Kshama Sawant Gives Socialist Response to Obama's 2015 State of the Union Address

[Scuba]

[liberal_at_heart]

1. She freakin rocks! Thank you Sawant for representing the people, not corporations!

[deutsey]

2. Marking to watch later n/t

[Sopkoviak]

3. So Obama sucks, Capitalism sucks

America sucks!

Have ya been back to India lately Sawant?

Dog save me from the ungrateful non-assimilating immigrants.

But she is entitled to her point of view, and I'm entitled to ridicule it.

[Sopkoviak]

9. I'm afraid that you may be on the wrong website

Perhaps you could point out where the hell the Democratic Party has ever embraced a socialist form of government in the party platform.

I'll wait right here.

[lovemydog]

11. Socialist measures have been embraced by the best democrats

since the beginnings of the democratic party. Strengthening unions. Free public education. Progressive taxation. Abolition of slavery. Child labor laws. Civil rights. Women's rights. Antitrust legislation. Breaking up big banks. Regulating Wall Street. Bailing out the auto industry. Personally I'd like to see a lot more of it, in the direction of Main Street.

[Starry Messenger]

22. Perhaps you could point out where the

Democratic party has been racist and anti-immigrant, considering the party has been leading on immigration bills and opposing racist shit such as that expressed in your post.

[LeftOfWest]

37. No. YOU are on the wrong website.

n/t.

[Half-Century Man]

62. "We the people" is a declaration of socialism.

The United States of America is the base model upon which socialism was founded.

[arthritisR_US]

15. That hide was disgusting and disconcerting. nt

[arthritisR_US]

17. You may have been alerted on but you weren't

hidden and of the two posts yours is the one I would have taken issue with.

Go and buy a lottery ticket.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. . . .

On Wed Jan 21, 2015, 04:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So Obama sucks, Capitalism sucks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6118119

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I can't let the "back to India" and "non-assimilating immigrants" parts of this go.

Beneath the dignity of DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 21, 2015, 04:21 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's uncomplimentary to India, but not malicious; french satire far worse,
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the "back to India" comment was in reference to the point that life here is better than over there for the masses (NOT meant to tell her to go back to India) I also think that "dog" was meant to say "don't", and auto-fill oversight?

With those caveats, it's not nearly as horrible as it could have been interpreted.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric doesn't belong on DU.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Scuba]

77. Here ya go....

On Wed Jan 21, 2015, 04:04 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

So Obama sucks, Capitalism sucks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6118119

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

I can't let the "back to India" and "non-assimilating immigrants" parts of this go.

Beneath the dignity of DU.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jan 21, 2015, 04:21 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's uncomplimentary to India, but not malicious; french satire far worse,
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the "back to India" comment was in reference to the point that life here is better than over there for the masses (NOT meant to tell her to go back to India) I also think that "dog" was meant to say "don't", and auto-fill oversight?

With those caveats, it's not nearly as horrible as it could have been interpreted.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric doesn't belong on DU.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

[delrem]

30. no shit.

Unfortunately, hides like that are becoming the rule.

Well, if DUers want this to be a haven for right wing trolls, so be it.

[arthritisR_US]

32. I want the RW trolls to feck off,

not now but right now!

[delrem]

47. Unfortunately, in this case

the FReeper guy won.

[lovemydog]

12. We're a mixed economy.

As are most countries.

Though we tend toward the unbridled capitalism more than most advanced countries.

Thanks in no small part to people who still don't understand the good parts of democratic socialism. Like lower health care costs, less capitol-intensive military spending, more labor-intensive domestic spending.

Not sure where you get the 'ungrateful non-assimilating immigrants' notion.

She serves on the Seattle City Council.

[arthritisR_US]

18. I know, she is so despicable...

[lovemydog]

20. LOL, I noticed that too.

She also tried to organize workers at Starbucks and other Seattle-based corporations.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. So you're not going to take up the issues that she raises, merely

resort to anti-immigrant ad hominem?

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I don't know how you can call a popular city-wide elected council person from a major American

city a "non-assimilating immigrants." But, what specifically did she say in this response that you disagree with to the point of feeling the need to ridicule?

[rogerashton]

82. Sounds racist to me. eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. But..but..Kshama may be (GASP!) a Leftist Independent!!! K&R

[liberal_at_heart]

6. don't you know that all independents are just libertarians in disguise?

[deutsey]

5. K&R

It's bizarre to me that anyone would attack her message as something negative, but I guess such attacks say more than the attacker probably intends.

[lovemydog]

10. This is what a substantive opposition speech looks like.

Kshama Sawant. Excellent. I'd vote for her any time. I always vote for the most leftist candidate in every election because I believe they are the most committed to fairness and equal opportunity. In policy, not just words. They're the least bought-off of any candidates.

I'm an outspoken supporter of President Obama. I believe he helped guide us past two crises, and helped us get toward a more fair and just society. I'll always respect him.

I believe the present and future should include more democratic socialism, starting first at local levels and in Congress. It's what's best for the future of our country. We should live up to our ideals. And immediately start reversing the trend of becoming a society of haves and have-nots.

If we are to substantially turn the page and write a new chapter past the financial crisis, we must involve many more youth, people of color, women, gay people, transgender people. Get them involved like Stewart. Help them win elections.

They will serve well. Unlike far too many in both parties, they haven't sold their souls and votes to big corporations and billionaires.

Wake up democratic party. The people are moving to your left. She is especially correct that we need more independent leftists running for office, at all levels. Get ahead of the curve. People are sick of wars. They are sick of massive inequality. They are sick of democrats trying to act like republicans.

Hats off to Seattle for electing her to serve on its City Council. Shortly after her election the mayor raised the minimum wage in Seattle to $15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant

Thank you for this Scuba!

[OutNow]

35. I think many of us are in the same place

I supported President Obama and, given the options we had, would do so again. No question.

I also supported the election of Sawant for Seattle City Council. She and her group, Socialist Alternative, ran a real city-wide kick ass campaign that involved hundreds of energetic volunteers.

Now if only Bernie Sanders would announce his campaign for the White House. I'm ready to help.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. I'm ready to help Sanders' campaign also.

[lovemydog]

42. I'm delighted to hear that OutNow.

Here in Santa Fe we have progressives on our city council too. Our living wage is nearly double the federal minimum wage.

[lovemydog]

46. Cool.

[delrem]

48. If it happens at local levels, all over,

then it WILL HAPPEN at national levels.

I'm so happy to hear these voices!

[lovemydog]

67. Exactly, delrem.

That's kind of what I've been trying to say. You said it much better and more succinctly!

Youth involvement. Local levels. We can improve our situation. The power is in our hands.

[delrem]

68. I don't think I said it better!

I echoed it.

[Scuba]

78. +1

[joshcryer]

24. This response shows a disconnect from the political reality.

Of course Obama will achieve very little in the next two years. That's a given. The foundation will be laid for those things to happen, though. Asking "how are you going to do it" is the wrong question, the question should be "when is this going to happen?"

[delrem]

31. Oh come on!

Enough of the "reality based politics" talk, please!

[joshcryer]

34. I supposed "dream based politics" is more palatable.

[delrem]

36. Is that the best you've got?

You, the person who, in all sincerity, wrote:
""when is this going to happen?""
The person who, in all sincerity, wrote:
"The foundation will be laid for those things to happen, though."

Give it a rest, joshcryer. You're out of lines.

[joshcryer]

44. And the world marches forward.

Without you.

[delrem]

45. I always knew that, joshcryer.

I hope that you don't think the world will end when you end.

I hope that you don't think you've explained anything about your concept of "political reality", a reality of a kind that Kshama Sawant was just too.... whatever.... to understand. You haven't.

[joshcryer]

49. Did you even watch her video?

Did you even read my post?

What more can be said? I agreed with her that Obama wouldn't get much if anything done with this Congress. Obviously, he cannot, with this congress. It's a pointless observation and a distraction from the long term goals. She shits on Obama when Obama directed the EPA to classify CO2 as a pollutant, and despite that US emissions are on the decline (thanks in part to the very fracking she sarcastically insults Obama for supporting; peaking plants for renewable energy use natural gas that is fracked). Nevermind that Obama made excellent strides toward car gas mileage standards.

What's fascinating to me is that, indeed, the stuff Obama said at the STOU 2015 has been in the party platform since at least 1992. Really. It has. Literally the minimum wage being linked to inflation has been a platform plank since then. Ted Kennedy made a brilliant effort to get that done. Clinton couldn't get it. It sucks. But it will happen eventually, it is absolutely necessary for the society to function.

All she talks about is "demands." "Making demands," "calling for action." This isn't how you get things done. "We need to build our own political voice."

Good luck, Kshama. Get to work. Let's see who gets there.

And for what it's worth, I really don't care what you think, since I've actually made an argument here, while you blithely dismissed me because I dared mention, you know, political reality.

[joshcryer]

55. There are things that have the votes.

And things that don't have the votes.

Do I really have to go into some insane meta argument about, you know, needing the fucking votes to get stuff done? Really? Do I?!?

Fuck...

[delrem]

60. he's got his vote.

I'll give him that.

His vote stands to nothing compared to the speech of Kshama Sawant.

His argument, that he's somehow more "politically real", is absurd.

[joshcryer]

66. The Administration is the Executive.

The votes are Legislative.

I think you got your branches of government mixed up.

I doubt, btw, Obama thinks the Republican obstructionists will pass any of his proposed legislation. He is merely laying the foundation for the Democratic Presidents that precede him to act on it.

[joshcryer]

63. What else is there to say?

You seem to think that needing votes is nothing, and somehow shit can be done without the votes.

I would direct you to the Republicans or Libertarians who want small government, and no help from the government, and who think things can be done by corporations and charities.

[delrem]

53. What "long term goals" that couldn't get started in the first 6 years?

Given that the first 6 years saw Democratic majorities across the board.

That's the problem, joshcryer. You claim that Pres. Obama, like Pres. Clinton before him, is "laying a foundation" for some future that includes the voices of the poor, working and middle classes, when in fact the world is waiting for him to explain the exact details of what is contained in the TPP - among other incidental things.

I understand the thinking. We're not equipped to make serious judgements about things that we do not know, and aren't allowed to know. So we're not equipped to criticize the TPP, or even the process of "fast tracking" the TPP. We do know that Pres. Obama and (so-called) presumptuous Pres. H. Clinton are all for the TPP. Whatever it is.

What do you think about that, joshcryer? You, a person who posits himself to the left of and better than "Good luck, Kshama. Get to work. Let's see who gets there."

You poser, you.

[joshcryer]

59. That is an absolute lie.

It is an absolute lie that "the first 6 years saw Democratic majorities across the board." The Democrats had the "majority" for at most 60 days. 2% of Obama's entire presidency.

The TPP is a symptom of our consumer society. We want cheaply made Chinese goods. The US doesn't want China to have influence in the future, so it's trying to build relationships with other Asian countries to mitigate it. Its effect to consumer society will be minimal at best. Just like NAFTA didn't cause a revolt in consumer society (example: Maytag started building washing machines in Mexico and they became cheaper), the society will not give a fuck about the jobs lost due to TPP. It won't. I'm not saying I agree with it. I am merely saying I recognize what is happening.

The Democrats are doing what the American people want, it sucks, and we need a serious introspection about how to fix it. But it's not going to happen.

I am post-left. You know, those freaky people who see capitalism running its course, the state falling, and basically everybody living in awesomeness, etc.

The problem I see is that no one fucking sees that capitalism is running its course!

Keep making it personal delrem. I don't give a fuck what you say about me. I know I am correct here. Some things are just in the national interests of the US. Things like minimum wage standards, things like renewable energy, things like energy independence, things like equality for all, those things matter.

I'll note one thing. Not one mention for GLBT rights. Typical of a lot of populist / socialist regimes. It's unfortunate. Social equality isn't really something that state socialists historically support.

[delrem]

64. Dems were in majority for more than 60 days since '08.

You are ranting.
WTF bringing in GLBT rights?
That's fucking ranting.

[joshcryer]

70. No, only 60 filibuster proof days.

You need the votes.

GLBT is important.

[delrem]

72. oh for fucks sake.

Strange that you don't see how you've just made a clear Dem win into a loss.

Now you count like a fucking Republican!
Now a democratic majority is translated into
"only 60 filibuster proof days"
and the fucking sell out of it is transparent as days are long.

[joshcryer]

73. Yeah, right.

No wonder the fantasy based political community is so lost... fuck.

[delrem]

75. cya, joshcryer. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Is this satire?

If not, what are you proposing to base your politics on instead?

[delrem]

71. Do *you* pretend to speak for "political reality",

and do you suppose that your pretension should be sufficient to refute Kshama Sawant's address?

[bluestateguy]

26. WHO?

[liberal_at_heart]

28. A socialist on the Seattle City Council. She has helped bring a $15/hr minimum wage to Seattle, and

has also helped in fighting the astronomical and exponentially growing rent increases in the city of Seattle. She is a force to be reckoned with and fights for the poor and the middle class. She and other socialist independents like Bernie Sanders are the future of this country.

[joshcryer]

54. That's merely a continuation of cities passing minimum wage laws.

It is not remotely unique or even particularly groundbreaking since the $15 minimum wage doesn't even go into effect until 2017.

Oh, and the Mayor spearheaded it, following the lead of other Democrats around the country.

Here's a link about many other cities introducing their own minimum wage laws: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2011/LocalLWLawsCoverageFINAL.pdf?nocdn=1

Oh shit, I'm mentioning political reality again, sorry.

Yeah! The state socialist got it done! Without the socialist it would've never happened! It took the socialist to achieve this.

[eridani]

57. Sure--Murray spearheaded it AFTER she won her campaign by making it an issue

BTW, she ran against the only Democrat on the council to oppose paid sick leave.

[joshcryer]

61. I already showed that it wasn't a big issue.

Since many other cities had already done it and will continue to do it.

Going back to the late 90s. It's like people seem to think this is some sort of groundbreaking achievement. It's not. It's typical policy crap.

[eridani]

74. So you personally know some of the people who canvassed for her and their scripts?

No other city had proposed $15 minimum until after 2012. SeaTac (where the airport is located) passed $15/hour, and Sawant supporters canvassed there as well.

[joshcryer]

76. Did you not read my PDF?

I'm not trying to diminish her efforts or the socialists efforts here, I am saying that they're not unique in their efforts, and that this stuff has been going on for awhile, and it wasn't spearheaded by them. It seems to me more like city-level policy action which, I'm sorry if people are bothered by it, has little to nothing to do with party affiliation or ideology. Cities need to have their own minimum wages. Policy wonks, public administrators, and council people realize this. It's not controversial, it's not groundbreaking, it's just how it is. You look at the data as a public administrator and you provide suggestions to the policy makers and legislators and politicians and whatnot.

They implement it.

As far as my title. It appears you didn't read the PDF. There are quite a handful of other cities, going back to the early 2000s, who are in the $15+ range. Richmond, CA (the first one I see on the list) passed this in 2001. Yes, it was probably lower then, but that's what it is now. As it stands now Seattle is actually $11 and they won't be $15 until 2017. So, saying Seattle is the leading city now is patently untrue.

This boosting and exaggeration of certain actions by marginal figures is our problem. It's just like with Obama how people thought he'd bring all this magical fairy dust and change Washington and the whole United States or some crap. It requires tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people working together to achieve stuff. For cities that raise their minimum wages, it likely requires at least several hundred policy wonks and researchers and council members and polls and voters to achieve it. The voters alone make up the lions share of the effort, even.

[eridani]

80. It's groundbreaking to run candidates on that issue alone with a massive canvass effort

No other left third party has mounted such an effort since the 30s. Usually they don't bother talking with actual voters--position papers with all the right answers are deemed sufficient. SA is something new under the sun.

[lovemydog]

83. Yes - something good is brewing.

Living wage tied to inflation is a great canvassing issue. When you can also get local businesses publicly on board, that helps turn the tide.

People will come out and vote for it. More democrats and socialists and democratic socialists should run for city council on this issue. Connect with people. While continuing to urge for it on a federal level.

Long game AND short game!

[LeftOfWest]

38. Seriously?

bluestateguy?

[bluestateguy]

27. I'm sure Obama appreciates her lecture on the plight of Black Americans

Because it's not like he would know anything about that at all.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. He certainly doesn't anymore. He lives in the DC insiders bubble. How many Black Americans do you

think Obama has consulted with about the cuts to food stamps and WIC or about the unfair educational standardized testing that puts urban, inner-city schools at a disadvantage? How is the TPP going to help Black Americans?

[glasshouses]

33. TPP isn't going to help anyone but the 1% which Obama is now or will be soon

[LeftOfWest]

39. She is great for working poor bluestateguy.

I have been working poor myself.

[delrem]

50. I hope that you don't think that you're doing Pres. Obama any favors.

You aren't.

[joshcryer]

51. Yeah, that was low as fuck.

Her speech appeared prepared that Obama wouldn't mention police brutality, but he did. Surprised they posted it with that language in there. Obama called for the very thing she called for. Except, Obama didn't make it racial.

Not that socialists have a great track record respecting racial concerns.

[Rhinodawg]

79. She lost me...

when she called President Obama condescendingly "OBAMA".

I really was turned off by her.