Op-Ed What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

[opinterph]

I wish the Census would have also use a similar inforgraphic to see places where median house hold income have risen or again still have decreased

What’s up in North Dakota?

 

[Julian89]

If we just went back to pre-Bush tax rates and used a dedicated 0.1% tax on financial transactions to pay off the debt and fix our infrastructure, we'd be fine.

Anything as long as the burden will be those on the highly-upper income groups and not on the expense of middle class and low-income groups.

 

[Julian89]

^^^I wanted Kucinich for all the things you guys claim now you want in all Democrats but there wasn't a leftist tea party like movement (thankfully)...and it is a good thing to ask for...BUT...if you don't understand that all of the players in the game have to be at the table...you won't get anything....

Please stop equating us with the alt-right tea party. We are not a fringe group funded by any vested interests (iirc, Tea Party was funded by Koch Brothers). But to their credit, they successfully pushed the Republican Party to the extreme right. With them going to the extreme right Direction, the Democrat Party gave themselves the excuse to go rightward so as to meet them in sort of a mythical center which in this case is Right. This leave the Republicans as the Right party with Democrats as the Center-Right Party.

It's time to pull the Overton Window back to the left at the very least return it to the Center or Center leaning left. After all, what we are fighting for are the same core ideals, values and principles the Democratic Party is known for with the likes of FDR, JFK, LBJ and MLK. As far as having a position in the table, it seems the players are starting to listen with their Better Deal. The pushing will never stop until we achieve our desired outcomes.

One of the things you guys hated about Clinton the most..her corporate ties..is exactly one of the reasons I liked her.

Oh my. Thanks for not saying we are sexist Bernie Bros and instead saw her corporate ties as the reason of our distrust because had she be a man, we will still feel the same distrust.

She had an uphill battle any way you look at it...and making friends on Wall Street and in Corporate America gave her leverage....and yes....it gave them leverage too....but that is usually the way ANYTHING moves forward..everyone gets something.....and the thing you get at best is a template from which to work....

You keep saying "Negotiations" and "Compromise." Just like what I said from the other thread, the last time Democrats were in power and did "negotiations" and "compromise" that you are claiming, it benefited Big Pharma, Big Health Insurance and Wall Street at the expense of the 99%. Please be frank and tell me straightforward to what extent of "negotiations" and "compromise" of our core values and principles are you willing to give in.

It isn't the ideal situation..but in a situation where $$$$ means everything now thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court...you can't just ignore the game board and expect to get anywhere....

Facts have showed that Clinton outspent the Deplorable-in-Chief 2-to-1 and we know where those $$$$ brought her.

I trusted her to remember the legacy she would leave for other women behind her as that is what has motivated her though her entire life IMO....the "power hungry" narrative was so sexist I was shocked anyone actually repeated it.

With regards to sexism, I didn't see her as power hungry. I saw her as a typical establishment candidate in a period where anti-establishment populism is the call. I will still feel the same way had she be a man. If you liked her for her ties to Big Money, I distrust her for that reason.

In 2018...I hope that enough "progressives" remember NOT to throw the baby out with the bathwater. YES...do what you can to get progressives in from the bottom up but DO understand that the take no prisoners approach is counter productive. As we speak...progressives are already helping Republicans in a very real way get rid of Democrats in vulnerable positions. For instance...Heidi Heitkamp...STOP IT!!!

The last time I remember, we're still a democracy and primaries are still a manifestation of that political belief. I am sure that the establishment Democrat machine will aid these red state senators in the primaries. I guess the primaries are gentle reminders to these Senators that they still have a Progressive constituency to serve. No votes of your supposed base should be taken for granted.

 

[TX-Beau]

The real trade-off back then according to Senator Chuck Schumer's slip of tongue was:

“For every blue-collar Democrat we will lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

So you were fine with that trade-off? The establishment Democratic Party had forsaken its Progressive base to pick-up the so-called moderate Republicans.

What does any of that have to do with FDR? The DNC doesn't have a "Progressive Base," as this election amply demonstrated, Progressives in many cases were too busy attacking Dems to bother being a base. You know who lost this election? Progressives in the Rust Belt.

I already said the same thing about running Progressives and leaving no counties uncontested. That is why I am supporting Our Revolution. They are running Progressive candidates one county at a time. For more information, please go here: https://ourrevolution.com/

The moment Progressives have occupied and take back the Democratic Party from the Third Way corporatists, the distinction will be clear as crystal.

"Progressives" never "had" the Democratic Party. I agree it's time to be a base and force the DNC to the left.

It is Progressive icons like Senator Bernie Sanders who is reaching out to the South with his Red States tour. As for Progressive positions, here are what polls said:

Over 60% of Americans back tuition-free college

60% favors expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American

More than six in 10 say corporations, upper-income Americans pay too little

The problem is, why do establishment Democrats aren't able to mobilize these sentiments into policy and implement them especially during the time they were in power?

Well, your guess is as good as mine.

The problem was that despite any polls you care to post, Bernie AND his ideas were not in the majority. "Establishment Democrats" in large part did endorse much of what Bernie wanted, they were the only chance to get any of it accomplished, and it was on the far left that the backstabbing happened. When BERNIE told them to go stop a radical right wing debacle, they sat home on their asses pouting about Hilary. Now, Hilary is gone.

HILARY IS GONE

HILARY IS GONE

HILARY IS GONE


Let's discuss how to go about getting some of those things. The DNC has it's share of the blame, but so does the left. Going forward, no more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Barack, how exactly do you plan to get the DNC to pay attention to you?

You're the one who is shouting telling us to fall in line and vote for Hillary Clinton which we did. We try to discuss why she lost despite our votes and move on from there, yet we were shouted upon with Russia, Russia, Russia. You had your way and it did not work. Now, it's time to find a new one. #OccupyDNC #OccupyDCCC #OccupyDSCC #OccupyDLCC

BERNIE told you to fall in line and vote for Hilary. Which I did, but which the whiners on this board did NOT do - because they were never followers of Bernie in the first place.

Nice of you to try and live in my head though. All of this crap came out of your head and you are responsible for it.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Oh my. Thanks for not saying we are sexist Bernie Bros and instead saw her corporate ties as the reason of our distrust because had she be a man, we will still feel the same distrust.

Her political career is deader than Ben's concept of ethics so why are you still whinging about Clinton? She's gone, baby, gone.

There was also plenty of sexism from everybody ('Bernie Bros' included) against the second Clinton to go 'round. Methinks you doth protest too much, that horse you're beating is a pile of old, grey bone dust. Perhaps you could look to all the guys still in office (instead of the woman who failed to get the seat who is no longer particularly relevant) and turn that righteous ire against the officeholders who still have some semblance of a future in politics.

You want better politicians, work to get 'em. Preferably instead of endlessly harping on a has-been. She's far from the only politician that's, at best, wiggly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anything as long as the burden will be those on the highly-upper income groups and not on the expense of middle class and low-income groups.

The beauty of a 0.1% financial transaction tax is that the more money you move around, the more you pay.

 

[TX-Beau]

The beauty of a 0.1% financial transaction tax is that the more money you move around, the more you pay.

The funny thing Kuli is that your income redistribution idea, which I think is brilliance, is far more "progressive" than anything Bernie had to say.

Taxing the movement of money, only hits those who have it, and taxing it by amount, pushes the greatest burden onto those who have the most.

 

[Kulindahr]

(iirc, Tea Party was funded by Koch Brothers).

Actually, no; it traces more to Ron Paul. But the Koch machine saw rather quickly what a good tool it could be, and sent funding that way. Most of the Tea Party people never realized they'd essentially been bought and used.

 

[Kulindahr]

What does any of that have to do with FDR? The DNC doesn't have a "Progressive Base," as this election amply demonstrated, Progressives in many cases were too busy attacking Dems to bother being a base. You know who lost this election? Progressives in the Rust Belt.
....


BERNIE told you to fall in line and vote for Hilary. Which I did, but which the whiners on this board did NOT do - because they were never followers of Bernie in the first place.

Nice of you to try and live in my head though. All of this crap came out of your head and you are responsible for it.

We've been shown the statistics that progressives turned out better for Hillary than did old core constituencies, so I don't think blaming progressives works.

 

[Kulindahr]

You want better politicians, work to get 'em. Preferably instead of endlessly harping on a has-been. She's far from the only politician that's, at best, wiggly.

Work as had as one may, we will never get politicians any better than the money election is willing to pass on to us until we break that undemocratic stranglehold on the Republic.

 

[MystikWizard]

Her political career is deader than Ben's concept of ethics so why are you still whinging about Clinton? She's gone, baby, gone.

There was also plenty of sexism from everybody ('Bernie Bros' included) against the second Clinton to go 'round. Methinks you doth protest too much, that horse you're beating is a pile of old, grey bone dust. Perhaps you could look to all the guys still in office (instead of the woman who failed to get the seat who is no longer particularly relevant) and turn that righteous ire against the officeholders who still have some semblance of a future in politics.

You want better politicians, work to get 'em. Preferably instead of endlessly harping on a has-been. She's far from the only politician that's, at best, wiggly.

The majority of the sexism in the election came from Hillary Clinton and her sexist supporters. Keep playing that game though in crying sexism every chance you get ... it doesn't make it any more true and nor will it change election results.

 

[Kulindahr]

The funny thing Kuli is that your income redistribution idea, which I think is brilliance, is far more "progressive" than anything Bernie had to say.

Taxing the movement of money, only hits those who have it, and taxing it by amount, pushes the greatest burden onto those who have the most.

There's really no redistribution to it: the tax would last only long enough to fix our transportation infrastructure (interstates and U.S. Highways both) and pay off the national debt, with the "rounding error" tossed into a trust fund for Social Security and such.

What the fact that it would hit those with more money really does is show just how much of their wealth is due to synergy.

BTW, as an alternative (and I haven't done the math on this one beyond a guesstimate) to ending the tax, it could be dropped to 0.025%, which would be enough to fund an idea older than the country and lifted right from its start: a minimum guaranteed income higher than the current poverty level. To me the beauty of a minimum guaranteed income is that with it in place, a whole load of federal assistance programs could be phased out -- which the right should like, as that would shrink government substantially.

 

[opinterph]

It's time to pull the Overton Window back to the left at the very least return it to the Center or Center leaning left.

Overton Window [Wiki]​

 

[opinterph]

Ban Big Money from the Democratic Party's Apparatuses.

Has that ever happened b4?

 

[Kulindahr]

Overton Window [Wiki]​

The idea actually goes back to the Scottish Enlightenment, in terms of how societies change or can be changed. If I could find which thinker back then it originated with I'd edit the Wiki article.

 

[Julian89]

What does any of that have to do with FDR? The DNC doesn't have a "Progressive Base," as this election amply demonstrated, Progressives in many cases were too busy attacking Dems to bother being a base. You know who lost this election? Progressives in the Rust Belt.

No they have. The establishment Democrats chose to forsake them so they can chase these so-called moderate Republican voters.

"Progressives" never "had" the Democratic Party. I agree it's time to be a base and force the DNC to the left.

Yes, we had. From 1930s to 1970s, the Democratic Party is the bedrock of Progressivism with Glass-Steagall, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and other progressive legacies. It is Bill Clinton and his Third Way ilk that pushed the Democratic Party to the right big time marginalizing and isolating its Progressive base.

And now, Progressives are occupying and taking it back.

The problem was that despite any polls you care to post, Bernie AND his ideas were not in the majority. "Establishment Democrats" in large part did endorse much of what Bernie wanted, they were the only chance to get any of it accomplished, and it was on the far left that the backstabbing happened. When BERNIE told them to go stop a radical right wing debacle, they sat home on their asses pouting about Hilary. Now, Hilary is gone.

HILARY IS GONE

HILARY IS GONE

HILARY IS GONE


Let's discuss how to go about getting some of those things. The DNC has it's share of the blame, but so does the left. Going forward, no more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Barack, how exactly do you plan to get the DNC to pay attention to you?

BERNIE told you to fall in line and vote for Hilary. Which I did, but which the whiners on this board did NOT do - because they were never followers of Bernie in the first place.

First, thank you for acknowledging that majority of Americans are supporting progressive positions.

Now for your next goal post, I said it many times and I will not stop repeating it, at most, 90% of supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders have voted for Hillary Clinton compared to 81% of her supporters to then-Senator later President Barack Obama back in 2008.

If it's not enough to bring her to the finish line first, the fault is no longer on us.

And we are running Progressives right now everywhere. For your further information, please visit this place: https://ourrevolution.com/

Nice of you to try and live in my head though. All of this crap came out of your head and you are responsible for it.

Too bad. Please don't let it ruin your day.

 

[Julian89]

Has that ever happened b4?

Yes during the FDR years.

"Labor unions — which, unlike corporations, were not banned from political spending in the 1907 law — became important sources of money for Democrats during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in the 1930s. But in 1943, Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats united to outlaw union contributions in federal elections."

Reference: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016050600

Again worth repeating over 9000 times

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

 

[Benvolio]

Yes during the FDR years.

"Labor unions — which, unlike corporations, were not banned from political spending in the 1907 law — became important sources of money for Democrats during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in the 1930s. But in 1943, Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats united to outlaw union contributions in federal elections."

Reference: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016050600

Again worth repeating over 9000 times

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

Indeed, anyone who had "lust for power" met his match in FDR. Four terms, the last as he was dying but still unwilling to share with his VP, prove it. Clearly the enemies of peace have been the democrats with virtually all our wars to their credit; 1812, Mexican War, Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Kosovo, ISIS.

 

[eastofeden]

Indeed, anyone who had "lust for power" met his match in FDR. Four terms, the last as he was dying but still unwilling to share with his VP, prove it. Clearly the enemies of peace have been the democrats with virtually all our wars to their credit; 1812, Mexican War, Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Kosovo, ISIS.

As for Roosevelt and your reference...you would be speaking Japanese right now if they even bothered to let your ass be born...

Hardly an "enemy of peace"...but nice try....

 

[kallipolis]

As for Roosevelt and your reference...you would be speaking Japanese right now if they even bothered to let your ass be born...

Hardly an "enemy of peace"...but nice try....

It could also be argued that had the Japanese Navy not attacked the United States fleet at Pearl Harbor, and Germany not declared war on the USA, President Roosevelt would not have been held responsible by Benvolio for being an enemy of peace.