Home | About | Donate

Resisting Trump Is Not Enough: 20,000 Activists Ask Democratic Candidates Where They Stand on Bold Agenda

Resisting Trump Is Not Enough: 20,000 Activists Ask Democratic Candidates Where They Stand on Bold Agenda

Roger Hickey

Suddenly Americans are debating big ideas that used to be off the table.

New ways to raise taxes on the rich and big corporations have been proposed by candidates Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders.

A Medicare-style public health system to expand coverage and cut costs has the support of millions and many Presidential candidates – even as we defend Obamacare.

Yes, by all means let’s take politics where it belongs–away from identities and back to ideas. Let’s float and promote progressive ideas that tie the People together so tightly that their shadow puts those who seek to play divide and conquer into perpetual darkness and irrelevance. The Enlightenment expects no less of us.


If the goal of the mainstream Dems is to lose to Trump in the next election, they’re doing a good job. Mueller/Russiagate is all they have. But hey, its making a ton of money for the media…and isn’t that what its all about anyway?


The Green New Deal programs are designed to improve the ordinary lives of ordinary people. They stand in direct opposition to a project concocted in the 70s called neo-liberalism. Sold as an economic theory, it masks a far uglier face. Neo-liberalism presumes that an elite class will rule, by virtue of their status and connections. Neo-liberals can be white, black, yellow or brown, their politics can be left, right or center. But they all share a sense of entitlement to riches, an avaricious personality. Neo-liberalism is rooted in an idea as old as humanity itself.

After dominating politics and discourse for decades, neo-liberalism is finally running out of steam, from its own excesses, but not before causing economic chaos around the world, first in the Asian Tigers meltdown, followed by the so-called global sub-prime great recession. In the process, millions lost their homes, their jobs, their health, but the elite did better than just fine, thank you.

In an ostensibly voting democracy, the elite are out numbered. To stay on top, neo-liberals rely on slick talking leaders left and right, salesmen such as Tony Blair, the Clintons, Obama, Ronald Reagan, etc. They divert our attention, while neo-liberals push their agenda. The elite got richer, often obscenely so, at the expense of hard working folks just trying to provide for their families. The income and wealth discrepancy has finally reached such an extreme that more people are getting suspicious of neo-liberal economics. And that brought us Bernie, AOS and the Green New Deal.

Tempted to settle for a ‘centrist’ neo-liberal Democrat because anyone is preferable to Trump? Back to choosing the lesser of two undesirables again? Not if we stop them from stealing the Democratic nomination this time.


Unless the corrupt, rigged voting system is torn down and rebuilt, all of this is a moot point. The Oligarchy has complete control otherwise and the 2020 election will just be another more divisive bread and circuses exercise to keep us all distracted with the thought that we have any say in our future.


Relying so heavily on Mueller/Russia investigation will turn out to be another self-inflicted wound for the d-party. The report is said to be coming out next week without having found collusion on the part of Trump. It’s hard to see where that wouldn’t be a boost to him.

But I guess we’ll see.


Sign me up…!

1 Like

In a functioning republic, what the voters want would be paramount, but ours is not a functioning republic. The two corrupt parties in our political system are more apt to do what their big money donors want. Any demands from the voters are first filtered for acceptability to party donors. Anything the donors consider threading is removed for consideration or diluted to the point of being ineffective. Until this system is reformed, appealing to the Democratic party to go bold on behalf of progressives is just more banging our heads against a wall.


I looked in vain in this article for any mention of the reduction of funding for the US military industrial complex. We are spending nearly $1 trillion a year on military/defense, and that does not include black ops. Our military budget is greater than the next largest nine countries, including China and Russia. Currently we are drone bombing seven countries and engaged in ground combat in fourteen. We have bases in over 800 countries. And yet no country has attacked us since 1941! The real one question litmus test for every federal candidate should be “Are you willing to reduce military spending to fund human needs, and if so, by how much???” Perhaps the article implies this approach, but good grief, isn’t it long past time we made it explicit???


Exactly, you beat me to it. Great goals, with no way to obtain them.


Yes, and let’ start with a poll of the super,corrupt delegates on where they stand, before the next Democratic, con/ vention.


I also wish this had been a top question. I’d be happy to have a cheat-sheet with very simple questions and pin down every D candidate to give a yes/no answer (with space for caveats as needed, but still a yes or no must be given). There is an interesting Jimmy Dore piece with video of Amy Klobuchar is asked about free college and to give a yes or no answer before starting her answer and she skated right past it (after being pressed by Don Lemon, she said no). I didn’t need to hear all her bullshit, the ‘no’ would suffice. Here are my 5 questions:

  1. Do you support reducing the military budget (yes/no)? If yes, by how much?

  2. Do you support withdrawing the US military from any current conflicts it is participating in (yes/no)? If yes, which ones?

  3. Do you support a version of Medicare for All that will after a transition period with job training assistance for displaced workers, eliminate all private health insurance for everything but cosmetic procedures (yes/no)?

  4. Do you support making all public higher educational schools tuition free (yes/no)?

  5. Do you support some sort of aggressive plan with significant government expenditure and regulation for reducing the US’s output of CO2 (yes/no). If yes, do you support the Green New Deal in its current form?

If I don’t get 5 yes answers, you don’t get my vote (and I’m pretty sure Bernie who is my top choice can say yes to all 5, though I wish he would talk more about the first 2).


The problem is any candidate that says yes, but doesn’t want to remove the filibuster in the Senate, is just telling you nice things you want to hear. That’s why I appreciate Warren’s honesty on the topic.

It looks like we are ignoring two very powerful potential strategies: A “big-time” increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit to supplement worker wages, and a refundable Carbon Tax to cut carbon emission.

1 Like

This is what I pledged to keep in the lime light since the 2018 election, and will continue to until I hear confirmation of a bill being forwarded. And press for it’s passage. Thanks for keeping the dream alive Delra.

1 Like
  1. Do you support getting rid of the fillibuster if needed to accomplish the above goals (yes/no)?

I need a yes on 1-5 (modifications from GND are ok). On 6, my current take is yes but I’d listen to the no side and think about it. Bernie I believe said first we need to actually take over the Senate so he hasn’t ruled it out.

1 Like

That’s called a waffle. Taking over the Senate by 50+1 ain’t going to be enough to ditch the filibuster. He knows that and he knows his agenda ain’t going anywhere as grandiose as he says if it’s a bare majority. All candidates say pretty things, he’s just another doing that.

All through schooling students read of America as a democratic republic-----that sounds so good—but where has it been? Voters want a real candidate, and a real functioning America-------so maybe we won’t settle for just anyone—but ( sorry Coca Cola, I’m borrowing an old ad of yours) but once again the voters want ,“THE REAL THING!” : )

1 Like

Why was it enough for changing the rules on judicial nominees?

Climate change doesn’t rate it’s own mention? Seriously? For me that’s the real issue. Otherwise all the others are moot. Can’t have any kind of justice on a dead planet.