themselves, not with the federal government. To push liberal policy agendas through, we need people in state an local government, so that we can also run those same people for House and Senate at a later date. We have to start building a liberal infrastructure.

The big problem with Bernie Sanders is that he is promising all of these things that just aren't going to happen while the Republicans control the House. People may come out an support him enthusiastically, but he isn't going to have the ability to make the changes he is promising. He needs to direct the attention and focus onto something that will actually make what he is promising possible. He needs people to understand that the revolution he is promising isn't going to happen with a single vote or a single election--that it is a fight against conservative forces in the country that will wage on for many years into the future. That the liberal agenda can only be advanced by fighting for ground inch by bloody inch against the Republican Party and conservative forces within the Democratic Party.

It's a tough question. I think it's hard to begin a revolution in a few months and within the boundaries of an American Presidential campaign. The ground needs to swell a bit longer, strong connections between seemingly disparate organizations needs time to foster and grow and, perhaps, unify behind a clear path for the future. I'm not sure we've developed a real platform, much less a down-ticket strategy to build a political revolution on.

If Sanders wins, not only will he not have coattails bringing in like minded people, he'll be trying to gain the favor of his fellow Democrats. That's a tough spot to be in, but I honestly think there's some resentment there. Bernie could have switched to the Democratic Party 20 years ago, but chose to remain separate. That hasn't built a lot of trust, or goodwill with his peers. That may speak to a lot of the Clinton endorsements we see coming from the rank and file. I think many Democratic congressmen and women will vote for his platform. I'm not sure they'll fight for it, though, and Bernie is going to have to fight his butt off to get 20% of what he wants.

It's hard to say who will do best in the General Election. We know there's been a liberal shift in the Country. How big is that shift?

The only time a Republican has won the popular vote within the last 6 presidential elections is Bush vs Kerry (even that's debatable.) However, those elections are at least a positive sign. Also, I'm not so sure your annalists of Trump vs Anybody is correct. If Trump wins the nomination, he won't have massive turnouts. There's too many religious conservatives that will just stay home, my parents and most of their friends included. I might be wrong, but I just don't see him appealing to the hardcore Cruz crowd. There's also a lot of Independents that view him as a joke, a celebrity clown. Trump is a boon for either candidate.... um... hopefully.

that he is omitting an important truth, that his revolution will easily take 8-16 years of sustained effort to elect more Dems every single November. New candidates who are not beholden to anyone for money- and a majority of them more progressive than the ones we have. No one hear seems to want to discuss this, and it is dishonest.

This is the real revolution. It's the revolution that even Bernie Sander's isn't calling for, unfortunately.

I constantly think back to the issues Bernie was having with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC over scheduling more debates. Bernie wanted more debates, and he wanted those debates at better times. DWS was blocking this from happening, because she is totally in the tank for Hillary. She isn't even really trying to hide it, and it's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and who is willing to be honest. That's fine. She's part of the establishment and that is to be expected. Of course, once Hillary started slipping and wanted more debates, suddenly like magic, it was possible.

I think to myself, "A real revolutionary sees this as an opportunity to make an example and to flex their political muscles." Bernie could have denounced DWS, called her out as in the tank for Hillary, and directed his supporters to begin trying to seize control of the local and state democratic parties. This was basically what Ron Paul was trying to do on the other side. He could have demanded that DWS step down, and looked at the ways for his supporters to start taking control of the national party as well. Basically, the goal of every revolutionary is to overthrow the establishment so that they can become the new establishment.

Bernie hasn't really asked his supporters to do anything aside from donate to his campaign, help him win the nomination, and get elected in November. How is this a revolution? This is what every candidate asks of their supporters.

Here I am, a real hard right liberal, left out here on the side lines shaking my head. I wanted a real damn revolution, where we finally seized control of the party. A revolution where we took our message to all fifty states, and fought to ensure that no Republican ever ran unopposed--even for dog catcher. I wanted a real liberal revolution, where we would actually have the power to get the things we wanted achieved. That is clearly not where Bernie Sanders is leading people.

Hillary has made nods toward the problem of getting more Democrats elected in state and local offices, but she has no real plan that I can see. I am sure they both know it is a major problem. However, as the future leaders of the party, this should be the primary issue they are addressing. They are ignoring it. Every other issue they bring up--with perhaps the exception of foreign policy--is moot. If they don't have the power to enact their agenda, then what exactly are they going to do? My big concern with Hillary is that she will compromise with Republicans too much, all in an effort to look effective to the American people. My big concern with Sanders is that he won't be able to do anything, as even many Democrats move to oppose him. My further concern with Sanders is that he has made so many large promises, that when he fails to achieve them, his supporters will become disenchanted with the political process entirely; or alternatively, his supporters will see him as just another politician, feel duped, and then disengage from politics. We need his supporters to be engaged, because as you pointed out, this is a fight that is easily going to take a decade or two to wage.

right now, this sort of thing takes a huge amount of commitment, of work and patience. It is the truth, and people need to grow up and accept it!

eom

She would have been the candidate under which everyone could have rallied. I would have killed to have seen a Warren / Booker ticket.

I suspect whoever wins the nomination, whether Hillary or Sanders, will ask Warren to be their VP. It will all be about generating enthusiasm. Honestly, I can't imagine them choosing anyone else.

let me offer a piece of most likely what is unwelcome advice.

First... acknowledge that liberalism promotes and is capitalism. Capitalism is a serious obstacle to the "fairness" and change you seek. Now... there is no doubt that the liberals are the more caring and better capitalists because they seek to minimize the damage to the "unfortunate" victims of the insidious fatal disease on the human condition. Unfortunately, the victims will still die in the long run.

Second...acknowledge that the demoralization you feel stems from the fact that the currently constructed Democratic Party is beholden to private capital and if Sanders does not win the primary you will be told to fuck off, thanks for your service, and fall in line...just like the liberal/progressive faction of the Democratic Party has been told time and again for decades now. How many times does one travel down that same road before they realize it's a dead end ?

Third... you say you are a liberal and to the left of Sanders. Liberalism is not the left. Never has been and never will be. There are many good people here who are still wearing that label. I have no idea why because they sound at least like borderline leftists and radicals to me. That brings great joy going forward.

Maybe this will help below.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/misrepresenting-the-left-we-are-not-liberals/


We Are Not Liberals! Misrepresenting the Left

by RON JACOBS...

(Snips)...

" Despite the current media-induced confusion, liberals are not leftists. This misconception is not only embarrassing to those of us who are genuinely leftist in our politics, it is also discrediting the Left. From the New York Times to FOX News, the portrayal of the US Democratic party and Barack Obama as leftist is creating a perception in the US populace that leftists are ineffective politicos who have no principles they won’t modify. Of course, the Left has not done that great of a job explaining the situation in any other way, thereby leaving the way open for the misconceptions put forth by the media to appear as truth. "

" If one wants to know what a liberal is, they need only to look at The US Democratic Party. From Hilary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, that party is in no way leftist. How can I say that? To begin with, liberals differ from leftists in fundamental ways. For starters, liberalism is founded on the sanctity of private property. According to John Locke, who is quite possibly the godfather of liberalism, it is the possession of property that gives humans their freedom. Indeed, in its early days, liberalism only saw freedom as being deserving to propertied males. While not disparaging the positive aspects of liberalism’s early days–its opposition to monarchy and the role of the Church, to name two of the most important ones–it is crucial to acknowledge the shortcomings of a philosophy grounded in the ownership of property. Since the fact of private ownership was a qualification for entry into self-governance it obviously excluded many members of those societies where the politics of liberalism replaced the monarchy and the Church. Add to this fact the denial of political power to women and (in the newly created United States) the acceptance of slavery, and the shortcomings of liberalism as a philosophy guaranteeing liberty and equality become glaringly obvious. It is understood by those that utilize a Marxist analysis to understand history that liberalism is a bourgeois philosophy, primarily because it protects the dominance of that class in those societies where it flourishes. "

" The Left believes in justice. According to most liberals, so do they. However, the Left also believes that there can not be genuine justice for all unless there is economic justice for all. To put it briefly, human rights can not exist for all regardless of class until economic inequality is addressed and minimized. Ideally, this means that the motivation of profit is eliminated altogether. It does not deny the right of people to own their own property, but it does deny those who would profit from letting others use that property through rent. Unlike liberalism, leftists publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature economics plays in how political structures operate. This doesn’t mean that liberals don’t understand the essential role capitalism plays in maintaining the liberal state in all its guises, it just means that leftists know that to lessen the inequalities that exist under capitalism, it is necessary to change it with the eventual goal of ending its predominant role in determining social relations. In short, leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is true. "

" Like liberals, there are several varieties of leftists. All, however, share an understanding that capitalism is an essentially unfair economic system that rewards those who already have capital much more frequently than those who just work their tails off. They also understand that capitalism needs wars to survive and requires inequality to function. This is why they oppose it. As stated before, liberals have a much rosier view of capitalism and have historically been willing to do whatever it takes to save it. So, while they may be the Left’s occasional allies, they are not the Left, no matter how many times FOX News and the New York Times say they are. "

It blows my mind how people want to avoid this.

are corrupted by private capital on ALL levels including state and local. It blows my mind that people don't realize that and avoid it. It's gonna take more than voting to turn this shit show around.

Lay it out how this can be done, starting in November. Bonus points for a timeline. Thanks!

no individual has that power. It must be a collective struggle. The overriding responsibility of anti-capitalists (leftists) is to unyielding critique the mechanisms of capitalism and everything that goes with it (economic, political, and social) including elections in a capitalist power structure. Regardless of who is nominated and elected in elections... the capitalist power structure will remain the same and the responsibility of leftists will remain the same.

Agitation, organization, resistance against the priorities of the ruling class over labor and the working class in all things. Leftists are more "pragmatic" than you think. Nothing happens overnight. I only came on board because the Sanders effect has raised the consciousness of millions of people in this country on some things that fit into leftist demands. Leftists are not interested in imagined capitalist "freedoms and equality" that rest on a foundation of straw nor are leftists interested in the pity, the charity, or the good works of "benevolent" capitalists operating under the guise of "aiding those less fortunate." Leftists are interested in working class power, economic power, and political power so as to control our own destiny, so there won't be any "less fortunate" and no privileged and parasitic ruling class will ever need to pity the poor and the struggling people again, because there won't be either.

and instead found a way to ignore both what I said and what I asked and just drop a lecture on me about leftish theory.
A lecture on something I never asked about- because I already knew.
When I say "it's going to take a long time", and your reply tells me "nothing happens overnight" I am clued in that you were never even listening to me. People notice that stuff. I'd work on listening as much as talking if you are advocating one on one for a candidate. People do not enjoy being lectured, and there is a lot of it going on these days.
Also, if you are advocating- people will be asking about concrete plans. And no one seems to be prepared to answer that.

except for the priorities of the workers, labor, and the struggling of all stripes over the ruling class in all things. If you can't understand that then I can't help you. You responded to me. I did not seek out discussion with you. I responded to your inquisition about "a plan" as if there exists some political buffet table of well groomed choices that magically appear without class struggle and a mass movement. The working class - in the present - has no serious organization or power to dictate a plan. "The plan" is to first acquire that organization and power. Cheers

everything else is just a pamphlet we have all read before. Over and over again.
Good luck talking to voters like that, LOL.

you believe the United States Congress - a thoroughly corrupted institution beholden to private interests and a ruling class of capital -will bring about change that addresses the grievances and the will of the people as a whole. Quite a laughable assumption.

On the other side are those who believe in the power of the people and the workers (the "unwashed" masses, the exploited, the oppressed, the struggling ) to bring about the change needed.

Politics is about power and resources and who controls them. Better that power be in the hands of the working class and the public as a whole... rather than in the hands of a very small minority ruling class of parasites and pirates who want to privatize the planet for their own selfish greed.



The problem bettyellen...

" Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. "

--Albert Einstein


The solution bettyellen...


"When all the bricklayers, and all the machinists, and all the miners, and blacksmiths, and printers, and hod-carriers, and stevedores, and house-painters, and brakemen, and engineers, and conductors, and factory hands, and horse-car drivers, and all the shop-girls, and all the sewing-women, and all the telegraph operators; in a word all the myriads of toilers in whom is slumbering the reality of that thing which you call Power ... when these rise, call the vast spectacle by any deluding name that will please your ear, but the fact remains a people has risen."

--Mark Twain

voters. And not AT them.

the status quo and business as usual are being shaken to the core. A bit before my time but in the spirit of agitation.


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

--Bob Dylan

Welcome to DU!