They are so set on getting Hillary into the White House none of this matters.

The most likely culprit is the corporate media. It would explain the young people voting for Bernie. None of my three kids watch TV and listen to music, not talk radio.

Sometimes it seems as if you guys forget we are all Democrats.

who when they earn enough to have disposable income they spend it.

catastrophic events such as the collapse of Empires, if the rest of us let them. Take the 2016 elections for instance.

that was my BUSINESS, and I was closely involved in regulating and reviewing merger proposals. FYI, we considered effects on competition, and imposed conditions to mitigate perceived adverse effects. AND we DENIED one perceived to be unacceptably anticompetitive.

sometimes they are rubber stamped. Don't get me started on airline mergers, I was right in the middle of one of those, had to take early retirement.

but the statute did (and still does) incline in favor of them. We the staff did what we could to inform the commissioners of the significant issues, hence the numerous conditions we imposed.

WITH you, re: airline mergers.

I don't necessarily believe that, but I do believe that they think their payroll is coming from the 3rd Way, and will go away if things change significantly.

Case in point is Krugman now and BLM earlier in the cycle. Both of them believed Hillary will give things for their support. We'll just have to see who actually gets their payout- BLM got a knife in the back instead. So did Obama.

It varies state to state, but here is some income info from exit polls for liberals who voted for Clinton in Texas.

income
Less than 30k
Clinton 72% Sanders 28%

30k-50k
Clinton 61%

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/tx/Dem

A small, suffering population, to be sure ....

.

Not even mild concern

The Democrats could have prevented, or at least slowed, it all along the line. They could have presented arguments that would most likely have weakened the GOP hold on the working class.

Instead people like the Clintons supported it and helped to accelerate it.

It is still going on and most Democrats still acquiesce...See what is currently underway in the cable/Internet access industry. Time Warner - Bight house/Discovery.

for most of the US citizenry. For over 30 years.

Anyone elected president will have a degree of power in the executive branch but have to deal with the legislative and judicial branches. Legislative agendas can only be passed with a set of allies (in the right numbers) and a set of workable strategies. Of course timing and luck play a part as well, and so does public opinion, at least in some cases.

But too often it has not mattered whether Dems have the power, are out of power or power is shared.The line keeps being pushed to the right on issues of wealth and power -- with either acquiescence or collaboration of too many Democrats.

We need a clear alternative to the GOP, and not just on selected "social issues" while ignoring the larger issues related to distribution of wealth and systemic corruption of the system.

Without that bright line on economic and power issues, then politics just becomes a team sport.

except the age old argument that we have to compromise to get anything done. Even though it's been the democratic party doing all the compromising since before Clinton.

to nominate a true progressive. Instead of comprising between a conservative democrat and the lunatic right, I'd rather pull that comprise point move a little more to the left.

On economic matters the D's start out meeting the R's halfway.
Then the R's tack further to the right.
Then the D's take another step towards them.

No real progress can be made that way, and politicians like Hillary Clinton know it.

The game is rigged against ordinary working Americans. Incrementalism will not change the fundamental financial structures that allow hugely profitable corporations to pay no taxes, the uber rich to hide their wealth in offshore accounts, banks too big to fail wielding enormous power, and the concentration of wealth into fewer hands that shovel huge piles of cash into the campaign funds of politicians who give lip service to economic justice while maintaining the status quo of this rigged system.

i suspect that most linton supporters are too confortable where they are at the moment, and totally lukewarm about the issues that matter; climate change and the destruction of the natural world and how the fossil energy and mining sectors are enabling that, extreme wealth inequality, systemic racism, oligarchy, and how the banking and private prisons enable that.

ignorance = bliss,

most will be blissfully unaware of hoe Hillary is in bed with the aforementioned entities, who will have their way with the disempowered, working slave class, and turn the Earth, our only home, into a toxic garbage dump; but at least a lot of money was made for shareholders....

season all those people in my dungeon seemed to be regular Democrats fight with us on these same issues and suddenly they are acting as if we can trust the corporate world and the bankers. As if we weren't all talking about the corruption and the lose of the middle class.

Now they act as if they think that the corporations and banks are going to save the world and that war is good. And having such a large wealth divide is somehow what Democrats have worked for for centuries.

??????

The 180 is astounding.

The lengths people will go to, to justify what they do? In this case, they will go to unheard of lengths to justify voting for Hillary. Still not sure if it's just because she's a woman or what...I know some of them are well off, and that explains it, but not all of them, surely.

It doesn't matter whether you like himn or not.

The issue predates his current campaign.

Clinton has shown absolutely no inclination to talk about this, except in the most vague and innocuous terms. And most establishment Democrats do not.

But the negative pile ons and misleading distortions and attacks on the overall positions and movement he reflects is truly disturbing.

America has 5% of the world's population but 40% of the world's wealth!!

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/


The median household income ~$30k in America is in the top 1% of the world!!!

Ok, do you care? If so how would you propose to share the wealth more equally?

Our infrastructure will collapse if we can't get the wealthy to pay their share. The poverty rates will continue to climb. I guess that's ok as long as the Clintons amass a billion dollars by fri.

to work towards economic justice equally we need massive wealth and income redistribution from the rich countries to the poorer ones

from the world's 99% to the world's 1% and Clinton isn't about to help us there. She likes the current system that has made her and Bill in the top 1% or the top 1%.

great response but no way that hill supporter responds back because you're right.

hillary is the one that the PTB has appointed to manage our decline.

exponential growth of wealth going to the top 10% in the US help those third world countries?

Seriously...how does it help?

In many instances the same Corporate and Wall St thieves.

Each ountry has its own situation. But the same Profit Uber Alles mentality, and the same global investors and corporate oligarchs are attempting to do the same things throughout the world. What do you think "free trade" is all about?

Not an attack. I just find it interesting that Hillary supporters tend to be more sympathetic to traditional republican ideas. This might explain why her supporters tend to be ok with Hillary's ties and dealings.

if the US crashes?

You don't have to bring down the living conditions of this country to save other countries. And you know what? Those of you who are doing well are not affected by this. You will live well and make lots of money regardless of how the rest of us scrape by, and regardless of how the rest of the globe survives.

If I saw you giving up anything to help other third world countries, I'd think maybe you have something...but you won't. You want the middleclass and poor to give it up...to bring us down to the level of competition with third world countries for wages that keep you well off.

Well, sorry, we aren't having any of this any more. The only thing that offshoring is doing for you is making you wealthier. Well it's not working that way for us...it's bringing our wages down while your wealth goes up.

I hope you are scared, because we've had enough.

much of that 3rd world labor is not even meeting our labor standards. Look at the situation in China where the building they lock workers into had nets to keep them from jumping from windows to commit suicide.

... by dragging the US middle class (the designated buyers of shit) to their level.

No consumers, no jobs. It matters not at all that global capitalists can drive the value of labor to near zero if there are no consumers.

3rd world countries do become consumers...until their wages rise enough to take them out of the game. Kinda like China is now. Ooops...China thrown under the bus. Now we have to find cheaper labor somewhere else.

Because they voted against their own interests, and now so many of us are doing it. I can't fathom it.

then suddenly it becomes wanting "free stuff"

and supporting HRC and putting down the grassroots of the Party in a haughty and dismissive manner gives them a vicarious thrill. It's similar dynamic as the one we saw during Shrub's two terms. The more he strutted and talked down to people better than himself provided his supporters with the feeling of being in cahoots with the schoolyard bully and pulverizing the smart kids with impunity. Similarly, her abuse of power and her skill at weaseling out of it is important to their emotional well-being.

That's why the issues don't interest them, they're not in it for what can be accomplished for people (even themselves) they need to identify themselves with the winner and sneeringly look down on the loser. Being on the winning side is enough for them. It's the reflected glory they're after and the more imperious she acts the better they like it. It's why they swear she won the debates, her sarcasm and hauteur is the way winners act they think.

Just my 2 cents.

They just want a woman regardless or they just want to vote for her because it is her turn in the Bush/Clinton revolving door.

As a woman I do think it is time for one of us in there but not this one.

The Clintons themselves care, the only problem is they are in favor of it. They just wonder why more of this can't be outsourced to Asia.

They don't care that she's a warmonger.

They don't care that she made private promises to the billionaires for money.

All they care about is her gender. NOTHING else matters.

They identify with the team without looking too deeply, believing that their team is best - the way people think their religion or sports team is best.

They admire very wealthy people, seek to emulate them, elect them to public office, etc.

The morons who listen to Rush Limbaugh, and buy uinto the fallacy that "You have to support policies that help the rich because someday you too might be rich."

Sad to see that's becoming a more bipartisan attitude.

Why would I want to respond? Scanning the thread I see the usual accusations and insults.

If anybody was genuinely curious and asked the question with the intention of learning something.... They might learn something.

It truly does puzzle me....Not just in the context of Bernie vs. Hillary. That is almost symbolic of the deeper question.

Doesn't mean I will just accept an answer...(always depends on the spirit in which a comment is made).

I think the same puzzlement and frustration is being expressed by others on this thread, even if not in a conciliatory tone.

I see a bunch of people who ranted, raved and marched against the Iraq War...then shrugged their shoulders and said 'meh' when confronted with Hillary's vote to authorize that war.

I see a bunch of people who wailed and gnashed their teeth when the Citizens United ruling came down...then cheered on the candidate who raked in enormous piles of corporate cash.

I see a bunch of people who grabbed torches and pitchforks when Wall Street gamed the economy and brought it down around our ears...then flocked to support the candidate that took $21 million in speaking fees from the same crooks.

I see a bunch of people who chastised and castigated Bernie Sanders for not caring enough about black peoples' civil rights...then worshiped as a paragon of virtue an architect of the private prison industry, the single most devastating example of institutional racism in our country.

I see rank hypocrisy.

So no, they won't care about income inequality until they can use it as a bludgeon against a political opponent.

and you're sexist for pointing that out.

against all those things that were true during Shrub's regime, listed here.. though there are few names I won't mention that do belong on this list.

You've been here much longer than I, so you would know better than I.

But.. it seems to me that long before this primary, we had apologists (who turn out to be HC supporters) for an array of policies that we were against during the Bush/Cheney regime and we've consistently opposed.

And since as of this writing I don't see any HRC responses addressing the question in the OP, I have to agree with another observer, they just don't care about policy at all. They're about blood sport and that's just about sums it up as far as I can tell so far, sadly.

I have come to agree with those who argue that the Democratic party is on the verge of a split. It's been hijacked by corporatists and there are a lot of Democrats in this country who are not pro-Wall Street/pro-war corporatist "new Democrats" and I really can't seem them (us) remaining attached to a party in which the power structure actively works against their interests. The "New Democrats" have benefitted from the fact that a lot of traditional Democrats have, over the past several decades, been voting Democrat no matter what. I think those days are now coming to a close. It will be interesting because the Republican party is busting up too. Hopefully the upcoming breakdown of the two parties will benefit democracy and hopefully there will be enough time left for it to benefit democracy. I am dead certain that the corporate powers that be believe that they've completely captured the US political system and that there is nothing the population can do about it. But, on a happier note, I do not at all count Bernie out - not by a long shot.

The things we are being asked to accept are getting more and more wild by the day. Some people still cling to the belief that they are still on our side.

Personally, I think if someone asked Bill and Hillary that in private, they would laugh themselves silly.

Fracking. Endless war. Private prisons. Healthcare being primarily in the hands of for-profit insurance companies. Young people starting their adult lives burdened with debt.

Fracking -- WEnergy industry controls Energy Policy and they don't want to change the goose that lays their golden eggs.

Endless war...well, you know. MIC.

Healthcare has been taken over by corporate conglomerates, and politicians don't want to cross tyhem.

Young people starting lives in debt. Public affordable educaiton options have been removed, and too many colleges have turned into investment enterprises.

Has there ever been a time in history when there was no huge wealth gap? Decades ago there were fewer CEOs but almost the same number of wealthy families (and thus fewer millionaires) that controlled 99% of the wealth of the world. On a comparative basis the concentration of wealth was greater then than now.

But the issue is the extent, the trends and how it is distributed.

Yeah, in many decades past we had obscene concentrations of wealth, epitomized by the Gilded Age. But there was a trend in the 20th century to gradually even those out and expand the middle class.

There were also concerted efforts to deal with poverty, and offer people on the bottom more opportunities to move upward.


But in the late 1970's that began to revert back to the Bad Old Days on many levels -- and the Corporate and Investor Class devised new ways to close off ladders of upward mobility, while rewarding themselves obscenely in unGodly immoral ways.

This was not only statistical changes, but manifested itself in snake oil politics and policies, anfd business ethics that would have been considered totally unacceptable previously. And the results are evident in day to day walking around life.

The United States has never had another leader like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died 70 years ago this weekend. Serving for 12 years, far longer than any other president, he had such a profound impact on the nation and the world that he is widely recognized as one of the transformational figures of the 20th Century and one of America's best presidents.

It took two generations, with the 1980 election of conservative President Ronald Reagan, for the government to pull back and for Americans to conclude that Washington had become too powerful. But the underpinning of FDR's New Deal remain in place today, including a powerful executive branch and a culture of celebrity surrounding the president, carefully enhanced and nurtured by FDR during his long tenure.

Before that it was Barack is corrrupt and before that it was Bill is corrupt. Republicans he doesn't worry about. Vermont voters seem to like it that way and so do a lot of others. Go figure.

You're not listening to what Sanders says beyond the soundbites.

The system is corrupt. Most people acknowledge that.

But whenever it gets down to talking about specifics, people pull up their heels and make it personal or claim it is an "attack" on favored Dem politicians.

It is possible to like and admire and support, say, Obama, but also disagree and not like some aspects of his policies or affiliations.

I very strongly disagree and whenever I hear Bernie make that claim I hear a dog whistle, the same one I've been hearing since 2009. That's one reason I'll be very happy to see his exit from this year's circus.

Obama has been a great president in many ways, but was both prevented by the system from being more pro-active, and he bought into it to an extent, especially in the beginning.

Why do you think the ACA was so convoluted and watered down, and did not contain thuings like even a public option? Because the system and the corporate owners of government won't allow it.

Your dog whistle remark is disgusting.

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”
HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/barack-obama-campaign-finance_n_1855520.html

Record Fundraising: After securing the 2008 Democratic nomination, Obama announced that he would be the first presidential candidate to refuse to take public funds for the general election. The public financing system, funded by $3 contributions from taxpayers checking a box on their tax returns, provides a set amount of money to a candidate if he or she abides by certain spending limits. Declining those funds freed Obama to raise a record $750 million.

“All the candidates have always made decisions about what was best for their candidacies,” said Nick Nyhart, president of the campaign finance reform group Public Campaign. “Each step away, I believe, was a decision predicated on which system will allow [the candidate] to raise the most money.”

Obama rationalized his choice, which went back on an earlier promise to stay in the system, first by stating his support for public financing. “The decision not to participate in the public financing system wasn’t an easy one, especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” he said.

And second, he blamed the opposition. “But the public financing of presidential elections, as it exists today, is broken — and the Republican Party apparatus has mastered the art of gaming this broken system,” Obama said.

This is not about racism or sexism.

This is about people's lives. Lives that matter.

Bernie is anti-war but some of his supporters here on DU sure like to wage war instead of forming peace.

No it is a question I have been struggling with for a long time.

It;s not just about Bernie. While I admire him personally, I see him in more symbolic terms. He represents the discussion we should have been having for the last 35 years, but have not had.

Neither Dem candidate can win in November without the other's supporters. We should be trying to work together instead of splintering ourselves even further.

We've let this shit slide for 30 years.

And whenever someone tries to break the stranglehold they get "the treatment" from the defenders of the status quo.

I am both puzzled that people who want corporate rule choose to be Democrats, and angered that moderate liberalism is now called far left fringe, and peopel associated with it are attacked.

This primary has ripped off the scab....If I have to, I'll vote for Clinton in Nov just to keep the GOP out -- but I'm not feeling very olive branch oriented at the moment.

But maybe turning on the TV and watching Clinton yelling that Sanders is attacking the victims of Sandy Hook which "is not surprising because he has actively been advancing the agenda of the NRA"......I don't have warm and fuzzy feelings.

I can bet my bottom dollar you are voting for Hillary.

I've never seen you post anything negative about Hillary or her supporters...only about Bernie or his supporters.

Boy, was I mistaken.

You are always trying to shut up Bernie people. I never see you doing that to Hillary people.

Not only that but what's wrong with expecting people to be factual and rational instead of conspiratorial? It's kind of tough to have a discussion with someone who abandons reasonable dialogue in favor of unsubstantiated nonsense.

And some Bernie supporters probably curse me for it. But this was a serious thread with a real and serious question that needs answers. Not conspiratorial stuff or silly attacks. And you still try to shut it down.

I just can't believe you are on our side.

The Hillary posters have unsurprisingly avoided the topic as the Bernie posters have predictably dogpiled on it. While the OP may indeed have noble intentions, the execution of those efforts and the sheer contempt many Bernie supporters have for Hillary effectively prevented any discussion desired by the OP. I never shut down any discussion. I simply called out this discussion for what it was (an attempt to create more hostility and distance between the two camps) instead of for what it should have been (an attempt to communicate in hopes of finding some understanding or even some common ground). I could easily have been proven wrong if the Hillary supporters had flooded this thread with meaningful posts and conversation. That did not happen and somehow that makes me the bad guy here for recognizing that.

eom

it's truly disturbing. That's why they don't understand Bernie or Bust. They think this crazy shit we're in is normal.

eom

Some good ideas there in specific terms.

I think we need more, and some are old chestnuts.

But I appreciate your straightforward response.

I can't speak for other Hillary supporters, but I'm a HRC supporter, and economic inequality is one of my top concerns. I like Bernie - have for years, well before he became as prominent as he is now - and I'm truly grateful that he has brought these issues to the forefront of the debate in a way that they haven't been in the past.

But in the end, I simply have more confidence that a President Clinton would be able to make progress on these issues than a President Sanders would in terms of translating possible solutions into policies and actual legislation given the current power structure and political climate.

there were probably lots of people who thought Roosevelt couldn't either.

Sometimes we have to dream big and go for it. Bite the bullet, so to speak. Or we just slowly meander back and forth without a real direction.