It’s always a difficult matter choosing whether to have to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, or to vote your conscience, which is sometimes not a sensible vote either.
As to revolution, Ten Bears said: “Let it be life.” Here the ones with most of the firepower decided on peace.
I agree it will have to come to revolution because those with power, position, and wealth, won’t go down without using the police and possibly the military at hand to protect their status quo.
Either a lot of protesters will die, or we make sure we have weapons to respond to violent government. G
In Display of 'Actual Sociopathy,' Trump Reportedly Asked CIA Why Drone Didn't Also Kill Target's Family
It’s always a difficult matter choosing whether to have to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, or to vote your conscience, which is sometimes not a sensible vote either.
The majority worry that TPTB will use their weapons against us if we demand they leave power.
TPTB use that Fear to keep us from flooding the streets demanding they leave.
Until we all put Fear aside, we will let Evil Reign.
I personally would rather die than live in Fear.
You didn’t catch his sarcasm.
You assert arguments that I don’t make.
You make me out to be an anti-capitalist, which I’m not. I understand that in a democracy (which we mostly don’t have at this point) that individuals with various interests are allowed participation in government through lobbyists, etc., and that includes the interests of corporations.
I have never once asserted the ridiculous logic that you have projected upon my arguments, that any negotiation with corporations or wealthy individuals by any government representative in crafting legislation thus is equal to a complete selling out.
If only we had an FDR today. Since you have seen fit to beat me over the head with your dishonest arguments and projections using FDR, I am inspired to reply with FDR’s proclamations against concentration of wealth and power that align with my “chicken logic”.
One thing I understand now. We certainly are not allies. Not even close.
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.
Damn “chicken logic” I tell you. As Lieberman would say…cries from “the far left”.
My guess is you would have been fighting against FDR at that time.
I’m merely reflecting the reality of your argument. Social Security left out a large portion of the workforce initially—far less coverage than the ACA, by miles. Did Roosevelt sell people out when to get it passed, he negotiated with the Farm Bureau (a lobby) and insurers (corporations)? Was the bill written by corporations? I’m following the logic of your accusations against Obama and Democrats regarding the ACA and I have to say “yes” regarding Roosevelt. He sold a bunch of people out. He should not have done that, emboldened southern Democratic and industrial opposition to the bill, and watched it fail I guess. Some unions were skeptical too—the payroll tax was hardly exciting—so he could’ve enjoyed more hits from his left as well.
I guess from now on, in any compromise legislation facing a strong filibuster, where skeptical members can exercise a lot of leverage, if provisions don’t all go my way, I know I was just sold out by corporations.
Blah blah blah.
If FDR were running against Clinton, he would have been cast in the same light as the DNC cast Sanders in.
And you would have gone along with the criticism.
The fact is FDR was fighting against corporate power, not aligning with corporate power.
So, again, please point to Obama fighting for the public option at the time it really counted. He didn’t. He didn’t want it.
I mean you can deny this fact until you are blue in the face, or red, or purple. I say purple.
I think he wanted it, but knew he wasn’t going to get it and softballed things as a result. I never denied that either. As I note above, my opinion was one of his biggest mistakes was letting Baucus waste all summer getting strung along by Grassley, not that he really had a choice.
On the FDR thing, I think you have it completely backwards. I suspect you’d be critical of him like other Leftists at the time for propping up management power and working with business interests. As I point out, he negotiated with business lobbies on Social Security, exempting entire industries. He included a regressive payroll tax in the bill that unionists denounced at the time. He made deals to get it done, some good, some not-so-good, but he got the law passed, though it wasn’t until years after his death it became anything like it is now.
I think we’ve beat this one to death now. Let’s just hope WWIII that certain progressives sought to avoid via the peace candidate of 2016 doesn’t come to fruition.
My God you are just so wrong. I backed Sanders, and Sanders never has asserted that corporations have no part whatsoever to play in their interests being served.
It’s the balance of power. Given what FDR was up against, it is amazing what was accomplished even with the compromises you cite.
Corporate State Democrats are aligned WITH that balance of power favoring corporations. There is plenty of evidence to show this is true, and the ACA legislative process is just chock full of evidence of this, that of course you sidestep and ignore.
You after all, insist that the DLC, the Clinton actions as President giving more power to corporations was all just because the people demanded it, which is absurd on the face of demonstrable fact.
More chicken logic…Dear Reader, this is from FDR. I know it is hard to distinguish KC2669’s arguments from FDR (sarcasm)
We believe in a way of living in which political democracy and free private enterprise for profit should serve and protect each other—to ensure a maximum of human liberty not for a few but for all.
It has been well said that “the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless.”
Today many Americans ask the uneasy question: Is the vociferation that our liberties are in danger justified by the facts?
Today’s answer on the part of average men and women in every section of the country is far more accurate than it would have been in 1929—for the very simple reason that during the past nine years we have been doing a lot of common sense thinking. Their answer is that if there is that danger it comes from that concentrated private economic power which is struggling so hard to master our democratic government. It will not come as some (by no means all) of the possessors of that private power would make the people believe-from our democratic government itself.
I’m talking legislation, not speeches. FDR negotiated with business interests and left people uncovered in entire industries under Social Security. He did so with the FLSA too. He’s my favorite president and I have a shelf full of books I’ve read on the New Deal. The exact same criticisms of him that you make of Obama were made by Leftists at the time. You can ignore that fact if you want, but I won’t. There’s always compromise to get any major piece of legislation done and it always leaves certain quarters upset.
I see everything through the very precise lens that accounts for the FACT that corporate power and that of super wealthy individuals is completely out of balance with the interests of the masses.
I see everything through the very precise lens that has witnessed the turning toward that corporate power and that of super wealthy individuals over the last 40 years in particular, and has resulted in historic inequality that parallels the conditions of inequality that FDR sought to address.
You presume I’m doctrinaire such that I would not consider favorably an actual political fight to more balance the interests of the masses, e.g., if Obama had come out very publicly for the public option that he ran on, when it mattered, even if that fight ultimately failed.
No such fight occurred.
The reason no such fight occurred, was the politics was carefully managed toward the political weight of the corporate players that of course had to be involved in the process of leaving the monopoly of Big Insurers and Big Pharma the major infrastructure of health care delivery in this country.
You can project a simplicity of analysis on me all you want. It does not make it accurate.
More chicken logic…Dear Reader, this is from FDR I’ve been inspired by KC2669 to post FDR quotes
> The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
Show me where any US 3rd party did anything to win, instead of destroying the party it splintered from. And as you point out a majority keep voting for those parties. And no attempts to get them to switch their votes to a 3rd party has ever done anything but swing the vote to one side.
So if you just want to remain the deal breaker with 3rd party votes, then do so. Because that is all you ever will be. None of your ‘better’ leaders will ever be elected. None have ever been elected. We have a locked system for two parties. Just getting on the ballot for a 3rd party takes tremendous effort. And you have to repeat for every election. And still they only get a small % of the votes.
It is not short sighted, it is being realistic about the system that no one has ever been able to change. The only way a party changes is internally. That is where you should expend your effort. It still will be difficult but it can be done. It’s been done in the past with many examples.
Otherwise, yes you are just pissing in the wind. You have made no difference except to always elect the worst evil possible. That is your legacy. And you will remain defiant and mostly irreverent.
As you even state, there is only a small number of people who will pursue peace and progressive policies. And being one of them for over 6 decades, we have stayed a small minority for all that time. And in the history of the US, we have always been a small minority. The majority is not going to be for peace and progressive policies. Americans are easily scared and led into war during the history of the US.
I protested before the Iraq war. Watched how Bush and Chaney ginned up the fear. Watched as 70% of Americans say yes, let’s go to war. And it isn’t going to change, they are easily led by fear, the past election proved that. Trump appealed to the fear and hate and got a strong minority to vote for him. Appealing logically to people has never worked, people react on emotion. It always sways them better than reason. Always will.
Keep praying, hasn’t worked so far and never will, but hey miracles never happen. You live in a warmongering country that has built an empire using war. Americans are proud of the military history and ignorant on what that means. And they need that empire to continue. And it will until it falls. And it will fall, just when is unknown.
“When I saw him spending all his time of ease and recreation with the big partners of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., with such men as the Astors and company, maybe I ought to have had better sense than to have believed he would ever break down their big fortunes to give enough to the masses to end poverty.”
Huey Long, getting ready to run from the left against Roosevelt.
Or, Earl Browder:
“Is not this trickery the hallmark of this Wall Street tool, this President who always stabs in the back while he embraces? How unctuous is his empty solicitude for the ragged, hungry children…with the ruthlessness of a devoted Wall Street lackey spending billions for war and profits and trampling on the faces of the poor.”
Sounds familiar. Should I dig through my books to get some quotes from unionists so you can see how they viewed Roosevelt’s regressive payroll tax?
We both have differing ideals and how we must get there.
I respect your right to believe what you do.
Perhaps one or both of us will live to see a “sea change” in people’s behavior change as far as support for the Evildoers goes.
The fact remains that TODAY there exists a major imbalance of power between corporate interests and that of super wealthy individuals, and that of the interests of the masses, and that imbalance of power has resulted in historic inequality in this country.
The fact remains, that Republicans and Corporate State Democrats have favored such interests while creating that imbalance of power.
That imbalance of power was determinant in leaving monopolized power of Big Insurers and Big Pharma largely in tact, as the major infrastructure of healthcare delivery in this country.
Sure, go ahead and throw arguments at me that, according to you, I would have made against FDR at the time.
Had Obama fought for the public option when it mattered, I would have regarded that as a constructive step toward more justice in the hideous for profit “healthcare” system that is left mostly in tact by the ACA.
Just curious, were the groups advocating for single payer, the physicians groups or nurses groups afforded a place at the negotiating table during the crafting of ACA?
Did Obama ever put any pressure on Lieberman to change his stance? How about the other Democrats who were supposedly for the public option? I mean, again, where was the fight? When was the fight? Surely there is some evidence of that fight, right?
FDR would be castigated by today’s Corporate State Democrats as having notions that need “modernized”, just like Bill Clinton did with supporting the passage of the Financial Services Modernization ACT.
FDR would be sidelined, just like the Progressive Caucus in the House is sidelined each and every time they propose a budget.
It is that politics that you apologize for time and again, that would sideline an FDR today.
You mean the FDR that backed down on including healthcare in the Social Security package? Who utterly and completely caved after advocating for it in the face of healthcare industry—remember, he negotiated provisions of the bill with insurers specifically—opposition? The one that asked Perkins in 1934 to design a national program then ditched it in favor of minuscule grants-in-aid to states? That FDR?
Look, I absolutely 100% agree with you on the broader point, that there is too much corporate and wealthy private interest intrusion in the political sphere. I 100% agree that the ACA was not as good as it could have been, that it has real problems (not all having to do with the law itself, but its opposition), and a national system is preferable. I’ve detailed some of the problems here with the law myself. I also think we need more anti-trust enforcement, a lower age limit on Social Security, paid family leave, more infrastructure investment, and stronger progressive taxation too. And I also think the deregulatory craze of the 80s and 90s has not served the country well, but I also know under Obama significant re-regulation happened, which I personally don’t think the Left gives him enough credit for.
Last, I also agree with you that some Democrats, typically reflecting conservative constituencies, have been a barrier to more progressive legislation. As I’ve pointed out, such was the case in FDR’s time too, especially after 1938. I vociferously oppose the Senate’s bank bill and the idiotic show-everyone-we-can-be-bipartisan excuse for its passage. Utter crap, all the way. I would like to see them all primaried, just like what is happening to Cuomo in New York.
I know it how it is to spread yourself too thin. Burnout is inevitable and debilitating. My focus used to be mainly foreign policy, I think I was blind for a long time to how bad things were here until they started getting even worse. It’s frustrating and sad, especially when you realize that most people don’t want to know any of it so they won’t have to do anything about it.
I respectfully disagree I think third-party can win but we’re going to have to rise up like the teachers have first. No change will come from above. It will come when they fear us enough to do what they’ve done in the past regardless of party affiliation. They don’t want us to decide that they are completely unmoved by worker strikes and demonstrations. That is how labor unions were won, and some of the ones who fought for those labor unions and other worker rights were wealthy themselves. A few of our current crop of billionaires See the America that is coming if the greed goes unchecked. Maybe there is some hope there? Maybe I’m just grasping for any hope at all.
Thanks! Good response.
I’m amazed and shocked to see all the people around me who live in individual or nuclear-family bubbles. They just don’t seem to “get” any of it. A couple see the danger but have told me they think the path downward, for both the US and the world, is inevitable and that nothing we can do will change that, so why try.
The comments about fear and “false flag fear” are important. Since the fear mongering of recent past, starting with the Bush-Cheney fear scam, the right-wing nuts have seen how effective it is and continue to use it. Most recently with the Syria-ISIS-Russia scare. This FEAR program is second to none going back to the domino days of Vietnam.
What is most scary to me is that there are already a lot of people protesting, and it is not near enough to create major change.
The potential “Blue Wave” is the next best thing. G
It took many deaths and a lot of blood for unions to achieve what they did. And in the end they got crushed. The teachers’ union is one of the last to survive and they have been under attack. State governments pension plans are failing and when they do, the teachers will be busted.
Why do you think they are privatizing schools, it is to destroy the unions. And they will use the failing public schools (which they destroyed) to bust the teachers in the end.
All movements end, we’ll see how long the the teachers can sustain their gains.