2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBlaming Sanders: Why Democratic Party Unity is Officially Impossible
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/blaming-sanders-why-democratic-party-unity-is-officially-impossible/Im not going to suggest that people shouldnt like Hillary Clinton if they adore her, and many do, but for her champions to continue the arrogant argument that she is anything more than a smug politician with a big stick, i.e., a cozy relationship with corporate America and the military industrial complex, is silly obfuscation. Such denial flies in the face of reality given Clintons attachment to and her unmovable faith in the neoliberalism of our age, which more-progressive thinkersnever mind the remnants of the Leftsee as problematic.
The would-be pragmatists, the nose-holders who have embraced the lesser-evil mantra in the panic to stop Trump, have either forgiven her sins and moved on or never saw the sinner in the first place. Importantly, these people are settled-in and at ease with what were once called, when I studied them in school, current events. As a mass they cling to the center like a life preserver. They have an abiding faith in the way things are now playing out, have easily overcome any tinge of doubt about U.S. imperialism and our terms of perpetual war (are we winning?), the environment, and rampant poverty and inequality, to name a few of the things Hillary Clinton abhors talking about or glides over like an ice skater.
...As for Bernie Sanders, some portray his thinking as reckless ideology, with a pejorative usage here based on the rise among self-satisfied Americans who cant distinguish between progressive policy and Hillary Clintons record. Or perhaps they can, but it doesnt bother them. The point is that many voters are content with the way things are now; any and all suggestions that the status quo ought to be altered are dismissed out-of-hand. Neoliberalism has been kind to many while raping many others. Sanders thinking is frightening to a wide swath of comfortable middle-class votersand not just Republicanswho have avoided the inherent disasters of recent policy decisions that have angered and outright economically ruined many in our country as well as large portions of the global population...Why, the usual power players, of course. They are Krugman, Feinstein, Reich, and others atop the pyramid. Great Pragmatists all. Believe me when I protest that none of these characters know poverty or oppression. If theyve known it at any time, theyve forgotten it by now.
...Stay in the thing, Bernie, for the hell of it. Clintons allies disrespect too many, take too much for granted, expect too many miracles, and act out too much like privileged children.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)GRhodes
(162 posts)because of posters like you. I doubt you read it though, probably just the title of the thread.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)GRhodes
(162 posts)I don't see, based on the mindset of many Clinton supporters, what we could realistically unite around, other than blind partisan loyalty or bumper sticker, vague nothings. How do you bridge the gap on foreign policy, economic issues, corruption (especially given her and the DNC's obvious corruption), etc? It wouldn't require the establishment, the rich, and corporations sacrificing anything at all. That's my opinion, some other people that support Sanders disagree.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)I see little to no willingness among Bernie's supporters to give any ground to make it work. Precedent makes it Bernie's job, but even if we say it's a two way street, what happened been the offer from his side?
GRhodes
(162 posts)Who exactly has compromised? Inequality has exploded. It is a fact, a proven fact, that most of the wealth has gone to the super rich during the recovery. In recent decades, wealth inequality has exploded, private debt has as well (and this has been felt most among those with the least income), deindustrialization has decimated working people but benefited mobile capitalists (and the jobs lost paid much better than those that have replaced them), finance has benefited at the expense of almost everyone (since finance's product is debt). People HAVE compromised for decades, and the rich have not. They haven't sacrificed a single thing, they've monopolized a good portion of the economic benefits. So don't tell me people are against compromise, what is being offered isn't a compromise, it is a further reduction in living standards, and more going to those with too much damn money to begin with. It's a one sided class war. I have the data and facts on my side too, it isn't just my opinion. We could give the entirety of economic growth to the working class and poor over the next five years and it still wouldn't make up for the "compromises" the corrupt politicians like Clinton, Trump, and those running the two parties have forced on us.
What people are asking in this "compromise" is to capitulate to a politician in Clinton that has made no secret of wanting to maintain this system as is, with slight modifications at most, and that's if she were to do everything she is now promising. She has no longer term vision of structural change, and those in power (including those in the media), benefit from this system and don't want to see any structural change as a result. What exactly would we compromise on? The issues are structural, not superficial, and what is being offered as a result are non-solutions.
Obviously, I am not speaking for Sanders or his supporters. No one asked GRhodes to post on democraticunderground to speak on their behalf, and some Sanders supporters don't agree with me.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)And then you wonder why the party isn't uniting. Gee, what a shock!
GRhodes
(162 posts)that your argument that there should be compromise means a continuation of the things I identified. You don't have to do anything, but if you don't offer real solutions, peoples' responses might be to leave the party (which is happening), to become an independent, or to go to something like the Green Party. A much larger share of the public is now independents. If your attitude is to say, oh well, be gone, good luck. You'll exist in a shrinking bubble. The problems we are dealing with are structural, if you don't offer structural change you aren't offering real solutions. If you have ideas different than Sanders' ideas that deal with those structural issues, fine, present them. Clinton doesn't offer solutions to structural problems, she offers (at most) tinkering around the edges, and that's if she gets everything she wants and even plans on truly fighting for those things. I doubt both of those things, and I am far from alone.
I've said what I want to say.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)So unless Bernie pulls off the nomination, and there is a better chance he will than "rational" people on DU think at this point, this is a wasted election cycle.
Maybe they will make Bernie the VP in order to unite the Party. That would be quite an empty gesture, but would make it a little more possible for Democrats to win the election in November.
Obama and the Democratic Party leadership have a gordian knot to untie. Wonder what they will do. Probably smugly count on "rational" decisions by voters. We shall see.
I'm seeing Obama in a much darker light than I have since he first came on the political stage. He really should continue to stay out of the contest and remain neutral.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)"and there is a better chance he will than "rational" people on DU think"
I try to be sensible, but something in my heart is senseless.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)global, and she's still calling the shots. He's got no choice. He's spinning the same wheel she is. They are terrified California isn't going to fall for her.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Interesting.
Hillary has not yet won. She has a lot of problems. Bernie isn't perfect, but his problems are minor, negligible compared to Hillary's.
It's just getting interesting.
How important is it to Hillary supporters to unite the Party and win against Trump in November. No matter who wins the nomination, that is the real question.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Now you say she hasn't given any ground to him? Again, I will ask the basic question: what is Bernie and his supporters willing to give ground on in the sake of unity. The losing side didn't get to dictate terms eight years ago, so why should they now?
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)He was not cheated, he just got fewer votes.
the obvious corruption is her getting massive amounts of money from banks and other corporate interests and her and her husband pushing for policies that have benefited those groups since they entered politics. You might as well be arguing against the existence of gravity. To also claim that the DNC, the media, and the way in which the voting has taken place hasn't benefited her is dishonest, and you know it. It is what it is at this point though, you all chose her to lead the party and will have to live with what follows.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The difference between percentage of delegates and percentage of votes speaks for itself: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D
SpareribSP
(325 posts)instead of being smug and condescending?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)One main goal of the "Not Hillary" Party is the destruction of the Democratic Party.
GRhodes
(162 posts)percentage of the public that refuses to identify with either party, or the large percentage of people that want a third party option now? The two major parties have decided to nominate the two most unpopular candidates in polling history, and the person leading your party is corrupt as a politician can be. The Democrats have done a great job in destroying their own party.
Jackilope
(819 posts)That any one standing up against the corruption in the Democratic Party or who have grave issue with HRC as "not Democrats". It is deep denial over the fracture that is happening within the party.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I have come to realize that our party has been infiltrated with people that have entirely different concepts of ethics, morality and fairness than I do.
basselope
(2,565 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and with progressive Democrats, so no, I don't think he'll take a hit.
But he does have standards, and if those standards cause fear and loathing and payback for some, well then, sobeit.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)If you read my post, that is what it states. Often, especially in progressive type issues, one vote is the make it or break it. I'd make a guess that a lot of them respect him for standing up for his views and discovering new voters and to have the cojones...in the face of the Clinton Machine.
The only reason he COULD run was that he wasn't controlled by the DNC...when all the other "appropriate" primary candidates flowed down the River of the Coronation Denial.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That would likely be a first in politics, but would not surprise me. In fact, he could comfortably retire.
The only person with personal equity in this is HRC. The decades coveting the Presidency, losing once, screwing up State, the ending of the Clinton Machine...she has A Lot to lose.
basselope
(2,565 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)WHO IS NOTED MOSTLY FOR THIS SORT OF THING... FIBS AND OBFUSCATION AS WELL AS PITIABLE DECISIONS THAT COST THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AND OTHERS... WE SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THIS SORT OF PERSON IN GOVERNMENT... WSJ HAD IT SPOT ON THE OTHER DAY... HERE IS A FINE SET OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE COLUMN DESCRIBING HILLARY IN THE WSJ...
e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...
Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...
Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"
Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"
Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fuck Donald Trump.
fuck Donald Trump, and fuck the inequitable and corrupt system Clinton wants to maintain.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)because "Clinton allies disrespect too many". That after this poster spent three paragraphs disrespecting Hillary supporters. You just can't make such hypocrisy up......LOL
GRhodes
(162 posts)and I have been outright appalled at the behavior and mindset of Clinton supporters on this site. I don't see any difference between most of them and the right wing in their worldview and attitude towards the less fortunate, the victims of policies that Clinton has supported, and I am sick of their arrogance. I have yet to see a single response to a post or article that was critical of Clinton, a single one, that acted respectfully, thoughtfully, and maturely.
What I posted also wasn't my words, it was snippets from the article.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)chosen to be willfully ignorant. In fact, embedded in you very response, you smear Hillary supporters as being "Right wing in worldview". What a joke.
GRhodes
(162 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)
I have yet to see a single response to an article critical of Clinton (not her supporters) in which Clinton supporters responded with some thought, respect, and understanding as to where people are coming from. Poor people and working people have been falling further and further behind, the environment is getting progressively worse, there is a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure gap, and many of her supporters clearly see these things as abstractions, the attitude of many of her supporters has a strong upper-middle class tinge. Instead of understanding why people are being radicalized, and why they may have major problems with people like Clinton, her supporters respond with arrogance, personal attacks, lies and sliming. It's clear that the people that support her and act that way are relatively well off and don't give a damn at all about those less fortunate than them.
You can't claim that Sanders supporters have blatantly lied about her supporters liked Clinton supporters have either. Remember the "English only" lies? How about the outright lies about violence in Vegas? The lies about the sexist "Berniebros"? What do you expect people to do in response to that?
JudyM
(29,274 posts)Thanks for being here - welcome to DU, GRhodes!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and they have gotten really personal. Just tonight one actually dared tell me that I am not a reporter or I did not take photos I took.
This is the kind of erasing that is systemic.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Or just a plain old shaming. Usually with one line in the title.
No text...because there is little to refute. Nobody knows what she stands for. So why take a chance and put it in writing on a message board. That's a standing order for Roasted Crow.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Protalker
(418 posts)Hillary hit the ball out of the park. The general is on. I will vote for the nominee of our party. Votes matter and I hope for unity. If folks can't or won't, so be it.
bonemachine
(757 posts)An inside the park homer, at best.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Delegates is all she needs.
The first state called for her Tues puts her over.
You have 13 days to continue the sour grapes.
GRhodes
(162 posts)for pampered, out of touch people like yourself as well. It also isn't sour grapes, I just have a moral compass and a social consciousness, and that is unusual to lots of bourgeois Clinton supporters.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Are you sure you haven't adjusted your views to fit into that self appraisal?
Tal Vez
(660 posts)that because the GOP controls both houses of Congress, the difference between what a President Clinton and a President Sanders can actually accomplish is minimal. And, it could very well be that a President Clinton can accomplish more.
We've seen what the GOP is doing to completely stifle any and all Obama initiatives. Why do Bernie supporters feel that the GOP will treat him differently? So many of these GOP congressman come from little right wing districts that reward them for doing absolutely nothing to cooperate with a Democratic president. The more progressive the President, the easier it is for these guys to totally obstruct.
As we are constantly reminded, "You need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything." We're not likely to have anything like 60 votes to 2017.
I am going to support the Democratic nominee in November no matter who that might turn out to be and I know that no matter who it is, he or she is going to be up against it he or she wins.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Any "accomplishment" by Mrs Clinton will move the country to the right. No thanks.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)So, I'll opt for progress, thanks.
GRhodes
(162 posts)evidence of progress economically, environmentally, or in regards to infrastructure, since about 1980? Me neither, regression across the board. Obviously not for many people supporting Clinton, but for the general public, working class people, the poor, regression. Saying that she stands for incremental progress requires evidence that people like her have delivered incremental improvements (not evidence that she has done some okay things, that she can prove her policies result in an overall net improvement. I know the data, they haven't for most), and it also requires evidence that moderate solutions will do anything other than make things less bad. Given that our problems are almost entirely structural, that argument isn't convincing.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I think that much of the change that we need concerns distributional issues.
And, I know how the GOP feels about distributional issues.
GRhodes
(162 posts)I didn't say growth, growth in what exactly anyway (private debt, the infrastructure gap, carbon emissions, inequality, deindustrialization?), I said progress.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)but how could I begin to know what you mean by progress? Music, art?
I thought the obvious answer might have something to do with economics. In that area there has been growth, but huge distributional inequities exist. And, if people wonder why people who are not at the top have not progressed as much as those at the top, it is not because the people who are not at the top voted too often. Rather, a major cause of distributional inequities has resulted from a lot of people not voting enough. So, whatever someone might mean by progress, if it has anything to do with politics, that person should be voting more often, not less.
GRhodes
(162 posts)Maybe by reading my post above, since I said exactly what I meant. Economic progress (I detailed in numerous posts the long term economic regression for most), environmental progress, progress as far as improving infrastructure. All of that has gotten worse, the latter two without question, and economic regression for a large and growing share of the public. Young people are utterly screwed, their parents got a society that was in much better shape economically, environmentally, and politically, than the one they're handing over.
I've said what I want to say. Think what you want.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)but I certainly knew some poverty when I was young. And, the only reason that I'm not poor now is because I found pragmatism to be a very useful concept. I can remember pretty much every small step of the way. There was never a morning when I woke up to some huge change of circumstances. It was just a lot of work. But, I liked what I did.
There are needs in this country. Everyone needs health care sooner or later. And, there is nothing more important than educating our young. Some people manage to handle these challenges themselves. Many need help and there is a need for the government to be involved in providing just that kind of help. If you want progress without government involvement, then there is no reason to vote. But, if you want the government to help, then you need to use your influence to get the government to help. The key to that kind of progress is in fact pragmatism. You take what victories you can get. Anyone who thinks that they can change the world overnight with government resources is going to change nothing. It's all about pragmatism and incrementalism and struggle. And, it doesn't end. It will never end. There will always be someone on the other side of the political football wanting to push you back.
This country needs more people voting, not less. If every eligible voter voted, we would have a better health care system. We would educate more of our young.
TimPlo
(443 posts)You mean like people on HRC camp saying that universal health care and college are just lazy kids wanting free stuff? We spend more money last year on a supplemental payment for bombs to throw at ISIS than it would cost to send everyone to college for a year. Could that be because the Public owned colleges don't "donate" as much money to our elected crocks as people who makes those bombs.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)They will always be with us.
As for universal health care and educating our young, those are two of the most important functions of government, in my opinion. But, that's just my opinion. Other people disagree and a lot of them vote as often as I do. If you want to have any influence on the outcome, I would suggest that you keep on voting.
I have always been convinced that if everyone voted, the government would be performing the health care and educational functions that I want to see my government performing. But, too many people can't be bothered. It's just too hard for them, I guess.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)who are very poor, I mean desperate, told me one day. We were working on a poverty story. This is also reflected in the Princeton Study on oligarchy. First off, when you are working two or three jobs, you don't have time to vote, or find out who or what is running. Second, even if you vote. they don't listen to poor people.
Nope, there is no way I can argue with that one
By the way, here is the actual study
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I grew up in a country where we knew this, and we still voted in larger numbers and it still made no difference by the way.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)If that's true, I know something about this area. I grew up poor and pretty ignorant. I was uneducated and married at 19 (this was in the 1960's) and we had two children by the time we were 20. I worked and went to school. I voted every chance I got. Usually, my candidates lost. And, when I finished my education at the age of 27, I ran for the school board - unsuccessfully.
Always, I knew that whenever I wanted to see what poverty was really like, I could just cross the border and stop by neighborhoods where people got their water from a dirty tap at the end of the street. Every year we took toys and such down there for Christmas time. So, I never really felt all that poor, but for the U.S., we were in fact below the poverty level.
Poor people can vote. And politicians respond to votes. When politicians raise money, they raise money to get more votes. Everyone should vote!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and there are areas in the East County that are near that bad.
Read the Princeton study, Please do. I beg you.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)Tal Vez
(660 posts)I have no doubt that there exists a nexus between economic power and political power. That is probably true of every society that ever existed. And the two tend to feed each other - economic power provides certain advantages in gaining and exercising political power and, at the same time, political power can be used to yield economic advantages. I wonder if these facts are more or less unavoidable. They seem universal.
And there there is no question but that interest groups, including business groups, tend to exercise more than normal levels of political power, at least with respect to those issues in which they have a common interest. On the other hand, with respect to issues in which they are in conflict, then their power is of course more limited and diffused.
Personally, i believe that the "average citizen" power is often underestimated. When I look at the success that Trump experienced in the Republican primaries this year, I can't say that economic elites or interest groups carried the day. I think that Trump won in spite of the opposition of these groups. He was opposed by a ton of money. He was opposed by what the press styles as the Establishment. I think he won because a lot of very ordinary people got up off their butts and voted. And, they showed up at these crazy rallies. I think that Trump's campaign is an example of what can happen if a lot of ordinary citizens begin moving in the same direction. Of course, come November (hopefully), Trump may lose to some of these other forces, but they haven't beaten him yet.
If Trump can happen on the right, it can happen on the left. Sanders has run a hell of a campaign. I am convinced that ordinary people can run this country, but, people have to vote and then they have to come back and vote again, As your study points out, ordinary citizens are up against it in that there will be constant opposition possessing some powerful natural advantages. I ask, though - why can't voting become a habit? Why can't ordinary people appreciate and learn to exercise the power that they possess?
I don't know. But, I'll show up.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)who I pretend to vote for is my business, but I do not believe voting is what will bring any change, Without pressure, voting is a waste of time.
What they point out though and we see it in San Diego often, is that the well connected get all the hearings in City Hall, while the not well connected, are politely listened to, but steamrolled in the end.
There are some pols that are very good, but they are the exception,
Tal Vez
(660 posts)Thanks for sharing the article. I bookmarked it and I'll read it again. I'm too old and slow now to get it in one bite.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Because if you count increases in wealth since the recovery started you'd see a big jump in stock prices. What ought to be factored in though is where the stock market was before the dip.
Growth has been slow since the recession but we are inching our way forward. At this point in a recovery, we expect to see trade-offs between job growth and strong wage growth. Earnings growth in May was encouraging. So far this year, average hourly earnings for private employees have increased 3.2 percent at an annual rate. As we get closer to full employment we'll see more growth in wages.
I don't know what you want to eliminate inequality. Do you want to confiscate everything from the haves and hand it out to the have nots? That would be very problematic. Barring that solution we will have inequality. I don't see the problem with some people getting more. I see the problem with some people not getting more or even getting less.
Hillary is not the tool of the elites you guys love to say she is. She has a very liberal voting record. We can continue to make progress if the Republicans don't take over everything.
GRhodes
(162 posts)has next to nothing to do with how well working people are doing. It is a fact that companies have spent a lot of funds buying their own shares to bid their prices up. If you want to challenge me on that, I will provide the evidence tomorrow morning. This isn't arguable. Not a single underlying problem we had in 2007 has been truly addressed, forget solved. Not a single one.
"As we get closer to full employment we'll see more growth in wages."
What do you mean full employment? We aren't getting to full employment. You know damn well that the official numbers don't accurately reflect the real unemployment numbers.
"I don't know what you want to eliminate inequality. Do you want to confiscate everything from the haves and hand it out to the have nots? That would be very problematic. Barring that solution we will have inequality. I don't see the problem with some people getting more. I see the problem with some people not getting more or even getting less."
Who said to outright eliminate inequality? Did I say everyone should make the same exact wages? I said that inequality is the highest it has been in a long, long, long time, and the policies that Clinton have supported have increased inequality. If you want me to post the actual data, I will, but I'd rather not have to look for it and I'm sure you know that inequality has exploded in recent decades, and has massively increased under Obama. The freaking IMF just released a report that acknowledged that inequality harms economic development and growth, which it does. The rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume and a lower propensity to consume, the opposite is true of the poor and working people. If the object is to grow the economy, we know theoretically and from empirical data that the best strategy is to give the poor, since they inject that money right back into the economy.
As you also may know, the taxes on estates, carried interest, dividends, the top marginal tax rates and capital gains (all things which benefit the rich) have been massively cut since Carter was president. Obama made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent, something that Rove and Norquist went on TV and bragged about. How can anyone, even on the center-left, not recognize all of this as horribly immoral and extremely right wing? Throw in the trillions in tax shelters and the trillions that the banks have been given by the state that sit at the Fed collecting interest.
"Hillary is not the tool of the elites you guys love to say she is. She has a very liberal voting record."
Nonsense, she has a center-right economic record, and has gotten (along with Bill) over three billion dollars from corporate interests and the rich since they entered politics. Her top donors over her career are giant banks and other corporate interests, she's gotten more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined this election cycle in BOTH parties and has gotten filthy rich thanks to their bribes/speaking fees. She and her husband have strongly backed policies that have benefited those groups and she recently said that she would put him in charge of our damn economic recovery, which was tone deaf in the extreme. I also don't know what the word "liberal" means but if it means on the left, hell the fuck no. Being on the left, since the French Revolution, has meant very concrete things, and she isn't on the left on economic issues or institutional power, never has been, never will be. Liberal, to me, is a useless word. Lots of libertarians are "liberal", in fact more "liberal" than Clinton, on a number of issues, yet they aren't on the left.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)it was because I suspect it skewed the data to make it look like the wealthy have made more gains than they actually have. The stock market does effect how well people at the bottom are doing. When it crashed we lost 6 million jobs.
Obama agreed to continue some of the Bush tax cuts because the Republicans threatened to end the tax breaks for those lower on the ladder.
The IMF weighed in on inequality because its a global phenomena. It has many causes including globalization and technology making many jobs unnecessary.
I didn't say we are reaching full employment. I said we are getting closer to it and the wage growth I mentioned was just released from the Labor Department today.
GRhodes
(162 posts)along with everything else. It didn't cause the crash, other structural problems caused the crash and none of them have been resolved. Your comment on the tax cuts is not really inaccurate. Obama could have done nothing and the tax cuts would have expired entirely. He could have then made the case to cut taxes on the lower income brackets, good luck to the Republicans on that debate, even with their own damn base. The excuse for what he did was that he got an additional year of unemployment benefits. The IMF report I was referencing attacked a lot of its own sacred cows, but it did the same thing a few years ago in regards to austerity. Its staff economists showed how stupid austerity was, something that Malthus identified two centuries ago, the IMF turned around and continued to push for austerity thereafter. The IMF has, in the last few days, walked back that report and it likely won't change much. Reality never meant much to economists, but that report was great to read. The report did strongly critique Chile's neoliberal policies, which is huge, cause when the right comically pushes for the privatization of Social Security, they bring up Chile as a model to follow. It has been a disaster in Chile, something conservative Chileans even acknowledge now (such as the recent right wing president of Chile, Pinera), as have lots of other stuff they implemented under Pinochet. I don't see the point, personally, in talking about full employment, since we are miles away from that. In this economic context, without radical changes, we'll get to full employment by massively driving down wages and environmental regulations, the Milton Friedman path to full employment.
I'm done with all this though. Have a good night.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Hillary doesn't have any common ground with Paul Ryan, and she will not move the country to the right.
raging moderate
(4,308 posts)Bill Clinton was captured on tape agreeing with Paul Ryan that you only have to do the math to see that the Republicon push against the poor is necessary. Of course, the Clintons are NOT Republicons, and they are not really center-right in this country. I made enough phone calls and walked enough neighborhoods for the Democrats to know that. (Bernie Sanders did not start this fire, and he is not my Leader. He is just saying a lot of things I came to think while I was working for Democrats all those years). I realize that a Democratic candidate must walk a fine line to avoid triggering the jingoistic and Randian sentiments which have been carefully spread through the American public.
However, a case can be made that the Clintons have sometimes been slightly too open to the influence of far-right ideas which sound innocent but are really a cloak for some pretty nasty schemes to consolidate wealth, comfort, and power for a tiny minority at the top. There was that email to Hillary thanking her for changing President Obama's mind about sending military intervention to suit the convenience of a wealthy corporation. I realize that part of the State Department's business is to encourage US business interests abroad, but also these far-right elitists are expert at using flattery and access to luxury to sway government officials to do their bidding. Couldn't Hillary Clinton think about what we have been trying to say and maybe make a few changes just to acknowledge that we may have noticed some problems that she could correct? I have sometimes wondered whether the Clintons have been drinking out of the Republicons' water glasses by accident. This elitism is contagious, you know.
And, if you guys are going to go along with Might Makes Right, could you not also adopt the ideal of Noblesse Oblige? True nobility is shown by mercy, and there is a moral obligation of good sportsmanship for the winners of a contest.
GRhodes
(162 posts)So the argument is that the Republicans are going to work more with Hillary freaking Clinton? Is that the argument? Be honest, they'll work with her if she gives away the store to her and their donors, which is likely to happen. Besides, if she is "centrist" and is negotiating with the Republicans, and if all negotiations result in a middle position between two negotiating parties, where will that compromise be? Things are going to continue to get worse, and people will, as a result, continue to be radicalized.
"Why do Bernie supporters feel that the GOP will treat him differently?"
They won't, but he has an actual long term vision that people can organize towards and it calls for needed, and long overdue, structural changes. I don't see the logic in voting for a president with only the short term in mind, especially when our problems have no chance of being solved by superficial changes. This is to say nothing of her horrific polling. She's starting the election from a bad position and has lots of things hanging over her head that could make things much worse.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I hope that you will be able to join me.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)A saying meant to cover up the fact that you're voting for the status quo and all the inequality that it entails. You're saying that you're happy to vote for a label, no matter what's actually in the can. How is that in any way acceptable?
Tal Vez
(660 posts)but we all have our own opinions and I have never felt that I was voting for the status quo.
But, here's a question - if not the status quo, what are you voting for if you don't vote at all?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)As if to say "None of these candidates represent my interests" or "no one of these candidates is materially better or worse for me than the others."
I, of course, will be voting. If not for Bernie himself via nomination or write-in, then for someone neither Hillary nor Trump.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)Give em hell!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)IWR? Bush's
Syria chaos? Obama's fault
Classified information on an unsafe server? Powell did it too, but he's a man so he got away with it
Honduras? Not her fault
DOMA, DADT? Just doing what everyone wanted
Her contempt for the law and everyone who doesn't aggrandize her is very unique.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)Do deals made with foreign countries to donate to a foundation in your name and you then have the Government push through deals for that country count as foreign relations?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)any controversy either 1. originates from the GOP or 2. helps the GOP because it weakens a Dem
TimPlo
(443 posts)They have been doing such stupid wild things that when she actaully has a issue like the private email server, she can let it slide off. If GOP have not been so rapid over the years the email server would been a major issue from the start, instead it is just now poking it's head out like a turtle.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Most of the countries weren't donating while she was secretary. Those that were were mostly friendlies. The foundation smear is just right wing sleaze picked up by opportunistic progressives with little regard to their factual basis.
TimPlo
(443 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)A disturbing number of progressives have done that this year in hopes of changing the outcome of the primaries.
TimPlo
(443 posts)"in hopes of changing the outcome of the primaries."
MAY 28, 2015 6:00 AM <--Date of Article and at this time Clinton said she was not running, she wanted to give speeches I guess
Apr 12, 2015 <<--- Date Hillary said she was running.
-----
------
-----
------
No primary was even hinted at at that time. Try again with another made up deflection.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Get serious.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)First we have that Saudi Arabia did not donate while Hillary was secretary. They did before but no quid pro quo was possible because it wasn't known that she'd be secretary.
Arms deals are extremely complex and take up to seven years to complete. Most of the work is carried out under the Pentagon, not the State Department. You couldn't just sell one.
The Saudi Arms deal was a major initiative of the entire administration. It started under Bush but was expanded under Obama for two major reasons. First, it was expected to produce 50,000 or 75,000 jobs. This was at a time when the 2008 crash left the country with high unemployment and the arms jobs were among the few that could be produced. The administration also wanted to build a barrier to Iran. The Saudi deal was the largest arms sale ever. It was inconceivable that Hillary wouldn't approve it. Tying the approval to donations to a foundation the Clintons got no direct compensation from is far fetched. Its like a whole city being flooded by a hurricane and somebody saying the flood was caused by someone letting their faucet drip.
IBT found that countries that did not donate also saw an 80% increase in arms sales. That was because we needed the jobs. IBT shows a chart with donors getting bigger increases. But all those countries with the huge increases were all Saudi allies from the Gulf Cooperation Council. They were part of the same initiative to build the wall against Iran. What IBT tries to make look like a pattern is just a single initiative, that went all the way to the top, above Hillary.
The fact that Hillary criticized those countries shows she wasn't bought off, not that she approved the arms deal for any other reason than policy.
IBT tried to make the deal suspicious because the sales were made to Saudi despite their horrible human rights record. We've been making arms deals with Saudi for decades despite their record. They are our best customer.
IBT also tried to question the deal because they said Israel opposed it. That was misleading at best and a lie at worst. While Israel at first made tactical objections to the deal, the weapons systems they were most concerned about were eliminated from the deal. Israel was then promised weapons that were more sophisticated than the ones the Saudis got. Israel's objections were dropped before the deal was even announced and sent to Congress.
IBT also tried to cast suspicion by saying that a defense contractor made a large donation just before the deal was finalized. But the deal was already sent to Congress with Hillary's backing a year before that. Hillary couldn't have possibly approved because of the donation because she'd already backed the deal.
Mother Jones isn't a right wing publication but they are definitely in the tank for Bernie and are out to get the Clintons. The idea that the foundation is corrupt originates with the right wing. It makes no sense, because the Clintons got no income from the foundation. In fact, $15 million that they raised giving speeches was turned over to the foundation. Why would they commit crimes when there was nothing in it for them?
People who hate the Clintons just can't stand the truth, that the Clintons did something wonderful for the world based on their own benevolence. They are great people, not the monsters the Clinton haters pretend they are.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clintons did for them. They didn't get $150,000,000 from special interests for their personal fortune helping the common folks.
And here is what Black Lives Matters thinks of the Clintons:
The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.
Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.
They are all about amassing great wealth and power.
And many millions of Iraqi's don't have much love for the Clintons either.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they had such great speeches. LOL.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Because nobody actually made that argument. Nobody.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the argument was more that the President sets FP, completely ignoring that the State Department is a tremendously powerful institution in the hands of someone with decades-long presidential ambitions
thanks for the feigned concern with my mental health!
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That accusation is not withdrawn.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)BSS have complained that everyone is against BS and any loss was rigged
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Sad to see "progressives" making similar baseless arguments.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Your responses to the comments were dead on also.
Thanks.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)Bernie says if you want my support give me X and then the DNC says how about .6 X and it goes back and forth till there's an agreement.
Easy peasy simple as pie.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)GRhodes
(162 posts)Good.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)A lot of projection in the article though.
.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)if the loser accepts the loss. Its democracy folks, not hard!
GRhodes
(162 posts)and they're fully aware of this reality. They don't like either of the horrible candidates the two parties have chosen, and the long term macroeconomic data is clear too on who the losers are with these two corrupt parties in charge, which is why so many people now refuse to identify with either major party. People don't have to accept these shitty choices, you just might not like what follows. I seriously doubt though, if the most unpopular nominee in the party's history loses to a candidate that was wrestling in WWE matches a few years ago, that you'll have this theory on unity come November. Trump would be a train wreck, but the Democrats nominated the one of the only Democrats he could actually beat. The only winners are Clinton and Trumps donors.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)Clinton has millions more voters than Sanders but you want to proclaim her more unpopular and "horrible". Get a grip, she beat your guy and that makes him even less popular.
cause only Democrats that live in the bubble vote. Her doing much worse with independents isn't an issue, even if they're a much larger share of the public than Democrats are, and her doing worse with Republican voters isn't an issue either. She polls worse than he does, by a mile, versus Trump, is not liked or trusted. In fact, she's the most unpopular nominee in this party's history and would be the most disliked major party nominee in polling history if she were running against anyone but Trump. How does that not make her anything but horrible? No need for quotations, the word was made for candidates like Clinton.
If anything breaks badly for her, and lots of stuff can and is now swirling around her, she's toast. She's a horrible, weak candidate, and her likely winning her party's nomination says a lot about the modern Democratic Party. The general public supports the more progressive and less corrupt candidate running in this race more than the Democratic Party does. The Democrats have chosen the center-right, corrupt, war hawk. I don't notice any of you bragging about her advantage in "electability" anymore. Wonder why? Reality catch up and pop your bubble?
Good night liberty lover.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)Your center-right, corrupt, war hawk bs is just what you say to justify believing your candidate is better. But you know what? He's not, and millions of votes would tell you that IF YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE EYES TO SEE AND EARS TO LISTEN!!!!
.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Lemmings avoid extinction because of a few, not the many.
think
(11,641 posts)Banks that rig markets, cheat their customers, and deceive congress.
She already proclaims that a new version of Glass Steagall is not necessary to break up to big to fail banks. Banks that routinely violate the law while growing ever bigger even after being called too big to fail during the last crisis.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/goldman-sachs-admits-it-defrauded-investors.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-rigging-lawsuit-idUSKCN0WU1E8
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-04-14/goldman-sachs-misled-congress-after-duping-clients-over-cdos-levin-says
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
5 too big to fail banks can't pass Dodd Frank living will requirements currently which is suppose to be a requirement that if not met these banks should be broken up. But the banks are now given an extension and the regulators are suggesting the rules be watered down so the banks can pass the test.
by David Goldman @DavidGoldmanCNN
April 13, 2016: 9:19 AM ET
Five major U.S. banks are in violation of Dodd-Frank rules that are meant to prevent "too big to fail" institutions from causing another financial crisis.
Federal banking regulators rebuked JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo, Bank of New York Mellon (BKPRC) and State Street (STT) for their so-called living wills -- bankruptcy plans in the event of a failure.
The Dodd-Frank rules apply to banks with assets of $50 billion or more. Each bank has to outline its plans for a quick and orderly bankruptcy in the event that it encounters severe financial distress or if the company goes under.
But the Federal Reserve and the FDIC said the living wills of America's largest banks were "not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution" under the standard established in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The regulators warned that they will hit the banks with even more stringent requirements unless each of them get up to code by October 1.
Goldman Sachs (GS)' and Morgan Stanley's (MS) living wills were also found to be deficient, but regulators did not specifically outline plans for bringing them up to snuff. Citigroup's plan was approved, despite some shortcomings that the bank must address.
Read more:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/investing/dodd-frank-banks-living-wills/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-13/five-big-banks-living-wills-rejected-by-u-s-banking-agencies
Hillary is taking millions in INCOME from a health care industry that doesn't want universal healthcare. She was paid 6 figures for a speech to a health care association that is actively fighting single payer in Colorado. Meanwhile the US is the only one of the 25 wealthiest nations not providing universal healthcare for it's people.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511817230
And that's just getting warmed up in regards to Hillary's blatant potential conflicts of interest with mega corporations in America.
So please do open your eyes and see that Hillary has chosen to take tens of millions in INCOME for speeches from mega banks and corporations that have powerful influence already over our govt and lives.
It may be too late. She may be the Democratic nominee for president. But to act like she's not taking massive amounts of income from powerful corporate interests is just naive.
Don't expect the too big to fail banks to be properly regulated. Expect their interests to be represented over the interests of the American people.
Expect the Hillary will not fight for or inform the American people about the universal healthcare the rest of the modern world already has and enjoys. Hillary has already made it clear that if she's president single payer will NEVER happen.
So pardon me if I'm less than thrilled that someone that corrupted by the se large corporations may be our nominee...
xynthee
(477 posts)Zambero
(8,965 posts)Donald Trump's daily rantings will ultimately assure it. There could not be a better unifier.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)take too much for granted, expect too many miracles, and act out too much like privileged children."
Terry Simons says it better than I.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Switch Now! An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/21/switch-now-an-open-letter-to-bernie-sanders/
coyote
(1,561 posts)As long as the two-headed snake of the partisan divide controls us with fear, we go nowhere. We are now being presented with the choice between 2 plutocrats. Some deluded people believe that one of these plutocrats will bring down the plutocracy. Collective insanity.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Every facet of American lives needs more progressive voices.
The Establishment would love to sell us the meme that Sanders just wants to be president at all costs, and that he suddenly developed this ambition a years ago. Incorrect. The modern movement began years ago, and a Sanders candidacy simply became more and more viable. He couldn't have done this ten years ago.
Sanders is a leader, but he is also a symptom. Urgent crises face the nation and world, and Sanders wagered his independent status on the chance to enact major reform within the Democratic Party. He has so far met with amazing success in spreading the message, but whether the party can change is still up to us, as it has always been.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)Reich is a dyed-in-the-wool Bernie supporter. If Bernie's elected president, Reich would be most likely his Secy of Labor.
Feinstein and Krugman have suffered a sea change, but not Reich. You must be thinking of somebody else.