Home | About | Donate

Why the Democratic National Committee Must Change the Rules and Hold a Climate Debate

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/21/why-democratic-national-committee-must-change-rules-and-hold-climate-debate


Does anybody here think that the so-called ‘leaders’ of the other side of the corporate party (the democrats) have not shown a profit in their ‘investments’ since Trump got into office?

I’m sure that’s a resounding no. Obama bragged about being The Man when it came to fossil fuel pipelines and fracking in this country. What a progressive he was, eh?

Trump was a resounding NO to neoliberal policies of Hillary the corporate Wall St. war whore since half the country didn’t freaking vote for either of them…

Imagine a ballot with NONE OF THE ABOVE on it after every name? I know, wishful thinking but one can dream…

Pelosi net worth is $123,000,000 last I read. I’m sure she’s invested in…organic family farms etc etc, right? Until the entire democratic ‘leadership’ gets booted into the graveyard of political hacks not a thing will change. And that obviously isn’t really going to happen anyway.

Sorry to be so brutally blunt. Reality always have sucked in the Clas War that has gone on throughout written history…



The climate “debate”


Maybe a song - always liked it - seems to be appropriate here ~

Greenback Dollar (Kingston Trio)

1 Like

Hi Emphyrio:
Thank you, I love Bill Nye and John Oliver! : )

1 Like

How about a debate on US foreign policy----Why do we give 4 billion to a BS country holding the people of Palestine hostage for over 70 years??? And still waiting for someone to explain why the US has sanctions on Venezuela that has killed more than 40,000 people.


One of the finest poems on delicate nature every composed:

Binsey Poplars


felled 1879

My aspens dear, whose airy cages quelled,

Quelled or quenched in leaves the leaping sun,

All felled, felled, are all felled;

Of a fresh and following folded rank 

            Not spared, not one 

            That dandled a sandalled 

     Shadow that swam or sank 

On meadow & river & wind-wandering weed-winding bank.

O if we but knew what we do

     When we delve or hew — 

 Hack and rack the growing green! 

      Since country is so tender 

 To touch, her being só slender, 

 That, like this sleek and seeing ball 

 But a prick will make no eye at all, 

 Where we, even where we mean 

             To mend her we end her, 

        When we hew or delve: 

After-comers cannot guess the beauty been.

Ten or twelve, only ten or twelve

 Strokes of havoc unselve 

       The sweet especial scene, 

 Rural scene, a rural scene, 

 Sweet especial rural scene.

What I seriously don’t understand is why such as Sanders (of the Bernie variety), Warren (Elizabeth ditto), Gabbard (Tulsi) and a few more high profile candidates don’t just give a gigantic ‘screw you’ to your DNC and go ahead and HAVE a debate on climate change! Surely one of your major tv channels wouldn’t be averse to hosting/broadcasting it; brownie points with the concerned public and the opportunity to piously position themselves as giving a voice to the people! Or am I being naive…?

This is a fine news update from Naomi Klein on the urgency of climate change, and it is a disservice and a mistake for your comment to be in this forum. It was a mistake for me to like it. My bad.

1 Like

Good one! As Naomi said in the article, a habitable planet is the underlying issue all other debates on all topics. When people like Trump and Bolsanaro are actively trying to profit from the collapse of the environment at large, people everywhere are going to get lessons on environmental piracy before the “tide” can be turned. Why in the hell Tom Perez is so tied up with the corporate Democrats(aside from the money)? This is getting less moral as time goes on.

1 Like

Yes, they ought to. But no, they don’t want to. They have not wanted to. They have fought and pushed and cheated for the power to not do just this sort of thing.

Probably no one is surprised by that much.

So how do you force them to do it? After the previous election, the DNC went into court because internal documents showed that it had deliberately rigged its nomination. The party that it did not have to follow its own stated rules. It argued that this did not constitute fraud of its contributors. It argued that it could simply nominate candidates by fiat if it wished, with no consideration of its voting base.

We might conclude that shaming them is not going to accomplish much.

It is going to be very difficult to convince anyone in the DNC to do this on this election cycle because of the way the previous one was handled by voters and officials.

Many people voted for Clinton even after it became clear that she had accepted money from five foreign nations to carry out a war, even after it became clear that the nomination had been rigged. No elected Democrat stood against that. Media across quite a bit of the spectrum echoed the nonsensical “Russian meddling” narrative. This occupied years of discourse even though the “meddling,” even were one to imagine that it were done by Russians, amounted to releasing authentic documents that revealed wrongdoing.

So if are Tom Perez or some associate thereof, how might you see this? If you allow discussion of progressive issues, you will have a harder time shutting down the majority of the party, no? If you work from the top down and hold to the right, the money and power stay for a while, though the position is embattled.

No, if people are not willing to vote against this sort of thing, there is not a lot of percentage in asking nicely.

The peaches are in season and I am eating a peach pie. I wish everyone could celebrate the peaches with me.