Why no discussion on the issues?

[Andy823]

Instead of all the negative posts about how "bad" the other candidates are, why not post positive things about your candidate, and on the issues.

These are some of the thing we should be discussing feel free do add more to the list:

Climate change

The economy

Fixing banks and Wall street

Tougher gun control laws

Civil rights

Women's rights

Police brutality

Taking the ACA to a higher level for health care

Jobs, Jobs, and more Jobs

Rebuilding the infrastructure

Real immigration reform

As I said these are just a few of the issues that need to be addressed, and we should be letting everyone know how our candidate stands on these issues, and how they plan of working to make things better.

Pick and issue and lets discuss it. What do you say?

[randys1]

1. I think most of these will find welcome in the democratic party, and all will be treated

like vampires in the republican party.

[Andy823]

5. I agree

I just want to know how each candidate will go about working to fix the problems.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Here's a thought.

What if we don't WANT to be welcomed into a party that sold us out years ago? Thankfully, there is this thing called No Party Affiliation where we're not beholden to hold our nose and vote for anyone with whom we are diametrically opposed just because we've sworn fealty to some outlived-its-purpose political party.

Ain't 'Murica great?

[PowerToThePeople]

2. We already know

We either already know or can find out. Or, in the case of at least one candidate, their stances on the issues blow in the breeze. There is nothing left on DU-GD but taking out the other side and late breaking news.

[Andy823]

10. Sorry

Taking out the other side is the way to go here on the DU primaries board? The only ones I can see benefiting from that would be the republicans, am I wrong?

[rhett o rick]

25. Not entirely wrong. But many non-progressive Democrats are willing to lose to Republicons than

support a progressive.

[Scuba]

32. Sadly true.

[bigwillq]

3. No (nt)

[DanTex]

4. A big part of the answer is that the leading candidates (Bernie, Hillary, and Martin) stand for

most of the same things. So people end up talking about stuff like email servers instead.

[Andy823]

9. I know they stand for much the same things

I just want to know how each one will address fixing these things. I have asked supporters of other candidates to link me to a site that explains their candidates plan, but usually they just ignore me, or say I will get back to you on that. As for the email servers, the Iraq vote etc. we hear about the day after day after day, along with other forms of bashing. I just thought maybe some here might like to give their candidates plans on the issues. The negativity is getting old.

[Armstead]

37. Here's a link

http://feelthebern.org/

This is not the official Bernie website. But it is an excellent overview with information (and links) to specifics on Bernie's record and proposals.

(The Sanders campaign should hire this person to beef up their own official site.)

[rhett o rick]

26. Wrong. While there may be a few things in common, Clinton and Sanders are miles apart. nm

[artislife]

30. Exactly

And that is why when we talk issues, we hear "Right wing talking point."
Lets debate the GMO of our foods, agratoxins, and pipelines

Lets talk about the gap between the have and have nots and why it is the way it is.


One candidate is the comparison of the 3 didn't fair that well.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. Loads of posts of issues get posted - but sink fast. It's the other stuff that gets all of the

responses. Combo of human nature...and the joy and anonymity of the intertubes.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Gosh, they are issues we need to address, I would think for the working Americans the Jobs would

Need to be first. In order for us to take of our families getting jobs with a decent salary would be good. Our infrastructure is in dire need of repair and expansion. This would provide jobs for years to come. We have young people returning from long wars who are able bodied to do this work, give the opportunity for them to show their skills.

[Fred Sanders]

8. CNN IS discussing the main issue, in their unassailable opinion, from Clinton's speech and presser....her and Trump's hair!

Is that not the issue 'Mercians demand we in the media cover, you liberal media whiners?!

[SonderWoman]

11. What, and not spend 24/7 trashing the Democratic party???

Do you even know where you are???

Good post btw.

[Armstead]

38. Maybe the Democratic Party IS one of the issues....

and this is, after all, the Primary Election forum.

[SonderWoman]

39. If that's the way you feel you are free to vote for another party.

No one is stopping you.

[delrem]

12. Those issues and more are discussed and debated here every day.

Those who take an indefensible side of those issues call the debating points themselves "negativity". Wanting to shut down discussion.

That doesn't mean that those issues aren't being discussed - it just means that some are reactionarily opposed to certain lines of questioning. But such questioning is what democratic (small 'd') politics is about.

Democratic (small 'd') politics isn't about reading several books providing intricate detail about how e.g. the Halliburton Company won no bid contracts to rebuild a destroyed country after a war which had yet to be declared, had deeply embedded connections with both Republican and Democratic politicians and with big investment banks, and so on, all of whom mutually profited from the illegal, immoral, unjust, war for profit that everyone of good will knew was wrong but which those politicians planned for and voted for anyway. All of us who give a shit *already know* all that. Debate between people engaged in discussing democratic (again, small 'd') politics will just mention e.g. Halliburton by name, just mention which politician voted in what way, saying what - and if that doesn't look good for certain politicians then that's just a sad fact. Someone engaged in that discussion might mention follow up political decisions, e.g. the destruction of Libya, the laughter afterwards, the securing of the Libyan oilfields and the abandonment of the Libyan people to mercenary armies owned by proxies, and again, if that makes for a negative picture of certain politicians that's just too bad.

It's the same thing for all the issues. Yah "jobs jobs jobs", but where? In a privatized for profit prison industry that feeds on human lives? On the war industry? In an investment banking house that decides it's more profitable to outsource... to war profiteer... to cheat....

There's no way to discuss politics while avoiding "negativity", while avoiding discussion of politicians and their actions and decisions, good or bad, all of which positively or negatively impact those issues, however one personally defines those issues.

[Andy823]

14. Well

When the vast majority of threads on any given day here on the DU Primaries board are simply posting negative things about the "other" candidate, I have think most here aren't really trying discuss the issues, but bash the other candidate, period. Yes some do start positive discussions but they drop like a rock because the negative threads are bumped up constantly, or new negative threads are posted.

As for jobs, we can create jobs by working the issue of climate change. I posted a thread on that here recently but it just keep dropping. I think that a lot of posters have stopped coming to this board because of the insanity of bash, bash, bashing all day long. I just thought maybe that could change, but then again maybe I am wrong and this board will simply be avoided by anyone who doesn't want to bash candidates all day long.

[delrem]

20. There's a lot of ad hominem,

directed at individual posters and at "supporters", and a lot of that is done by swarms.
Yes, that's just pure negativity.
You could substitute Rovian robots...

But issues based OPs that assert a negative impact on this candidate rather than that, and which point that out, aren't purely "negative" and aren't the same as the ad hominem crap. Can we agree on that?
Take for example the issue of regulation of firearms. There are OPs which single out Bernie Sanders on this issue in a "negative" way, positively contrasting Hillary Clinton and (usually in a blindly dismissive and en passant way) Martin O'Malley. Now, I happen to like Bernie Sanders and view his politics in a positive way - relatively speaking, of course. But I don't think OPs like that are negative, however heated some of the subthreads might get. Such OPs are, in my view, intrinsically issues based - and it's up to me, my judgement based on my political perspective, if and how I might engage in any part of them.

[AOR]

13. Your premise is wrong...

the question you should be asking is how can we (those seeking concrete change on the social conditions you speak of) be organizing, agitating, and forcing the politicians to act in our interests or there will be a price to be paid if they don't. Expecting a savior to fix things by waving a magic wand is whistling past the graveyard. The idea that changing social conditions involves more than electoral politics and voting is more alien than martians landing on the White House lawn for many. That is much of our problem. Lasting change comes from struggle and commitment in forcing the issues... not from "hope and change" platitudes and lip-service of "political saviors."

"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves."

--Eugene Debs

[Andy823]

16. And who is your fearless leader

Who will lead you in the revolt against those giving lip service? Yes things must change but how far to you go in your revolt?

[AOR]

21. You've said nothing...

on even a cursory examination of history... you would understand that any change comes from movements, organization, and agitation against the status quo of exploitation and oppression in many forms. The New Deal did not happen because FDR waved a magic wand. The New Deal happened because of militant labor and leftist movements of real people who put their ass on the line for change. Any gains in civil rights happened because real people put their ass on the line to force change. Any victories of labor over capital happened because people put their lives on the line for small victories. Some want change without struggle. Some want change without doing the work it entails. That is weakness, groveling, and living on hope. It is business as usual.

"The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

--Frederick Douglass

[delrem]

22. whoooooosh!

like a jet stream

[Le Taz Hot]

36. LOL!

Yeah, I caught that too. As usual, the OP translates into "Don't talk bad about Hillary." Once again, the fee fees are hurt. Some people should really just stay out of politics.

[ibegurpard]

15. There's lots of discussion on issues

And also who's credible on them.

[Andy823]

17. Got some links. nt

[LWolf]

18. Some are trying to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251551907#post17

[Garrett78]

19. No correlation between what people want and what gets enacted.

Surveys show that clear majorities support progressive/leftist positions on those issues, but consider what Lawrence Lessig told Bill Moyers:

Lawrence Lessig and Zephyr Teachout were interviewed by Bill Moyers. Lessig had the following to say:

"I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about.

And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

Both parties are beholden to Big Banks/Pharma/Ag/weapons manufacturers/et al. Not to you and not to me.

[djean111]

24. Sums things up really really well and neatly. Thank you. n/t

[Scuba]

33. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Control-Z]

23. I think one of the most important issues, if not the most, is climate change

and everything that will improve the health of our planet. Eventually none of the other issues will matter if we don't.

Your list is excellent and looks a lot like mine.

I think what is really important is to have a democratic president for a least another 2 terms. We're never in office long enough to do much more than clean up the republican's mess, though President Obama has accomplished so much under dire conditions. It is the third term, though, after most of the clean up has been done, that we can build on what's been done and make some serious progress. We need to take back the Senate and have a capable president able to control work with the snots in the House. (I think gerrymandering will make getting the House back almost impossible for a while.)

Progress happens slowly. Usually the only change that happens over night is bad or criminal. It's so easy to tear something down. It's the building that takes time. I don't want to go through another 16 year cycle of destruction and clean up.

[Andy823]

28. Thank you

I like what you have said, and I agree we do need a democrat in the WH for at least another two terms to keep on the path president Obama has put us on. Like you I don't think we have a chance at taking back the house next year, it's just to gerrymandered in favor of republicans, so it won't be easy getting things passed there, no matter who wins.

Climate change will take time, but we do have to start now, not wait. Republicans in charge of the WH and the House, would be a disaster. It's something we can not allow, and that's why all the trashing and Bashing is doing no good, unless of course those doing the bashing day in and day out don't really want to see democrats keeping the WH.

I know a lot of posters have stopped coming here because of how bad things are, and how negative most of the threads are. It's a shame that on a site the promote democrats, their ideas, and getting the elected, we have so many here who don't seem to understand that.

[AOR]

31. Barack Obama was the perfect candidate...

for the "New Democrats" who have destroyed what little was left of anything resembling New Deal politics. The rightward drift and continued destruction of the working class and the poor, the continued empire building, and the Neoliberal policy of the Obama administration is reality. The facts on the ground don't lie.

From Larry Summers to Tim Geithner to Arne Duncan, to Jaime Dimon , to Goldman Sachs, to Rahm Emanuel, to Wall Street bailouts, there isn't anything that makes Barack Obama even remotely viable to any progressive let alone any leftist platform.

Let us indeed "discuss the issues" if that's what you're interested in.

Obama's White House team was completely opposed to bringing back Glass Steagall.

More than a trillion dollars given to friends and campaign contributors on Wall Street in bailouts.

Military spending increased under Barack Obama's administration.

Any discussion of re-regulation of big banks and parasite credit-card companies thwarted and put on the back burner by the Obama administration.

Expansion of government surveillance under the watch of the Obama administration.

The linking of Social Security to the deficit with a "payroll tax holiday."

Complete and outright shilling by the Obama administration for the new free trade agreements that answer to capital over labor.

Obama administration backing indefinite imprisonment of detainees without charges.

Obama administration shields BP in the Gulf disaster.

Expansion of military involvement in Africa and around the globe under the Obama administration.

Obama administration education plans that boosted privatization, victimized and scapegoated teachers and teachers unions.

Vicious attacks by the Obama administration on whistleblowers and those exposing the lies of US Imperialism and empire building.

The brutal and crushing crackdown and suppression of the Occupy movement by Homeland Security under Obama.

The appointment and full support of Monsanto shills under the Obama administration.

The utter and complete disdain for the people by destroying and taking off the table the possibility of a public option and real single-payer health care solutions.

Should we go on discussing the issues andy because that's just the tip of the iceberg of the most wonderful direction of the Democratic Party under the Obama administration and Neoliberalism that some here seem so fond of.


"I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it's the drive and ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill and dedication of our workers, that has made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it's the private sector that must be the main engine of our recovery."

--Barack Obama

[Scuba]

34. Not the change I hoped for.

[Broward]

41. Great post. Thanks for putting it all in one place.

[rhett o rick]

27. There are a lot of threads discussing issues in GD and GD: P. In fact I labeled a number

of them with "Let's Talk About the Issues." Go look at them and see if you find any Clinton supporters commenting. Why won't they comment? Clinton is on the wrong side of the issues. Fracking, XL Pipeline, Arctic Drilling, bank regulations, the TPP, and on and on. There are tons of threads explaining and discussing Sen Sanders stands but what about Clinton.

[procon]

29. Yes! I'm tired of reading regurgitated Republican talking points in DU.

Those who can't resist posting them don't really think they're actually winning any converts, do they? Maybe they'd have better luck winning hearts and minds, if less attention, by sticking to the issues.

[brooklynite]

40. I've regularly pointed out Clinton's campaign positions...

...they're usually met with platitudes about Wall Street.