The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out

[Neven]

Again, lots of criticism against the left, and not a bad word about FPÖ.

I don't need to discuss the FPÖ, as it is crystal clear what the FPÖ is. The FPÖ consists of slimy neonazi sociopaths who only know how to destroy things and appeal to people's lower instincts. Which is why it is so extremely important that the left shows 100% integrity and really fights for the people, instead of trying to get on the gravy train and bask in the limelight of political correctness. If the left forgets what 'left' actually means and pushes neoliberal economic agendas,  while showing its hypocrisy on a continuous basis, either the GOP/FPÖ gets stronger and stronger and/or you get things like Trump.

And that's the subject of this topic, not if I'm a Kremlin puppet or a FPÖ supporter.

[Neven]

The Rush Limbaugh of the left discusses the dubious DCCC advice re single-payer healthcare and gun control:

[Martin Gisser]

What i know about these Syrians, is that it's the same people that started that war in Syria. That are now moving into Europe. That war started in Aleppo. And Aleppo is (was ) mainly a consentration of immigrants. Immigrants that moved in from other places in the middle-east in the last dozens of years. And 7 years ago it exploded in that immigrant stronghold of Aleppo . And  now they move further, into Europe. A nice world without borders.

While off-topic, this is way too important to ignore.
Your head is not yet in the 21st century. Forget about immigrant blaming.

Syria was the first nation to collapse from the Two Deadly Stupidities of the Late Homo S Sapiens:
1) Overpopulation
2) Environmental destruction (water, soil, now also AGW)

The fuse was lit in Daraa, by Assad's men. The bomb was a million migrants within Syria: Poor starving farmers with too many children fleeing their lands, overcrowding cities and villages in short time, Assad unwilling or not capable to help. That was the cause of the Syrian war, not the evil powers that fight it out now. ((Ceterum censeo: And it was predictable - one reason why I insist in truth and facts (and math) as a fundamental pillar of moral reasoning. (Corollary: The mullahs and the popes are fundamental evil.)))

Here's a comic strip about the story: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/syria-climate-years-living-dangerously-symbolia/

BTW, similar thing in Yemen. Totally unsurprising.

When the land is overcrowded and ruined, the options are 1) migration 2) sui-genocide 3) genocide of neighbors.

That has been the modus operandi of the Late Homo S Sapiens since the dawn of civilization. Now (21st century) it is perhaps due time to change that.

[gerontocrat]

What i know about these Syrians, is that it's the same people that started that war in Syria. That are now moving into Europe. ...... And  now they move further, into Europe. A nice world without borders.

Bond (Homeless Syrian) : Do you expect me to stay?
Goldfinger: [looks back, laughing] No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!

[Martin Gisser]

What i know about these Syrians, is that it's the same people that started that war in Syria. That are now moving into Europe. ...... And  now they move further, into Europe. A nice world without borders.

Bond (Homeless Syrian) : Do you expect me to stay?
Goldfinger: [looks back, laughing] No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!

+10

BTW, homo has always been a migratory animal

[Alexander555]

What is your point anyway Martin ? That it's our fate to get ruined ? That we should just accept it that these arabs and africans walk in to Europe by the millions because they ruined their own place. Because their countries are overcrowded and striped of their water supply.

[gerontocrat]

What is your point anyway Martin ? That it's our fate to get ruined ? That we should just accept it that these arabs and africans walk in to Europe by the millions because they ruined their own place. Because their countries are overcrowded and striped of their water supply.

Logic says that you are saying:  I expect you to die!

If not, what are you saying ? - get to the logical end of your argument.

[Alexander555]

If you look at that Pakastani population.  It went from 40 million people in 1960 to 200 million people today. And now you want me to say that i want them to die. They killed themself old man.

[Alexander555]

Just like they are going to ruin the rest of this planet.

[Martin Gisser]

If you look at that Pakastani population.  It went from 40 million people in 1960 to 200 million people today. And now you want me to say that i want them to die. They killed themself old man.

Yes, right. At one point perhaps we need to leave uncountable millions behind to die. (*)

(And we have to share some guilt to let this happen. Remember Population Bomb Denial? How much ridicule did we Europens dare heap on the Popes? Whatabout American evangelical "foreign aid(s)" in Africa...)

But there is a middle way. We ought to try to save (and educate) as many as possible. And not exploit them for last centuries polit psychopathologies.

-------------
(*) My idea is to stuff them like chicken into fenced megacities. The Chinese seem to work at some nice green plans for that.

[Neven]

Gentlemen, please take this to some other thread.

[SteveMDFP]

The Rush Limbaugh of the left discusses the dubious DCCC advice re single-payer healthcare and gun control:

It's a dumb video with oceans of underlying, unexamined assumptions, and no attempt to actually examine the range of issues in the nexus among politics, health care, and the electorate.  An analogy to climate would be a forum member posting video clips of Monkton here, over and over.

Polling by asking open-ended questions is the right way to gain information.  It only seems wrong to those who are ideologically wedded to one specific solution.

Would single-payer be a better way to organize a given nation's health care than the status quo?  Obviously.  There are a range of different approaches that would also  be good.  A national health service, an all-payer system, other systems, each with innumerable different details.

The political question is how close we can get to a good solution in the form of a law that can pass both houses (over a filibuster) and be signed into law.  A single-payer law hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of passing that gauntlet.

People on Medicare don't want it possibly screwed up by having everyone in the nation thrust into their system.  People who are happy with employer-sponsored insurance don't want that changed.  Medicaid beneficiaries don't want their rules changed to make some services unaffordable.

The polling is correct that the pressing problem is cost, not the specific payment structure.  Single-payer isn't a magic wand for costs.  ANY solution has to be combined with hard-nosed changes to patent law as it pertains to health care services, in order to address costs, regardless of who pays under what scheme.

Drug makers and medical device manufacturers have to be faced with pricing regulations like every other advanced country.  Without that component, single-payer is guaranteed to utterly bankrupt the economy.  With that component, all solutions to payment structure become workable and then better-serve the people.

The insurers are a problem in the status quo, but they're not the biggest problem.  The biggest problem is intellectual property rights in health care--they have to be curtailed.  Jimmy Dore is barking up the wrong tree, and he does so in an intellectually dishonest way.

[Rob Dekker]

Again, lots of criticism against the left, and not a bad word about FPÖ.

I don't need to discuss the FPÖ, as it is crystal clear what the FPÖ is. The FPÖ consists of slimy neonazi sociopaths who only know how to destroy things and appeal to people's lower instincts. Which is why it is so extremely important that the left ....

That's it ? And you move on to what the 'left' should do ?
Seriously Neven, we have one of these neonazi sociopaths as president now, and it is devastating to our country. The entire nation here is in full #resist mode, and the only thing we are thinking about is how to minimize the damage that this idiot can do.

In light of this, should you not be a bit more concerned about what FPÖ (trained and funded by Russia) can or will do to your country ?

They are already in your government, for Pete's sake..

[Neven]

It's difficult to resist if the left here plays dirty campaign tricks and people who should be leftest of all, show they're only in it for the gravy train. If the left forgets what being 'left' actually means, the right has it really easy, just shifting the Overton window further to the right. It's not enough to just cheer for the Blue Team and scream: We're not the Red Team! You actually need to have a vision and ideas, and a grasp of how things got to where they were. Because if you don't, you're just going to chase your own tail, or any tail that they want you to chase.

[Rob Dekker]

It's difficult to resist if the left here plays dirty campaign tricks...

Enough already.
You made your right-wing opinion blatantly clear.

[Neven]

Enough already.
You made your right-wing opinion blatantly clear.

If that's the story you need to tell yourself to keep your eyes closed, that's your problem. But in my opinion you are more part of the problem than you are of the solution.

[TerryM]

We may be faced with an election in which the Democrats could nominate a dead man, and still win the seat. (It has been done)!
If so, as environmentalists, most of us want to see the most progressive candidates elected. A Democrat dependent on funding from Big Oil isn't much better than a RINO.


If I'm wrong and there is no Blue Wave washing through the polls, we need to nominate the most electable Democrats. These happen to be the candidates who are free to speak on any topic without worrying what their corporate sponsor's position is.


In either case the most progressive candidate with the fewest ties to Big Business is our best bet to not just sweep the House, but also take back a large number of states. The coincidental benefit of having legislators beholden to only their constituents can't hurt the cause.


Terry

[Neven]

Cenk Uygur on DiFi:

[DrTskoul]

Rob, Neven. You can both be right you know. Focusing only on what the right does does not lend to self improvement and correction. Of obrs weaknesses and biases. At the same time all that left tribalism and inability to compromise amongst themselves has led to the rise of extreme right and neo Nazis all over Europe. Greece being my personal example. Left activists not compromising and not working  together with the rest of  a the left center , unable to govern because they never really cared to - focusing just on the negative aspect of activism - being loud and energized and against compromise that lead to governing and not to paralysis.

[Neven]

And from the FoundSF online archive:

Because visible, widespread homelessness had not been seen in America since the Great Depression, public officials treated the problem as temporary. San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein consistently described homelessness as a passing phenomenon and relied entirely on short-term, expensive solutions. Rather than provide funds for non-profit housing corporations to acquire permanently affordable housing for homeless persons, Feinstein spent millions housing homeless persons for one-night stands in single room occupancy hotels. Feinstein's "hotline hotel" program diverted millions of dollars away from permanent solutions to homelessness. These millions actually increased homelessness by transforming SROs from offering permanent housing to transient occupancy of the hotline.

(...)

Through the 1980s, the negative impact of the tenant movement's narrow focus on rent control was masked by incremental successes in this arena. During the decade, tenants achieved a reduction in the annual rent increase from 7% to 4%, greater restrictions on evictions, and some curtailment of the land-lord's ability to obtain rent increases above the automatic annual limit. Tenants also won Board of Supervisors passage of the chief item on their agenda vacancy control, only to have Mayor Feinstein, herself a landlord, twice veto it.

(...)

The rumors weren't about the Democratic National Convention - everybody knew it was coming to town, that was a matter of public record. What the rumors were about was personal--our industry, taxis and how we would be affected by the coming of the Democrats; and the political aspirations of our Mayor, Dianne Feinstein.

Her current aspirations were Big Time: she wanted, in the worst way, to be the first woman nominated to "high office" by a major party. She wanted every single thing that happened to every single Democrat that came to San Francisco to be Absolutely Wonderful. If everything that happened to them while they were in the city was Absolutely Wonderful, maybe they would think she was absolutely Wonderful, and able to handle the job of Vice President of the United States. (3) Which made her worry about Absolutely Everything, including the possibility that one Democrat might have to wait one minute too long for a cab--and to think that she, Dianne, was personally responsible. And she worried that she might loose the nomination by that one vote. The answer to her was clear:

Make sure none of those Democrats had to wait one minute for a cab.

For the sake of her political aspirations, she was willing to ruin an entire industry, for years into the future, because make no mistake about it (we certainly didn't), once those cabs got out on the streets, they would NEVER come off. We would be stuck with them -- forever. And stuck was a real condition to us: we already had more cabs than the city needed probably 60% of the time, what we needed was a way to regulate the number of cabs in relation to the city's need, but that wasn't one of the rumors we were hearing.

On March 22, 1984, the rumors became reality when Mayor Feinstein formally asked the Police Commission for 289 more cabs. (4,5) The bottom line on that "289 more cabs" meant a twenty to twenty-five per cent decrease in income to each cab driver--and that's a pretty good reason to go ballistic.

(...)

One attempt to overcome this marginality was a "Stop the Sweeps" demonstration on the steps of S.F.'s City Hall on June 19th. The focus of the small rally was against the intimidation campaign being carried out by the San Francisco Police to "clean up" the town to Feinstein's specifications. Reports were circulating of homeless street people and prostitutes being driven to the edge of town by police and being told to get out by Convention time. Punks and street people in the Haight-Ashbury were being harassed and sometimes arrested on trumped up charges. Accordingly, this led to an enormous amount of tension in and around the WCT. Moving forward in this situation required an unambiguous anti-electoralism and some courage, perhaps foolhardy courage at times, but courage nonetheless.

From its beginning on Monday, July 16, the WCT was ambushed, outmaneuvered and brutalized by the S.F. Police.

(...)

But in 1980, San Francisco, like the nation, suffered a right wing takeover. The liberal mayor George Moscone was shot; his replacement, Dianne Feinstein, was a police groupie who liked to dress up as a hooker and hang around Tenderloin district street corners to keep an eye on how her pets on the vice squad were doing. Feinstein sicced her vice-squad goons on the O'Farrell theater on July 9th, 1980. Fifteen cops under Lt. Diarmuid Philpott arrested 14 customers, 6 performers, and 7 employees. They seized a .45 caliber submachine gun, two rifles, a sawed-off shotgun, two pistols, a leather sap, lead-filled sap gloves, brass knuckles, a police baton, $3,000 in cash, a bag of marijuana, and an unidentified white powdery substance which subsequently disappeared from the police evidence room (presumably into the officers' nostrils.) Among the customers arrested were two men in their 70's.

But the crowning achievement of the Feinstein administration's doomed anti-vice crusade occurred on February 2nd, 1985, when Marilyn Chambers, the Ivory soap girl turned porn star, was arrested. The police charged that Chambers' act included digital penetration of the orifices and fondling of the breasts and nipples. When, as usual, the vice cops were unable to secure a conviction, Mayor Feinstein gave up on busting the Mitchell Brothers and went back to strutting her stuff on Tenderloin street corners.

(...)

A grassroots campaign to force large downtown employers to help pay for costs of modernizing and expanding public transportation in SF was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1981, but vetoed by Feinstein. Other attempts to tap corporate coffers have floundered in the courts.

(...)

His political enemies, especially on the right -- John Barbagelata on the Board of Supervisors and his ruling henchmen Quentin Kopp and their able henchwoman Dianne Feinstein (this is a period Dianne doesn't like to talk about, when she was very close to Kopp and Barbagelata)

(...)

In 1984, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein concludes ridiculous deals with the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts, selling them Hetch Hetchy power through the year 2015 at close to cost. She is convinced to do this by Congressman Tony Coelho (who resigned under a cloud during the S&L crisis of the late 1980s), who has threatened to re-open the Raker Act scandal in a congressional committee, which could possibly lead to the Federal government seizing the dam and its power and revenue. Feinstein eventually concludes a deal (on extremely favorable terms for PG&E) to continue paying the private utility millions of dollars a year in "wheeling fees" to deliver power to SF residents, and wherein the utility continues to sell power to SF residents at inflated rates to provide guaranteed profits to its shareholders.

(...)

It also reveals something about the state of the political class in America only one member of Congress, Barbara Lee, has stood with this very large reservoir of resistance (protesting the Iraq War; N.). Correlatively, and as a watershed in American politics, none of the posters and placards bothered to address the political apparatus national, state, or local except in scatological or abusive terms: “Lick Bush”, “Senator Feinstein War Profiteer”, “Dump Davis”. And most to the point, a sign invoking an earlier critic of terror : “It is not with much credulity I listen to any, when they speak evil of those whom they are going to plunder--Edmund Burke”.

(...)

To win local support for her proposal to homeport the Missouri in San Francisco at the old Hunter’s Point Shipyard, Feinstein is holding out the carrots of a $60-million military payroll, up to $30 million in ship repair contracts, 500 private security jobs, and lots of money spent by free-wheeling sailors. However, as facts slowly ooze to the surface these statistics begin to lose their luster.

For example, a Navy study states that sailors spend only about 40% of their disposable income in their homeport region. Besides the expensive give-aways Feinstein is offering to lure the Navy, the day-to-day cost in city services to the base and its dependents must be taken into account.

(...)

Dianne Feinstein was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1969, becoming president in 1970-71, 1974-75, and 1978. Her campaign against the sex district started with an ordinance to remove signs, followed by an attempt to prohibit sex businesses from operating within 1,000 feet of another. Downtown business elite concerned with business and real estate values strongly supported Feinstein, who herself had personal ties to downtown development.

(...)

I'm sure that we have all had some sardonic comments to make about Mayor Feinstein's belated proposal for an annual limit of 950,000 square feet, a limit with so many exceptions that it's hard to conceive of it as a limit at all. And her entry into the annual-limit arena comes at a time when there is so much approved or soon-to-be-approved construction in the pipeline as to make even our own figure of 500,000, without exceptions, seem over-generous. Still, we should not miss the significance of the Mayor's action. It is probably the highest compliment we have yet received at her hands. It means that the fight over whether there shall be an annual limit in the downtown plan has been settled in the affirmative. The only issues now are what the limit shall be and which projects if any shall be exempt from it.

(...)

By the 1970s, the election of George Moscone represented the ascension of a new political progressive majority (even if Moscone was himself another Italian-descended Catholic liberal from San Francisco), but it would quickly be snuffed out by the Dan White assassinations of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in November 1978 (within days of the horrific mass murder/suicides in Jonestown, Guyana, most victims being former San Francisco activists). Pacific Heights politician Dianne Feinstein took power and consolidated the preponderant influence of corporate downtown over City politics, a power that has not yet lost its grip after more than a quarter century.

Funny thing, that, history.

[EgalSust]

This commentary by G. William Domhoff from University of California, Santa Cruz kind of touches this topic:

Can Corporate Power Be Controlled?
Steps Toward a Constructive Liberal-Left Alliance
G. William Domhoff
University of California, Santa Cruz

Abstract:

This document suggests possible steps that might make it possible for liberals and leftists to work together on economic programs and thereby have more success. However, the most immediate goal would be to reach out to more centrists and moderate conservatives in order to halt the ongoing move to the right. There are three basic issues — electoral strategy, the role of social movements, and the need for a new model for a future economy. The discussion starts with an argument as to why leftists should proudly adopt the identity of “Democrat” and organize themselves into clubs within the Democratic Party, which could present new programs and run candidates in primaries when and where it seems appropriate. An analysis of social movements then explains why they can be more valuable than many liberals have acknowledged, but only when they embrace strategic nonviolence as their only method of social disruption. Finally, a new framework for thinking about an egalitarian economy is presented, one that would allow liberals and leftists to work together even while disagreeing for the time being about just how egalitarian and cooperative that economy could become. The difficulty of creating such an alliance after decades of failure cannot be minimized or underestimated. These suggestions draw upon, update, and somewhat modify the views presented in two previous commentaries on social change that were written in the context of events and circumstances at earlier major junctures in the twenty-first century (Domhoff, 2003, 2009).

Article freely available at:
https://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/liberal_left_alliance.html

[Susan Anderson]

Homelessness has been a problem throughout the US (and elsewhere) ever since I remember. Pinning it on Dianne Feinstein (or anyone else you want to condemn) shows prejudice, not thoughtful solutions. San Francisco and Boston are huge problems because the price of housing has risen beyond what a normal person can afford. Not good. It is painful to see all these wholesale singleminded accusations flying around.

[TerryM]

Homelessness has been a problem throughout the US (and elsewhere) ever since I remember. Pinning it on Dianne Feinstein (or anyone else you want to condemn) shows prejudice, not thoughtful solutions. San Francisco and Boston are huge problems because the price of housing has risen beyond what a normal person can afford. Not good. It is painful to see all these wholesale singleminded accusations flying around.

Susan
I don't recall anyone "pinning" homelessness on DiFi. Was something edited out before I read the thread?


As an aside.
Hope your stoop stayed dry during the latest hundred year storm. I never would have expected Boston to be so vulnerable.


Terry

[Susan Anderson]

@TerryM:

I might have skimmed too fast. The accusatory drift is adding to the problems, in my opinion. But that's just me. I don't mean to excuse our past sins, which I have fulminated about all my life. Democrats of the last four decades have not had much power, even when they had a president. Kochtopus has been busy.
--
Not at all unexpected, I've been worried since the 1990s and have an archive of king tide photos over the last few years, not good (see Tamino). We are one of the older buildings, and apparently they were smart in 1910 or so. It turns out in Boston proper the problem was storm drains, which rose more than the ocean. Lots of troubles all around, entire eastern seaboard, but I would be a phony if I said I suffered. Still, we get the picture in Boston (and most of Massachusetts), being an oasis of sanity in a largely unmoored country.

[Alexander555]

Maybe the housing problem in California will get better in the future, a little.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/pension-crisis/calpers-on-the-brink-of-insolvency/

[Tor Bejnar]

(Again) I don't read this thread, but thought you might value this Electoral-vote summary.

Democrats Are Declaring War--on Other Democrats

The Bernie-Hillary divide in the Democratic Party is alive and well and raring to go once again. Progressive Democrats are challenging moderate Democrats in many primaries across the country. The first battle will be tomorrow in the Texas primaries, making Texas a bellwether for the 2018 elections, a role it is not used to. Democratic turnout in early voting is way up compared to previous years, but we won't know until tomorrow night at the earliest whether progressive or moderate candidates for Congress and the state legislature are sweeping the field.

One clear difference with previous years is the large number of women running for Congress. It is over 50 statewide. There are also 35 LGBTQ people running for public office. And this is in Texas. Imagine what it is going to be in California.

On Wednesday, statisticians, political scientists, and pundits of all stripes will be picking apart the results. In particular, Democratic turnout in the districts of Republican representatives Pete Sessions (TX-32; PVI R+5), John Culberson (TX-07; PVI R+7), and Will Hurd (TX-23; PVI R+1) will be closely watched and compared to previous years. The demographics will also be examined with a microscope. In particular, are suburban Democrats voting in unusual numbers, and are they voting for moderates or progressives?

One factor that could muddy the results is the large number of Democrats running in many races, meaning the winner is likely to finish far below 50%, and there will be runoff elections on May 22. Depending on the first round of voting, in some districts there may be two moderates, two progressives, or one of each in the runoff. If the runoff candidates got, say, 18% and 16% of the initial vote, respectively, all the voters who supported other candidates may go off and sulk rather than stay energized. This is a recurrent problem with Democrats. Republicans nearly always unite behind the party candidate, even if it wasn't their first choice. (V)

[TerryM]

@TerryM:

I might have skimmed too fast. The accusatory drift is adding to the problems, in my opinion. But that's just me. I don't mean to excuse our past sins, which I have fulminated about all my life. Democrats of the last four decades have not had much power, even when they had a president. Kochtopus has been busy.
--
Not at all unexpected, I've been worried since the 1990s and have an archive of king tide photos over the last few years, not good (see Tamino). We are one of the older buildings, and apparently they were smart in 1910 or so. It turns out in Boston proper the problem was storm drains, which rose more than the ocean. Lots of troubles all around, entire eastern seaboard, but I would be a phony if I said I suffered. Still, we get the picture in Boston (and most of Massachusetts), being an oasis of sanity in a largely unmoored country.

I generally agree with the bolded.


In most of California the toughest race the winners will face is the primary. Feinstein and Pelosi are to the right of their base, and have been known to spend obscene amounts to swing the vote.
 Why not run strong campaigns against them since their seats are safe democratic seats anyway?
 I don't think anyone fears that San Francisco or the Valley will fall to the Republicans, so why not have someone who is a rabid, radical progressive in those positions. Someone that we know will never take a dime from the Kochs, Big Oil, or any of the Health Care lobbyists?


The DNC is accused of screwing Bernie. Why take a chance on it happening in 2020? Let's work to retire Pelosi now.


I'm of the opinion that a plurality of prospective voters would be excited by candidates that offer free medical care, higher wages, and fewer wars. Those taking money from Healthcare, manufacturers and the MIC can't credibly offer these options. Republicans won't go there, so Democrats who rely on small donations can sweep through the polls. The only resistance will be found in those who hate Blacks, Mexicans, and recent immigrants.


Even these xenophobes - or their wives - might vote for a Democrat who offered free medical for life. 


Terry

[pileus]

sidd wants us to believe that the Forgotten Men voted against Democrats who abandoned them, the Democratic Party he believes doesn’t represent the people, and for Donald Trump because he offered them hope and a path to recovery.  Once again I will remind sidd that he’s flat out wrong. But he has the Corporate Democrat Madness Syndrome, and can’t see beyond his bias.  It’s all about white and rural cultural grievance, white supremacy, and bigotry.  Donald Trump appealed to their deep seated prejudice and loss of place to the brown, black, and “other.”  It’s that simple.

The first snip is from the article, it’s culture and grievance.  They don’t care about anything else.

The second is obvious snark, but very appropriate.

GOP Panic Spreads to Pennsylvania
Republicans have spent over $9 million in a blue-collar district Trump carried by 20 points. If the GOP can’t win there, they’re in deep trouble.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/664776?unlock=8AE9X4M288STTFFK

[Rob Dekker]

Enough already.
You made your right-wing opinion blatantly clear.

If that's the story you need to tell yourself to keep your eyes closed, that's your problem. But in my opinion you are more part of the problem than you are of the solution.

I have my eyes wide open, and we have a real difference of opinion here, Neven.

I think with this thread you are actively promoting the destruction of the Democratic party, which plays right in the hands of the Republican party.

Think about it. What is the most effective way to destroy a political party ?

1) Deprive them of money, and
2) Split them up

You are actively promoting BOTH methods in this thread, so you are actively contributing to the goal of the right-wingers to destroy the US Democratic party.

And yes, if that is your 'solution', then I will be 'part of the problem' :

I believe that Bernie said it right : To obtain change, "we need to bring people together", not split them up and kick them out.

[sidd]

"sidd wants us to believe that... "

O dear me, no. sidd does not want you to believe anything. sidd reports what he sees and hears. That might be contrary to your experiences.

" ... the Forgotten Men voted against Democrats who abandoned them, ..."

That's a nice phrase, mind if i borrow that ? how about just "the Forgotten" so as to be gender nonspecific. But yes, that's what they say, democrats forgot about them. After all, where else were they going to go, right ?

" ...  the Democratic Party he believes doesn’t represent the people, ..."

That's what they say again, I agree with them. But that does not mean they think the Republicans do represent the people. In fact I know they don't. The prevailing sentiment is that politicians are a bunch of scoundrels.

" ... and for Donald Trump because he offered them hope and a path to recovery.  "

O no. They voted for Trump because they wanted to throw a bomb into the system and that's the only way they saw to make a change. That's what they tell me, i do not disbelieve them.

A lot of these guys are union, used to vote straight democrat ticket. Given the right candidates I think they might again.

What might make the biggest difference in 2018 is that a lot of Trump voters might stay home. But as pileus so gently reminds me, I could be wrong. I didn't think half these guys would go out and vote in 2016 either.

sidd

[sidd]

"I think with this thread you are actively promoting the destruction of the Democratic party, which plays right in the hands of the Republican party."

Well, an appropriate response might be not to participate in the thread ? Or are you advocating this thread be shut down entirely ?

"Think about it. What is the most effective way to destroy a political party ?

1) Deprive them of money ... "

Speaking of which i took great pleasure recently in replying at length to the latest periodic begging letter from the DNC, with details on monies I might previously hav sent to them, but went directly to candidates instead, since i didn't trust em.

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

"I think with this thread you are actively promoting the destruction of the Democratic party, which plays right in the hands of the Republican party."

Well, an appropriate response might be not to participate in the thread ? Or are you advocating this thread be shut down entirely ?

Look sidd, that blue wave is coming, whether you like it or not.
None of your right-wing opinions, nor the mis-information your are spreading on this thread is going to change that.

[Rob Dekker]

Rob, Neven. You can both be right you know. Focusing only on what the right does does not lend to self improvement and correction. Of obrs weaknesses and biases. At the same time all that left tribalism and inability to compromise amongst themselves has led to the rise of extreme right and neo Nazis all over Europe. Greece being my personal example. Left activists not compromising and not working  together with the rest of  a the left center , unable to govern because they never really cared to - focusing just on the negative aspect of activism - being loud and energized and against compromise that lead to governing and not to paralysis.

Thank you.
I think that is a very good summary.
If the left is to stand up against the resurgence of the far-right across the world, we need to unite, not throw mud at each other.

[TerryM]

And with that "Blue Wave "^TM coming in we won't have to learn a damn thing from the huge defeat we just suffered.


Yea Blue - Ra Ra Ra


We can ignore the Deplorables again because we know that Trump and his Stupid Republican Minions will piss them off even more than our side has.
Pat and Mike will pass on voting, sidd won't give us any more of his money, but we don't need their vote, or sidd's money.


Our corporate sponsors will provide us with the cash, and the issues we can win with, because we know that the corporations prefer us to their Republican Puppets.


Go Blue - Three Cheers for Our Side
Elect another Democrat for Fracking, a Strong Military, and against Single Payer Healthcare.
It's the American Way!
Terry

[Rob Dekker]

And with that "Blue Wave "TM coming in we won't have to learn a damn thing from the huge defeat we just suffered.

Yea Blue - Ra Ra Ra

Tell me, Terry, if we are to cut off corporate financing of Democrats, does that include cutting off financing by the Unions ?

[TerryM]

And with that "Blue Wave "TM coming in we won't have to learn a damn thing from the huge defeat we just suffered.

Yea Blue - Ra Ra Ra

Tell me, Terry, if we are to cut off corporate financing of Democrats, does that include cutting off financing by the Unions ?

In what world would a progressive refuse money from his union brothers?


Have you ever worked in a campaign?
Have you ever voted a straight democratic ticket?


Why on earth would you ask such a stupid question?
Terry

[sidd]

Re: union funding

I would be very careful right now of any funding coming from the auto unions: their officials been on the suck, screwing union members. It's all coming out in the trials.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/26/pers-j26.html

Theres a bunch of others, the food service guys, the teachers, IBEW, ... but none have much money. Compared to the billionaires, that is. Need to crowdfund. The populist democrats are already there.

sidd

[TerryM]

In Ontario Liberals still work with the unions, except when the unions support the NDP, our socialist party.
But crowdsourcing has the fewest strings.
Terry

[Neven]

I think with this thread you are actively promoting the destruction of the Democratic party, which plays right in the hands of the Republican party.

I know that your fear of the GOP is what fuels your opinions, but you have to understand that the system is your prime enemy. If you fight the GOP, no matter the cost, but not the system, you will never, ever solve AGW. You can support an army of Pelosis and Feinsteins, but you will never, ever solve AGW.

Think about it. What is the most effective way to destroy a political party ?

1) Deprive them of money, and
2) Split them up

You are actively promoting BOTH methods in this thread, so you are actively contributing to the goal of the right-wingers to destroy the US Democratic party.

And yes, if that is your 'solution', then I will be 'part of the problem' :

I believe that Bernie said it right : To obtain change, "we need to bring people together", not split them up and kick them out.

I totally agree! But what is it that these people have to unite behind?

[SteveMDFP]

. . .
I know that your fear of the GOP is what fuels your opinions, but you have to understand that the system is your prime enemy. If you fight the GOP, no matter the cost, but not the system, you will never, ever solve AGW. You can support an army of Pelosis and Feinsteins, but you will never, ever solve AGW.
 

I know your ideology is that effective fund-raisers in Congress have to be whores to "the corporate agenda."  Facts have not supported this generalization.  I've pointed  to voting records, but let me post them.  Pelosi has a sterling record, Feinstein's is very good.  We need folks *exactly* like them in Congress:
http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm
 Nancy Pelosi on Energy & Oil 
Click here for 21 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
2008: Teamed up with newt Gingrich to address climate change. (Feb 2012)
Bush’s energy plan is running out the clock until 2008. (May 2007)
Commit to achieve energy independence within 10 years. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030. (Mar 2016)
  Nancy Pelosi on Environment 
Click here for 7 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands. (Apr 2001)
Rated 90% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 38% by HSLF, indicating a mixed voting record on animal welfare. (Jan 2012)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm
 Dianne Feinstein on Energy & Oil 
Click here for 30 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
Ethanol gets triple crown of government intervention. (Apr 2012)
Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030. (Mar 2016)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
  Dianne Feinstein on Environment 
Click here for 21 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
Citizens need standing to sue under Clean Water Act. (Jan 2006)
Preserve ancient redwood forest, even when in private hands. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
Rated 79% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
Establish commission to examine Katrina response. (Sep 2005)
Celebrate the recovery of the bald eagle. (Jun 2008)
Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs. (Feb 2011)
Rated 100% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
Require labeling genetically engineered food. (May 2013)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)



So where, exactly, should either have voted differently on fossil fuels or the environment?

[Neven]

Steve, I hope you're not trying to shift away the attention, now that I've asked the million-dollar question. It's obvious that the GOP takes care of energy and environment issues, while the Democratic Party takes care of Wall Street and trade agreements. It would be funny indeed if they all voted exactly the same on exactly the same issues. That would kind of give the trick away, wouldn't it?

If I were a Corporate Democrat, I'd make sure to vote the right way to maintain my image on identity politics and the environment, and all those other things that the well-paid professionals on the coasts care about (unlike the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a livable wage). But when it comes to Wall Street regulation or things that affect the pharma and insurance industries, for instance, I'd be sure to vote the right way to make sure enough campaign donations come in to increase my power with fellow Democrats and stay friends with the media and consultant class. The well-paid professionals aren't really affected by them, and who cares about the deplorables. Besides, these things are so complex, I can spin 'em any way I like.

I could vote nay on bills that are bound to pass because Republicans have the majority and all vote yea, and when it's tight, Heitkamp, Manchin and the rest of Satan's little helpers can take care of it.

Maybe I'd be aware of myself doing this, but not caring, because it brings my wallet and ego so much. Or maybe I'd live in my small bubble and actually have an undying faith in neoliberalism, and how one day, it will make everyone in America just as rich as me. Not really relevant, right?

And then, when I'm 100 years old and worth at least 100 million USD, I go around and talk about inequality and inordinate wealth, but not about my own inordinate wealth, of course.

Fan-tas-tic. We need an army of these people to rally behind. That'll really shake up the system.

[SteveMDFP]

If I were a Corporate Democrat, I'd make sure to vote the right way to maintain my image on identity politics and the environment, and all those other things that the well-paid professionals on the coasts care about (unlike the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a livable wage). But when it comes to Wall Street regulation or things that affect the pharma and insurance industries, for instance, I'd be sure to vote the right way to make sure enough campaign donations come in to increase my power with fellow Democrats and stay friends with the media and consultant class. The well-paid professionals aren't really affected by them, and who cares about the deplorables. Besides, these things are so complex, I can spin 'em any way I like.

I could vote nay on bills that are bound to pass because Republicans have the majority and all vote yea, and when it's tight, Heitkamp, Manchin and the rest of Satan's little helpers can take care of it.

Maybe I'd be aware of myself doing this, but not caring, because it brings my wallet and ego so much. Or maybe I'd live in my small bubble and actually have an undying faith in neoliberalism, and how one day, it will make everyone in America just as rich as me. Not really relevant, right?

And then, when I'm 100 years old and worth at least 100 million USD, I go around and talk about inequality and inordinate wealth, but not about my own inordinate wealth, of course.

Fan-tas-tic. We need an army of these people to rally behind. That'll really shake up the system.

I hope you appreciate that you're presenting a political science *model* of how law and policy happens in the US.  Just like climate models, they really mean nothing without real-world evidence to test them.  And appropriate testing doesn't mean presenting anecdotes or other cherry-picked data.

Votes on bills aren't a foolproof test, and aren't the only valid test.  But they have the advantage of being broadly relevant to the questions at hand, and can be analyzed for all members of congress.  It might possibly be more relevant to examine which members *sponsored* which bills.  Or it might be relevant to examine position statements and campaign platforms (I suspect these may be less useful than the others I've mentioned, but still a reasonable data source).

But available evidence does present a way to test your assertion that Pelosi and Feinstein are part of the problem, that they're neoliberals who will not act to reduce CO2 emissions and the other critical aspects of looming eco-socioeconomic collapse. 

So far, available evidence argues against your model.

[sidd]

Marshall advocates for more money from the Party for Lamb in PA-18.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-there-a-problem

sidd

[sidd]

Democrats line up for those sweet, sweet bank dollars:

"In addition to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), the 12 Democratic senators currently co-sponsoring the deregulation measure are: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Chris Coons (Del.), and Tom Carper of Delaware."

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/03/elizabeth-warren-slams-democrats-helping-gut-financial-regulations.html

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/06/bank-regulation-citigroup-cbo/

sidd

[Neven]

But available evidence does present a way to test your assertion that Pelosi and Feinstein are part of the problem, that they're neoliberals who will not act to reduce CO2 emissions and the other critical aspects of looming eco-socioeconomic collapse. 

So far, available evidence argues against your model.

Their inordinate wealth, their shallow and hollow PR, their history while working their way up the ladder, their endorsement of Hillary Clinton (the wife of the "best Republican President we'd ever had" (your words)), the fact that given their positions in the party they are co-responsible for the endless wars, the deregulations, the bail-outs, breaking the unions, and thus 50 million Americans living in poverty (in the richest country in the world), no livable wage, no free college, no universal health care ('I'm not there yet'), no brakes on the excesses of consumer culture, and all these things in turn drive AGW, ocean acidification, millions of dead people around the world for resources, the rise of the far right and Trump, all of that argues for my model. And it's not even my model, but the model of some very smart people who have been saying these things for years.

Yes, I know that's all the GOP's fault, just like the supporters of the Red Team blame everything on the Blue Team. And let's not forget almighty Russia, of course. It couldn't possibly be a systemic problem based on flawed economics that politicians can explain to voters to pave and build the way for systemic changes (Pelosi: "We’re capitalists, that’s just the way it is"; in other words: Neoliberalism). They don't even understand the systemic aspects of the problem, they're too old to learn, they think their neoliberal policies will eventually solve everything, they're out of touch and live in their bubble with the other rich and famous.

You are pushing for the same mistakes to be made over and over again. I can understand why. I watched a documentary once about old Russian people who were born around the time of the Revolution and had survived until the fall of the USSR. They still cherished and idealized communism, because they had invested such a large part of their life in that story. To them the apparatchiks of old were heroes and paragons of virtue.

But you're never, ever going to solve systemic problems this way, as the USSR found out. What the USA needs, is a peaceful revolution. And filthy rich, out-of-touch dinosaurs aren't going to bring it. In fact, they are going to try and do everything they can to block it, which they are already doing. And you and many others are going to cheer them on. And when they fail (again) and the GOP becomes even more powerful, it will all be my fault.

[sidd]

"I work for Bank Donors, not my constituents"

" this bill wouldn’t be on the path to becoming law without the support of these Democrats. The Senate just voted to increase the chances your money will be used to bail out big banks again."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/03/06/17-democrats-decried-sending-clear-message-i-work-my-bank-donors-not-my-constituents

Follow the money:

" Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), and her husband have nearly $1 million invested in two of the bill’s biggest winners, J.P. Morgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway ..."

" Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) owned two corporate bonds, each worth up to $15,000, with J. P. Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway as part of his individual retirement account, and up to $15,000 in Prudential Financial stock, while his spouse owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in U.S. Bancorp stock. As of September 2017, Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) had up to $100,000 invested in Regions Financial Corporation."

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth roughly $238 million in 2015, has between $5 million and $25 million invested in J.P. Morgan’s Strategic Income Opports I mutual fund. "

"Heitkamp is the commercial banking industry’s number one recipient of campaign donations in the current election cycle, having reported receipts of $157,000 from banks’ employees and political action committees. Her fellow cosponsors, Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) come in second and third, respectively, on that list."

And of course, nothing to see here:

" Heitkamp is not breaking Senate ethics rules"

The banks own DC. Read the whole thing.

https://tytnetwork.com/2018/03/05/heitkamp-backing-deregulation-bill-owns-stock-in-financial-firms-that-stand-to-profit/

sidd

[Neven]

But she does vote with the other Democrats on other issues. Look here:

Heidi Heitkamp on Environment 

Farm bill is needed and is blocked by partisanship. (Oct 2012)
Protect North Dakota farm subsidies from Washington insiders. (Sep 2012)
Make responsible cuts in farm bill, except crop insurance. (Apr 2012)
Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Sponsored no permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams. (Apr 2013)

Or this:

Support for Hillary Clinton
Heitkamp was described in 2014 as a "Hillary Clinton fan" who believed Clinton would "run, win, and be 'an excellent president.'" Heitkamp said of Clinton, "I think she transcends gender. When people look at her, they don't see male or female. They see a very accomplished, qualified candidate. She's very collaborative, very open to a different way of looking at things, uber smart. She digs down and understands an issue.

Sounds great to me. Everything is fragmented and nothing is connected.

[sidd]

Re: Voting records

Those don't help that much. A lot of the sausage is made before the vote. Looking at the bills that never made it to the floor helps some. Looking at which bills the committees allow to go to vote helps. Loking at the riders and amendments helps. Looking at the text helps (Pelosi: "Got to pass the bill to find out whats in it ." )  but sometimes those scum dont let you read it until the thing is a done deal.

I have found that the best tell is to follow the money. For they have forgotten what James Unruh said almost a century ago:

“If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, fuck their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

I think with this thread you are actively promoting the destruction of the Democratic party, which plays right in the hands of the Republican party.

I know that your fear of the GOP is what fuels your opinions, but you have to understand that the system is your prime enemy. If you fight the GOP, no matter the cost, but not the system, you will never, ever solve AGW. You can support an army of Pelosis and Feinsteins, but you will never, ever solve AGW.

The system we currently operate under is the democratic system with free elections.
Sure there are issues with that (Citizens United being the most problematic one since it allows unimpeded flow of money into politics).

Could you please clarify what you mean with 'the system' in you sentence ? Is it just individual issues like Citizens United or corporate Democrats or corporate Republicans that are the enemy, or the democratic system as a whole ?

Think about it. What is the most effective way to destroy a political party ?

1) Deprive them of money, and
2) Split them up

You are actively promoting BOTH methods in this thread, so you are actively contributing to the goal of the right-wingers to destroy the US Democratic party.

And yes, if that is your 'solution', then I will be 'part of the problem' :

I believe that Bernie said it right : To obtain change, "we need to bring people together", not split them up and kick them out.

I totally agree! But what is it that these people have to unite behind?

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform was a good progressive start :
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Which part of that platform do you not agree with ?

Let me also note that there are some that claim Democrats lost the elections because this platform was too far left. And they may have a point. The US is a weird country in that sense.

[Rob Dekker]

Once again I will remind sidd that he’s flat out wrong. But he has the Corporate Democrat Madness Syndrome, and can’t see beyond his bias. 

Thanks pileus. Corporate Democrat Madness Syndrome (CDMS) is a great assessment of sidd's biased reporting.

And he does not seem to be the only one on this forum.
Somehow these guys are determined to destroy the Democratic Party, apologize for Putin and have not one bad word to say about the alt-right.