What I believe

[cali]

I believe that the corporate takeover of our democracy is one of the most serious threats we face. It manifests itself in decisions from SCOTUS like the CU decision. It manifests itself in the takeover of both parties by corporate interests. It's dangerous not to recognize that that is true, if to a slightly lesser degree, in the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.

It's easy to recognize the threat that tea party members of Congress and the astroturf tea party gone awol pose. It's easier to put on our partisan hats and circle the wagons than it is to oppose the stranglehold of corporate interests.

We ignore the corporate threat to our own detriment. We excuse it because Democrats are better than Republicans.

I believe that it is close to being too late to extricate the Democratic Party from this grip. The TPP is being promoted by many dems including the President. Big money has impacted elections from coast to coast.

I believe that we must fight the corporate interests and big money within the Democratic Party even as we support Democrats in general elections- even lousy corrupt, corporate dems.

I believe that ignoring facts for political expediency leads to more corruption and enables corporate dems.

If you don't believe that all this is huge problem; if you just blindly support dems and refuse to speak out, you're just fast tracking the total transformation of the party of FDR into a wholly owned subsidiary of big money. That doesn't mean that there won't continue to be honorable dems who aren't beholden to big money and corporate interests but it does mean that they will continue to be increasing irrelevant.

To misquote Dylan Thomas, I believe you don't go silent into that good night.

[Puzzledtraveller]

1. k&r

[panader0]

2. Well stated.

[marmar]

3. Well said Cali.

And this transformation of the Democratic Party is hidden in plain sight.

[cali]

4. thank you marmar. that's one of the things I find so frustratring about

this- that it is in plain sight.

[L0oniX]

56. The pro war, pro spy, pro global corp, pro 3rd way, pro party over truth Dems are very evident.

We have Bernie to compare them to.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. Rec

[reddread]

62. +2

for certain

[LuvNewcastle]

5. K&R

[sammytko]

6. Even though you said before that nothing you say here makes a difference,

You keep on keeping on.

[cali]

9. no, I said that what's posted here about a candidate doesn't have an impact on

an election.

you keep on keeping on with making shit up. Good job at it!

Now how about actually commenting on the OP, or is that just too difficult for you?

[sammytko]

11. Geez, I was trying to be helpful

I will continue to drink my coffee and read my Alice Munro short stories. My way of celebrating her win.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. Maybe, that's against the rules.

[BKH70041]

7. Trade-offs

Hasn't this conversation come up before? Yes. Yes it has.

Aren't things becoming more socially liberal? If they are, then the trade-off is more economically conservative. Neither side gets what they completely want.

You want more economic liberalism? Then what are you willing to give up towards being more socially conservative?

Because I can tell you for certain both economically and socially liberal or both economically and socially conservative isn't going to happen. You get a trade-off.

[chervilant]

12. How do you equate

a trade-off of 'economically conservative' with 'things becoming more socially liberal'? I've looked at your profile (as I routinely do for any DUer with a low number of posts), so I suspect that you are biased in favor of corporations. Are you? Do you support the current corporate hegemony? What about the SCOTUS decisions re: corporate 'personhood' and corporate campaign contributions? (I am truly interested in your responses to these questions; this is not a snark...)

[BKH70041]

32. I believe in American capitalism.

I don't know if that fits your definition of "biased towards corporations" or not.

I think "corporate personhood" has been established. Whether I like it or not is meaningless; I just work with what exists. I view corps as a collection of people all sharing a common interest in seeing the business succeed and make money. If it loses that focus, then is should suffer the consequences.

Why do corps feel the need to lobby and give contributions is what I ask myself? Because the same lawmakers than can help them can also hurt them. It's a bribe, and the lawmakers are just as guilty as the CEO's. The USA is the Roman Empire.

More directly to why I said what I said, I'm simply noting what I observe. Socially we're becoming more liberal, and economically we're becoming more conservative. Liberals want economic/social liberalism and conservatives want economic/social conservatism. Rather than piss off 1/2 the country totally, better to half-way piss off the whole country is how I think DC views it. At least that way everybody gets something. What would you rather have; economically liberal and socially conservative, or economically conservative and socially liberal? I think that's the trade-off.

I apologize in advance but I've got a lot on my plate today and may not even get to this until much later today, if at all.

And I sincerely hate you felt the need to say "I am truly interested in your responses to these questions; this is not a snark..." in your reply. Having only been here a short time, it seems people could just make inquiries like you and not feel like they had to don a flame suit before they do But having read the responses on some of these posts I understand why. For future reference, you don't have to do that with me.

Good Day!

[delrem]

98. How is "American capitalism" different than just plain "capitalism".

Why should anyone "trade off", say, LGBT rights for Citizens United? What bearing does one have on the other?

Your post makes no sense to me. No sense at all.

[chervilant]

104. oic...

Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(Also, have you read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine"? I wonder if you might recognize that corporations, by definition, legitimize the rampant hubris -- and thinly veiled sociopathy -- we're witnessing among the worst of the CEOs du jour?)

[Enthusiast]

85. Did you just make that rule up out of thin air?

Sounds like it.

[Chan790]

110. You would be wrong.

Typically both move in the same direction at the same time...see Reaganism. The socially-leftward while fiscally-rightward movement of Clintonism, the DLC & its progeny and the Obama administration is the anomaly, not the norm.

In any case, I see a long-run Democratic dominance on the horizon and it's likely the only thing that ends it is to move out of the sweet spot. We're already verging on the right-end of the sweet spot economically and the tidal shifts in policy combined with the ongoing hard-jettison of the Democratic fiscal right in officeholders shows a party aware of that...it's a foregone conclusion that regardless what Democrat holds the WH in 2016, both the Congress and the Democratic caucus they have to work with will be more liberal than the current makeup on both economic and social issues.

For what it's worth, this is why as much as I don't want her to run I also don't believe Hillary will run; she has no interest in being dragged leftward on economic issues by her own party and base every step of her term in office. She'd have to see a major policy objective she could achieve to countenance that...and I believe Obama stole away the big Democratic policy objective that was hanging out there in healthcare reform. (Which was Clinton's personal crusading issue going back to her days as Arkansas First Lady.)

[antigop]

8. k&r nt

[beerandjesus]

10. Thank you, great post...

Coincidentally, I was just chatting with a liberally-inclined friend of mine who recently moved to rural South Carolina and was lamenting the fact that he can't get broadband at his new house. What I wanted to say to him (since he's not very politically engaged) is, vote for Democrats then! Remember rural electrification?

Then I remembered that the Democratic Party that espoused such initiatives is long gone.

[zeemike]

13. Hear hear Cali.

That IS our biggest threat to democracy...and right now they are winning, and will continue winning as long as we are distracted by the us and them game being played.
It will have to be changed from the bottom up...the top is too corrupted by money and power.

[annabanana]

14. You have nailed it, Cali.

I sincerely hope the ship hasn't sailed on this one. Media consolidation led the charge. The loss of the fairness doctrine and truth in advertising, I fear, May have sealed the deal.

We here on the ground have little but pitchforks and the tenuous freedom of the internet as it now stands.

on edit: Actually, I think I have it backwards. The loss of The Fairness Doctrine and Truth in Advertising made media consolidation much much easier.

DAMN you Ronald Reagan

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[grantcart]

16. Associating with Democrats at DU must be a most disagreeable experience for you.

I believe that it is close to being too late to extricate the Democratic Party from this grip

And in fact if you were to be honest you actually think that the Democratic Party is already a lost cause but stating your honest opinion would cancel your DU dance ticket.

But really what you believe is that it really is all about you, kind of Ted Cruz perspective from the left.

[leftstreet]

19. OP isn't talking about members of DU

DU's Democrats are a far cry from the party's corporate loving leadership

But you probably know that

[grantcart]

21. lol I am talking about people who consider themselves members of the

Democratic Party. Is it your position that there are not many members of the Democratic Party here?

[leftstreet]

22. DINO supporters are a minority here n/t

[grantcart]

23. So in your words anyone who considers themselves a Democrat is a DINO.

[leftstreet]

24. LOL nice try. So in your words the OP isn't a Democrat?

[cali]

28. the ironic thing, is as you know, I don't attack people for being "DINOs"

I do believe that this is a big tent party.

I do support dems over republicans every time in general elections.

[cali]

27. I am a member of the Democratic party. I have been for decades.

Yeah, I consider myself to be a Democrat- because I am one. If you don't like that, too bad.

[cali]

26. wow. I don't expect that kind of ridiculous crud from you.

I believe precisely what I posted in the OP. I find it disgraceful when people do what you're doing and makes stuff up. I may be a lot of things but I don't make shit up and I don't lie. I thought the same of you and it's painful to find out that isn't so.

but whatever, keep making shit up. keep attributing things to me that aren't remotely true. That reflects on you far more than on me.

[grantcart]

40. What is astonishing is that you are so completely wrapped up in a narcisstic point of view

that you are completely unaware of it.

For example you don't write "What we Democrats should believe" or "What we Democrats should build together for" but "I" "I" "I". In the OP you use the construct "I believe" 5 times From this short reply we get:

I believe

I posted

I find

I don't lie

I thought

So when I read your OP it occurred to me that it must be very unpleasant for you to participate in a group where so many Democrats also participate. You seem to have a need to make a dramatic clarion call to make sure that you are not identified as a Democrat and lay out a demarcation line that states what your motives are. That doesn't jibe with someone who is happy to associate with others in the group.

Exactly "what shit" am I making up, that this OP is all about you?

[beerandjesus]

48. Read the OP again. It is a *conciliatory* message.

There are 3-4 flame fests going on right now in which cali is being attacked for having the temerity to suggest that Terry McAuliffe might be slightly less than our best and brightest.

This OP is, indeed, about cali: In a calm and measured tone, it lays out why cali is vigilant about corporatism in the Democratic Party, and makes quite clear that it is out of love for what the Democratic Party represents and concern for the party's well-being. It's not apologetic, but it does operate on the common ground--people over corporations--that I like to think we all agree on.

Your posts, in contrast, seem to suggest that any utterances about the Democratic Party expressing anything but hearty and unequivocal support instantly transform the heretical utterer into a teabagger. I don't think that's healthy for DU or the Democratic Party, and I suspect you know it. I think disagreement on this board is not only good and healthy; I think it makes DU interesting, and keeps me coming back. But calling a member of your family a bagger is about as intellectually honest as comparing Obama to Hitler.

[cali]

52. thank you. As I explained to grantcart, it's also a riff on the Bertrand Russell/EM Forster

essays of the same name.

wonderful essays. Maybe it's a bit impertinent of me to use that title, but as I explained it's kind of a time honored tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Believe

[beerandjesus]

53. Thought so. Bertrand Russell influenced my own thinking quite a bit!

[grantcart]

59. Really?

Please provide an example where I have stated that I don't think disagreement about policy is a good thing and where "any utterances" critical of the Democratic Party is 'heretical' and 'an equivalency' to being a tea bagger.

Your posts, in contrast, seem to suggest that any utterances about the Democratic Party expressing anything but hearty and unequivocal support instantly transform the heretical utterer into a teabagger.

I suggest that you will not find anything close to that and you are inventing it out of whole cloth. I can cite posts in which I have stated exactly the opposite to be true.

I expect you either to prove your point with a clear citation or retract it.


As to your reference to other posts about Terry McAuliffe, those issues should be argued in those threads. It is always amusing when people make references to general posting in DU and assume that people have hours a day to read them. If the OP had linked to any of these threads I would have read them, but my replies are to this OP.

I am curious why any would bother writing negative comments about the painfully boring McAuliffe a few days before the election, what is the point of that?

This OP is about Cali's beliefs.

I am just wondering why in the middle of a major constitutional confrontation and one of the most serious threats to the running of an orderly why anyone one would think that this would be the appropriate time for DU to focus on their own existential clarion statement.

Now as to the "In a calm and measured tone".

You may find statements like

I believe that it is close to being too late to extricate the Democratic Party from this grip.

calm and measured but I find them apocalyptic.

Remember I didn't write an OP about Cali's 'beliefs' Cali did.

Did you expect everyone to simply agree with them or is the reason that you invented completely untrue statements about my positions is that you follow a particular ideological point of view that you will not tolerate any dissent?

I look forward to your response but I won't be able to schedule it in till the end of the day.

[cali]

63. good grief. the irony is rich. you are whinging about just what YOU did to me.

and again, try educating yourself. I already blew your moronic accusations of narcissism out of the water by enlightening you about the genesis of "What I believe". You, of course, cravenly ignore that post.

Pathetic and contemptible.

[beerandjesus]

71. You can't credibly deny that you were making personal attacks.

Here's an example of you equating cali with the baggers:

"Associating with Democrats at DU must be a most disagreeable experience for you. [...] But really what you believe is that it really is all about you, kind of Ted Cruz perspective from the left."

I didn't have to look very hard. That said, although I thought your other personal attacks were unfair, it's only the bagger-equation attacks that I want to call out. So I probably should, in fact, retract the "s" from the word "posts" where I said that your "posts suggest that (etc.)"


I mentioned the recent Terry McAuliffe pieces to point to a likely impetus for the OP, not to start a battle on a second front. Cali has also posted extensively, and in a similar spirit, about the TPP, but those posts have been less controversial. I believe this OP stands alone as an overarching statement, but in case it seemed to come out of nowhere, I though the reference to other recent posts might help.


Regarding the tone, I think most of us would agree that cali's stating the obvious about the role of money in the Democratic Party. You came up with one line that you find "apocalyptic".... Do you really not see the influence of big money on the party? I looked at your journal before posting this, and read thoughtful, well-reasoned pieces about, among other things, your admiration for FDR.

Because of that, I'm genuinely baffled as to why you would impugn cali's motivations over such an innocuous post. I'm not being sarcastic: Quite frankly, if I thought you were an idiot or a troll, that would be one thing, but I generally enjoy and appreciate your contributions here very much, and although I don't always agree with you, your support for Democrats strikes me as measured and well-reasoned, not fanboy-ish at all.

I don't see what cali did to deserve such an attack--that OP was no higher than maybe the 60th or 70th percentile on the online-forum-narcissism scale, and cali was talking about strengthening the Democrats, not about voting Libertarian. So now that I'm over my initial huff ( ): Seriously, am I missing something?

[cali]

50. uh, you're not familiar with the EM Forester and Bertrand Russell essays

of that name, are you?

this has nothing to do with narcissism. it's a riff on that. It may be a little impertinent of me but it's actually a time honored tradition to riff off those essays.

I highly recommend that you read them- particularly Forster's brilliant essay of that name.

so you are wrong as can be.

What shit are you making up- and out of whole cloth at that?

You are making up that it's unpleasant for me to participate in a group of my FELLOW democrats.

You are making up this nonsense that I have a need to make a "dramatic clarion call" to make sure that I am not identified as a dem. I have posted repeatedly that I am a dem for a decade.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Believe

You make shit up- something I have a deep and abiding contempt for.

Edited to add a link so you can actually inform yourself instead of spouting pseudo psych crap and making up shit. You know, like Ted Cruz does- the guy you compared me too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Believe

[cali]

58. run, run, run away from your own ignorance. Lol.

[grantcart]

64. Sorry that is off topic

This OP is not about my ignorance, a field that is so vast that it is almost incomprehensible.

When I start writing OPs "What I know" then your comments along this line would be relevant.

This is about your supreme narcissism which is relevant to an OP that is titled "What I believe" and is framed in the idea that posting clarion calls of self righteous indignation are manifestation of some kind of brave bold political statement when they are done amorously in discussion forum without any real world consequence.

You wrote the OP and in doing so you invited comment on it.

I am just wondering why in the middle of one of the most significant constitutional crises with the government shut down and vital services for our society and those that depend on it for basic services, why would you find this particular time to suggest that DU not focus on all of those issues but take its time to wade through the political motivations of Cali?

If that is not the definition of narcissism what, prey tell, is?

[cali]

66. another false claim. sad. YOU accused me of being narcisisstic. I informed

you of the genesis of "What I believe" YOU displayed some pretty appalling ignorance with that moron piece of shit post.

now you trumpet your ignorance proudly. How repuke like of you. how narcissistic. how shameful and low.

but that's what you are.

[Enthusiast]

86. We are here to share what we believe.

Many of us are interested in hearing what cali believes. Narcissism has nothing to do with it. Every time we post we are sharing what we believe.

[cali]

99. thanks that was kind of you

and here's a link to EM Forster's "What I Believe". It's abridged but it's just so wonderful.

http://www.skeptic.ca/EM_Forster_What_I_Believe.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Believe

[msanthrope]

29. "Ted Cruz perspective from the left?" Dead on.....nt

[cali]

31. really? then you won't have any trouble making that case and

not just parroting that ridiculous accusation. So do it. You won't. You don't have the ability and you couldn't make that case.

[msanthrope]

37. Hmmm....a retracted and discredited AP story. A poorly-sourced Politico article. A Wikipedia

article flagged for its violation of neutrality.

These are the sources you've used to publically state here, that although you really, really, really, don't like Terry McAuliffe, you would rather see him elected than the Kook.

I am sure you have an explanation as to why your concerns needed to be aired one month before a hotly-contested election. I am sure you very concerned.

[cali]

39. wow. a fucking disgraceful lie. I NEVER POSTED THAT STORY

I never endorsed it and YOU can fucking search every post of mine and you won't find anything but my saying that story was a lie.

Your lie is disgusting.

[msanthrope]

45. I never said you posted that story. But you used that story to push your narrative.

And what about the rest?

Did you not use the Politico article?

Did you not use the Wikipedia article?

All to push your concerns.

[cali]

46. I most certainly did not.

how fucking dare you? I posted a Politico story that said that McAuliffe's investment with Caramadre and his acceptance of campaign bucks from him wouldn't hurt him. Oh, horrors. As if people don't post Politico stories here every dday.

And yes, I used the Wiki article.

Don't like facts, do you? tough fucking shit

Now stop making up crap. It's contemptible.

[msanthrope]

49. And you used the AP story. joshcryer clearly pointed out to you in this thread that you

were using sources that had been thoroughly debunked.

He even asked you to name the crime McAulliffe had committed.

You refused to answer him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023820852#post25

[cali]

51. I did not. And read post 9 in that thread.

I never accused McAuliffe of a crime. duh. And no, I don't answer every single lying ass post. a lot of them, but not every one.

Continue making shit up.

[msanthrope]

79. Cali, your intent may have been good, but severely badly-timed. I can accept that explanation from

you.

Can you offer that?

[beerandjesus]

38. I wonder if the people trolling you are actually Democrats.

They certainly talk like Republicans: Obey blindly, or we will cast you out and shun you.

[cali]

41. it's their vile disgusting flat out lies that I deplore.

they just won't stop lying their asses off and claiming that I posted the AP false story about McAuliffe when I did nothing of the kind.

I despise liars and have nothing but contempt for them. they are shit.

[Sissyk]

65. You may not care how close this vote was

but your transparancy page shows you should care due to the new rules soon to be in place.

At Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:36 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

it's their vile disgusting flat out lies that I deplore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3828142

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Come off it... Is the kind of discourse civil or productive in any way?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:41 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: ah jeez. dumb alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no reason to hide this post. I've seen some of the comments made to her about the OP she posted and they weren't pretty.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Discourse is discourse, if you feel the post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate, address that.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Knock it off, Cali... We all make mistakes sometimes. Admit yours and move on--or don't, but at least move on.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not at all. Cali can not call other DUers liars. And, that is exactly what she is doing in this post. She needs to talk about the post, not the posters.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cali]

75. thank you for your concern

as in I"m sure, you're ever so concerned.

and no, I won't tolerate people making shit up out of whole cloth. it's despicable. of course, you may disagree and endorse such disgusting behavior.

[Sissyk]

80. Of course I don't endorse

people making shit up out of whole cloth.

I posted those results for your benefit. There are a bunch of folks here that would hate to see you have your posting privileges taken away and I wanted you to see that it was a close call. THat's all. Peace!

[Rex]

77. I don't.

nt.

[Enthusiast]

87. They are not........nt

[beerandjesus]

36. Looks to me like encouragement to self-reflection is disagreeable to you.

That's what I get from the OP. We're all on the same side, but we need to be aware of who we're making deals with, and we need to be vigilant lest the Democratic Party becomes the party of non-teabag Republicans.


Seriously, what a creepy post. If we use our brains, we're Ted Cruz? Jesus Christ.

[cali]

43. thank you. man, I really don't get what in hell is controversial about my op

[rhett o rick]

74. The point of the OP is to speak out about corporate control of the Democratic Party.

I agree that this is a very serious problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Instead of discussing the point of the oP you seem to want to take the opportunity to insinuate that the OP author doesnt like Democrats. That is extremely misleading and makes me wonder what your motive is.

I hope you would agree that it is important to keep corruption and corporate influence out of the Democratic Party. I am sure you wouldnt want the Koch Bro sponsoring Democratic candidates.

[Surya Gayatri]

17. Excellent "mission statement", Cali. Sun Tzu has sage advice about "The Art of War"...

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[closeupready]

18. Absolutely agree, Cali.

K&R

[leftstreet]

20. DURec

[JEB]

25. TPP is a bid to greatly advance corporate power worldwide.

A politician that supports, promotes or even remains silent on this trade deal does not represent my interests and will not get my vote or support.

[stupidicus]

30. the creeping fascism has been obvious for a long time now

assuming you use the definition offered by the father of it.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#H0o7mq3TvvOTZSiG.99

I've been battling rightwingnuts and many "lefties" for well over a decade now over the issue. The reason why the awareness of the problem (the kinda gov we're living under) is so low imo, is because far too many, including pols and pundits, refuse to use the right label for it for reason I'll presume I don't have to provide here.

The biggest threat/s this country faces (other than AGW which dwarfs all others imo) are those born from the evil twins known as ignorance and apathy of which this widespread obliviousness of the existence of corporatism/fascism condition is but one example.

It doesn't really matter what you wanna call it/how you wanna label it, an oligarchy, plutarchy, fascism/corporatism, the inarguable fact remains "we the people" are no longer in control as the founders intended -- who had no love for corporations. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/

A gov need not be like the Nazis -- who were fascists -- in all ways to satisfy the definition of the term.

[Savannahmann]

33. I would agree with you on that.

[cali]

34. oh, but don't you know. the nutcases say I'm Ted Cruz of the right

and hate democrats.

[Savannahmann]

35. Recently I started to ignore them.

It's pretty easy, just click on their name, and click on ignore, and then full ignore. You'll be surprised at how much nicer it is to post/read here when you get rid of the usual suspects. You can also add them to your Jury Blacklist, which means that they'll have no say in decisions regarding your posts etc.

[Bonhomme Richard]

42. +1. The very wealthy have always run this country and...

they rarely see any consequences to themselves. The exception was the thirties and that was because the people had had enough and started supporting communism, socialism, and fascism. Something had to be done and Roosevelt knew it and that is how we ended up with the New Deal.
Joseph Kennedy thanks Roosevelt for saving capitalism.

[starroute]

44. Both parties could use to have more faith in creativity and entrepreneurialism

The Republicans need to admit that the Affordable Care Act, by making it easier for people to leave their corporate jobs and set up in business for themselves to market that great idea or new invention, promotes economic growth and individual freedom.

The Democrats need to admit that enacting "free trade" agreements that give big media and the intellectual property industry a lock on copyrights and patents will only stifle future innovation and not help the American position in the global economy in the long run.

Until that happens, both parties are just going to be enabling the corporations. But once it does happen, the Democratic Party will be far more like the party of our desires, and even the Republicans may have something useful to contribute.

[maindawg]

47. what the CU did

Was force both sides to sell out to the highest bidder. CU has to be destroyed.It is a monster unleashed upon our democracy by the plutocrats who reside within out Supreme Court. Greedy ,ignorant frauds . Thomas and Scolia have to go.We must impeach them in 2014 after we control both houses. That will take tremendous pressure from you and I because 80% of our party is under the thumb of the plutocrats also. The infection that has destroyed the rethugs in beginning to affect the dems.But we have hope. We have Sanders,and Warren to fight for us. We must elect more like them. We have Franken and we have Alan Greyson. We have good legislators who are honest and work for you and I. we need to support them and work to help them and elect more like them. We can win. We have the majority and we have history on our side.
It is a few bad actors who are gumming up the works. They are being exposed .

[L0oniX]

54. I believe that ignoring facts for political expediency leads to more corruption too.

[cali]

55. and stating them leads to furious attacks and

creepy people calling one "Ted Cruz"

Sick and I won't fucking just take it. Or the lies.

[ErikJ]

57. Corporations slowly realizing now they went too far

THey have lost control of the T-Party faction and are now promising to primary them.

[Jackpine Radical]

67. But rage, rage

against the dying of the light.

We gotta keep fighting at whatever level and in whatever venues we can.

[GoneFishin]

68. K & R nt

[AmBlue]

70. The usurpation of the Rs right in front of their noses

...by the Tea Party is painfully illustrative of precisely how this happens. If the Dems will learn from it-- both elected and non-elected-- we can and should all work hard to beat this down. Fighting the TPP with all we've got would be a very good start.

[bigtree]

72. too late? I think this has always been a generational issue that requires eternal vigilance

. . . a cabal of appointed executives who capture the offices of our
government and plot to bend their weakened franchise to the
realization of their narrow corporate agenda.

These preoccupied courts of equity that are the instruments of our democracy were, in their infancy, forced to bend to the will of the governed by war, and tempered by a compact in which a united people reluctantly bestowed the force of their lives and labor to a handful of managers. From that compact, our nation was born.

And from that compact, generations of Americans would give their faith and their lifeblood to defend the principles and morality which cosseted every sacrifice of their freedom and well-being that they entrusted to those they elected, for the benefit and furtherance of the common good.

These same Americans would demand that those who profess to lead us would wield the power of our collective faith and struggle with a selfless spirit, and be humbled by the source of the awesome power that is effectively bequeathed to them with our votes.

But through our nation's faith, and in the trust we place in our representatives that they would be humbled to serve the will of the people, and by their good judgement lead, we have been betrayed by a ruling-class oligarchy which has perpetuated its role and influence in our governance; not by the quality of their service, but through the advantages of patronage and association.

[raouldukelives]

73. K&R

Not only do people go silent, they secretly invest, support and expand the destruction of our democracy and ecosystems with every dollar in the markets. Then, have the audacity to claim they are against such destruction.
They love money more than doing the right thing. They place it above any faint notions of liberal ideals, political leanings or empathy towards the natural world and the animals that depend on it.
I think we are in a battle not for our lives, but for the lives of our children and the world they will inhabit. It is deadly serious and with what we are currently learning about the state of natural world, I'm afraid we have lost it before it has begun.
Maybe it is a lost cause. But it is the only cause worth fighting for. If we can't even make the feeblest of stands against the corporate juggernaut that is steadily consuming our very environment, we can count ourselves as the generation that traded short term financial security for the long term suffering of every living thing born into the shadow of our cowardice.
Time is not on our side.

[chervilant]

105. In the shadow of our cowardice,

AND smothered by the heavy weight of our collective hubris.

Too many of us cling perniciously to our love of money.

[cali]

76. there shouldn't be anything controversial about this op.

it's not written in a manner that offends. it's not strident or unreasonable. it lays out facts.

but no, there are those who pretend that what I've said is just shocking and against dems.

that just shows me how fucked we are.

it's sad.

[Enthusiast]

89. There is nothing controversial about your OP, cali.

Corporate influence must be reined in, it's a fact.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[spanone]

81. k&r...

[Enthusiast]

82. Kicked and Recommended!

Right on, cali!

[cali]

84. thanks, Enthusiast.

who would have thought that this op would be controversial? Hardly different from what bernie so often says and gets applauded for here.

[Celefin]

100. Heh, some here are so accustomed to attack you

...that they probably are completely unable to digest what you actually wrote and just need to attack you.

After all, you are an established 'Obama Hater' and an 'extreme peace advocate'.

[cali]

101. heh. the funny thing is that neither of those things are true

as you point out by putting those claims within quotation marks.

[Celefin]

103. But it makes a good narrative ;)

Cheers

[Enthusiast]

83. TPTB have decided that it is just too dangerous to leave this nation in the hands of the people.

That's a fact.

[treestar]

88. What is "the corporate threat?"

And what can be done about it, once we start paying attention to it?

[cali]

102. the corporate threat is embodied in the spread of

corporate money infesting our political system and influencing legislation. What can we do? First, recognize the problem, call it out loudly and often and work to elect democrats that pledge to fight it- or indies like bernie.

[Scuba]

90. Thanks cali, nailed it again.

[livingwagenow]

91. When they can assassinate JFK and drive us off a cliff fiscally,

they indeed are the greatest threat to our democracy and to our nation.

Great op.
knr

[liberalmuse]

94. I'm skeptical on most conspiracies...

but I believe some do exist, and this is one of those conspiracies. I was too young to understand then, but I understand now. There was just too much idealism and optimism. These fuckers live to crush such things. That is what they do. I'm dead serious. They are fucking soulless. They are described here to a "T": http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/leary-decevo.asp

[liberalmuse]

92. As Heisenberg would say...

"Goddamn right!"

[colsohlibgal]

93. Agree Cali 100%

Obama pushing hard to fast track the truly dreadful (for most of us) TPP, a corporate coup, proves there is a corporate cow towing issue in our party big time.

And why should being socially liberal preclude pushing being fiscally liberal or vice versa? Right is right. Corporate cash, the MI complex, are corrupting our political process and we're going to have to address this to retain any sense of a real democracy.

[blkmusclmachine]

95. "MONEY MONEY MONEY It's a rich mans world..."

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. [phone]. You are so right. n/t

[ecstatic]

97. IMO, the tea party threat requires our immediate attention

We are under assault right now by a group of ignorant, irrational fundamentalists.

Although the corporate wing surely played a role in the tea party's emergence, I think we (the 99 and the 1 percent) can all agree that the tea party must be stopped before proceeding any further.

From there we can think about how to lessen corporate influence on our system.

[randome]

107. If corporations own both parties, why are they furious at the GOP right now?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

108. I didn't say that. I said a corporate takeover of our democracy is a real threat.

I'm just over trying to discuss anything with people who don't start off from an honest place.

[randome]

109. If I didn't see your point clearly, that doesn't point to 'dishonesty'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]