Yes we are all Democrats. That is checking a box. No, we don't seem to have common aims in general.

[TheKentuckian]

Reposted as an OP by request.

No, it is not our common goal enrich the wealthy at the expense of workers.

It is not our common goal to propagate interventionist wars of aggression for wealth and power. 

It is not our common goal to export our jobs to pad pockets. 

It is not our common goal to loot the commons. 

It isn't our common goal to privatize public education. 

It is not our common goal to destabilize governments that don't play ball. 

It is not our common goal to continue the stupid and failed drug war. 

It is not our common goal to destroy regulation and oversight of business nor to turn it into a sham of "self regulation". 

It is not our common goal to crush the wages of the American worker. 

It is not our common goal to play global police force, particularly on our own budget destroying expense. 

It is not our common goal to prop and expand Too Big to Fail companies. 

It is not our common goal to cut Social Security nor does it appear to be a common goal to expand it. 

It isn't a common goal to subvert and destroy enumerated rights for security. 

It is not a common goal to whitewash and "look forward" and cover for torturing, murdering, destroying criminals. 

It is not our common goal to frack up the nation and drill, baby, drill anywhere except the very tippy top of the list of places it is irresponsibly insane to do so. 

It is not a common goal to set up a "just us" system where the rich and powerful are unaccountable. 

Sure there are common goals like wanting everyone to be able to vote or acceptance that someone has to pay to keep the lights on in the government, that government has a role in society, that generally speaking that at least the women who can afford an abortion hold have access to the service (if they can't gets a little more sticky, many support Hyde) but pretending they all are is absurd in its apparent belief that any outcome is possible from about any policy. 

No, I don't care one bit about the convictions of conservatives and corporatists other than they stop polluting the already too toxified nation with their nonsense not helping them fuck us over some more. 
No, it isn't my job to help anyone oppose and destroy much of what I struggle for to be "unified", some folks need to unify with the fucking TeaPubliKlans and stop trying to assimilate us to their worldview even if they are pro choice or the targets of racism. 

It is silly to work tirelessly to make the party come as close as possible to standing for nothing or everything and then turn around and be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing they created. 

It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination. Never is it said to want more leftist voices...NEVER. It is wholly a guilt play to appeal to the liberal desire to be inclusive to advance contrary conservative interests. 

If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you are corporate enabling, interventionist, free trading conservative that due to being temporarily embarrassed, not being overly churchy, a conservative minority the TeaPubliKlans will make a token of but never truly accept, embrace corporate politicians, or are a willing enemy to our civil liberties with a lame as circle D by your name while spitting venom about "the far left" like a Rush or a Prager, calling people lame shit like "firebagger" and "emoprog" and talking a lot of stupid shit about rainbow farting unicorns and ponies (no idea what the equine fixations are about, maybe this crowd really grew up wanting ponies). 

[Autumn]

1. Thank you and

It is silly to work tirelessly to make the party come as close as possible to standing for nothing or everything and then turn around and be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing they created.

It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination. Never is it said to want more leftist voices...NEVER. It is wholly a guilt play to appeal to the liberal desire to be inclusive to advance contrary conservative interests.

[Scuba]

2. I wish I could rec this a thousand times.

[Autumn]

3. This OP deserves hundreds of recs

I think I will just keep kicking it

[TheKentuckian]

6. Thanks, it is time to be clear where really stand and where we really want to go

[Autumn]

8. Yes it is well past time. I know where I am going and I know where

I stand.

[QuestionAlways]

62. I am who this OP is attacking

I consider myself a progressive Democrat who believes in single-payer health care, no cap on FICA taxes in order to lower the rate and raise SS benefits. I believe we should not go to war without a declaration of war and a universal draft. I believe in a woman's right to chose, and equal rights or all people. I believe in a strong economic safety net which is tied to something like the CCC, or required classes to learn new skills. I believe corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as a person. I have nothing against capitalism as long as employee are paid a living wage. All education should be free by using the state University system and on-line courses. I support HRC to be our next POTUS

[TheKentuckian]

64. No, I'm attaching those that hold such views or claim they don't but always work toward such ends.

You are the type that I simply wish to remove the false safe path crutch from.

I expect you know that Clinton is not the conduit of your expressed ambitions but feel she is your best hope to minimize slippage because you think she is a winner.

I would change the calculus of "viability" in our party.

[Autumn]

65. This OP is not an attack on anyone.

The things listed in the OP are not an attack on anyone. Democrats support goals that are for the common good of the people. None of those things listed benefit the people.
A lot of people here support and want HRC to be the next POTUS. A lot of people here do not support or want HRC to be the next POTUS.
Do you consider those things listed to be goals for the common good?

[sabrina 1]

77. Hillary has already told you she disagrees with you on eg, 'no war without a declaration of war'.

Hillary hasn't told us how she feels about unregulated Capitalism that I know of. Bernie and Warren have. I have no idea where she stands on the Chained CPI eg, which is a cut to SS benefits.

I know where she stands on the TPP which will ensure that American workers will not only NOT improve the current standards of pay, they will lose even more.

We will also lose on our Environment legislation, as the leaks show. Foreign Corps will be able to sue, imagine this if you can, they will be able to SUE to get around those long fought for laws, because, they can claim, they unfairly limit their right to profit.

I do not support HRC for president. See the OP for a list of the reasons why.

We can do better than this.

[QuestionAlways]

106. I believe it is either Hillary Clinton or a Republican as the next POTUS

Elizabeth Warren is not running. According to a friend who would know, she hates political campaigns and running for office.

Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist, low information voters think of Russia

Joe Biden is described by the Media as having foot-in-mouth disease and would be effected by third term voter fatigue

Martin O'Malley's "rain tax" caused his hand-picked successor's surprise loss to a Republican

Jim Webb is very conservative on climate change and he also said Democrats could "Do a better job with white people." He has declared several months ago, but is having trouble rising money.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but her views are closer to the average Democrat, then are the views of any Republican. She can not be attacked from the right for being weak on national defense, and she has more foreign policy experience then any Republican. In the era of Citizen United, she can raise as much money as the Republicans and she will appoint center-left judges to the Supreme Court, rather then far right judges; so maybe Citizen United will be reversed. She will be the first woman POTUS, and that will attract non-Democrat female voters.

She will be a winner, and our next President

[hedda_foil]

130. Of COURSE she can be attacked from the right on national defense.

Every time a Democratic nominee has supposedly been in that position, the Pubs knock the pins out from under them sooner rather than later. It's a standard play for them. Case in point: John Kerry, swiftboating, purple bandaids, etc. And don't forget Benghaaaaaaaaazi.

[sabrina 1]

148. I don't. We have plenty of great Democrats who make great Presidents and it's up to the

leadership of the party now to respond to the voters and provide some real choices they can be enthusiastic about rather than only one who 'is the only alternative to the Republican'.

We are in a democracy. Candidates in democracies do not get 'appointed'. The people choose who they want to represent them.

When they are provided with only one choice, it is no longer a democracy.

We will continue to demand other Democrats be given a chance AND support from the Party, who would better serve the country's needs, particularly its Foreign Policies and Economic policies.

[QuestionAlways]

169. So who is that candidate?

It is up to We the People to put forth a candidate, not the party leadership. Then we will have to support him or her.

[sendero]

135. Well...

... HRC isn't interested in 90% of the things you claim to be for, so there is a disconnect in there somewhere.

[RiverLover]

4. All these things listed, pushed by corporate dems, are what we have rethugs for.

Thank you for so comprehensively explaining why this infusion of conservatives into our Proud Left Democratic Party needs to end.

(And thanks for making this an OP. Bookmarked!!)

[Autumn]

5. Being told over and over you are a Left Leaning Independent and not a Democrat

is another play.

[HappyMe]

7. lol! That one is my favorite.

It usually comes after a oathy pledgy request that gets refused.

[Autumn]

9. I used to think it was funny but now I just see it as being disruptive.

The constant time outs are a real tell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=296000&sub=trans

[HappyMe]

11. Ah! I wondered where that one was.

I'm just the opposite. It used to tick me off, and thought it was disruptive. Now I think it's funny. Being berated never changes any body's mind.

[zeemike]

15. I don't think it is intended to change anyones mind.

I think it is intended to intimidate people into silence.
What is funny to me is how obvious it has become.

[HappyMe]

19. I would turn in my grown woman card

immediately if I let that foolishness intimidate me.

I wonder at the motivation behind all of that.

[G_j]

54. I think that particular

person's motivation is disruption, plain and simple.

[sabrina 1]

82. As if you could ever silence the 'Left' which is what these admonishments are ALWAYs about,

silencing the Left.

And this is because the Left is usually RIGHT. They are not as easily propagandized, and therefore a threat to the 'messaging'.

[smokey nj]

39. That one works in bullying and disruption the way other artists work in oils or clay.

[LondonReign2]

57. LOL. Love The Christmas Story reference.

[smokey nj]

76. It's one of my favorites.

[Maedhros]

177. It is his true medium; a master. [n/t]

[stillwaiting]

59. I have that one on ignore. I do that very, very infrequently.

Someone has to be over the top annoying, repetitive, or do something like call me a racist/sexist when I have opposed an Obama or Hillary position.

Just about all of the posters that I put on ignore got booted previously, but in the new DU incarnation they seem to linger much, much longer. Much longer.

If I never read a post that's worth reading for an extremely prolific poster, they go on ignore. It applied here.

[840high]

33. Those pledgy requests make me see red.

[HappyMe]

37. They do get under my skin sometimes.

Those demands are way over the top. This isn't a middle school class election.

[TheKentuckian]

10. I'm getting to where I don't much mind. The base are the folks you have at hello, my vote isn't

set up on automatic draft.

I can be convinced but am not owned yet I'm a fully functioning Democrat. I'm a rock solid voter both primary and general. I volunteer for our candidates, I donate. So, it looks like I can be a pretty active Democrat and still not buy whatever is served.

The inquisitors can sit and spin and are lashing out because they are impotent in making their stupid shit operative, they are pretty much like the dotty old lady in the commercial that takes stuff off her actual wall that she has plastered with paper assumably printed off her social media..

[Autumn]

12. Sad to say my vote was automatic. It's not anymore. After the omnibus vote I

changed my affiliation after over 40 years as a registered voting Democrat. I found it obscene for Jamie Dimon to be whipping votes at the behest of the President, a man I voted for twice. They can call me whatever they want , I know what I am and where I stand.

[TheKentuckian]

69. Oh...mine too but I can't keep it up anymore.

[calimary]

47. OR that you're a member of the "Democrat Party."

[Doctor_J]

61. Especially since I have voted straight D since 1978. DINOs are more devious than Repukes, though

less malignant.

[TheKentuckian]

67. The problem (among many) is that the deviousness feeds the malignancy and vice versa too

The cycle must be broken.

[Rex]

13. Excellent OP. One of the best I've read in months!

[sabrina 1]

86. I agree with that Rex.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Thanks. I'm glad some folks encouraged me to repost it.

[TexasProgresive]

14. "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Will Rogers said it and it still works today.

[zeemike]

16. ...

[Indepatriot]

17. Bullseye.

[Broward]

18. Great post, thanks. Btw, it is not our common goal to wage war against whistleblowers.

[TheKentuckian]

21. You got that right. It was that which kicked me over the line of buying the common goals lies.

There is no way I can be on a path that reconciles with that kind of defect even if we could patiently wait for 100,000 years for the pot to simmer and bring it all together.

Nothing says we aren't on the same side as the relentless attacks on anyone who gives a peek behind the curtain of lies.

[ieoeja]

20. False: "Sure there are common goals like wanting everyone to be able to vote"

In 2008 a Democratic presidential candidate tried to change the primary rules in Nevada to make it more difficult for casino workers to vote.

So there is at least one Democrat in name who does not support the goal of wanting everyone to be able to vote.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Goodness, I hadn't caught that.

[ND-Dem]

122. yep, and check out some of the new ID, etc. requirements.

[MisterP]

22. the problem, of course, is there's only one party that can do all these things without backlash

even if the party weren't riddled with voters who literally say in public that they don't care what policies the people they vote for pass, there'd be millions who'd grudgingly hold their nose and keep pulling that lever

Latin America used to have a severe problem with duopolies

they ended the problem by not voting for them any more

[TheKentuckian]

28. Agreed, if we accept what we oppose the TeaPubliKlans for in our party then what vehicle do we have

have to fight back against the problems at all?

The answer of course is you don't and the issue is effectively off the table as "bipartisan" consensus so the universe of the debatable shrinks further and further so that the national political debate is stuck on stupid to the point that no one can get to the doing anything stage at all.

You can't move ahead with serious plans to deal with climate change if you are forever stuck on if it is a thing and if it is our fault or not.

We can hardly advance equality if we are arguing if being gay is a choice and if people will marry their sister's dog's house or not.

We can't make the economy work for the people if we are still ignoring our lying eyes about 30 or 40 years of trickle down.

It goes on and on, just stuck in idiotic sniping about complete nonsense.

[ScreamingMeemie]

24. A MUCH better post than the one you responded to.

Great job.

[Puglover]

109. Not only better.

Coherent.

Hello you! I sure hope things are good for you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

145. Hey there!

It's always a good day when I see you around DU. I'm okay.

[TheKentuckian]

147. Thank you

[MissDeeds]

25. + a zillion

Thank you! This needed to be said and you said it perfectly!



K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I'm a lifelong Democrat who votes issues/policies/principles. Not politician or Party.

I'm not a "purist". I'm willing to, and have, hold my nose on some issues/policies/principles. On, others not so much.

Ironically, the ones who use "purist" in a pejorative sense when referring to people who think for themselves are the ones who demand "loyalty".

[840high]

34. I thank you for that.

[bravenak]

27. Daaaaamn!!

[TheKentuckian]

53. I'll take take as about the highest level compliment one can get.

Thank you

[bravenak]

55. I found it breathtaking.

I secretly say shit like that. Just not as well.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Noooo!!! You're sowing discord and promoting divide and conquer. Are you Scott Walker??

My party is defined by my principles. Not the other way around.

I want to nominate a candidate who comes closest to matching my ideals, not mold my most deeply felt beliefs to the idiosyncrasies of a particular person.

[Cryptoad]

30. There is more to being a Democrat than checking a box

there is no need to negatively and hateful attacks on other Democrats because you don't agree with them...... you can positively support the attributes of Democrats that you do share principles with without that Hate..........save that junk for the Rethugs. e

[TheKentuckian]

46. Tell us the process in your state, in Kentucky I checked a box at 17 since I was of age as of the

general election.

Nobody had to vouch for me. There was no interview. I didn't have to go to Democratic HQ for orientation. I didn't sign any pledges. No hazing. No indoctrination. No training. No test.

Please tell us about your on ramping process.

I don't care if someone checked that damn box, I will oppose what I think is wrong and if I think someone is or is doing something negative you bet your life that I'm gonna be negative about it.

[Cryptoad]

63. you are the one that mentioned checking a box..... why so much anger..

you can disagree with people without all the negative hateful discourse....

[TheKentuckian]

66. Apparently not very effectively. Mealymouthing Kumbaiya with this bunch has

resulted in the achievement of in their own words and per their plan, a leveraged intellectual take over of our party. Along with decades of facilitating corporate domination and capture of our government.

Harmful should be met with overwhelming negativity, this is reminding me of over indulgent, lame brained parents that won't get stern when the situation requires it but with people that are neither children nor loved ones rather than politicians. "Please don't poke the dog in the eyes, junior".

If you just want positive then hire a PR firm, you won't see me tip toeing around.

[Cryptoad]

72. I wouldn't expect any less.....

[stevenleser]

31. Pretty much every Democrat is for all of those things too. Nothing special about it.

You like to claim you and a small group are the only righteous ones out there. You're not.

[TheKentuckian]

42. No, YOU claimed that I claimed to be in a small righteous group.

I actually think the Turd Way true believers to be of limited scope outside of the high office holders but with those folks largely sold out the captive audience follows stuck between leadership and the ever more extreme regressives which eventually presents as something like a mix of Stockholm Syndrome and religious indoctrination.

That said, the real number of Turd Way true believers grows as refugees trickle in seeking shelter from a party of loons but still most aren't buying it but they are afraid of what the radical regressives will do and will go along to get along in hopes of avoiding worse more than anything else.

[stevenleser]

43. Your OP is exactly that, claiming you are in a special righteous group. nt

[TheKentuckian]

49. Where are such words to be found? You know like righteous, special, group, or size of said group?

I am stating a difference in common aims and beliefs however the numbers stack, if you don't feel yours are righteous then you should reevaluate them.

No, I didn't express anything that should be special to find among Democrats though it is a terrible shame that some think and even demand otherwise, particularly disappointing to hear someone who seeks to represent liberals in the media would think there is anything unusual or that this would be anything like bleeding edge stuff.

[Rex]

88. Projection makes some here easy to read. They have no impulse control.

That knee jerk reaction to your OP is to be expected by some here. I think it actually proves a main point in your OP.

[Enthusiast]

139. I also believe it proves the main point of the OP.

How could any Democrat object to the OP? Unfathomable.

[DeSwiss]

32. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Monetary systems are nothing more than a more sophisticated form of serfdom. It uses debt instead of chains to enslave you to the system and makes you dependent upon it. We are units of energy in this system. Bred and raised to squeeze all the energy from us that we can bear and then throw us upon the slag heap when they're finished.

It is time for a paradigm shift and everyone knows it but almost everyone's afraid to admit it.

I'm not.

It is insane to continue to beat this dead horse in the expectation that it will get up and walk once more.

We have taken this form of democracy as far as it can go.

It is time for something else entirely different.

- And we won't get that electing the same people to office who have no answers and no ideas except to make themselves richer than they were when they entered......

K&R



The Venus Project

[brooklynite]

35. And your alternative suggestion is...

[zeemike]

38. And debt works far better than chains.

Because you have the illusion of being free, when the facts are you probably don't own your home or car, the bank does, and if you lose your job you lose it all.

People are poor because they own no land...and ownership of the land is where the real wealth of a nation is.
The Native Americans had it right, no one should own the land, it is our mother and no one should own your mother.

[DeSwiss]

51. It's all illusion......

- But we haven't figured out how it works yet. So we keep repeating ''ourselves'' (our programming loop) and fucking everything up because few retain anything from the prior experiences.

''Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

~George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, - 1905

[zeemike]

71. Terrence McKenna had it figured out.

But few of us can listen to him and understand just what he was saying.
We have been conditioned from birth to not think about things that conflict with the narrative we are fed as a society.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

36. K & R.....

Over and over.

This needs to be posted once a week till it sinks in.

[Fuddnik]

40. Ok Buddy, your Rah-Rah Card is officially revoked.

I turned mine in, in 2007, after the umpteenth outrage and sell-out.

[TheKentuckian]

96. Damn, wise soul to not even make it to the current cycle of the collapse.

I'm sorry to say I'm more than a bit more gullible.

[Enthusiast]

140. I was more gullible too. No more.

[Octafish]

41. No whitewash and 'look forward' and cover for torturing, murdering, destroying criminals.

Democracy needs to hear the Truth. As the Corporate Owned News won't touch it, Democrats and those who believe in Democracy got to go to DU to find it.

Thank you for a great OP and thread, TheKentuckian.

[TheKentuckian]

98. Damn right!

[dissentient]

44. No, no, no! We are all one big tent. We must respect the beliefs of the conservatives and former

republicans who have joined the Democratic party! It's wrong to disparage their beliefs, because they represent some of the "new Democrats", who just happen to believe in a lot of right wing values. We should embrace them, and their political opinions, not insult them!

I know the thread that this one is responding to, and yes, you are right on the money. That other thread reaches depths of bullshit that are hard to comprehend.

Thanks for this thread, recommended.

[DesertDawg]

79. Not all ex-cons and repubs

Turned Liberal are touting what you say. I am one of those ex conservatives and I am all for a sharp left turn in America, so not all of is want status quo or middle of the road.

[F4lconF16]

103. One word: Warren. Glad to have you with us. nt

[Codeine]

45. I don't always agree with TheKentuckian,

but when I do, it's because he's fucking right.

[one_voice]

48. I wish I could rec this but I won't because of this...

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you are corporate enabling, interventionist, free trading conservative that due to being temporarily embarrassed, not being overly churchy, a conservative minority the TeaPubliKlans will make a token of but never truly accept, embrace corporate politicians, or are a willing enemy to our civil liberties with a lame as circle D by your name while spitting venom about "the far left" like a Rush or a Prager, calling people lame shit like "firebagger" and "emoprog" and talking a lot of stupid shit about rainbow farting unicorns and ponies (no idea what the equine fixations are about, maybe this crowd really grew up wanting ponies).

I've been called those names and I didn't like it. I'm not any of those things you listed, it was because I didn't agree with certain things. So that's not true. YOU don't like to be called the latter don't call me the former.

Here's the thing...I'm a LIBERAL Democrat, but I disagree on like 2-3 issues...therefore, I'm an authoritarian corporatist turdwayer, blah, blah, blah...

I also live in the real world and I refuse to write in a candidate or not vote. In my opinion the Republican will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS do more damage than a center Democrat. As unhappy as I may be that my FIRST choice isn't the one on the ballot I have to think about the whole picture.

It can't be all or nothing. I'm getting sick of being called names too. I'm getting sick of being told I'm not a good enough Democrat or my principles aren't good enough.

Just for the record I've never called anyone any of those names.

I know someone is going to ask here are this issues:

I support the 2nd amendment. With very strict background checks.

I think we should have some type of welfare reform....I have some ideas.

I don't dislike the rich. If people work--they key word WORK hard to earn what they have...good for them.

edited: spelling.

[TheKentuckian]

52. It's okay, I might have 100 recs in over 20,000 posts and what seven years? They aren't a big

driver for me.

If it makes you feel better, I'm as close to a 2nd amendment absolutist as possible. Yes, even beyond the NRA so no "purity" for me either so you can call me a gun humping conservadem if you please it just falls apart pretty quick when 5 minutes later I'm cast as a faaaar left purist.

I don't hate the rich either I just don't want them buying the government, abusing workers, shitting on the environment to make a buck, refusing to pay taxes commiserate with the benefits gleaned from the system, stealing all the benefits from productivity, and generally pulling the ladders up behind them.
I think this "hate the rich" stuff is really a call out of insufficient love and respect for the rich. If there is any class warfare it has been the wealthy bombing the poor and working people into dust for a generation or two.

As far as welfare "reform" did you miss the late 90's there is little welfare to reform unless what you have in mind is to have some.

[one_voice]

58. That wasn't reform...

No what I have in mind is much more radical...BUT a much more permanent solution. I'm pretty sure I'll get roasted for it.

Let me first say, I think the biggest problem with welfare is it keeps people in poverty. It's also cyclical--the cycle needs to be broken.

So, you must make it possible to be lifted out of poverty. That's the beginning.

Training/education is the key. It would have to be in something that a single mother (wait I'll get to men) can support a family on. Most anything in the health care field. Nursing, x-ray, ultrasound, respiratory therapist, etc.

Computers, IT, Programming. etc

If the woman wants, she can learn a trade, electrical, hvac, plumbing etc.

Not, flipping burgers, Retail or anything like that. She cannot support a family on that.

While in school day care is paid, housing is paid, food stamps etc. 2year degree. Must attend full time.

Once you've completed school and you're working, you cannot receive welfare again unless catastrophic event occurs. You'll be eligible for unemployment should you lose a job and food stamps if needed.

On to men.

Men have to support families too. I would offer men the same program. So they're able to take care of their families.

I think when people are able to care for their families they have a feeling of self worth, self reliance, it's a good feeling. Not feeling stuck with no where to go.

My personal belief this is a much better safety net. They're lifted out of poverty and hopefully they cycle is broken. Also I would include men, where they are now excluded.

Obviously I just gave generalities/the basics.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts.

Getting my flame resistant suit now.

[TheKentuckian]

94. Sounds like what happened with more robust education requirements to me. Otherwise you got including

lifetime benefit limitations.

I do wonder about the logic of these work focused initiatives, it isn't like there is or foreseeably ever will be any surplus demand for labor and many folks with degrees and experience are hard pressed to find decent work or in too many cases none at all.

I truly don't get why some folks are hell bent on further inflating the labor market all it does is put downward pressure on wages and increases job insecurity. I have no issue with education being available to anyone who wants to pursue it, I just don't see any imperative at all to keep finding ways to get ever more people into shrinking demand.

I think there are bigger structural issues before comparatively small bore issues like this can be constructively be addressed and on this one I think we are beyond the only paradigm we know and fixes depending that underlying logic are doomed to failure.

I'm not sure why people focus on this stuff it always was a fairly trivial budget item and even less so now though you seem to be coming from a place of not wanting to create a situation where it is a sentence to permanently being the underclass which is important. Even here there seems to be unhealthy focus on limiting access despite deteriorating demand for labor which to me calls for expanded aid.

[Autumn]

50. Kick

[LondonReign2]

56. Rec'ed

And to add, "No, you are not a Democrat when you use the term progressive as a slur".

[Doctor_J]

60. I am saddened that so many here seem to lack principles. I thought that was unique to Repukes

If Satan were to attach a D to his name and support reproductive rights, his DU fan club would be packed. The collapse f the party has coincided with the abandonment of the party's principles when it was its greatest.

[hrmjustin]

68. I support progressive values and I think we all do on DU.

[Cryptoad]

74. Rumor control has it

that the Koch Bro have been funneling money thru the Pauls to hire people to pretend to be Democrats and join groups on the Internet and widen the gap between difference faction of the party as much as possible... from what i have seen i can believe that.

[hrmjustin]

75. I certainly hope you don't mean me.

[Cryptoad]

125. no,,,nt

[hrmjustin]

126. It has been an oversensitive period here for many of us in different camps.

Sorry I took it wrong.

[DesertDawg]

80. Considering the Koch Brothers did that

TO Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, driving division on his forums and having countless "Ron Paul supporters" gleefully jumping on McCain and Romneys balls I doubt the Pauls are involved. Ron, at least. I do NOT doubt they are playing the deflect and dissent game on the Left, however.

[LondonReign2]

149. Really? Even the poster and Hillary pumper that constantly uses "progressive" as a slur?

You think he holds progressive values? The same person who literally told me the party should move to the right to capture conservative voters rather than liberals? That guy? He believes in progressive ideals?

[hrmjustin]

150. I don't know what your talking about and I am not here to answer for others.

Why are you asking me to answer for another?

[LondonReign2]

155. You already tried to answer for others. You said:

"I support progressive values and I think we all do on DU." I pointed out that one of the most vehement Hillary supporters most certainly doesn't.

[hrmjustin]

157. I forgot I added that.

I should have said I hope. I can not answer for the beliefs nor am I going to.

All I can say is that I support progressive ideas.

[LondonReign2]

159. Fair enough

Peace

[Skittles]

173. THAT IS A TROLL

[H2O Man]

70. Very good!

Recommended.

[sabrina 1]

73. Very well stated, thank you. I think we remember those epithets for the Left, 'emoprog'

'firebagger' and don't forget, 'putin lover' and 'all you want is ponies' etc etc etc

Kind of ironic to see the very people who engage in such tactics now conveniently forgetting them.

On the good side, maybe we will see less of that behavior from now on?

[Autumn]

83. The new one is "simpletons". I thought that was a rather unique new one.

[TheKentuckian]

102. Probably not. Seems those kind of things are more hugs and kisses than nasty to some.

I'm pretty sure I recall a post calling for the name calling get to end that actually used both "emoprogs" and either "firebagger" or "leftbagger" so the circuits might be fried on some motherboards.

Personally, I'm not above some names being called on occasion and certainly applying apt labels in my estimation but neither am I to be found hand wringing about name calling either.

[BainsBane]

78. How does insulting Democrats help your cause?

We again see another post that is all about telling people on DU how they are unacceptable for not taking your precise approach to politics. I won't say values because your fundamental mistake is assuming a different view about a candidate or tactic means an entirely different set of values. If you think people here actually believe what you claim. you haven't payed attention to those who disagrees with you.

A Democrat is someone who votes for the Democratic Party. A number of people here have said they do not and will not. Therefore they are not Democrats. I myself only became a Democrat following the 2000 election. While I often voted Democratic, I also voted Third Party, and wouldn't identify myself as a Democrat because I have never found capitalism an acceptable economic and political system. However, the Bush presidency convinced me to adopt a more pragmatic approach. He was so awful, I decided I had to vote consistently for Democrats.

Now on DU i have been called a Third Wayer while discussing Marxist theory and reminding people that change comes from social movements by the people, reminding them of the history of their nation and how the structures of government were set up to serve the interests of the wealthy rather than ordinary Americans. I then get insulted from people with little to no familiarity with history, Marxism, or leftist thought more generally, all because I don't share their obsession with defeating a single presidential candidate. You see, the idea that such values rise and fall with Hillary Clinton or any other individual is a complete fiction, ahistorical and counterfactual. To focus entirely on the presidency is to limit oneself only to contests among political elites. It does not promote or accomplish social change.

A key difference I have here with many is on the idea that the presidency is the be all and end all of political reform. To think that way limits enormously the possibilities for change and makes impossible the goals you list above. Those can only be accomplished through local, grassroots organizing that transforms the party, or creates a new party, from the ground up. And even then electoral politics are only a small part of the change that's required to realize your goals. Too many imagine a president will spontaneously transform American and deliver what you want. It doesn't work that way.

If you want a party to stand up against capital, I'm all for it. That party, however, is not the Democratic Party, which has never rejected wealth or profit. It is a mainstream party in a capitalist state. There has never been a time when it did not serve capital. Many wish for another FDR, with no sense of the historical context he responded to. If FDR were alive today, he would not govern in the same way because he responded to a series of social movements that threatened to undo the capitalist system. He constructed the New Deal to assuage the worst excesses of exploitation and thereby saved the capitalist system.

What you seem to want is closer to socialism than what the Democratic Party has stood for. I'm all for socialism, but I would like to know how you think we can make it work it within the confines of our current electoral and campaign finance system.
My question is how do you propose to enact those values you list? Do you have a reform to organize around? How do you propose to bring about those changes? Or do you think "corporatism," as you call it, rises and falls on the fate of Hillary Clinton? Because if the goal is simply to defeat a candidate, that accomplishes none of the goals you outline above. It simply is a different face heading the capitalist state.

If the goals of people really are to transform the relationship between politics, money, and citizen, why is it that so many devote most of their time to attacking other Democrats? That suggests to me goals not in keeping with what you claim.

Lastly, in prior discussion you disclosed to me that you in fact have no problem with corporate profit, as long as it is on the part of gun manufacturers, an industry where wealth is accumulated based on hundreds of thousands of deaths. I find that troubling and entirely inconsistent with what you write above.

Lastly, I find it fascinating that people who rail that discussions of racism or misogyny are divisive have absolutely no problem dismissing the majority of Democratic voters as beneath contempt. I once again come away with the impression that the only thing that people really care about is their disgust for Democrats whose thoughts, knowledge, tactics, or interests disagree with theirs at all.

The kind of change you are talking about requires a great deal of organizing and solidarity, and if you refuse to listen to the concerns of others, you make it impossible to effect any of that.

[sabrina 1]

84. I think the Left has already realized that focusing on Local and State politics is the best way to

get the changes needed to restore this democracy. After holding their noses for Third Way/DLC candidates for so long, the last two mid terms demonstrated a huge change in how the voters are using their power, power that has been consistently ignored by DC, their ideas ridiculed, their preferred candidates, abandoned by the party, see NJ Governor eg, and basically being called names, such as 'firebaggers' and 'emoprogs' and 'not reality based' among a whole host of other Third Way talking points.


So in the last two mid terms progressive Dems worked hard at the local level AND kept the Progressive candidates in place, while ignoring the Third Wayers who do not either respect them (see Rahm eg) or represent their interests.

They succeeded in nearly all their goals. In electing an overwhelming majority of THEIR choices for elected office.

They also got Progressive issues on ballots across the country and WON. Waiting for DC to start working for them isn't an option anymore.

When those who have spent their time name-calling and deriding Democratic voters have the nerve to start lecturing everyone else about name calling, all people can do is laugh to be honest.

[treestar]

85. Very well put

That covers it.

[BainsBane]

100. Thank you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Insulting them, or holding them to account?

As a member of the Democratic Party I feel quite comfortable holding members of the party, no matter how high they may be, to account.

[BainsBane]

89. To account for what?

Not hating the right person? Thinking about something other than a single Democratic candidate? Do I owe you and the OP something? I have no right to my own thoughts and views that are informed by history and Marxist theory?

The problem is not holding elected officials accountable. It's claiming to care about corporate control of government yet focusing one's energies primarily on attacking ordinary Democrats whose background gives them a different outlook and approach toward the many of the same values the OP lists. It's an obsessive focus on a particular member of the political elite and mistakenly assuming that itself is an expression of values and the be all and end all of social change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. That seems to be the point of the OP. Conform and jump on the bandwagon without dissent.

[BainsBane]

97. Indeed, it does seek to promote conformity

and to assume if anyone cares about anything other than a singular obsession with a single member of the political elite it is some sort of sell out. I'm basing this not just on the OP but past discussions with that member, who has hunted down what he believes are cryptic messages---effectively heresy-- supporting Clinton in entirely unrelated threads. You see, I will not conform to a view of politics that is ahistorical and counterfactual. I won't conform to group think that pretends to be "left" but reveals a conservative (not as in GOP but as in traditional) view of political change. How can one challenge the political elite when they pretend that changing the face is enough to transform a fundamental relationship between capital and citizen?

None of that has anything to do with changing our political system or society. It's all about marking out tribes, us vs. them. The them in this scenario is not "corporatists" or even politicians but the working class, the poor, women, people of color, and LGBT Americans, ordinary people who very often are less privileged than those insulting them as siding with the one percent and Goldman Sacks simply because they think about something other than the very narrow political concern about a single undeclared presidential candidate. If you don't want those people to join together in a grass roots movement, you don't want change at all. All it amounts to is a very misplaced and unwarranted sense of elitism.

If you want political change, it has to be based on something, a reform, a cause. Making it all about defeating a single woman who dares to run for president is to not social change. Individual politicians are not a cause. They are not reform. They are simply different personalities occupying the White House. They do not change the system, and a notion of politics that imagines they will is based on a limited understanding of our economic and political system.

The people promoting conformity for years now are those whose singular mission is to attack anyone they see as insufficiently hostile to Hillary Clinton. Frankly who the next president is ranks pretty low on my list of concerns, other than I really prefer it not be a Republican. I do not care who anyone here votes for, but the same cannot be said of the OP and others like him, who have insisted everything is in someway related to his fixation on Clinton. To pretend people are trying to make you conform is ridiculous because any accounting of threads about the 2016 election will demonstrate the vast majority are anti-Clinton. If anyone here is responsible for making her seem like THE nominee is it those who have posted relentlessly against her. The appeal to conformity on this site is overwhelmingly in the anti-Clinton direction.

[TheKentuckian]

127. Yes, yes I am sending the SS for all disenters! Acknowledging disparate aims isn't

killing or sending into all infidels into exile.

Minus the eager and self inflicted crucifixion I'm thinking the consequences of thinking differently than I do are nil but if I guess something like sunlight and and nightbreds is possible but I can't wrestle or cause demons in the head even if I happen to stir them in passing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. It was my mistake. I was really replying to the post #89.

Not yours, which I agree with.

[TheKentuckian]

138. Dig ya, no worries. Sorry to jump your shit.

[Number23]

101. Holy moly, Bain that is one HELL of a post

My question is how do you propose to enact those values you list? Do you have a reform to organize around? How do you propose to bring about those changes?

That question has been asked so many times and by so many different people it is glaringly apparent that there will be no reasonable, informed or legitimate answer forthcoming.

Lastly, I find it fascinating that people who rail that discussions of racism or misogyny are divisive have absolutely no problem dismissing the majority of Democratic voters as beneath contempt. I once again come away with the impression that the only thing that people really care about is their disgust for Democrats whose thoughts, knowledge, tactics, or interests disagree with theirs at all.

The kind of change you are talking about requires a great deal of organizing and solidarity, and if you refuse to listen to the concerns of others, you make it impossible to effect any of that.

Fantastic. Really, beautifully said.

[TheKentuckian]

129. You have to pass it to see what's in it

[F4lconF16]

108. Well, I strongly disagree with you on what we should do about what Marxist theory implies.

But everything you said about the situation we're in was spot on and a very welcome addition to this thread. i enjoy reading your posts; thanks.

[BainsBane]

115. What do you mean?

"on what we should do about what Marxist theory implies"? Can you explain?
Thanks for your kind remarks about the rest of my post.

[F4lconF16]

121. Um, I would love to discuss this with you, but unfortunately

for some reason my knee starting swelling badly yesterday. I had a crash on my bike over a week and a half ago, but it was pretty much fine, so who knows what's causing it. But anyways, I'm fairly medicated at the moment, and since the advil wasn't helping...

I'll pm you sometime tomorrow

[BainsBane]

133. I hope you feel better soon. nt

[One of the 99]

116. Great Post!!! nt

[TheKentuckian]

119. If Democrats are insulted then it is their malfunction and I'm not here to coddle it.

However, I'm not telling anyone if they are acceptable or not or if they are Democrats or not but rather observing that our goals and hopes are not the same as is often said and is precisely from listening to folks that I gathered such a perception.

I'm pretty sure that neither the Presidency nor Clinton (though it sounds like in your assessment she isn't someone who would identify with some of our point of view) were mentioned in the post.

Like the dark side cave on Dagobah, what is inside is only what you bring with you just as you took and nailed yourself upon the old rugged cross that you were being called out as unacceptable.

If you are insulted or feel a favored politician was slighted then you placed that glass slipper on your on foot.

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as being okay with profits as long as it is for gun manufacturers as I don't recall being generally against companies making profits or any special consideration either way so I'm guessing you are attempting some weak ass smear when I make no secret that I support the 2nd amendment but at no time have I suggested gun makers be exempt from any taxes or any protection that I wouldn't afford any other manufacturers of durable goods. Which widgets are you claiming I oppose profits for? Or was it that I'm some hard line communist?

What in the world are you going on about here?

I don't know where the creative speculation that I called conversations on racism and misogyny divisive is about. Maybe you are conflating that I have called some word choices ineffective communication but even that is detail not spirit. In fact, at times one would find I can be outspoken particularly as it relates to law enforcement like profiling and the drug war as it relates to minorities.
Kinda important stuff to me personally having lived it so I'm not really sure what you were intending on meandering too but it ain't going anywhere.

Don't know what you are talking about here either.

What I do actually think is we have heard quite enough from the corporate wing, security state superfriends, the bankers, the torture defenders and excusers, and "bipartisan" reachers have dominated the floor for quite long enough and have not just been heard but have controlled for a generation with a free hand and here we are.

The folks who have controlled the message for years complaining about being listened to is silly. There is nothing else to hear all the stuff is on repeat like the dumber branch of conservatives.

[BainsBane]

128. I read your post in light of previous conversations

In which you entered threads on entirely unrelated subjects to insist it was some cryptic campaign for Hillary Clinton. You are not alone or the most persistent in having done it, but it is one of those things that leaves me scratching my head.

Most of these kinds of threads are about the infernal presidential election and Clinton in particular, subjects that people have gone on about endlessly since 2012 at least. I would be very glad to be mistaken on that point. If you really do care about an issue, a social reform, I would like to hear what it is specifically and how you think it can be addressed.

I made it quite clear that I do not rest my view of social change and politics on a single individual, so to claim I am reacting to an insult about "my favorite politician" is disingenuous. The entire point of my post was that no individual is going to transform the nature of the capitalist state. I have no favorite politician. In fact, I don't give a shit about politicians until I have to vote for one. Unlike many here, I don't spend years engaging in fantasy presidential politics because it is a lot of noise about nothing. It amounts to nothing and represents nothing other than change over in the political elite. I care about social justice, social movements, organization, doing something to make society better. I'm open to any and all ideas about how to do that.

You announce that I and others here who don't agree with you on...what you won't say, want to see rapacious corporate greed, deregulation of Wall Street, and endless war. Why would you make such a claim? Based on what? You assume. You assume in a way that shows that you haven't tried even a little bit to understand people who disagree with on.... again, you won't say what in specific terms this disagreement is about. You instead claim based entirely on assumption that anyone who doesn't fall in lock step with your particular way of expressing anger promotes the interests of the few over the many.

I have only seen you post about two things: 1) your hatred of Hillary Clinton and your resentment toward other Democrats on this site. It's hard for me to get a sense of what you actually want. When I have before suggested organizing and working to transform the party in your local community and state, you became very hostile. You shouldn't have to do that, you claimed. So what is the point of your post if not to bring about change or comment on the presidential election? What do you seek to achieve?

As for socialism, this is what you wrote:

No, it is not our common goal enrich the wealthy at the expense of workers. . . .
It is not our common goal to crush the wages of the American worker.

That is about the exploitation of labor under capitalism. That is about profit, the accumulation of capital through the exploitation of labor. Then you claim you are not opposed to profit. So which is it?. You may not be red. I am. I see nothing wrong with it. You don't have the familiarity with Marxist theory to recognize that is part of what you are articulating. When you denounce "corporatism" you are denouncing capital. I presume you really don't mean corporations because that can be anything from a local grocery store to a person's business making artisan products in their home. A corporation in the contemporary use of the word is simply a tax status. You mean big money, capital. Do you not?

My reference to your defense of billions of dollars in gun profits and the enormous political influence of the best financed and most powerful lobby in Washington is to point to inconsistencies. Why should that perversion of politics be any less important than Wall Street's? Why is money generated through killing people in the US better than through killing them abroad or just plain usury? It's all billions of dollars going to buy politicians and subvert the will of the people.

So here we have two issues where you are clearly to the right of me: guns and capitalist profit, which when it involves hiring any worker, is ALWAYS based on the exploitation of labor. You should really read some Marx. Yet you insist that I and others are Third Way, when here you have just defended a very conservative position in regard to unfettered gun profits and their stranglehold over the political process. Perhaps, just perhaps, you ought to consider for a moment that yours is not the only way of thinking about politics and that everyone you doesn't fall in lock step isn't a centrist or Third Wayer, especially if they don't identify as such. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should make an effort to inquire about what values people actually hold rather assuming? Perhaps you might consider that others have knowledge and background that might actually assist in enacting change

The point about racism and misogyny was not just about you. Many have engaged in it, though yes, you told me I should not use the word privilege because it might offend white people. Then you quite nastily lectured two African American members who said they supported economic policy directed to aid income disparity because they had the nerve to also care about racism and its impact on their lives. I also observed that you treated them as the enemy, something I found odd considering your prior statement on your own background. I have been lectured by many people who solidly align with you about "dividing DUers" by discussing human equality and social justice. They exclude the majority of America from consideration, and then have the nerve to claim other support the 1 percent because they don't share their assessment of a particular member of the political elite. Some of them do so despite the fact they are far more prosperous than the vast majority of Americans and the very people they are accusing of aligning with the 1 percent.

Finally this:

What I do actually think is we have heard quite enough from the corporate wing, security state superfriends, the bankers, the torture defenders and excusers, and "bipartisan" reachers have dominated the floor for quite long enough and have not just been heard but have controlled for a generation with a free hand and here we are.

Again, I ask what it is you seek. You claim you have "heard enough." What is your proposal then? What do you seek to do to change this? Is your only goal to get people to shut up? Or do you actually want to change something? If so, how? Or is this all about rhetoric and anger rather than substance? If you want to make something happen, I'd love to hear it. If all you care about is not hearing something you think might be heretical, you can put a bunch of people on ignore and create your own little bubble of people to emote with.

[TheKentuckian]

142. Don't care about your lectures or your weirdo "Marxist"/"Centrist" triangulation scheme here

But I didn't tell you shit about "offending" white people but I do think the privilege is an ineffective word choice that puts the idea that is trying to be conveyed to the target audience straight off the rails and that is poor marketing and ineffective communication.

Don't like my opinion? Fucking tough shit.

As for the thread with the two posters, I explained to you (God knows why I bothered) exactly why and what prompted it and your response was to slink off quietly.
what kind of bigoted mind operates under the assumption that all people of a race think and believe the exactly the same, anyway?

Everyone sees what you are up to here and it is to smear. Any random lie or better yet seemingly for your style distortion will do like the bunches (or indeed ANY) people on ignore to create a bubble just flat out bullshit.

Heretical? Give us a break with the overwrought sanctimony and weird framing, I stated nothing even in sight of extreme much less heretical.

Plan? High bar considering we elect folks to our highest offices with no plans to speak of other than raise money and cozy up the wealthy.
Step one has been waking up. Step two is to stop being stupid and/or afraid. Step three is have courage in convictions. Step four is to destroy the "viability" of the Turd Way so there is a vehicle to actually oppose the far right.
You can buy the book from there.

[stevenleser]

152. The only thing you do seem to "care about" is making yourself seem holier than thou.

And that comes across in every single one of your posts.

Anything else you may care about is lost in the intensity of that overall message.

[hrmjustin]

153. +1

[TheKentuckian]

164. Man, you must have a low ass opinion of your own values.

I'm very sorry you feel that way, maybe you should live some that work better for your conscience.

[Maedhros]

160. This can't be repeated enough:

Step one has been waking up. Step two is to stop being stupid and/or afraid. Step three is have courage in convictions. Step four is to destroy the "viability" of the Turd Way so there is a vehicle to actually oppose the far right.

A Progressive is, if nothing else, hopeful for positive change. We can indeed make positive change happen if we stop letting the Eeyores of the Party tell us that we have to keep electing conservatives.

[Bobbie Jo]

120. Excellent post!

Now this should be an OP.

You nailed it.

[stevenleser]

151. Several important points alluded to by you here.

including (but not limited to):

#1 - What's OP's plan to get what they want and how does the OP post help that. With the clear answer being, OP has no plan and the OP post would not help anyone who disagrees with OPs approach to bring them over to OPs side. Just the opposite, the OP post is made to drive others away.

#2 - What is the purpose of the OP post? Well, as I noted above, the purpose is to distinguish between the OP and those who think like them and "the other". The OP and those who think exactly like him are the special righteous group, and "the other" are 'bad'. It's really that simple.

#3 - That you and many others actually agree with many of the items listed, we just don't agree on how to get there.

#4 - The ability to get to the desired end state does not live or die with Hillary's candidacy.

[BainsBane]

156. That's it in a nutshell

A very good summary, brief and to the point, which is why you are on TV and I'm not!

[LiberalElite]

81. .

[Ron Green]

90. Happy to give this post one more rec. than that other post has received.

[WillyT]

91. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[frazzled]

93. No, not everyone here is a Democrat

You have to register as a Democrat when you register to vote (if you live in a state with party registrations--and 31 of the 50 states, plus DC, do). If you register as an Independent, which many many posters here have said they have done, then you are not a Democrat. Even if you vote for Democrats "most" of the time, you are still not a Democrat if you live in a party registration state and you chose to register as an Independent (or Unaffiliated).

Many here have said they are not registered Democrats; it comes up every election. Many have implied they think party affiliation is for stooges. Many more have never done work for the Democratic party, in phone banks or canvassing, or serving as delegates to state or national conventions. That's understandable if you can't because of young children or because you are handicapped or elderly. But many Democratic party members do participate in these ways, at least at some point in their lives ... on the local, county, state, and national levels. Unbelievably, they're not stooges.

But we are not all Democrats here. That is for sure.

[NanceGreggs]

99. If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you ...

... have encountered someone who would rather label you than engage in meaningful conversation.

Labeling each other is divisive. Who benefits from dividing Dems? Republicans.

Name-calling is obstructive to meaningful discussion. Who benefits from Democrats not having meaningful discussions with each other? Republicans.

"Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination."

Which party has always taken pride, and drawn its strength from being The Big Tent? Democrats. Who wants to see that "Big Tent" source of pride and strength destroyed? Republicans.

Who wants Democrats to think that the "Big Tent" concept is a "demand for more corporate and right wing domination"? Republicans.

There is only ONE party that seeks to pit Democrats one against the other. Can you guess which party that is?

[Autumn]

114. Would calling DUers "simpletons" fall under name calling or labeling?

As a "simpleton" who always reads and enjoys Manny's writing I'm just curious...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026302554#post55

[marym625]

118. Oh, don't worry about hypocrisy

That only matters if you are on one side of a discussion
Guess which side

[Bobbie Jo]

123. Apples/Oranges

Besides, your "champion" does it all the time, usually in the most condescending way possible.

But it's teh awesome when he does it.


Enjoy!

[Autumn]

124. Complaining about others doing what one is also doing is teh awesome huh!

I do enjoy Manny's satire, as do a lot of other DUers. People like him or he gets under their skin. Mad writing skills and Manny got em

[Bobbie Jo]

134. What?

Wait...

"Satire."

Fixed it for ya.

[LondonReign2]

154. BOOM! Roasted

[One of the 99]

117. Thank!!!

Another great post.

[TheKentuckian]

137. Who keeps spinning the wheel in search of a hook to get Democrats to swallow

counterproductive and disastrous right wing policy after corporate policy after interventionist policy over and over like eternal marks in an infinite street con game?

The Turd Way.

Who wants to use the batshit TeaPubliKlans as cover and contrast to hoodwink good hearted Democrats?

The Turd Way

Who works tirelessly to convince us our values are too unpopular, to be ashamed of what we believe, and most of all to ignore our lying eyes and pretend demonstrably failed and foolish policies actually serve Americans.

The Turd Way

Who is always scheming ways to be less distinguishable from the TeaPubliKlans?

The Turd Way

Who wants to meet the crazy, theocratic, warmongering, racist, sexist, anti science, feudalist, fascist, treasonous, stupid, and dangerous TeaPubliKlans in the middle?

The Turd Way

Who cries like a stuck pig on fire when there is any disruption of their counterproductive message?

The Turd Way

Who's mission is it to assimilate, triangulate, cajole, purchase, trick, or ransom Democratic support the heart of right wing ideology?

The Turd Way

Who is it that I don't give a damn anymore what they think or what they have to say about anything ever?

The Turd Way

Now is the time to flush the Turd Way before they get anymore shit on us or make us any sicker.
Chemotherapy isn't divisive it is a desperate but necessary destruction of cancer cells.

The multi decade cooperation with the devil, going along to get along, party first, "shared sacrifice", pea eating, and nose holding paradigm is over.
We lost in devastating fashion and so it is time to refuse to play anymore and if the Turd Way friendly/fans/supporters/tolerant don't like it then frankly my dear I don't give a damn and in the end you will be better off than you deserve for it because eventually we will move the nation ahead once again.

[Enthusiast]

141. +1 (an entire shit load)

[HughBeaumont]

143. You know what they say about the middle -

"Half a Kitten is not half as cute, it's a bloody mess."

[TheKentuckian]

158. The middle they seek I believe is at the intersection of George W. Bush and Planned Parenthood.

There is no city, state, or zip but if you have correspondence then mark it Fantasy Island and I'm sure Mr. Roarke will have Tattoo run it over for you.

[NanceGreggs]

167. Sorry for sayin' so ...

... but the minute I see "Turd Way", I suspect I am dealing with someone who speaks in language suitable for third grade children, as opposed to someone who can communicate in adult terms.

It's not just you - I feel the same way about people who say "Repukes", or talk about people getting their "widdle feewings hurted".

But by all means, you go on and "move the nation ahead" by engaging those who think serious political discussion is based on phrases akin to "kindergarten baby, stick your head in gravy".

[TheKentuckian]

170. Don't be sorry, I understand your desperation to keep that element as shadowy

and unidentified as possible while keeping people who oppose the movement in semantic circles discussing each little splinter of the greater corporate owned umbrella to maintain the scam.

I know you only complain because it hits the target effectively and sticks while not allowing the rebranding and label flight the crooks play games with no matter how crude it is.

[NanceGreggs]

174. My refusal to engage in discussion with you ...

... was exactly as I stated. I have no inclination to engage in conversation with anyone who feels a need to indulge in silliness like "Turd" Way.

I prefer adult discussion, and the use of childish words is invariably an indication that no adult conversation is possible.

[TheKentuckian]

175. I'd slink off too. You are transparent.

[raven mad]

104. Recommended -

kicked and bookmarked.

Thank you.

[fredamae]

105. Thank you!

"It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination. Never is it said to want more leftist voices...NEVER. It is wholly a guilt play to appeal to the liberal desire to be inclusive to advance contrary conservative interests.


Repeat it again and again....I think you might have just described the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

[KoKo]

107. Recommend!

[mother earth]

110. I don't know how I missed this one the first go round, but I'm really glad for this repost.

K & R

[Change has come]

111. K&R

[KG]

112. not being a democrat takes all the pressure off

[Maedhros]

179. It's amazing what clarity comes when one removes the team jersey.

Seeing politics through a blue lens is as distorting as doing so through a red lens.

[Autumn]

181. It really does. I had no idea how freeing it would be.

I feel no obligation.

[ND-Dem]

113. Huge k&r! "be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing"!!!!

"If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you are corporate enabling, interventionist, free trading conservative"!!!

"It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination."!!!

[Oilwellian]

131. K&R

You speak for me.

[Enthusiast]

136. Kicked and recommended a brazillion times.

[raouldukelives]

144. K&R The only people united behind those goals are those invested in Wall St. nt

[TBF]

146. Excellent OP. K&R nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

161. K&FuckinR. nt

[obxhead]

162. Well said.

[malokvale77]

163. I loved it when I first read it...

I love it still, as an OP.


K & R

[d_legendary1]

165. The very fact that I have to choose between the lesser evils

in elections scares the hell out of me. Do you want it with vaseline or without. Either way you're gonna get it.

[Skittles]

172. I've been doing that for some time now, voting against people

these hysterical Hillary folk act as if it is something new

[Autumn]

166. Yes we are.

kick

[NanceGreggs]

168. Well, there's nothing like a thread entitled ...

... "No, we don't seem to have common aims in general" to foster the Democratic unity that this site was founded on!

I'm with you, Brother Kentuckian! Let's get rid of all the Democrats who have been called ConservaDems, Thirdwayers and DINOs - and let's not accept the lame excuse that they're NOT what they've been called on DU - I say the accusation alone is enough!!!

Let's purge the Party of everyone who disagrees with you, and people like you, who see a ConservaDem or a Thirdwayer in every post they don't like!!!

There's something to be said for those who want the Dem Party to be pared-down to those who can pass the "purity test" - because a smaller number of Dem votes can only lead to VICTORY in every election!!!

Yes siree, there is something to be said for "Democrats" who encourage fellow Democrats to distance themselves from each other, to fight amongst themselves, and to see each other as enemies - and I would actually say it, but that would only get me another hidden post!!!

But fight on, Brother Kentuckian!!! Let's purge the Party of misfits and those of diverse opinions, as you lead us into the next election for POTUS with your handful of deemed-worthy followers!!!!

[TheKentuckian]

176. Purgejection. I have no power to purge anyone, I'm just not going to pretend we all have the same

interests, goals, or priorities in a large part anymore and will act accordingly to mitigate the harm the rightist policies and worldviews that some are bringing to the table and to restore our party to actual opposition to interventionist, corporate, and counter constitutional toxic policy.

[NanceGreggs]

180. Purgection?

That's right up there with "Turd Way'.

Anyway, I was simply opining on your OP, and it's inapproriateness on a message board that still, for some strange reason, calls itself a "Democratic-supporting website".

There's nothing like allowing a call for disunity among Democrats to be posted here that more amply demonstrates how far this site has strayed from its own declared intentions.

But as I said, you go get 'em, Brother Kentuckian! I'm sure your downright Palinesque word salad will rally dozens of Democrats to your side in your battle against - well, against whatever it is you're on about.

Damned if I know exactly what that is.

[TheKentuckian]

184. One person's disunity apparently is another's eyes open, I reckon.

[woo me with science]

171. kick

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

178. Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate.

[DirkGently]

182. THIS. n/t

[bbgrunt]

183. huge K and R. Wonderful op.

[KoKo]

185. Recommend!