Home | About | Donate

Conservatives May Control State Governments, But Progressives Are Rising


Well here’s the problem - you can pass a Con amendment that says corps aren’t people, and you can pass one that says Congress can regulate spending on elections, but until you put a Congress in office that is willing to regulate spending in a way that keeps big money out - you will be left with a paper tiger … If D/Rs really wanted to get big money out, they would have passed a Con amendment by now, they have had plenty of time - they don’t, this system works fine for them …

Here’s an idea - if we really want to negate the influence of big money - we could simply refuse to vote for those who spend it -


The problem is - the word that is not getting out to the voters is a) the D’s are, for all intents and purposes, as bad as the R’s b) there are often other, better, choices on the ballot c) they can win if enough folks vote for them d) until we topple the duopoly we will continue to circle the drain …


There are other choices … And money and corp power determine outcomes as long as we let them - if there is a 3rd party on the ballot, and we do not choose it because it “can’t win”, we have allowed corp propaganda to rule - that is baloney, anyone on the ballot can win if enough folks vote for 'em …

If all the folks who want money out of politics would refuse to vote for the ones who spend a lot of it - bingo, it’s influence is negated …


“In November, conservatives swept not only Congress, but a majority of statehouses. While gridlock in Washington is frustrating, the rightward lurch of statehouses could be devastating. Reveling in their newfound power,”

So while progs “take to the streets”, cons go to the polls …

Does anyone else see the problem here?


Aquifer, how about just saving all those great thoughts for ONE comment?
Do you think all of this hasn’t been thought through?
The amendment would lock out Big Money from Individuals, corporations, unions.
It would bring publicly-financed elections, meaning better, smarter candidates who are not dependent people like Charles and David Koch to get elected. They’d be elected because of ideas, not money.


And option 2 of Article V bypasses Congress. We don’t need their permission, or help, in reforming them.


Most Buddhists are engaged Buddhists; we promote kindness to all living things and do not go with the mainstream as most progressives do. How many progressives drop out of the slaughter industry to fight climate change, how many put solar cells on their houses for electricity and solar collectors for hot water and how many drive electric cars fueled by those cells? And when we Buddhist raise these issues the progressives denounce us as being sanctimonious and tell us they can’t stand vegetarians. Phooey on progressives - they talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk. All they do is complain about politicians and corporations while refusing to take personal responsibility and heaping insults on vegetarians.


I would say many, if not most progressives do these things you say they don’t. My issue is with those Buddhists and others that don’t get involved, give up, don’t vote and then complain that the system is rigged (by those that vote). Hippies tried dropping out, but that’s not very feasible today when oligarchs control most everything. We need to fight back peacefully, and what’s more peaceful than voting?


If they do these things why do they throw out so many insults whenever these things are mentioned?


Sorry - when/how do they kow-tow to the D’s? When do they throw their weight to the D’s?
Would like some examples …


Please, all this hype about rising progressives. Are you kidding me? If progressives amount to 10% I’ll eat my hat. The lock on information and political access has never been more impenetrable. George Orwell was not nearly subtle enough. Most American voters are totally suckered by the Red/Blue Charade. Sure it’s nice to try to keep the troops’ spirits up, but it’s not right to be delusional about it. We are at the end of the line. And you watch, this new FCC ruling BS is a total fig leaf. Nothing but the MILLIONS in the streets will change anything, and that won’t happen until the bottom falls out. And that may not happen at all the way they’re rigging the game.


Haven’t heard about organizing to support Dems - certainly not true in my state (NY) …

After Nader got his 3% in '00 and that blistering “spoiler” label was trotted out, they overreacted and did their “safe state” routine in '04 (I think it was) but after realizing what an idiotic idea that was, they have since, to my knowledge, dropped that stupid bit …

Both the strength and the weakness, IMO, of the Greens is that their state parties are pretty independent of each other, from what i gather, so I can’t say what goes on in other states - actually, i myself am not a registered Green, but a registered “indy” or “unaligned” - i don’t much like parties, though methinks they are necessary for organizing campaigns and to preserve continuity of purpose, effort, etc… That being the case, with no “party loyalty” to prove or maintain, i am free to look at the whole bunch and it just seems to me that though they are not perfect, they are far and away the best choice … We really can’t afford to wait around for the “perfect party” to emerge like Aphrodite from the head of Zeus - we need to pick the best choices we have, even as we work to make them better - so that is why I push the Greens - they have a national presence (one of only 4 parties, including D/Rs that, in '12, had a candidate on the ballot in enough states to get enough EC votes to win) probably the best progressive platform, and some pretty good candidates … If you have a better choice - that meets those criteria, please do tell …


Getting people out to VOTE - period, will impact significant change and quickly. Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, even Conservatives who are not part of the extreme right - the umbrella for change is a large one. Every effort to mobilize Voters is a good effort, the apathy of Voting is a very large part of our problem. It’s truly amazing how many simply Do Not Vote. Can’t be bothered - don’t care - it’s not my thing - no interest - politics is a waste of time. Growing Voter Turnout across the Wise Majority is always a good thing!


A high voter turnout is a reliable democratic poll of what the people want. Whether one’s candidate wins or loses, it shows politicians that if they want to be elected, they had better follow the people’s will.

A low voter turnout (36% in the primaries) shows politicians that the people don’t care what they do, so they may as well keep taking bribes, engaging in high crimes and misdemeanors and they will have no fear of being prosecuted or losing their job


There is one good reason for this strange phenom of conservatism. The paleoconservative oligarchy’s decades long propaganda campaign has been very successful in demonizing liberals and progressives. Oligarchs hire the best propagandists and ideologues to get their message out years in advance. They know how easy it would be for them to lose their money and power if the people become aware of conservative’s hi jinks. Conservatives can lead us to permanent wars, industrial pollution, Drug Wars, Global Warming, drone killings, bank and corporate crimes, etc. and come out smelling like a rose because they own the media that forms public opinion.

The majority of the public may be liberal, but they tend to call themselves conservatives because of the negative gut reaction the word liberal elicits after years of negative conditioning.


What progressives? We know they’re out there, but they rarely have a voice in the public forum. The media is the message, and the message from lib media for years has merely been an ongoing pep rally for the better off, those still in the middle class. It has been a call for stagnation, not progress. Our own modern history shows why it’s impossible to save (much less, rebuild) the middle class without shoring up the poor, and that’s not going to happen – not after decades of anti-poor garbage filling the media.

What would you consider a progressive agenda?


America IS its socioeconomic system. The right wing agenda remains centered on upward wealth redistribution and the continued subjugation of the masses to corporate power. The theme of middle class elitism, pushed by much of the lib media, has served the corporate cause very powerfully. Today, Americans agree that only those who are of current use to employers/the corporate state are worthy of survival. I have barely seen a hint of progressive thought in this media for a long time.

What we did in a nutshell: We looked at the policies and programs implemented from FDR to Reagan, which created the massive middle class we once had, and chose to reverse course, doing just the opposite. Results: The overall quality of life in the US was rated at #1 among all nations when Reagan first took office. By the time Obama was elected, this was down to #43.


A high turnout - if you vote for schmucks, just gives them a “mandate” to keep being schmucks …


We don’t have to vote for schmucks. We just have to vote.


Republican voter suppression and liberal demonizing has worked well for decades. If their Madison Ave. hirelings can sell us Wall Street’s snake oil, they can certainly sell us the lie that voting is useless and that liberals are responsible for all the crimes of conservatives. That Republicans and Democrats are just as evil, or that Democrats are the “more effective evil”, so why vote?

Never mind Republican shenanigans like redistricting, voter ID requirements, Diebold voting machines, lying us into permanent wars, incarcerating and killing thousands of mostly Democrat minorities to disenfranchise them from voting, and the list goes on… Republicans can’t win unless they suppress the vote.

We need to ask ourselves, would things have turned out so badly if we had close to 100% voter participation instead of the 36% of today? We can then go round and round, starting with the “they give us no one good to vote for” to which I then answer, “if we all voted consistently, we would have good people to vote for”.