There is only one question that *everyone* here needs to answer.

[leftupnorth]

How can one expect a politician who thrives on the current campaign finance system to radically change the system that has been so good to them?

[daleanime]

1. We can do that tomorrow....

tomorrow, tomorrow, you're always a day away.

[Cassiopeia]

49. The most popular day to quit a bad habit

or start a diet.

[Hortensis]

80. You haven't checked Bernie's speaking fees, have you?

This campaign has been very good for them.

I'm not saying he's particularly interested in dipping -- no more than the Clintons were

until Bill left the presidency and they found themselves heading for old age with little in the way of financial resources -- but the 0.01% have so much money to throw around that fees are jacked up into the stratosphere for everyone.

Bernie should have no trouble pulling in $150-200K per talk.

Just five or six of those is approaching $1 million.

[Cassiopeia]

83. The question is will he?

and if he does, what will he do with that money?

Bernie has had 4 decades to start cashing in. He has chosen to continue the fight for the 99% instead.

We'll talk about Bernie's huge speaking fees when he actually starts taking them, not when they're some mythical future that has yet to even be discussed.

[Kelvin Mace]

86. Carter gets paid a tidy sum

then he blows all the cash on getting rid of guinea worms and building houses for the poor.

[valerief]

87. +1000

[Hortensis]

89. Yes, we're proud of Carter and the Clintons

and the Clinton Foundation. President Carter's net worth is reportedly only around $7 million.

FWIW, President Clinton had the lowest net worth of any president in the 20th Century until he left office and started giving talks for a few hundred grand per pop. The Clintons have always been like Bernie in that it isn't about the money. They get paid fortunes for spreading their message to the very wealthy and speak for free to other groups.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. The Carters yes, the Clintons, not so much...

At least as far as I am concerned.

The Clinton's net worth exploded after they left office and she went into the senate. And some of the money may be going into charitable foundations, but the lion's share is being retained.

[Hortensis]

95. Sure. I personally don't blame them, tho, for

"retaining" a large part of what is now coming shockingly easily and quickly (the times they are a-shocking, not them). Money is power, and they're not ready for a rest home.

BTW, ever think how outrageous it is that our ex- Leaders of the Free World, in a nation that has over 500 billionaires and untold hundreds of megamillionaires, are considered socially and economically inferior by most of them, big emphasis on the ex-? There is some basis for that. No one knows better than them that...money is power.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. Absolutely.

I cannot understand why x millions is never enough. Carter seems to be doing very well on the substantial fortune that have him in the top 0.5%, yet others want not just more money, but a few orders of magnitude more.

How much money can any one person spend? How much does a person need to live? Carter could have lots more than he has, but he has chosen to channel the money to helping people, rather thab self-enrichment. I live okay, better than most people. I wish I had more money, but only so I could help more people gain a better life.

[Hortensis]

97. We all admire the Carters, but

very few of us would spend every Sunday teaching bible verses to children. They set a standard that is right for them, and I'm proud we have them as fellow Democrats, but theirs is not the only way to live an admirable life. The Clintons are using the amazing resources that have become available to them in other ways that are also admirable.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. The Carter Center took on the Guinea Worm infestation in Africa

in 1986 and there were 3.5 million cases in 20 countries. Last year there were 22 cases. I do not know any president with a post-White House record anywhere near this impressive. He didn't accomplish this by teaching Sunday school, he did it by being an exemplary human being and using his power and money to better mankind.

The Clinton's wealth is in the nine figure range, but I don't see the proportional expenditure to charity that Carter has managed. Bill Clinton could do so much more than just get his wife elected president, but that is where the majority of his (and her) effort a lie.

[Hortensis]

99. Yes, for Carter. Perhaps when their

Elective careers are over people will be able to look dispassionately at them. After all, Pres. Carter was not always as admired as he is now -- by a long shot.

[Kelvin Mace]

100. He was in my household

He was the last truly honorable president we had.

[sammythecat]

91. Yeah, and just 6 or 7 hundred of them add up to 127 million

The issue here isn't the fees, it's who Hillary talks to and what she says to them. Bernie isn't going to say anything to anybody that he'd feel the need to keep "secret".

[MADem]

93. You're saying you'd object to Sanders hobnobbing with/speaking to Wall Street bankers and friends?

At private shindigs, "in secret?"

Or is it OK when he does it, and not OK when Clinton does it, no matter how much money changes hands?

[rhett o rick]

106. I guess you've missed the point of the People's movement. Some think that everyone is

embracing the corrupt big money culture like the Clintons, using their influence to become mega-wealthy. Sen Sanders has no interest in wealth and power. I know some have a hard time understanding and that's why a revolution is needed. We much stop the worship of wealth the false god.

[VulgarPoet]

2. Clearly by telling them to cut it out

and then capitulating to them in a six figure private speech.

[Punkingal]

3. +1

[casperthegm]

4. ZING!

Good one

[daleanime]

52. Boom!

[SammyWinstonJack]

105. Nailed it!

[casperthegm]

5. End voter apathy and increase awareness

Somehow we'd have to make party affiliation take a backseat in importance to campaign finance reform. How you do that, if it can be done, I don't know. Because you're right, it's not just going to happen with the Congress we have right now.

[leftupnorth]

7. Yes. The Democratic Party

Has been a huge beneficiary of the current system. It would require a party-wide moratorium on shady donations. We could gain the moral high ground on this issue if we adopted that policy.

[casperthegm]

60. I say we call out the politicians who oppose it

I know we are sick of partisan politics in DC and my idea actually would make it worse, but it also will make it abundantly clear which party is for the people and which is for big business.

I say that we put in print, those who would oppose such a bill. Shame them, if they have any. And keep hammering away at them. Organizations like Move On and others should buy are time and get the names out there. Basically, buy ads and air time, appear on talk shows, and shame them into action or bring about enough awareness to potentially get them voted out.

[leftupnorth]

62. Yes! This is how a president can bring change!

[homegirl]

69. I called out

those who allegedly support campaign finance reform, in public, with a large audience. All I got was, "oh, we would love to change it, but there is so much opposition. But, we have a committee."

I did remind them they are the only people who can change the problem and they are the people who complain about the burden of raising $10K every day they are in office to pay for the next campaign. No doubt, there are other perks that go along with those big dollar contributions.

[RiverLover]

6. That's the bottom line!

Moneyed Interests controlling our govt legislation through legal bribery with lobbyists & obscene campaign donations is behind virtually ALL of the many problems in the country.

We HAVE to turn it around at some point, messy as it may be.

Why not now? With Bernie?

[madokie]

8. She will continue

us one the same path we're currently on. Simple as that.

[onecaliberal]

9. Clinton is NOT going to change anything.

[kenfrequed]

10. Exactly

I also cannot trust a person to regulate Wallstreet and the banks on Thursday after they cash their checks on Tuesday. Simple as that.

[leftupnorth]

11. Precisely.

This is the question canvassers should be asking potential voters. We all know none of the things we the people want done will get done as long as the current system is in place.

It cuts right to the quick, and reveals the only logical choice for president.

[treestar]

12. The Presidency does not have the power to radically change the system.

They are bound by the law. Bernie cannot radically change the Executive Branch. It can't enforce any laws not passed, and it should enforce the ones on the books.

Congress will still be there, as it is a feature of the system. The President cannot dissolve it or tell it what to vote for.

The States will still have the powers they have.

The judiciary has the power to stop bernie from doing things - even Bernie and Congress. Bernie cannot decree that the judiciary rule one way or there other.

Bernie cannot demand a Constitutional Convention. The Presidency has nothing to do with that.

[RiverLover]

13. He will awaken people to what's possible.

It'll be a start & we have to start somewhere.

This takeover of both parties by Moneyed Interests must end.

And it has to start with someone, some time.

I hope like hell that time is now.

[treestar]

16. That sounds very vague

Why would Bernie be able to do this? No one else has.

It's lazy dreaming. It takes a lot of hard work to get people elected and others always have a say too, even Republicans.

Bernie is not going to turn Republican voters into progressives. It's just not that easy.

[RiverLover]

22. Reich says succintly what I don't have time for re: this~

If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

http://robertreich.org/

He also has a great article out yesterday that I hope you & others like you can open your minds to. Our country can't continue with 2 right wings....

Why We Must Try
Sunday, February 7, 2016

Instead of “Yes we can,” many Democrats have adopted a new slogan this election year: “We shouldn’t even try.”

We shouldn’t try for single-payer system, they say. We’ll be lucky if we prevent Republicans from repealing Obamacare.

We shouldn’t try for a $15 an hour minimum wage. The best we can do is $12 an hour.

We shouldn’t try to restore the Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate investment and commercial banking, or bust up the biggest banks. We’ll be lucky to stop Republicans from repealing Dodd-Frank.

We shouldn’t try for free public higher education. As it is, Republicans are out to cut all federal education spending.

We shouldn’t try to tax carbon or speculative trades on Wall Street, or raise taxes on the wealthy. We’ll be fortunate to just maintain the taxes already in place.

Most of all, we shouldn’t even try to get big money out of politics. We’ll be lucky to round up enough wealthy people to back Democratic candidates.

“We-shouldn’t-even-try” Democrats think it’s foolish to aim for fundamental change – pie-in-the-sky, impractical, silly, naïve, quixotic. Not in the cards. No way we can.

I understand their defeatism. After eight years of Republican intransigence and six years of congressional gridlock, many Democrats are desperate just to hold on to what we have.

And ever since the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision opened the political floodgates to big corporations, Wall Street, and right-wing billionaires, many Democrats have concluded that bold ideas are unachievable.

In addition, some establishment Democrats – Washington lobbyists, editorial writers, inside-the-beltway operatives, party leaders, and big contributors – have grown comfortable with the way things are. They’d rather not rock the boat they’re safely in.

I get it, but here’s the problem. There’s no way to reform the system without rocking the boat. There’s no way to get to where America should be without aiming high.

Progressive change has never happened without bold ideas championed by bold idealists.

Some thought it was quixotic to try for civil rights and voting rights. Some viewed it as naïve to think we could end the Vietnam War. Some said it was unrealistic to push for the Environmental Protection Act.

But time and again we’ve learned that important public goals can be achieved – if the public is mobilized behind them. And time and again such mobilization has depended on the energies and enthusiasm of young people combined with the determination and tenacity of the rest.

If we don’t aim high we have no chance of hitting the target, and no hope of mobilizing that enthusiasm and determination.

The situation we’re in now demands such mobilization. Wealth and income are more concentrated at the top than in over a century. And that wealth has translated into political power.

The result is an economy rigged in favor of those at the top – which further compounds wealth and power at the top, in a vicious cycle that will only get worse unless reversed.

Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than the citizens of any other advanced nation, for example. We also pay more for Internet service. And far more for health care.

We pay high prices for airline tickets even though fuel costs have tumbled. And high prices for food even though crop prices have declined.

That’s because giant companies have accumulated vast market power. Yet the nation’s antitrust laws are barely enforced.

Meanwhile, the biggest Wall Street banks have more of the nation’s banking assets than they did in 2008, when they were judged too big to fail.

Hedge-fund partners get tax loopholes, oil companies get tax subsidies, and big agriculture gets paid off.

Bankruptcy laws protect the fortunes of billionaires like Donald Trump but not the homes of underwater homeowners or the savings of graduates burdened with student loans.

A low minimum wage enhances the profits of big-box retailers like Walmart, but requires the rest of us provide its employees and their families with food stamps and Medicaid in order to avoid poverty – an indirect subsidy of Walmart.

Trade treaties protect the assets and intellectual property of big corporations but not the jobs and wages of ordinary workers.

At the same time, countervailing power is disappearing. Labor union membership has plummeted from a third of all private-sector workers in the 1950s to fewer than 7 percent today. Small banks have been absorbed into global financial behemoths. Small retailers don’t stand a chance against Walmart and Amazon.

And the pay of top corporate executives continues to skyrocket, even as most peoples’ real wages drop and their job security vanishes.

This system is not sustainable.

We must get big money out of our democracy, end crony capitalism, and make our economy and democracy work for the many, not just the few.

But change on this scale requires political mobilization.

It won’t be easy. It has never been easy. As before, it will require the energies and commitments of large numbers of Americans.

Which is why you shouldn’t listen to the “we-must-not-try” brigade. They’ve lost faith in the rest of us.

We must try. We have no choice.

http://robertreich.org/

[SHRED]

33. You should top post this. Start a thread with it.

[RiverLover]

41. Could you? That's be great.

I don't have time to stay involved today.

Its so important.

[SHRED]

44. Will do

[mmonk]

42. Yep.

[Enthusiast]

53. Huge +1!

[snot]

88. Yes, thanks; and ditto re- making this an OP.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

118. Marking against "No we can't" defeatism, for reference. n/t

[justiceischeap]

37. BS... if people (i.e. millennials) were going to be awakened & wanted real change

They would have turned out in droves at the mid-term elections and made sure we had a Congress capable of getting things done. If people wanted real change (and not someone just talking about change) they would get involved in local politics to build a more progressive movement within the Democratic party. These progressive candidates would then be in a position to make laws that actually have the most effect on the public.

Instead, these people that rail against the establishment have allowed the establishment to become so entrenched, they've no one to blame but themselves for the state of our national politics and policies.

Reality is, the Presidential election gets the most attention and is "sexier" to participate in. It's like picking the friggin' homecoming queen or king but the President doesn't have the power to do the things they pledge during their campaigns unless they have the down ticket ballot winners with them in Congress. That means as a candidate they have to have an organization (and money) that is capable of making certain down ticket Democrats ride their coattails to the finish line.

Reality is, no matter which nominee ends up getting the nod and ends up in the general election, if they win, they will not be able to get much, if anything accomplished for the following two years. And if we don't get huge voter turnout during the next mid-term cycle, we'll just see more of the same we've been seeing with President Obama.

Reality is, most people know what's possible already but refuse to put in the work to get shit done or participate in the "establishment" to effect the real change they want.

[Fawke Em]

45. Maybe they didn't feel they had anyone to vote FOR.

Sometimes, just staving off the less evil candidate isn't a great motivator.

[justiceischeap]

55. It's quite obvious in this day and age, that the lesser of two evils

should be a great motivator when you look at the right-wing republicans. That said, if they want more progressive candidates, then they need to make sure those candidates get on the ballot. That means they need to work outside of the election cycles to get this accomplished.

Millennial's can complain and rail against the establishment all they want but when they sit on their asses and do nothing but complain, then they are part of the problem.

Also, a lot of progressive Democrats don't seem to have a grasp on political realities. For example, Claire McCaskill in Missouri is as progressive a Democrat you're going to get in that state. I know this because I'm from there--there's a lot of red state in between Kansas City and St. Louis and they are very right-winged in their political beliefs (and the Democrats are very conservative in theirs). So the best you can do in a state like that is to put up a moderate Democrat, a type of Democrat that gets very little respect on DU because they are "Blue Dog" dems but still, in the end, is better for the American people than say a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. I'd rather have a Claire McCaskill on my team than a Rubio or Cruz and not participating because you don't have a candidate to vote for just makes the problem worse in the long run.

Think in the long term and what needs to happen to get what you want done to actually happen.

PS... we need to start teaching civics in schools again because too many people don't seem to realize how the political system actually works.

[Enthusiast]

51. +1! Thank you for the not vague answer.

[leftupnorth]

14. I acknowledge that. However

Will it be more or less likely with a president elected without the benefit of that system that will use the bully pulpit to promote change? or with a president who was elected using the corrupt system to the fullest?

[treestar]

18. I doubt the bully pulpit would work

It never does much alone. Congress does what it wants as it is supposed to. People have to start showing an interest in the lower offices and quit depending so much on the bully pulpit. That's the only way things will ever change and ever have. The Tea Party knows this and that is why there are so many crazy school boards and state legislatures.

We're letting them take control of Congress too now. We really are paying for our dependency on the Presidency. We seem to refuse to get it. Now Bernie is the one. Bernie won't have any more power than Obama.

[leftupnorth]

23. If you'll recall, Democrats had a supermajority that was swept in by the Obama wave.

Granted, there were lots of Conservadems in the supermajority, which limited Obama's ability to make more meaningful change. Heck, the third way democrats killed the public option!

We will only get another wave election like that with Sanders. Maybe this time around we won't have so much opposition to progress within our own ranks.

[saidsimplesimon]

24. Only a grassroots effort (bottom up) can

defeat the corporate, Wall Street, Republican race to the bottom. It will not be easy. It will require a sustained effort, not merely a push during an election cycle.

We, the majority, need to move the agenda beyond the current petty party politics. The American people deserve better choices, imo.

[RoccoR5955]

57. No but

He does have the bully pulpit to get word out to people to contact their legislators who will get things done if they hear from enough people. He should take lessons from the Roosevelts on how to use the bully pulpit.
And he does have the executive order which could change some things as well.

[First Speaker]

15. How could a privileged member of the elite like FDR "change the system"...?

...or JFK...or any other upper-class reformer, of whom there have been a number in history? How could a dedicated Cold Warrior like Richard Nixon end the estrangement with China? I'm not a supporter of Mrs Clinton--I remain, somewhat to my embarrassment, undecided--but this argument doesn't necessarily hold water...

[treestar]

19. True. The Assumptions made about Hillary

would apply even more so to JFK and FDR. Well, maybe they were born into the aristocracy at at time when it had some sense of service in return. Hillary was a lot closer to middle class and worked her way up.

[leftupnorth]

20. Fortunately, legalized bribery had not yet come into fashion yet.

Today? Not so much.

[Fawke Em]

47. Because they were raised with the excpectation they were to give back.

The Clintons... not so much.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

17. leftupnorth

The answer to your question: you can't! Thanks for crystallizing it.

K&R

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Perhaps we can channel, then recall, the spirits of past politicians ...

We could ask FDR: "There is only one question that *everyone* here needs to answer. How can one expect a politician who thrives on the current system that produced his own wealth to radically change the system that has been so good to them?"

But he did.

Or, we could ask LBJ: "There is only one question that *everyone* here needs to answer. How can one expect a politician who thrives on the current system that produced his own racial privilege to radically change the system that has been so good to them?"

But he did.

[leftupnorth]

26. Was bribery legal back then like it is today?

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Bribery isn't legal today. eom.

[leftupnorth]

29. Yes it is. We just use euphemisms to legitimize influence peddling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Okay ... But, No.It.Is.Not. eom

[leftupnorth]

36. Unfortunately for all of us it is.

The language around bribery have changed, but the ethics of it have not.

Multinational corporations give millions of dollars to candidates and political parties and expect something in return.

If they don't expect something in return, then they're the fools.

If we expect politicians to take their money and not be influenced by it, then we are the fools.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Okay. eom

[saidsimplesimon]

35. I voted for Barack Obama twice. Neither time

had anything to do with him being black. Mrs. Clinton is no FDR, and no Obama. I'll let her record stand for what she believes in.

Mrs. Clinton's record is one of great accomplishment and disappointment. Mrs. Clinton was against DOMA and for separate but equal treatment of gay marriages. She seems to come to the "progressive" point of view only when faced with victory or defeat on the campaign trail.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. I voted for (now) President Obama twice, as well ...

and neither time had anything to do with him being Black, either ... but what does that have to do with what I wrote?

[Ino]

25. Nothing will be done...

because Clinton will need her banker friends to get her reelected in 2020.
Then she will owe them once again.

Sanders is the only candidate with the courage, integrity and following to break this stranglehold.

[MADem]

31. You seriously think Sanders hasn't had any help from Wall Street?

You might want to dig deeper.

It's still "Wall Street money" even if it gets funneled through a third party.

[Fawke Em]

50. I seriously believe that Bernie wants it stopped even if the current system

makes third-party channeling a thing.

I don't believe Clinton does.

Bernie's third-party peanuts are nothing compared to Clinton's direct grift.

[MADem]

61. Even as he takes and raises the money from them? Really?

You don't think it's a "stunt"--to use a word that people here like to use about Clinton--a technique he uses to rile the masses with their fistfuls of twenty seven dollars?

He plays the "little people against the big banksters" card, but he's very chummy with those guys.

If he disagrees with the system, why is he such an integral part of it?

FWIW, his clout isn't "peanuts." You might want to look at his fundraising history.

[MADem]

27. I've been trying to dig down on that very question, here.

The answer that I've been getting is this--some politicians get more "credit" from DUers than others on this issue. I don't know, necessarily, that this credit is deserved.

[earthside]

30. Hillary Clinton will not ...

... do anything to overturn Citizens United (if by some miracle she gets into the White House again).

Hillary Clinton will not oppose the TPP (if by some miracle she gets into the White House again).

The old saying: a leopard can't change its spots.

I don't know anyone who actually believes her on these two points.
And this is yet another of her problems with voters and young voters in particular ... she has a BIG credibility problem.

[MADem]

34. Will Sanders overturn CU? And if you think he will, how will he accomplish it?

Do you think the party, given all the money they've gotten from Wall Street (money which has been funneled to campaigns of many members, to include tens of thousands to Sanders in one election year alone), will oppose any efforts of the sort you think he might make?

[leftupnorth]

43. Of course they will. We should expect them to.

And in that opposition they will reveal themselves as the shameless influence peddlers they have become.

Will it be the end of the party? Maybe. But it doesn't have to be, all they have to do is the right thing.

It really is that easy.

[MADem]

63. You didn't say how he'd do that. The devil is in the details, and a POTUS is not a king.

If it really IS 'that easy' then you should be able to sketch out, simply, how he might get rid of CU.

Don't say "executive order" because that's a nonstarter. We are a nation of laws. You're going to have to explain how a Supreme Court ruling, that has been deemed "constitutional," can be made illegal "because Bernie."

And as for "influence peddlers" do you think any Democrat who raised money from Wall Street bankers is "suspect" or "impure?"

[leftupnorth]

64. The progressive caucus introduces a bill for consideration that overturns CU.

When it dies, you call out the members of congress who let the bill die and sic the public on them.

Either they'll be shamed into supporting it, or they'll be run out of office by pitchfork.

Even if it fails, we HAVE TO try. We have to.

[MADem]

73. How do you overcome the "Constitutionality" issue?

There's where that devil resides. Congress can't just pass unconstitutional laws for their own amusement.

The GOP will wipe the floor with them--and then insist that "the gubmint" is trying to limit the ability of free, white, male citizens to spend their money as they see fit, in any amount, to talk to We, The People. Why, those (snort) PROGRESSIVES (use to get the tone) are trying to shut us up! There oughta be a law!!!

There's everything good in "trying." But I don't know if that's the best approach. I think a better approach is to pack the court with people who do not believe (as I do not believe) that money = speech. As I often say, if money = speech, then the poor are muted--and I don't think that is what our Founders intended. But we need the right court to take that tack--and that's not going to happen overnight. It'll probably take at least another full-bore (eight year) POTUS election/re-election cycle (if we're lucky).

The other point in 'trying' is that if you try to kill something, you need to kill it--you'd better not miss. If you do take aim and miss the mark, you can put the cause back decades. Bill Clinton really tried to revolutionize health care, but he didn't get the help he really needed from Robert Byrd (at least not in a timely manner) and forces were arrayed against him. HRC did well to get SCHIP out of that business, considering the political forces arrayed against the idea (as evidenced by the massive "Harry and Louise" media buys and other tactics). Those forces stayed energized, and are still out there, trying to repeal Obamacare by the dozens of times (what, are they up to sixty or more attempts to repeal?).

[leftupnorth]

76. I read what you wrote, and to me, it seems like four paragraphs of excuses.

[MADem]

79. Really? The CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law is "excuses?"

I'm a bit flummoxed by that observation of yours.

I'm not sure what to think, frankly--I guess that "nation of laws" thing goes out the window when it comes to laws you don't like...? What are you saying?

We got rid of the King for a reason, you know.

[leftupnorth]

82. So congress can't write a law that overturns CU?

I guess I don't understand your point.

And if so, there isn't ANYTHING that can be done to stem the tide of corporate dominance in our political system?

I find that hard to believe.

Seems to me that trying and failing is a whole lot better than never trying at all.

[MADem]

92. Congress could write and pass a law reinstating slavery.

How long do you think it would last before the Supremes stomped that thing into dust?

The CU Players aren't going to find the law constitutional.

I told you upthread how to do it.

Trying and failing makes trying again harder. Like I said, when you go after the king, you need to kill him, because he'll turn your fiefdom into an inferno if you miss.

[leftupnorth]

108. Don't threaten me with a good time!

Fighting and losing is second only to fighting and winning, strategically. Realistically we will probably lose at least once. This ain't happening overnight and only if we are really lucky will it happen within a couple of election cycles.

Losing clearly identifies friend and foe. How long it takes to finally win is only a question of the political will of the people. Principle is with us. No one likes a corrupt representative, whatever the party.

[MADem]

109. I'd rather repair the worst excesses of the system within a decade or so, than

swing, miss and not have an opportunity to come up to bat for a quarter century or more.

Fighting and losing can push back the day when you fight and win. Look at how long it took to get an ACA, and the fight for that started the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated.

[leftupnorth]

110. I reject your premise and comparison with the ACA.

The only reason health care reform wasn't tried again until Obama's term was due to incompetence, George effing Bush, a cowardly opposition, and an apathetic electorate.

I wouldn't call the ACA a victory. Seems to me it's a boondoggle to the insurance industry. When Democrats - yes Democrats - killed the public option, it was clear to me what this was all about.

Sure, it fixed some things - pre existing conditions, college kids on their parents plans, etc. but it's not real reform. Not the reform we needed. But I digress.

This will not be anything like that fight. This is a fight that every decent person, regardless of party, agrees upon. Republicans, Democrats, Independents all agree that corruption in the halls of congress is unacceptable.

Now, we can discuss the probabilities of anything getting done by a congress that benefits immensely from the system we are demanding be dismantled,

OR

We can get to the task of electing as many people who aren't bought and paid for corporate puppets so that when a bill overturning citizens United is introduced, it passes the first time.

Let the court strike it down. I dare them.

[MADem]

115. I don't think you're correct that "every decent person, regardless of party, agrees upon."

I think many

a) Do not care;

b) Will happily let politicians use a "Harry and Louise" approach to tell them what to think;

c) Will (especially on the GOP side) want to retain the OPTION of being a Big Money Donor and having influence....because that's how the GOP gets them--they tell them that if (or more compellingly WHEN) they see their "entrepreneurial" dreams realized, they, TOO, can be in with the in-crowd, and who are these so-called Do Gooders telling you otherwise? Don't you SEE? It's all about FREEDUMB!!!!

There aren't going to be any "new" candidates coming to the fore at this late stage--our challenging players are running in their primaries and we can only hope they prevail in their general elections. Our incumbents--many of whom are entrenched and part of "the system"--are going to hang on to their seats if they can. I don't see a massive paradigm shift--never mind "revolution"--on the horizon.

And this court would never 'strike it down'--it's THEIR work product. Those folks aren't without hubris. We need more advantage in that branch, and we don't have it yet.


I hope for evolution because I believe that's the best hope for change--but even that isn't assured. Change takes a long time. It's glacial. Our system seems designed to keep everything moving at the pace of molasses.

I also think the best place to nail down reform is at the Supreme Court. If we can dump CU because it is separate and unequal (favors and includes the wealthy, marginalizes and silences the poor) then we can move to entrench public financing into our lexicon. But I hold out ZERO hope that "revolution" is the way to go. That's a recipe for McGovernland. And I don't see any utility in going down in flames--I'd rather win.

Our worst Democrat is better than their best Republican.

[Plucketeer]

38. A Hillary Clinton administration

would be life imitating art. Like with our present Prez, there'd be the thin facade of social trinketry for distraction - much like the curtain that kept the Wizard of OZ from view. Meanwhile, MUCH like Bill (who'll be coaching right over her shoulder), Hillary will be working the levers just as corporate America directs her to. Yeah - what a great vision for this country..... EVERY social injustice negated with practically NO meaningful employment to try and make a living from.

[Enthusiast]

46. I don't expect it. That seems unrealistic to me.

[jalan48]

48. She's part of the problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. She'll threaten to charge them for the olives in their martinis when the come to collect

the return on their investments in her.

[ananda]

56. That sure accounts in large part ..

.. for what happened with Obama, though I think
Obama was always Reep-light along with his good
bud Rahm Emanuel.

Clinton won't be any better, but of course she would
be the ONLY choice against ANY Reep!

[Old Codger]

58. Hmmmmm

I'll look into that

[retrowire]

59. Oh that's easy!

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't.

Go Bernie!

EDIT: This was my 5000th post! Yaaay

[avaistheone1]

65. **snap**

[Moostache]

66. Start by not believing politicians in the first place...

Sanders is very much up front about the fact that the things he proposes CANNOT and WILL NOT happen under the current system.

People who desire a change in the way our rigged economy and politics work have got to realize that believing in a candidate that promises "change" by sheer force of personality, or by waiting for their turn, or by continuing to champion the very tent poles of the existing problem (campaign finance and the selling of influence by former congressional members that become lobbyists) is a futile act.

Revolution from the bottom up is the only way a pyramid is felled.

[november3rd]

67. That is THE QUESTION ...

And THE ANSWER, too.

[GoneOffShore]

68. Or one who has lived isolated from everyday for over 30 years.

HRC has been the Queen of Inside Bubble Land for that amount of time at the very least.

[Motown_Johnny]

70. A visitation from Jesus while walking the road to Damascus? n/t

[Scott m. Etches]

71. Foreign intervention

LOL America, I am kickstarting.com theatrical productions of Trump's grandfather pimping whores in Whitehorse where he started the family fortune.

[link:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/691765065/on-the-trail-of-trump|

Who needs a 527 when business can advertise the sordid past of candidates and their history of family misogyny while seeking Americans to pay for said foreign intervention.

Business has far too many opportunities to skew election results in a variety of methods.

[jtuck004]

72. The same way people think one is going to join a party and start a revolution. That's how remodeling

starts, not revolutions.

Revolutions come from the outside and bowl your ass over, and they don't ask for your permission - to hold another debate, for example.

In both cases the people who vote for them are living in a fantasy world.

[MsMAC]

74. Ok, so, how can the politician who has spent 25 years in congress

but only every had 3 bills passed? Two of them to name post offices in his state? How does he propose to "get things done"?

[leftupnorth]

77. Lol. Either you're completely uninformed abo what sanders has done in Congress

Or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

I'll let you tell me which.

[truedelphi]

103. So did you vote for Obama in 2008, or did

You sit it out?

After all, he had very very little experience, and doubt if he even had a bill passed in his four years as a Senator.

[mikehiggins]

75. Why do we have to change the system?

Reich has a line in his article that EVERYONE should print out and paste up on the wall or the car or somewhere:

This system is not sustainable.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If we cannot turn the nation to the left, it is a fact that our opponents will turn it even further to the right.

Some people allege that the rich are satisfied; that they have enough. That they aren't going to take that last scrap of bread out of the mouths of poor, starving kids. Some people also allege the world is flat, that Global Climate Change is a Chinese hoax. They are wrong.

Change is coming. Maybe it'll be some sloppy, hippy dippy happy change with unicorns and sparkles and cute little fuzzy bunnies. Maybe it'll be a hard, cruel and vicious Ayn Rand kind of world where everyone is free to approach the rich and powerful on their hands and knees to beg for crusts of bread.

Maybe those are the hyperbolic extremes of what can happen. One becomes more and more likely everytime someone claims we shouldn't fight because its too hard, because we won't win.

We won't win everything, every time (sorry, Don, but that's the facts, just like rising oceans) but if we don't try we will LOSE everything.

Just saying...

[Bohemianwriter]

78. I expect them...

to go and buy one of those big foam hands you get at football games (I hear they are REALLY expensive) so they can REALLY wag the finger at their donors and say "cut that out!!"....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. Many Clinton supporters don't see a need to change it.

[Uncle Joe]

84. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, leftupnorth.

[senz]

85. Let's ask PF.

Money, get away
Get a good job with more pay and you're okay
Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team

Money, get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet

Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for payrise it's no surprise
That they're giving none away
Away, away, way
Away, away, away

[VulgarPoet]

90. +1

[Mike Nelson]

101. Sorry...

...can't vote for Trump!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

102. Hmm. Maybe if they've got terminal cancer?

And figure that if they actually do some good at the end of their career it will offset all of the bad and let them into Heaven?

[antigop]

104. it won't matter to those who benefit from the current system or who haven't been burned yet.

Or if you just want a female prez soooo badly.

[Fairgo]

107. The eternal question of systems change

Oddly enough, the answer looks alot like what Bernie Sanders' constituents are doing: standing up and organising around a viable and visionary alternative.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

111. It's not in the presidents power. Ultimately it comes down to the Supreme Court.

We cannot afford to lose this election because of the potential Supreme Court spots that will open.

[leftupnorth]

113. I realize that. There are some small things that could be done by EO.

But we won't have to worry about losing this election if we nominate someone who promises to try.

That's all I want. Someone commited to trying.

[stevenleser]

112. How can a wealthy person refine the system to not favor the wealthy... Oops FDR

[leftupnorth]

114. Did FDR get rich from bribery too?

Who knew?

[stevenleser]

116. Almost certainly bribery or some other crime was involved at some point. His maternal

Grandfather made the families fortune in the opium trade.

[leftupnorth]

117. Interesting. I guess the FDR thing would be more

believable if she started sounding like FDR.

But I think Bernie has that market cornered.