Chains vs Change

[H2O Man]

Two months ago, on a political discussion internet forum where the Democratic primary was being debated, I posted a brief bit that included two simple questions: First, if the general election contest came down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, who did people think the Bush family would support? And second, why?

It seemed to be valid questions to ask on my favorite internet discussion site, the Democratic Underground.

(See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511524583 )

The majority of those responding shared their thoughts, recognizing that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers to questions on personal opinions. I will speculate that most of those who said the Bush family would support Hillary were likely Bernie supporters. Likewise, I am confident that all of those who responded by attacking me for merely posing the question are Clinton supporters.

These included those who called my question “an artful smear,” and “an obvious attempt to tarnish Hillary.” Minister Malcolm X said that when something he said made his opposition squeal, he knew he had raised an important point. I’ve kept this in mind, when I have similar responses from that group of people, including when I post the essays from this blog on that site. It is not that I am foolish enough to think that I am always right, or that every issue involves “right versus wrong.” Rather, I’m just expressing my opinion.

In the context of a potential Clinton versus Trump general election, it is relevant -- indeed, important -- that one takes into account what the establishment values in a candidate. More, while discussing the 1% of the American people, the “economic elite,” one must recognize that they do not self-identify as belonging to either of the two major political parties. The only “team” they belong to is the one-percent economic elite. It is delusional for “average” citizens to believe that those in the establishment, from either party, identify with them more than the elites from the opposing party.

Even before this election season, the close relationship between the Bush and Clinton families was well known. The fact that Bill and Hillary frequently vacation with Henry Kissinger, one of the last century’s most evil war criminals, illustrates the cozy relationships among the elites of “opposing” political parties. More, in recent weeks, not only have Bush the Elder, Bush the Village Idiot, and Jeb gone on the record as saying they will not support Donald Trump in the general election, but Laura “Pickles” Bush has stated that she favors Hillary. Even one of the infamous Koch brothers has endorsed Clinton.

Why is this important? In part, because it shows something that many of us already understood: the Clinton campaign is writing off the progressive community, and instead is courting the support of the republican establishment. Now, I think it is important to note that the candidate herself would like to have the support of progressives ….including those who are registered in the Democratic Party, as well as the independents of the Democratic Left. Indeed, in some instances, Hillary has incorrectly identified herself as a “progressive.” This, of course, contrasts to her descriptions of herself in front of conservative audiences.

Current reports in the media show that the Clinton campaign is now trying to romance the “Bush donor list” for funding for the fall election. It is safe to say their appeals for more corporate millions is not based upon her “progressive” bona fides.

Wall Street is not an avenue for progressive change. Its residents do not share the same agenda as the 99%. Its inhabitants are not political party loyalists. Quite the opposite: they have been engaged in a class warfare that seeks to exploit the American public, just the same as other parasites -- such as tapeworms -- seek to exploit their hosts. And they count upon the politically blind, deaf, and dumb to resent it when someone points out the truth to them.

Luckily, the Sanders revolution continues to tell the truth. And because it isn’t “all about Bernie,” the movement continues, no matter what the outcome of the Democratic National Convention, or the November election.

Peace,
H2O Man

[panader0]

1. A progressive tapeworm?

If HRC wins the primary, becomes the nominee, and then gets indicted, it will spell the end
for the Democratic Party. The tapeworm that killed the host.

[H2O Man]

4. It's interesting ....

There are numerous views of the FBI investigations on the Clinton e-mails and the Clinton Foundation. There appears to be some overlap between the two investigations.

Some people are convinced that there is nothing to it, that it is just another right-wing attack upon all things Clinton. The opposite position is that Hillary will be indicted between now and November.

I'd speculate -- which is all any of us can do -- that the truth lies somewhere in between. I do not think that it is likely she will be charged. But if anyone close to her is identified by the FBI for serious wrong-doing, that damages the Democratic Party.

I have heard from sources that I consider reliable that the party establishment has an "emergency" plan, to have the Clinton delegates switch to VP Biden, if the results are damaging to Hillary's campaign. Obviously, I have no "proof" that this is so. But it leads me to thinkthat some in the establishment are taking the situation far more seriously than the Clinton campaign's "there's nothing here" public stance.

[highprincipleswork]

52. This Democrat is not interested in Biden either.

[bigtree]

2. Sanders went to the right-wing cauldron of conservativism, Liberty University

...to woo republican voters.

“I came here today because I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse,” the senator told the crowd of nearly 12,000. “It is easy to go out and talk to people who agree with you.”

[tk2kewl]

6. There is a significant distinction between "wooing Republican voters" and...

wooing Republican Establishment politicians and their donors.

You do know that, right?

[H2O Man]

13. I'm sorry to say

that the person you directed this to will never read it. Why, less than 24 hours ago, he made clear that based upon his ethics, he would no longer read my OP/threads.

[tk2kewl]

19. I know, but it had to be said...

And beyond wooing of republican voters, it is the "what" that Sanders uses to try to convince them that is most important.

Hillary has a record of wooing republican voters through faith-based politics and programs, anti-immigration policies, opposition to same-sex marriage, outlawing flag burning and by continuing to offer compromise on abortion rights.

She tries to appeal to their desire to exclude, while Bernie tries to appeal to their sense of fairness and inclusiveness.

[H2O Man]

20. Right!

And I'm glad that you did.

It's sad to see anyone so desperate in their attempts to be respected by their new group of friends. We expect teen-aged boys to "try on" different identities, but it isn't proper behavior for adults.

[tk2kewl]

23. I spend a lot of time replying to posts and never hearing back

maybe I'm just on a lot of ignore lists

[H2O Man]

27. When I was young,

I used to enjoy visiting a good friend. His mother had a chihuahua. Now, I prefer big dogs. All of the dogs that I've had were big. It's not that I dislike tiny dogs, just that I have more respect and affection for big dogs.

I remember that tiny dog for two behaviors: often, if there was a mighty lion on the television screen, that chihuahua would growl and bark at it, feigning bravery. The other thing was that it would run into a room, piss on the carpet, and then run out of the room just as fast as its tiny chihuahua legs could carry it.

[Juicy_Bellows]

15. Could it be more evident?

I want you to open your ears, eyes and mind to voting for me vs. give me money.

Naw, I must be mistaken.

[H2O Man]

21. No, it really couldn't

be clearer.

It is equally clear the the poor fellow was bluffing, hoping no one would notice.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. There seems to be a corollary in those that read OPs and those that haven't the patience

for anything longer than a sentence or two. What that corollary is, well I'll leave that up to us.

[H2O Man]

29. Right.

Another option would be to respectfully disagree, and to state the reasons why you think differently. This person prefers to do otherwise, for reasons that are of no importance to me. Yesterday, he responded to my essay with an attempt to attack me as a person -- and in doing so, simply exposed his own "issues." I felt embarrassed for him, and was tempted to try to help him out. Not everyone is intelligent and articulate enough to present a proper case in the context of a serious conversation. No shame in that.

[Juicy_Bellows]

32. I continue to learn and be inspired from posters like yourself.

You're a bigger man than I.

I yearn to have that kind of understanding and patience with 'fools'.

I'm 40 and I don't think I have enough lifetime to be so enlightened. I'm trying though...

[H2O Man]

34. Oh, thank you.

That is really nice.

I'm at the age where it is important to me to try to share the things that I've learned with others. That often conflicts with my tendency to be a hermit, and enjoy being isolated in my home and on my property. My children are grown, and so it is pretty much me and the dogs here. (Also, a neighbor's cat has taken up residence!)

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter used to tell me that it is important to be patient with people -- including one's self. For we are all sad and weakly human, and yet miracles, with that spark of the universal energy. Like everyone else, I have my moments of being a jerk -- including on this forum, every now and then. When I do, I remember the image of sitting on a mountain with Rubin in the warmth of a beautiful summer day .....and just sitting there quietly, without a word being spoken for hours and hours. (I wish he were around to hang out with me, out at my pond.)

We are all in this together. And it is my pleasure to be on the same team as you!

[Juicy_Bellows]

36. You're a bonafide mensch. I really dig your style man.

[H2O Man]

75. I appreciate that!

And I thank you and the others who put the one angry, negative person's nonsense in check. Too often on this forum, people try to distract attention from the topic an OP raises, by attacking the messenger. That has happened with two of my OPs in a row, when this fellow ignores what I've wrote, and resorts to petty insults. I have no problem with it if someone disagrees with my opinion, and wants to engage in a meaningful, intelligent debate .....something that angry people are incapable of.

[Jim Lane]

18. He went to that right-wing cauldron and spoke left-wing truths.

He didn't pander to his audience in any way, as you insinuate. Instead, he tried to change their
minds. That's a good thing. (As a side note, reports are that he made at least some progress
in that regard, but the effort would be laudable even if it had failed.)

We know he didn't pander because the content of his speech is publicly available.

Some of us wild-eyed radical leftists (the types who support single-payer health care) consider
Goldman Sachs and their ilk to be, also, right-wing cauldrons. We would like to know what
Hillary Clinton said to them. We've heard unverifiable reports that she did indeed pander, and
(presumably because we’re all misogynists) we find those reports credible.

[H2O Man]

22. Well said, Jim Lane!

Very well said, indeed. Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Hi there my heterosexual friend!!! Let's compare Hillary's opening words to Rick Warren's Church

to Bernie's opening words at Liberty University to see what differences there are:

Bernie at Liberty: "Thank you, President Falwell and David. Thank you very much for inviting my wife, Jane, and me to be with you even this morning. We appreciate the invitation very much.

And let me start off by acknowledging what I think all of you already know. And that is the views that many here at Liberty University have and I, on a number of important issues, are very, very different. I believe in a woman's rights....
And the right of a woman to control her own body.

I believe gay rights and gay marriage.

Those are my views, and it is no secret. But I came here today, because I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse."

Hillary at Saddleback: "Well I am so honored and personally delighted to be here, and I want to thank Rick and Kay Warren for bringing us together this week around World AIDS Day. And I want to thank their tremendous staff and the volunteers and everyone who helped make this happen. I'm grateful for the opportunity to share our commitment about dealing with the global scourge of HIV/AIDS.

I also want to recognize two first ladies: the first lady of Zambia and the first lady of Rwanda. I am delighted that they are here representing their countries and their people.

And first, [applause] let me first say how relieved Bill and I were to hear that Saddleback was spared from the recent wildfires - and how impressed and moved we were to hear about the love and support that you gave those who were not so fortunate.

It's another example of the way in which this church is not measured by numbers. Yes, the numbers are big, they're certainly impressive. But it's measured by your impact. It's measured by the meaning that you give to lives here within this complex and so far beyond its boundaries. And the commitment that you demonstrate both to our faith in God and to doing His work here on earth is exemplary and that is one of the many reasons that I wanted to be here today.

You know, Rick has helped so many people with his lessons for a 40-day spiritual journey. But he knows those 40 days are just the beginning. My own faith journey is approaching a half a century, and I know how far I still have to go."

She's there (inexplicably there) for World AIDS Day. She will eventually utter the word 'gay' but only in passing as a way to excuse the faith community for their wrongs during the Reagan era.
Links to both:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/14/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech-annotated/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=77080

[farleftlib]

3. One party rule

I sincerely believe we have been living under one-party rule for about two decades now. The Democratic party has embraced things like the PATRIOT Act, bankruptcy bill, huge bailouts without oversight, destroying the social safety net, domestic spying, regime change and assaults on whistleblowers which is a huge betrayal of courageous Americans who endanger themselves to promote justice and stop abuses of power.

These things taken together should give us pause. The Bushes and Clintons are allies, I've never doubted it, and now it seems they don't even attempt to hide it. What HRC did at the State Dept. is no doubt criminal IMO, and certainly unethical, but her supporters don't even blink an eye at it, they deny it's importance.

We're not in Kansas anymore.

K & R

[H2O Man]

5. I agree.

I think that the shift began in the 1960s and '70s, and became entrenched with Reagan. As you note, things like the Democratic support of the Patriot Act document a complete betrayal of Democratic values.

[kgnu_fan]

10. One turns into its opposite when there is no self evolution...

[H2O Man]

24. Basketball great Bill Russell

used to say, "Chose you enemies carefully, lest they become who you resemble the most."

[jwirr]

8. K&R

[pmorlan1]

7. Courting the Republican Establishment

is the one time she's been honest in this campaign and they know better than to fall for her "I'm a progressive who gets results" nonsense. They know exactly who she is and that's why she will get their money.

[H2O Man]

11. Right.

The Wall Street "contributions" to Hillary's campaigns have been investments in their future. The same will hold true for the Bush funders, who are currently be courted.

[kgnu_fan]

9. This : Wall Street is not an avenue for progressive change.

[H2O Man]

12. Thanks.

[democrank]

14. Win or lose, I thank Bernie Sanders for restarting this progressive movement.

Although the enthusiasm is uplifting, I`m most grateful for the clarification of what the Democratic Party`s establishment and their supporters truly think about the Progressive movement. It is now crystal clear. The principles that have guided my vote for decades are far more important to me, my children and grandchildren, than a loyalty oath to any political party.

I have a renewed sense of purpose and freedom and will honor that as I continue to learn from the elders in my community, people who have so much more political wisdom than the dreadful hacks chewing up all time allotted for "discussion" on television. The elders I learn from are from a time when your word was your honor and you set an example by doing, not promising.

I suspect you know what I`m talking about, H20 Man, since many of your lessons came down from Chief Waterman....and I`m sure, others.

[H2O Man]

33. Exactly.

You nailed it.

The Sanders Revolution has added form to numerous grass roots groups across the country. It has brought together the young and old. It has high-lighted the common cause of economic and environmental issues.

As I've noted before, the Sanders revolution is not limited to a single political campaign. We are not engaging in the struggle under the direction or rules of the establishment. It appears to upset some old friends here when I say that our movement is taking place upon a much higher level than their political campaign. But that is the simple truth.

(I've had the pleasure of learning from numerous Elders, including men and women that the DU community isn't familiar with. For there are wise men and women in almost every community, around the world. I've had the unique honor of having Chief Waterman and Rubin "Hurricane" Carter as mentors in my youth. They provided an education that one doesn't get in a classroom.)

[Sensitive soul]

55. sometimes

You don't win the revolution with the first battle but at least they have to take us seriously.

[H2O Man]

59. Right.

In my opinion, if you try your hardest, you don't really lose. You might not reach your goal, but you didn't "fail." And this struggle has been going on, a lot longer than this primary, and it will go on long after the 2016 elections.

We will win the revolution. No doubt in my mind.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. Great OP! Very astute.

This quote from another thread seems apt:

“That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about," he said. "It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”

[H2O Man]

35. Very good!

Thank you for this!

[Octafish]

17. UBS Wealth Management

Thank you an outstanding essay, H2O Man. These are the wealthiest times in human history. The steward of trickle down David Stockman reports that 7/8th of all wealth ever has been created in the last 32 years. Yet, a Democratic administration makes the case that the solution for our problems is...Austerity? That is sick. It also shows the power of money upon democracy.

For me, the best example is the team at UBS Wealth Management. After his exit from the US Senate, Phil Gramm found a job at Swiss bank UBS as vice chairman. He later brought on former President Bill Clinton. What a coincidence, they are the two key figures in repealing Glass-Steagal. Since the New Deal it was the financial regulation that protected the US taxpayer from the Wall Street casino. Oh well, what's a $16 trillion bailout among friends?



About UBS Wealth Management

It's Buy Partisan



It's a Buy-Partisan Who's Who:

President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush Heh heh heh.
Robert J. McCann
James Carville
John V. Miller
Paula D. Polito
Anthony Roth
Mike Ryan
John Savercool

SOURCE: http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

One of my attorney chums doesn't like to see his name on any committees, event letterhead or political campaign literature. These folks, it seems to me, are past caring.

Some of why DUers and ALL voters should care about Phil Gramm.

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

by CONOR FRIEDERSDORF, The Atlantic, JUL 31, 2015

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

The article adds that “there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton.” Maybe it’s all a mere coincidence, and when UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton $1.5 million the relevant decision-maker wasn’t even aware of the vast sum his wife may have saved the bank or the power that she will potentially wield after the 2016 presidential election.

SNIP...

As McClatchy noted last month in a more broadly focused article that also mentions UBS, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation––the family’s global charity set up to tackle causes from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to climate change.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Bernie wants to use the powers of government to redistribute wealth, as was done from FDR to Reagan.

To see him so virulently opposed by people in the Democratic Party shows the power of money in Democracy.

[H2O Man]

37. Great post, Buddy!

I remember that Minister Malcolm X said that of all the "-isms" that we confront, "dollarism" was the most dangerous. Malcolm noted that once the opposition drops that dollar in front of them, most people will hurry to snatch it up. So much so that many people who are really trying to do good, will sell their soul.

We see the truth of Malcolm's saying today, especially in Washington, DC. What's more, we see many otherwise intelligent people attempting to justify that DC behavior. As if for a price, it is acceptable to be unethical.

As always, thank you. In my opinion -- and many, many other's -- you are the best on DU. Your contributions to this site are invaluable.

[Mutant456]

26. I choose independence

Freedom is best

[H2O Man]

39. Yes!

I believe that it is important to encourage people to think for themselves, and act for others. This is a basic in raising children in Haudenosaunee culture. And I can say that it has been important in my children's lives.

"Freedom is best" -- I really like that. A lot.

[wendylaroux]

28. You'll always have people fall for con men,

but when you have the proof right in front of your eyes??!!

********** Rich republicans are voting for/donating to Hillary Clinton**********!!!!!

Why aren't they getting it?I feel like I'm in crazy town.

[Dragonfli]

31. Many fall for the Three Card Monte scam, not to dishearten you, but PT Barnum was correct

[H2O Man]

40. Seriously.

Too many people are willingly suspending common sense these days. It is as if reality is too difficult for them to navigate, and so they become invested in fantasies.

[Dragonfli]

30. Kicked and highly recommended,

You may also find this post helpful as it involves much of the same subject matter, regarding the sought for change fron the traditional "peoples party" to one that represents the Right wing and Corporate issues.

[H2O Man]

41. Thank you!

I wish that I could "recommend" individual posts. Please consider making that into an OP. You have nailed it perfectly and powerfully.

Recently, I had posted an essay making much the same case. I'm intent upon remaining in the Democratic Party, but have no interest in working for corporate powers or the party's elites. I have very little -- if anything -- in common with them. Even on environmental issues, which should provide common ground, we see establishment Democrats who advocate for fracking, etc.

[Dragonfli]

64. I think I will, but I expect it will be hidden, or worse, end with my expulsion from DU after 12 yrs

Yet it should be spoken, or printed, more accurately in this context. The parties are changing and they are leaving a void on the center to center left. I gave two scenarios on how it could play out, my preferred is the "new party" that will develop after critical mass implodes one out of our two party system; would be for the right wing of the Democratic party (moderate Republicans, and in name disaffected moderate Republicans) to occupy this "new party" the fascists having died politically and thrown to the fringes, only to be heard on random street corners and hate radio, while Our party becomes the Democratic party of the people it once was, refilling it's lost Dino ranks with disaffected center left former Democrats that have since gone Independent, while inheriting the younger generations that appear to want a people's party, similar to what the Democrats once were.

I also laid out a different scenario, where out party continues even further right and the "new" party would take in those that seek to fill the center left vacuum, it is that part that may cause my banishment.

I feel I only wrote what is true and a bit of what one might predict, but many here don't just dislike truth and/or dissent, they outright hate it with the passion of a thin skinned coward and would rather hide the truth or have it banished rather than step into the ring.

It is done.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511941536

[FourScore]

38. My God! You are so articulate!

LOVE your posts, H20 Man!

I get so emotional, especially lately, I've had to back away from the keyboard. I am not posting wisely.

Thank you for this.

[H2O Man]

42. Thank you, FourScore!

I had to step away from DU a while back, after realizing that I had insulted an old friend here ....I was tired out, from events in real life, and had consumed a few bottles of Guinness. My friend posted something good -- and I read it, without reading who posted it, and made a snarly response. Stupid on my part, for sure.

Now that I took the time to rest up, I am more confident in my ability to communicate properly on DU:GDP. I suppose we all have our moments. At least now, when a few people do insult me, I take it with a grain of salt. (And a couple bottles of Guinness Blond.)

[FourScore]

43. Thanks for commiserating!

I feel better.

[H2O Man]

58. Sure thing!

Always remember that, no matter what, no one on earth can be more of a jackass than me!

[me b zola]

44. K&R

[H2O Man]

47. Thanks!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Your stuff is always worth my time, H2O Man.

A rarity around these parts, these days.

[H2O Man]

48. Thank you.

I try to make my contributions to the DU community's discussion worthwhile.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. People here caught all manner of crap for specualting about Hillary's ties to "The Family"

And by the Family I mean the DC religious right soireee, not the Bushes.

And now she's engaged in a two step of having her acolytes and brockpuppets communicate in no uncertain terms that Sanders supporters can eff the hell off, dont matter and WILL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT at the convention, while she simultaneously tries to woo "Megachurch Moms"

It's fucking head spinning. The worst part is, I'm not terribly surprised.

[H2O Man]

50. Yep.

I agree.

I'm not offended by people supporting Clinton. But a heck of a lot of the reasoning behind some of the reasoning that gets posted here strikes me as shallow and selfish. Just my opinion, of course.

It is not surprising. Sometimes disappointing, though.

Still, there are quite a few thoughtful, intelligent, good people here. While DU is no longer a community for progressives, as it was originally intended, there are still progressives from both the Democratic Party and Democratic Left here. As such, it highlights who progressive members of the party share common ground with.

[democrank]

49. Kick

~PEACE~

[H2O Man]

51. Thanks!

[mmonk]

53. Your last paragraph exemplifies the differences.

One is a movement and it lives on. One is a campaign and it is over whether won or lost.

[H2O Man]

56. Right.

Bernie Sanders is providing voters with a one in a lifetime opportunity. The progressive movement rarely gets a say in presidential elections, and usually when it has, it has been a minor speaking role. Bernie allows us to really speak our minds.

Still, the environmental movement is much larger than a mere presidential campaign. It is being waged on many, many more levels than a Democratic primary. We do not subscribe to the measures that the establishment seeks to enforce. Thus, when they try to convince us that the contest is over, we do not take them seriously. Rather, we take this battle, and the crisis we all face, very seriously.

Despite the opposition's best efforts, we have established our own rules. And we will continue this fight, on our own terms.

[hootinholler]

54. Don't go chaining

To try and keep me.
I never want to work that hard, oooh ooooh oooh
I just want someone
That's been on the right fucking side of history their entire life.

Shit, that last line doesn't really fit the melody, I have failed, my apologies.

[H2O Man]

57. Right!

I spent this evening with a close associate, at a local public meeting. Afterwards, we went to his house to discuss our plans for the Democratic National Convention. He is a veteran of Chicago in 1968.

Although he is a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, he believes people will need to vote for Clinton in November, if she is our party's candidate. I have no problem with that. I'm sure that many of the Sanders revolution will eventually vote for the lesser of two extremely evils.

However, I fully understand those who will not vote for Clinton. I respect their right to vote their conscience. They have just as much right to decide who they vote for, as do he or I. As long as a person does not vote for Trump, I have no problem with them exercising their rights.

What stuck out for me this evening, as we listened to four candidates who are running for some elective offices, was the degree of corruption found at the local level. The Sanders revolution has to address this sad reality. The good thing is that we are in a better position to do so -- across the country -- than we have been in my lifetime.

The movement is growing. My friend noted that even those who despise me pretended that we were old chums. They are aware that the times are a'changing, too. Otherwise, they wouldn't have approached me tonight.

[slipslidingaway]

60. knr, thank you! nt

[H2O Man]

62. Thanks!

[Samantha]

61. I don't understand why anyone would insult you for asking this interesting question

Isn't that why we are here, to ask interesting questions and discuss important topics? Perhaps I just answered my own question -- some are here because the art of insult is more thrilling than the art of true debate. Insults get us no where.

I think having heard the announcement former President George H.W. Bush and our former pResident George W. Bush* (oops, that is not just an insult, but an insult with an asterisk) would sit out this election, it is clear the Bush Family prefers Hillary over Trump. Later after the announcement, Jeb joined in to say he too would support Clinton over Trump.

It is a fine thing to see one Republican chewing on another (oops again). Seriously though, I do not think the Bush family and friends financial support for Hillary will help her any more than it did Jeb. Hillary needs to help Hillary. She is the The One who can change things around. She is worried she will not attract many Sanders' supporters (perhaps she should not have said she did not need us ... oops ... when attempting to start to unify the party).

It is always nice to be able to participate in one of your threads. Thank you for all the thought you put into them and the enchanting way you put your pieces together.

Sam

[H2O Man]

63. Thanks, Samantha!

If I were a Clinton supporter on DU:GDP, I think that the very last of the Bernie supporters here that I would opt to insult would be H2O Man. But, then again, it is hard for me to imagine me actively supporting a candidate that the Bush family is backing. Still, let's take an objective look at what it is that I have been saying in my essays here, even in the past week.

There is going to be a large, progressive demonstration at this summer's Democratic National Convention. Several organizations, from the east coast to the west coast, have contacted me, asking for my support. My focus has been on promoting a non-violent approach. While I fully respect that others may not share my religious/ spiritual belief system, my approach to non-violence is rooted in that belief system.

My "heroes" in that sense are Gandhi and King. When my essays here include that influence, none of my friends in the Sanders revolution who are atheist have been offended. Yet, in response to my OP before this one, a couple Clinton supporters felt compelled to insult my belief system. One of them engaged in a "hit and run" post here, too.

I encourage people to stick with the Democratic Party -- and expand it -- at a time when lots of good people feel the party has rejected them. It is not as if the whole of the Democratic Party is limited to any one specific election. In fact, come November, there will be numerous other elections being contested. Democratic candidates always benefit from a large voter turn-out.

Call it speculation upon my part, but I think that the insults simply represent a short-cut to dismissing the points I raise, by attempting to shift focus towards my personality (or lack thereof).

[Martin Eden]

65. H2O Man, between HRC and Trump, who would you support?

If you select HRC, that puts you in the same boat with the Bush family.

You undoubtedly have different reasons, but to be fair, I think the vast majority of people not taken in by Trump's lies and demagoguery understand that he would be dangerous to the national interests of our country regardless of a person's economic status or political ideology.

Electing Donald Trump as POTUS would badly damage our already tarnished image, and most sane people don't want him anywhere near the nuclear codes.

I very much agree that Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate who will do nothing to change the economic power structure controlled by wealthy elites, but Donald Trump is such an aberration that judging Hillary by those who won't support him is not a fair gauge.

[H2O Man]

67. Good question,

I appreciate it when someone who thinks differently than me strikes up a good-natured, yet serious discussion. So thank you for that.

My response may not be in the order that you raised rational points in your posts. At my advanced age, I need to flip back and forth, from reading to typing, for an adequate answer. So here goes …..

First, I would disagree -- strongly -- that the Bush family’s position isn’t important. They are, I think we could agree, not your average republican family. Two have served as president; one recently ran for president; and one was the nation’s First Lady. More, it is wrong to assume the Bush family is opposed to Trump because he is totally unqualified to serve as president, and would cause domestic and international problems. After all, George W. Bush served two terms.

Since I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, I really haven’t given any thought to who I might or might not vote for, if it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump. However, as I have noted numerous times on DU, I have been a registered Democrat my entire adult life; I have always voted for our party’s candidate in presidential elections; and I vote in every election.

There is zero chance that I will ever vote for Donald Trump. However, I would find it extremely difficult to vote for a person who (a) has a neoconservative foreign policy; and (b) favors and advocates for fracking.

What is far more important than my individual vote is my ability to “get out the vote.” And it is very, very unlikely that if I did attempt to campaign for Hillary, there is little to no chance that I could influence other progressives to vote for her. And that is not because I lack basic skills in community organizing. There hasn’t been a situation that compares to this in my experience. There are a variety of reasons for this -- and almost all belong to the Clinton campaign, including the candidate.

Again, thank you!

[Martin Eden]

69. We're essentially in agreement

We have the same opinion of Hillary Clinton, though perhaps some disagreement as to the reasons the Bush family won't support Trump. Yes, their interests align with Hillary, but I think they would support almost any Republican candidate other than Trump and the reason is that Trump is a loose cannon who poses a real danger.

I will be loathe to vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, but will likely do so if my home state of Illinois has any chance of falling to Trump.

In October 2002 I vowed to never support in a Democratic primary any candidate who voted for the IWR, and I have not. I did, however, travel to Akron Ohio to GOTV for Kerry in 2004 because GW Bush was an unmitigated disaster for our country.

Trump potentially could be worse.

[H2O Man]

73. I think that the

way that Trump humiliated Jeb in the primary contest plays a large role in the Bush family's despising Donald. What happened to Jeb was different than losing other elections. Trump "alpha-dogged" their son and brother, and the family will not forgive him for that.

In Jon Meacham's 2015 authorized biography of Bush the Elder, he focuses on the night that George W bush was elected governor of Texas, and Jeb lost in Florida. It had been thought Jeb had more of a chance of victory. While the father celebrated with W, the swine tried to comfort her loser son. The author quotes Jeb's weeping, "When will it stop hurting?"

Elections are not pillow fights. The family knows that. But Trump went way beyond what they considered good sportsmanship. In their opinion, it was unforgivable. Thus, they began to foot the bill for the Cruz campaign -- even though W had fired Cruz from his administration, because he viewed Ted as an arrogant asshole.

I definitely agree that a Trump presidency can -- and likely will -- bring about some worse dynamics than did Bush-Cheney. From the day he entered the republican primary on, I have written that he appeals to the darker impulses of a dangerous segment of the population. Trump is unleashing a force that he cannot control .....and it is embedded in those who most passionately support him

The antidote to that isn't found in continuing the recipe that has created this situation. Thus, electing either Clinton or Trump will not ....can not ....bring about the social justice that alone can deal with this.

[Martin Eden]

70. Oh, and one more thing:

Thank you for engaging me in this civil discussion, and for all the wonderful threads you start in DU.

[H2O Man]

74. Thanks!

This is an example of the type of discourse that should define DU:GDP, rather than being a tiny exception to what rules here.

[SalviaBlue]

66. Truth!

Thanks for the thoughtful essay.

rec.

[H2O Man]

68. Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

71. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

72. Thanks, Uncle Joe!

[democrank]

76. Thank you, H20 Man

I came back to read this all again. The principles that guide your writings here are a true blessing.

[H2O Man]

77. Thanks, democrank!

I appreciate that!