Question shouldn't be whether president said "shithole" or "shithouse," argues top Democrat. It should be: "What are we going to do about it?"
Right on, Keith! I guess we never thought that an imperial “banana republic” could happen here. And that “banana republic” is reserved for the poor of us. Only the well-connected, monied-up corporatists, can remain “free” of a dictatorial, institutionalized spying economy. But “they” are not immune from a sustained, over centuries, Climate chaos or a global “nuclear winter”. How is it that wealth has become synonymous with stupefying indolence? What is at the bottom of this arrogance of political power? A lot, I guess.
If Democrats present a progressive populist agenda focused on real issues that rejects neoliberal economics and neocon foreign policy, (war with Russia, debt colonialism, and regime change around the world) and the organizing will happen.
I’m sorry, Ellison has also been co-opted by the Democratic Establishment, like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, etc. They should have up and left the party when Tom Perez was shoved down their throats by the corporatists last Winter, but they bent over and took their a** reamings for the crumbs offered to them. It’s time to abandon the Democrats - who also just voted to sell out your civil liberties to the intel establishment, and who also will not unanimously support preserving net neutrality - especially Feinstein, who needs to be retired by the people this year, but probably won’t be. Please join us in a coalition with the Green Party - the only third party with real ballot access, in overturning the two-party duopoly once and for all!
“All human history is one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over others so they might enjoy the rewards of life at the expense of others, and shift the burdens of life onto the shoulders of others.”
–William Graham Sumner (quoting from memory)
Yeah. Like chattel slavery! And below-poverty minimum wages. I.E. immorality. Totally agree! “Gentrification” of formerly livable and affordable neighborhoods. Corporations running roughshod over Native People’s treaty lands. Climate Chaos. Radionuclide contaminations of humankind’s genome. And so on!
Read this mind-blowing editorial in my city’s newspaper, published on MLK Day, and prepare to vomit…
I think there’s something more going on. Power is more intoxicating than opium, without any residual sense of being drugged. It is the most incredible high. Researchers have been trying to get their minds around what this is, but we still have no real handle on it:
Agree with you entirely. Ellison is my representative in Minnesota’s fifth district and he has become a corporate tool who talks about respect for all people, blah, blah, blah, rather than putting forth concrete proposals such as medicare for all, reducing the military budget, and other programs that would benefit average Americans. After the Democratic establishment led by Obama installed Perez as the party leader and retained Pelosi and Schumer as congressional leaders, it was obvious that the Democrats would continue their electoral free fall. Now in the latest Senate vote, Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota’s senior senator, voted with the Republicans to allow Trump more surveillance authority. Other than a few social issues, members of Congress are virtually the same when it comes to votes on military and economic programs.
Thank you for posting these. There seems to be a strategy of constantly pitting whatever concerns rise highest against conflations out of thin air (think WH unspeakable con woman Kelly Conway)
Ellison is 100 percent correct. The Republican has taken a hard right turn backward into Trump RACISM and need to pay the price for it. The Democrats need to move away from the “Duopoly” and become the party of diversity in stark contrast to the Trump racism and white supremacy. The Democratic Party needs to confront Trump on his blatant racism and sexism.
Trump was the right wing backlash to Obama and now he richly deserves a backlash against his brainless sexism and racism.
That editorial was wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to sort them all out.
For starters, Trump cares more about using the Dreamers as a bargaining chip than he does about their actual futures.
Too bad Ellison kept his mouth tightly shut when he was forcibly replaced as front-runner for DNC Chair based on his being a Muslim. Because that made him look like a party lackey:
Not everyone has the same ideas for how to make this country better. Everyone would do well to remember this. There are honest and truly progressive politicians (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard) who believe they can do the most good by being in the Democratic party and there are others who feel they can do the most good in the Green party or some other independent effort. I’m more in the Gabbard camp, but I never disparage those who have given up on the Democrats and are trying another path. If you are really trying to convince people like me, you’ll need other arguments than you are making - it is not so obvious as you think - many smart progressives have gone both ways and there are pros and cons either way.
Organize! So that we may restore a neoliberal to office.
That’ll be real progress.
“It is not enough to succeed; others must fail.” (Can’t recall who coined this.)
The State is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat.
I had seen an article recently… it took a bit to find my notes on it.
Wall Street Journal Weekend 1-6-2018 page A9 ‘Moderate Voters, Polarized Parties’ Big text = "The author of ‘Unstable Majorities’ argues that if the public seems fickle, it’s because the politicians are too ideological.
The Republicans and Democrats are taking policy positions out towards the extremes. There is a large group of voters in the middle that no one is representing. It is fickle just who those voters will vote for in any given election. To those who say “we need multi-party politics!”, yeah, perhaps, and the party we need most is in the middle.
To dara and people like dara, remember that some of the people who have abandoned the Democrat party have abandoned it in a seeming ‘rightwards’ direction. Ron Reagan used to joke that he didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him, and so from time to time have unionized working class ‘Reagan Democrats’.
I am aware of D party voters who defect and vote R for president and of course the big change in the South where many in the D party who were outright racists and left when the civil rights movement started going to more friendly territory. I didn’t think we were talking about that though - the major rift here is between people in the D party who complain about progressives voting for or joining a third party (and I completely abhor this argument and would never make it) and people who are in the third party complaining about the people who are in the D party who keep taking the disappointments and not learning it is hopeless (which if I became a regularly third party voter, I wouldn’t do either). If both of these progressive sides where more amicable with each other given we have similar goals, we could go further. Trying to talk some sense into someone who is against most progressive values is a different story.
The debate whether progressives should work for their values inside the Democrat party,
or leave and mount an insurgent party to the left has lost my interest.
Just to pose the question, when someone who is against most progressive values, particularly Uncle Joe, tries to talk some sense into you, do you politely listen, and maybe even consider that he might have a point, or do you shut it down, and stop inviting Uncle Joe to Thanksgiving?
And what happened to civility in our society?