2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe hell she will create as President...
If we know anything, we all know the hell waiting for American families with President Hillary.
Past performance IS a reliable indicator of future performance.
From the massive disaster known as the Iraq War, to a violent State Dept. tenure that turned Libya, Syria and Yemen into hell holes of violent extremism. Millions of lives were shattered and the consequences will be carried for generations. In spite of the chaos caused by her interventionist ideology, Hillary remains an unapologetic neo-conservative.
From lobbying for Wall Street banks to intervening as a government official on behalf of big Wall Street contributors to her personal foundation. As a corporate Democrat, Hillary has been in the middle of it all.
American workers will have ZERO representation with Hillary Clinton. Clearly toxic trade deals sending millions of jobs to slave labor in Mexico and Asia are called the "gold standard" and "good for New York and America".
Then, there are the idiotic statements about welfare dependency and tough on crime sabre rattling and more equally idiotic statements about email security, gay marriage, sniper fire and being dead broke leaving the White House.
War, inequality, injustice, and bad judgement... there's a common theme.
It hits us right at home.
It hits our paychecks, our health care and education costs. Her corporate philosophies coupled with Wall Street money are working hard to destroy the quality of life in America for working families.
The tortured explanations defending her actions aren't just cringe worthy, they are vomit worthy.
Evolved? Easy for her to say. The damage is done. Families hurt. Money lost.
I'd rather vote for someone who gets it right the first time.
Hillary wants everything. We owe her nothing.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It won't be hell for Hillary and her friends the 1%. So why the hell would anyone else vote for her?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
one_voice
(20,043 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)You sure about that?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)And has declined ever since...
And yet we want to nominate more of the same?
still_one
(92,403 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)all other unions supported Carter.
still_one
(92,403 posts)was a very rare occurrence before then, and definitely contributed to Reagan's victory over Carter.
A very similar occurrence happened with Scott Brown:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704423204575017690900226982
Regardless, my comment was not as much about that as being specifically directed at the post which implied that Hillary would be more of the same toward labor as Reagan, and that simply is not accurate.
The observation of the poster that labor was on the decline after Reagan was elected, is supported by the facts, which compounded the tragedy for labor. It was the comment made about Hillary in the same post, that prompted my post, and the fact that if labor actually believes that ANY Democrat running for President, including Hillary, would be the same or worse than any of the republicans running, then history could repeat itself
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 11, 2015, 03:34 AM - Edit history (1)
1986. Which means the senior execs started increasing their own compensation while cutting the wage earners'!.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Tax cuts are very bad for the economy, at least at the level of taxation we have now.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and our middle class.
Factories closed due to our trade agreements.
The result of "free" trade for Americans has been devastating.
That is what that chart reveals.
So, yes, we were better off with Reagan before we granted favored nation status to China and increased trade with it and before NAFTA.
That is why we don't want the TPP. We need to recover from our existing trade agreements first.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)until there were over 30,000 Americans dead, until it had spread to over 100 countries and taken root as the devastating pandemic it continues to be today. Today, Nov 11, 2014 about 3,500 people in African will die of AIDS, over 100,000 per month, every month.
You say you were better off, but I spent my spare time protesting his sick policies, opposing his Union Busting, opposing his war on drugs and minority communities, attending funerals and giving money to those who were unemployed or too sick to work.
You might hate hearing this but the election of Bill Clinton was the best news many of us had had in 12 horrifying years.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Clinton signed major trade agreements that caused the income level to decline and began an extremely rapid exodus of jobs from the US. Factories began to close.
The economic disaster was in my opinion based on what I read beginning in the early 1970s, planned long before Clinton signed the agreements.
These economic events had nothing at all to do with the AIDS crisis.
I worked to get Bill Clinton elected.
He did a lot of good things. His acquiescence to a right-wing trade policy was, however, horrible. Ross Perot was the politician who warned about the trade agreements.
Reagan was worse on economics than Clinton, but the trade agreements, while probably negotiated in part during his presidency and certainly discussed in Congress during his presidency (I remember that very well) were not signed and did not begin to rip our economy apart until Clinton's era.
Please do not misunderstand me or put words into my mouth.
Reagan was worse than Clinton, but the closing of factories due to trade policies took off during Clinton's presidency.
We had a recession during Reagan's presidency and the mergers and acquisitions frenzy as well as the S&L crisis began during Reagan's presidency, but the economic exodus of jobs became really terrible under Clinton's presidency.
Clinton did a poor job of managing the economy, but Reagan and George H. W. Bush with their trickle down theory were horrible too.
I'm hoping Bernie will be elected. He is about our only hope for a return to sanity with regard to our economy.
And that is really a bad sign because he is a socialist. If we need a socialist to return our country to economic sanity, our capitalists have really messed us up.
Bernie's democratic socialism is, of course, foremost democratic. I have nothing against it, but it shows you how our capitalists have failed us that so many millenials and so many Democrats like me are supporting Bernie.
After decades of privatization and factory closings and excessive imports, of serious balance of trade deficits and economic chaos and anti-American policies by our government mixed with excessive spending on the military, Americans who understand what has happened and why are simply fed up with the status quo.
Reagan's AIDS policies were despicable, ignorant and intolerant. But what do you expect from someone like Reagan.
I think Bernie combines good social policies with economic policies that will be far healthier than those we are following now.
Feel the Bern!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Hillary will become the 45th President of the United States.
The country will not collapse, people will not suddenly become poverty stricken slaves to their corporate masters.
We will have a battle on our hands to take back our democracy but if enough of us vote for a Dem government we can do a lot together.
okasha
(11,573 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Do we want "Economic-Elite Domination" or "Majoritarian Electoral Democracy"?
Those aren't just buzzwords, they describe a massive distortion in the fabric of this society.
2014
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politicswhich can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralismoffers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University (mgilens@princeton.edu). His research examines representa- tion, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press).
Benjamin I. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University (b-page@- northwestern.edu). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good.
From The New Yorker
by John Cassidy
April 18, 2014
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy.
Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts, Gilens and Page write:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Thats a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not ruleat least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
...
Is this an acceptable state of being for this nation?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It's unfortunate there are so many who buy into and participate in the facade. We must take money out of the equation if our democracy is to survive. I have joined our state level WolfPac campaign to help make that so. To date, it's the only serious grassroots effort that has been organized to tackle this problem. After Citizens United, a Constitutional Amendment is our only avenue left.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)SunSeeker
(51,703 posts)On Democratic Underground. Go figure.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Yet another non-post post. You guys really need new material ... the same old same old is getting boring.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)I will vote Democratic......period.
Response to Loki (Reply #13)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)It is to laugh.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)I don't disagree, however there are zero votes to gain with this post on this particular site. No opinions will be changed.
Bernie is fighting for the people at bottom. He has spent a lifetime fighting for all that get pounded on through wages, racism, sexism, ageism.... Hell, add any ism. Bernie has fought for the greater good every time.
Bernie 2016.
Fact, Bernie Sanders believes a $15 an hour minimum wage will revolutionize the country. He's right, millions will be added to our economy, millions will be added to our entitlements, and millions will rebuild our infrastructure.
Any businessperson knows the first rule of business.... it takes money to make money.
Let's demand a fair wage so we can afford to pay into the system that supports the entire US. The same system that gives billions in subsidies to billionaires.
Do I disagree with your post? No, not even a little bit.
However, there is a better way.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)We are already slaves to our corporate masters. Take the media for example. There are only about 5 major companies that control what news we see and hear. Have you noticed? Do you hear stories from ABC or CBS about jobs going to China? You would be hard pressed to tell us any one of these networks does a story on families that struggle on minimum wage jobs. I would hate to think of what her Justice Department/SC picks would look like. Did you hear the story of the Supreme Courts ruling on police authority if a suspect runs from a police officer? According to the SC they can shoot you--dead. Period. That was their ruling today. Case is from Texasistan--aka Texas. Go look it up. I'm disgusted but not surprised.
I will not vote for the lesser of 2 corporate evils.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Actually, it would be "President Clinton".
Looks like someone's mask slipped a little.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Mr. Omalley is not gaining any traction.
If I were you, and you all have said to not vote for the lesser of two evils, here it is. If Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Americans need to come out and vote for her. Imagine a Republican becoming President, that is not a viable at all.
No matter how Mrs. Clinton seems unlikely, a republican president is not someone you want! This is just my opinion!
still_one
(92,403 posts)In fact it does just the opposite. They stand a far greater chance of attracting support for Bernie from others at DU, if they extoll the virtues of what a Sander's Presidency would be, rather than this constant sniping.
It happens on both sides, and I have no doubt one is a defensive mechanism against the other, but it really accomplishes very little except to piss each other off
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)I really like him and his policies.
O'Malley as much as I like a new face, he is not gaining any traction.
I have no idea if Mrs. Clinton can sway voters to come out and vote. So many distractions right now in the US with immigration, Trump wall against Mexicans and everything else. Mexicans are not the only people who are entering America illegally and I have no idea why Trump dislike Mexicans so much.
still_one
(92,403 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I'm hopeful they'll be covered under the ACA for these illnesses.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Her voting for the Iraq War, and refusing to walk back that vote--even after ALL DEMOCRATS understood that it was a lie-based farce--was very disappointing.
Taking Super PAC money and huge sums from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan--while doing nothing about big-bank abuses and refusing to reinstate Glass Steagall--that was also very disappointing.
I know what a courageous, female Democrat who fights for the middle class and takes on the big banks looks like--that's Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary hasn't stuck her neck out for any of the big causes in which we truly need Democrats to step up to the plate.
Her $12 an hour minimum wage idea is not enough.
We are almost past the point of no return in this country. The corporations have the system they want in place. They've purchased our politicians, including Hillary who takes PAC money and special-interest money. We need a leader who will stand up to this bullshit and break up the stranglehold that these corporations have on our democracy.
We don't need someone who participates in it--does NOTHING to stop it.
It's not about personalities. It's not about Hillary Clinton. It's about the future of this country and who will make meaningful real change.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)That must be very frustrating for you.
[font size="5"]#45[/font]
[img][/img]
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Did you hear that Al Gore isn't endorsing anyone yet and Bernie supporters are celebrating like it's Christmas? Desperate, sad, delusional and LOUD!
Bernie supporters are few. We had our big County Democratic meeting this weekend...not one Bernie supporter in the group.
All they have left is attacking Hillary on the internet as their hopes slip away.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)silliness like this with every passing poll showing the Sanders campaign stalling.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)EOM
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)The Great Gatsby
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Response to whereisjustice (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)So little time.