Advice For Divided Democrats

[Terrell]

This again? It's simple, if you want a more liberal Democratic party, run your own primary candidates in the down ballot races, and work from there. If you want any type of lasting change you have to work within the Democratic party, and be patient.

Thinking you're going to get liberal policies by trying to undermine Hillary is simply setting your cause back, and it's only a question of how far back. The Democrats have an opportunity in this election if they can hold the White House & retake the Senate. Scalia's death brings this. If you're not considering this, and you're liberal, you're not thinking long term.

Any liberal legislation you want will require it to withstand court challenge from the political right. SCOTUS appointments are vital there. Let a Republican replace Scalia misses an opportunity to tip the court in liberals' favor. Should Ruth Bader Ginsberg (age 83) or Stephen Breyer (age 77) die, and are replaced by Republicans, forget your liberal agenda for at least a generation. It won't survive court challenge.

If Clinton gets elected & the Senate is regained by the Democrats, the two justices I mentioned need to resign in January 2017, so HRC can replace them with people who are significantly younger. If said majority is narrow, Chuck Schumer needs to have the balls to use the nuclear option if the Republicans filibuster. The rest of the party needs to fall in line and back Schumer should this be necessary. Ginsberg & Breyer need to put pragmatism ahead of idealism should this situation arise.

 

[untermensche]

This again? It's simple, if you want a more liberal Democratic party, run your own primary candidates in the down ballot races, and work from there. If you want any type of lasting change you have to work within the Democratic party, and be patient.

That's not what history shows.

There is a huge amount of Americans that don't vote. Neither party represents these people.

The problem is the money required to compete in the system.

Remove the money and the current system explodes.

That is what people should be working for.

 

[Ford]

This again? It's simple, if you want a more liberal Democratic party, run your own primary candidates in the down ballot races, and work from there. If you want any type of lasting change you have to work within the Democratic party, and be patient.

As the old saying goes, "all politics is local."


One of the reasons the Tea Party folks gained such traction in the GOP is that they kneecapped the "establishment" at the local level. State house races all the way down to precinct chairmen and delegates. If you didn't play ball they'd primary you from the right.


Nothing like this has happened in the Democratic Party. Bernie is the national standard-bearer for turning the party rudder to the left, but the folks who want a more liberal party are showing up to Bernie rallies rather than showing up and getting involved at the local level. Where's the slate of Bernie-supporting candidates in the state races? Where's the effort to flip state houses and Senates by liberal leaning candidates? How many Democratic Congress members have faced serious primary challenges from candidates to their left? Are there Bernie analogues running for Governor in blue states?


Sanders' "political revolution" gives lip service to down-ballot races, but there's no organization and no real push to get liberal politicians elected near as I can tell. It is all "Bernie or Bust."

 

[Terrell]

This again? It's simple, if you want a more liberal Democratic party, run your own primary candidates in the down ballot races, and work from there. If you want any type of lasting change you have to work within the Democratic party, and be patient.

That's not what history shows.

There is a huge amount of Americans that don't vote. Neither party represents these people.

The problem is the money required to compete in the system.

Remove the money and the current system explodes.

That is what people should be working for.

Good luck with that. You're not going to remove the money from the system without being able to change the laws, and get a court that upholds the changes. You have an opportunity to move the court a little in that direction in this election, you should take it. You might not have such an opportunity again in a long while.

People who can't be bothered to get off their asses and vote aren't going to be listened to. The Religious right has the Republican party by the balls because they've been willing to put in more than a generation's worth of work to get their own candidates in place. Why is it so hard to get liberals that they're going to have to do the same thing with the Democratic party if they want their agenda heard? If you're not willing to put in the necessary work, and show up in every election, without fail, why should the Democrats move left.

I'm not naïve enough to think that the Republicans won't take advantage of it if the Democrats stop taking as much money as possible.

Bernie folks need to work on 2018.

 

[untermensche]

That's not what history shows.

There is a huge amount of Americans that don't vote. Neither party represents these people.

The problem is the money required to compete in the system.

Remove the money and the current system explodes.

That is what people should be working for.

Good luck with that. You're not going to remove the money from the system without being able to change the laws, and get a court that upholds the changes. You have an opportunity to move the court a little in that direction in this election, you should take it. You might not have such an opportunity again in a long while.

People who can't be bothered to get off their asses and vote aren't going to be listened to. The Religious right has the Republican party by the balls because they've been willing to put in more than a generation's worth of work to get their own candidates in place. Why is it so hard to get liberals that they're going to have to do the same thing with the Democratic party if they want their agenda heard? If you're not willing to put in the necessary work, and show up in every election, without fail, why should the Democrats move left.

I'm not naïve enough to think that the Republicans won't take advantage of it if the Democrats stop taking as much money as possible.

Bernie folks need to work on 2018.

It's not that they are lazy and simply won't get off their butts.

They are repulsed by the show. It sickens them.

They see both parties as 2 slight variations of the same thing. Lackeys for the most wealthy.

It really is the only chance of change, but things will have to get worse before they better. The Democrats and the Republicans are thoroughly corrupted by money. Right now they differ on SC nominees and little else.

 

[Terrell]

Good luck with that. You're not going to remove the money from the system without being able to change the laws, and get a court that upholds the changes. You have an opportunity to move the court a little in that direction in this election, you should take it. You might not have such an opportunity again in a long while.

People who can't be bothered to get off their asses and vote aren't going to be listened to. The Religious right has the Republican party by the balls because they've been willing to put in more than a generation's worth of work to get their own candidates in place. Why is it so hard to get liberals that they're going to have to do the same thing with the Democratic party if they want their agenda heard? If you're not willing to put in the necessary work, and show up in every election, without fail, why should the Democrats move left.

I'm not naïve enough to think that the Republicans won't take advantage of it if the Democrats stop taking as much money as possible.

Bernie folks need to work on 2018.

It's not that they are lazy and simply won't get off their butts.

They are repulsed by the show. It sickens them.

They see both parties as 2 slight variations of the same thing. Lackeys for the most wealthy.

It really is the only chance of change, but things will have to get worse before they better. The Democrats and the Republicans are thoroughly corrupted by money. Right now they differ on SC nominees and little else.

If you're repulsed by the existing system run for office; same if you're sick of it. If you're not willing to do that yourself, or volunteer for candidates you like, then "get off your lazy ass" is valid criticism. The system isn't going to change in a way you like if you're not willing to put in the effort to change it.

What makes you think that it getting worse is somehow going to make it better? What's your process to get from worse to better. Please give a specific step by step way that you're going to get there, and how it's going to work.

The Supreme Court is a pretty big deal, without a majority there, any laws you pass are vulnerable to being struck down.

 

[untermensche]

It's not that they are lazy and simply won't get off their butts.

They are repulsed by the show. It sickens them.

They see both parties as 2 slight variations of the same thing. Lackeys for the most wealthy.

It really is the only chance of change, but things will have to get worse before they better. The Democrats and the Republicans are thoroughly corrupted by money. Right now they differ on SC nominees and little else.

If you're repulsed by the existing system run for office; same if you're sick of it. If you're not willing to do that yourself, or volunteer for candidates you like, then "get off your lazy ass" is valid criticism. The system isn't going to change in a way you like if you're not willing to put in the effort to change it.

What makes you think that it getting worse is somehow going to make it better? What's your process to get from worse to better. Please give a specific step by step way that you're going to get there, and how it's going to work.

The Supreme Court is a pretty big deal, without a majority there, any laws you pass are vulnerable to being struck down.

I do agree that the SC is enough to bring serious people to the poles either way.

And the process to get from worse to better is revolution. Hopefully a democratic revolution.

But right now too many are too comfortable.

The rich have control and will for some time. Even with Bernie as president.

Collaboration with the current system will not result in change.

 

[Terrell]

If you're repulsed by the existing system run for office; same if you're sick of it. If you're not willing to do that yourself, or volunteer for candidates you like, then "get off your lazy ass" is valid criticism. The system isn't going to change in a way you like if you're not willing to put in the effort to change it.

What makes you think that it getting worse is somehow going to make it better? What's your process to get from worse to better. Please give a specific step by step way that you're going to get there, and how it's going to work.

The Supreme Court is a pretty big deal, without a majority there, any laws you pass are vulnerable to being struck down.

I do agree that the SC is enough to bring serious people to the poles either way.

And the process to get from worse to better is revolution. Hopefully a democratic revolution.

But right now too many are too comfortable.

The rich have control and will for some time. Even with Bernie as president.

Collaboration with the current system will not result in change.

The Supreme Court is part of what needs to be done to advance a liberal agenda. You'll likely have to work at stopping the conservative agenda first. Maybe it's not enough for you to be motivated, but that's on you. The system isn't going to be any different simply because you're not motivated in the way it currently exists.

How exactly is this revolution going occur? Please be specific.

Bernie's not likely to get the nomination, his supporters need to accept that. The delegate math is such that Bernie cannot realistically catch up. HRC doesn't need to win any of the remaining states, she needs only to avoid being blown out in all of them. If Bernie cannot manage blowouts in all the remaining states, then HRC will go into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. Why should the super delegates go to a different candidate than the one who both leads in pledged delegates & the popular vote. They'll need a damn good reason and as far as I know it doesn't exist yet.

How do you propose to change it differently if you're not willing to use the system, as it exists, against what you don't like about it? Please be specific.

 

[untermensche]

I do agree that the SC is enough to bring serious people to the poles either way.

And the process to get from worse to better is revolution. Hopefully a democratic revolution.

But right now too many are too comfortable.

The rich have control and will for some time. Even with Bernie as president.

Collaboration with the current system will not result in change.

The Supreme Court is part of what needs to be done to advance a liberal agenda. You'll likely have to work at stopping the conservative agenda first. Maybe it's not enough for you to be motivated, but that's on you. The system isn't going to be any different simply because you're not motivated in the way it currently exists.

How exactly is this revolution going occur? Please be specific.

Bernie's not likely to get the nomination, his supporters need to accept that. The delegate math is such that Bernie cannot realistically catch up. HRC doesn't need to win any of the remaining states, she needs only to avoid being blown out in all of them. If Bernie cannot manage blowouts in all the remaining states, then HRC will go into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. Why should the super delegates go to a different candidate than the one who both leads in pledged delegates & the popular vote. They'll need a damn good reason and as far as I know it doesn't exist yet.

How do you propose to change it differently if you're not willing to use the system, as it exists, against what you don't like about it? Please be specific.

A democratic revolution would mean that an alternative that had sufficient democratic appeal would arise.

The fact that most people either vote for a Republican or a Democrat is just a mass delusion.

Delusions like this can break from one generation to another if alternatives can enter the game.

Bernie supporters will do whatever they want.

It is not up to them to save the system from itself. That is up to the nominees.

 

[Terrell]

The Supreme Court is part of what needs to be done to advance a liberal agenda. You'll likely have to work at stopping the conservative agenda first. Maybe it's not enough for you to be motivated, but that's on you. The system isn't going to be any different simply because you're not motivated in the way it currently exists.

How exactly is this revolution going occur? Please be specific.

Bernie's not likely to get the nomination, his supporters need to accept that. The delegate math is such that Bernie cannot realistically catch up. HRC doesn't need to win any of the remaining states, she needs only to avoid being blown out in all of them. If Bernie cannot manage blowouts in all the remaining states, then HRC will go into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates. Why should the super delegates go to a different candidate than the one who both leads in pledged delegates & the popular vote. They'll need a damn good reason and as far as I know it doesn't exist yet.

How do you propose to change it differently if you're not willing to use the system, as it exists, against what you don't like about it? Please be specific.

A democratic revolution would mean that an alternative that had sufficient democratic appeal would arise.

The fact that most people either vote for a Republican or a Democrat is just a mass delusion.

Delusions like this can break from one generation to another if alternatives can enter the game.

Bernie supporters will do whatever they want.

It is not up to them to save the system from itself. That is up to the nominees.

So what specifically are you bringing to the table that has sufficient appeal? If it was Bernie Sanders he wouldn't be losing by 2.5 million plus votes. The size of his crowds are meaningless if they don't show up in sufficient numbers at the polls.

Who said you couldn't do what you want, I'm simply pointing out that it's counterproductive to any change in the direction Bernie supporters are likely to favor.

Why should I believe you can beat the system from outside of it, rather than using it's own mechanics against it? I've laid out, several times in multiple threads, exactly how to do it. What's your specific solution?

So far all I'm hearing is one liners, do you have any actual substance?

 

[MarkW]

The ACA is just forcing people to pay what the insurance corporations demand. It is an insurance corporations wet dream.

A wet dream that they spent a reported $100 million to try to block.

 

[untermensche]

The ACA is just forcing people to pay what the insurance corporations demand. It is an insurance corporations wet dream.

A wet dream that they spent a reported $100 million to try to block.

They spent that money to try to block the public option, and succeeded. And by blocking the public option these corporations will make a lot more than $100 million.

As I said the Bill forces people to pay whatever the insurance corporations demand.

The insurance corporations couldn't be happier with it.

A great move to the right for healthcare.

 

[untermensche]

A democratic revolution would mean that an alternative that had sufficient democratic appeal would arise.

The fact that most people either vote for a Republican or a Democrat is just a mass delusion.

Delusions like this can break from one generation to another if alternatives can enter the game.

Bernie supporters will do whatever they want.

It is not up to them to save the system from itself. That is up to the nominees.

So what specifically are you bringing to the table that has sufficient appeal? If it was Bernie Sanders he wouldn't be losing by 2.5 million plus votes. The size of his crowds are meaningless if they don't show up in sufficient numbers at the polls.

Who said you couldn't do what you want, I'm simply pointing out that it's counterproductive to any change in the direction Bernie supporters are likely to favor.

Why should I believe you can beat the system from outside of it, rather than using it's own mechanics against it? I've laid out, several times in multiple threads, exactly how to do it. What's your specific solution?

So far all I'm hearing is one liners, do you have any actual substance?

The only solution is to eliminate the influence and need of money to be a candidate.

If that isn't done then nothing will stop the steady movement towards more and more control in fewer and fewer hands.

And I don't need to spell out exactly how this is to be done to know it has to be done.

Study after study shows that about 80% of Americans have absolutely no influence on government policy.

The government is completely controlled by wealth. This is commonly referred to as oligarchy.

 

[Terrell]

So what specifically are you bringing to the table that has sufficient appeal? If it was Bernie Sanders he wouldn't be losing by 2.5 million plus votes. The size of his crowds are meaningless if they don't show up in sufficient numbers at the polls.

Who said you couldn't do what you want, I'm simply pointing out that it's counterproductive to any change in the direction Bernie supporters are likely to favor.

Why should I believe you can beat the system from outside of it, rather than using it's own mechanics against it? I've laid out, several times in multiple threads, exactly how to do it. What's your specific solution?

So far all I'm hearing is one liners, do you have any actual substance?

The only solution is to eliminate the influence and need of money to be a candidate.

If that isn't done then nothing will stop the steady movement towards more and more control in fewer and fewer hands.

And I don't need to spell out exactly how this is to be done to know it has to be done.

Study after study shows that about 80% of Americans have absolutely no influence on government policy.

The government is completely controlled by wealth. This is commonly referred to as oligarchy.

How do you do that?

Why not? You're saying there's an alternative, let's hear it. If you're not willing to spell out said alternative, why should I believe you actually have one?

No one said that money in politics wasn't a problem, the question is how do you get rid of it? Right now you don't have the votes on SCOTUS to uphold any law against money in politics. With the Republicans in control of both the House & Senate you don't have the votes to get one passed, or even out of committee for that matter.

Citizen's United was a 5-4 decision, the justices that voted to strike down parts of campaign finance reform law were all appointed by Republicans. The 4 Democratic appointees voted to uphold such reforms. That's a big deal, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. Replace one of those votes, specifically Scalia, and it's likely 5-4 in the other direction. Next thing you need is Democratic control of the House & Senate to pass such a law. Most of the Republicans aren't going to be onboard. Maybe John McCain will still support such a thing; I'm not sure.

 

[untermensche]

The only solution is to eliminate the influence and need of money to be a candidate.

If that isn't done then nothing will stop the steady movement towards more and more control in fewer and fewer hands.

And I don't need to spell out exactly how this is to be done to know it has to be done.

Study after study shows that about 80% of Americans have absolutely no influence on government policy.

The government is completely controlled by wealth. This is commonly referred to as oligarchy.

How do you do that?

Why not? You're saying there's an alternative, let's hear it. If you're not willing to spell out said alternative, why should I believe you actually have one?

No one said that money in politics wasn't a problem, the question is how do you get rid of it? Right now you don't have the votes on SCOTUS to uphold any law against money in politics. With the Republicans in control of both the House & Senate you don't have the votes to get one passed, or even out of committee for that matter.

Citizen's United was a 5-4 decision, the justices that voted to strike down parts of campaign finance reform law were all appointed by Republicans. The 4 Democratic appointees voted to uphold such reforms. That's a big deal, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. Replace one of those votes, specifically Scalia, and it's likely 5-4 in the other direction. Next thing you need is Democratic control of the House & Senate to pass such a law. Most of the Republicans aren't going to be onboard. Maybe John McCain will still support such a thing; I'm not sure.

You don't do it by working with thoroughly corrupted parties.

That much is known.

And again I only know it has to be done. How and if it will be done is at this point unknown.

But it is ignorance to say the future must be anything like the past. The past is just one contingency among infinite possibilities.

 

[Ford]

So far all I'm hearing is one liners, do you have any actual substance?

You're not going to get substance from an ardent supporter of a candidate short on substance.

When asked for specifics on how he's going to accomplish a certain policy, Bernie says "we need a political revolution!"

When asked how to do that, Bernie says "we need to get money out of politics!"

And how do you do that, Senator Sanders? "We need to have a political revolution!"

Then there's a rant about the "Big Banks" on Wall Street, the 1%, income inequality, and all the other things Bernie will address by having a "political revolution."

Of course you're not going to get anything other than Bernie's talking points in response. That's all he's got, so that's all the followers got.

 

[Terrell]

How do you do that?

Why not? You're saying there's an alternative, let's hear it. If you're not willing to spell out said alternative, why should I believe you actually have one?

No one said that money in politics wasn't a problem, the question is how do you get rid of it? Right now you don't have the votes on SCOTUS to uphold any law against money in politics. With the Republicans in control of both the House & Senate you don't have the votes to get one passed, or even out of committee for that matter.

Citizen's United was a 5-4 decision, the justices that voted to strike down parts of campaign finance reform law were all appointed by Republicans. The 4 Democratic appointees voted to uphold such reforms. That's a big deal, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. Replace one of those votes, specifically Scalia, and it's likely 5-4 in the other direction. Next thing you need is Democratic control of the House & Senate to pass such a law. Most of the Republicans aren't going to be onboard. Maybe John McCain will still support such a thing; I'm not sure.

You don't do it by working with thoroughly corrupted parties.

That much is known.

And again I only know it has to be done. How and if it will be done is at this point unknown.

But it is ignorance to say the future must be anything like the past. The past is just one contingency among infinite possibilities.

So you don't really have a plan.

The religious right proved that you can push an existing party to do at least some of what you want. It took them more than a generation to do it, but they did get the Republicans to do what they want, at least in part.

Either way you're going to have to have a major party to do this in the United States, and you're going to have to work at it over the course of years, if not a generation.

@Ford:
Yeah I know, that's my point of asking for a plan.

 

[untermensche]

You don't do it by working with thoroughly corrupted parties.

That much is known.

And again I only know it has to be done. How and if it will be done is at this point unknown.

But it is ignorance to say the future must be anything like the past. The past is just one contingency among infinite possibilities.

So you don't really have a plan.

The religious right proved that you can push an existing party to do at least some of what you want. It took them more than a generation to do it, but they did get the Republicans to do what they want, at least in part.

Either way you're going to have to have a major party to do this in the United States, and you're going to have to work at it over the course of years, if not a generation.

@Ford:
Yeah I know, that's my point of asking for a plan.

There are some that can see problems and others that spell out the problems and others that find solutions and others that work to implement those solutions.

Excuse me for not being all things.

 

[Terrell]

So you don't really have a plan.

The religious right proved that you can push an existing party to do at least some of what you want. It took them more than a generation to do it, but they did get the Republicans to do what they want, at least in part.

Either way you're going to have to have a major party to do this in the United States, and you're going to have to work at it over the course of years, if not a generation.

@Ford:
Yeah I know, that's my point of asking for a plan.

There are some that can see problems and others that spell out the problems and others that find solutions and others that work to implement those solutions.

Excuse me for not being all things.

I've already proposed a solution, several times. You just give rhetoric about working outside the party, how about you give details on how you get where you're trying to go.

 

[untermensche]

So far all I'm hearing is one liners, do you have any actual substance?

You're not going to get substance from an ardent supporter of a candidate short on substance.

When asked for specifics on how he's going to accomplish a certain policy, Bernie says "we need a political revolution!"

When asked how to do that, Bernie says "we need to get money out of politics!"

And how do you do that, Senator Sanders? "We need to have a political revolution!"

Then there's a rant about the "Big Banks" on Wall Street, the 1%, income inequality, and all the other things Bernie will address by having a "political revolution."

Of course you're not going to get anything other than Bernie's talking points in response. That's all he's got, so that's all the followers got.

Bernie is wanting to return to where we have already been.

To a time where it was understood that the problems created by capitalism needed vigorous government action.

Away from the domination of money through surrogates like Bill and Hillary who will sell out any principle for personal gain.