This is NOT an election about moving right, left, or to the middle.

[Skwmom]

This is an election about what form of government we will have. Will we have an Oligarchy which serves the interests of a few or a democracy that serves the people?

This is an election about whether we will clean out the barn in Washington DC or whether we will continue with a system that is corrupt and rigged?

That is why LOTS of people are not voting the social issues (e.g., abortion and LGBT rights) like they have in the past.

And the Oligarchy loves Identity Politics. It is the best distraction tool money can buy.

And the use of the word Moderate is meaningless.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Me me me

[libdem4life]

13. Yes, that is her mantra. Bernie is we, we we. n/t

[Jackie Wilson Said]

14. Just admit your libertarian needs usurp those of others.

And that if you dont "get your way" you will opt out.

If that isnt you, why are we talking?

[libdem4life]

16. Nonsense. .. over and out. n/t

[Armstead]

24. You're making no sense

Libertarian is the opposite of socialist

[Jackie Wilson Said]

43. You are a socialist?

Great , me too, pretty much.

Do you know what that means?

[highprincipleswork]

2. Hate to differ. The primary has totally been about social issues. Not economy. Not war.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. Yeah, those folks risking arrest protesting Trump, who cares about their SOCIAL issues

[chervilant]

28. "Hate to differ."?!?

I find this adjuration offensive and disingenuous, as you immediately assert a conflicting (and erroneous) opinion.

That being said (two can play this game...), I wonder why you don't suspect that the corporate megalomaniacs (who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy) control the pabulum propaganda we're fed daily.

[highprincipleswork]

53. Beyond the wordplay, I confess that my post wasn't the clearest. Perhaps it was the drugs kicking in

As the other person who responded to my post noted, it has really confused and bothered me that we have become so split in our Progressive values, as shown in this race. Hilary can be called a Progressive, because she is for a bunch of things socially that are at least moderately Progressive and compassionate. But Bernie, whose positions on these issues are at least as Progressive, but who makes a big deal out of Progressive economic issues and about keeping us out of war, gets a bad rep somehow in some quarters. His supporters are even compared to rightwingers.

It's the world turned on its head, as so much is in this post-Reagan world.

That is all I meant to bring up. The rest of the original post is all stuff I agree with, and so possibly I shouldn't have said anything at all.

[actslikeacarrot]

50. I actually agree with you.

Sanders was trying to talk about the economy, but it seems a majority of voters are more concerned about social issues. And I have heard minimal noise about the wars overseas. Sure if someone brings up the IWR vote or it is claimed "my candidate has experience" or "your candidate is inexperienced", but for the most part the multiple military engagements we are involved in overseas are ignored. Even by liberals who claimed to be anti war. And now we are sending more troops to Iraq, guess the war is back on!

[NurseJackie]

4. Oligarchy has been so overused that it's pretty meaningless too. Now ...

... it's more of a punch-line than anything else. With all the hair-on-fire "oligarchy-this" and "oligarchy-that" posts, it's just an epithet that's thrown around so haphazardly, aimed at anyone who dares to have a different opinion, without regard to what's actually being said, that nobody cares anymore.

[salinsky]

6. There's a lot of labels being thrown around haphazardly ... nt

[AZ Progressive]

9. So you deny the immense power of big corporations and the ultra rich?

[ljm2002]

10. Nonsense.

There is a huge amount of factual information that backs up the use of the term "oligarchy" to describe our present government and the graft that is involved.

During the so-called recovery, 95% of the monetary gains went to the top 1%. 95-fucking-percent. Top 1%. The reality could not be starker.

http://www.businessinsider.com/95-of-income-gains-since-2009-went-to-the-top-1-heres-what-that-really-means-2013-9

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1% — Here's What That Really Means

This month, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez put out an update to his estimates of income inequality, and the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%.

(of course I do not agree with the policy prescriptions contained in the article, but I wanted to use this source as it is not any ultra-liberal or leftist source, and yet they acknowledge the facts about income gains in the recovery)

We had a political scientist last year (I think at MIT) who showed that policy decisions of the government always go the way the elites want, and simply do not track with what the majority of the population wants. At all. Ah, here is another article from businessinsider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

Both of those facts together DEFINE the term "oligarchy". You cannot just wave your hands and dismiss these facts. You are, as they say, entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.

[libdem4life]

15. Meaningless? Not for a moment. We are making the decision this election

what we, the people, are "all in" for.

We're flirting with full on Oligarchy while helplessly watching Democracy wither. Democracy was/is a social experiment....measured by its own definition...it's not looking so good. That is, for people who read, think, notice things, able to make distinctions, etc.

"Punch line." How insignificant can a comment be? Boggles the mind.

[Armstead]

25. Maybe you ought to look at how our current system operates

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/oligarchy

a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

a state or organization so ruled.

the persons or class so ruling

.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

[NurseJackie]

27. Not unimportant ... but ...

... Bernie was the wrong man, at the wrong time, with the wrong message, wrong delivery, wrong temperament and the wrong plan. (I could also add "wrong party affiliation" but that's a subject for another thread.)

He ain't gonna be the nominee ... it's over ... better luck next time.

[Armstead]

29. He probably won't be the nominee....But that does not mean he or his message are irrelevant

Nor the (approximately) 40 percent of voters in primaries who agreed with him

(Not to mention the unknown percentage of people who voted for Clinton as the default "pragmatic" candidate but who agree with much of what Bernie has been saying.)

[Kentonio]

31. Or indeed the huge numbers who wanted to vote for him, but were prevented by primary rules.

[NurseJackie]

32. Actually, he WON'T be the nominee ...

... but his hardcore fans WILL need to find a better nominee and do some inward reflecting to figure out a where he went wrong, why more people didn't like him, and better way to deliver your message ... and to be pragmatic at the same time. With an "all or nothing" tactic, you usually get nothing (as we now see, that old axiom has been proven true once again.)

[Armstead]

36. I don't disagree that there were things that could have been done better

But going from an unknown Senator to 40 percent is not something that went wrong. A lot went very right.

And again, it's not just about Sanders...or even Clinton. It's about how the Democratic Party needs to reform itself and become more beholden to average people and the disadvantaged, and not be so tied to Big Money elites and Corporate Power. We already have the GOP for that.

[B Calm]

33. Do you think by posting continuous insults one after another on GDP will help

the Hillary campaign and unite the Democratic party? What is your agenda here? And welcome to DU.

[guillaumeb]

5. Recommended. It seems as if the oligarchs are winning.

Proof that the system works exactly as designed.

Identity politics and social issues are the perfect tools to use when the capitalists want to divide the workers.

[wendylaroux]

8. yup,perfect tools,for the tools,works every time.

[bigwillq]

7. The whole government needs to be overhauled

It's not working for the 99 percent; hasn't been for years. The whole system is corrupt. Not sure what the solution is. Very few in the current government deserve to keep their jobs. I don't see many changes under Trump or Clinton. Or even Bernie, for that matter. One person isn't going to be able to change it. I'm afraid it's broken beyond repair.

[Armstead]

30. Backbone and integrity would be a good start...

[CrispyQ]

49. The system isn't broken; the system is fixed.

I love that bumper sticker.

The electoral process needs to be fixed first, but the ones who can fix it benefit from the current corrupt system, so yeah, we're fucked.

[Fairgo]

11. Democracy is presently underground

because its demonstrably dead. The choice before us has become the color of our chains. ... or...

[Demsrule86]

18. That is not correct

Without the Dems...the GOP is in charge and believe me your chains will be way worse.

[Fairgo]

21. So, soft chains versus hard ones. Thanks

And by the way, the death of our democracy is evidence based.

[Demsrule86]

46. I believe

we can take back our Republic if we work together.

[BootinUp]

12. Sure. Can you win a primary first before you take a wrecking ball to the party?

[Armstead]

26. Maybe "the party" ought to notice the dry rot that is eroding the foundation

Nobody is talking about a "wrecking ball." But a renovation is required to save the structure. A shiny coat of paint won'r do it.

[Demsrule86]

17. Wrong

This is an election about saving the courts from the GOP...because if they get five picks...the revolution is over and probably this country.

[Fairgo]

22. Thanks for saving the revolution

If we just bury it deeper, maybe the dogs won't dig it up again.

[Demsrule86]

48. If we elect a democrat

the revolution can continue...get as many as five court picks for the GOP, the revolution is indeed buried for years and years.

[votesparks]

40. Didn't President Obama just nominate a Republican

for the Supreme Court? And doesn't HRC promise to continue the policies of the Obama Administration?

[Demsrule86]

52. No he nominated someone Congress said they could vote for

I don't think the guy is right wing...more right than me true, but given our divided government...smart pick by Obama. He voted for both gun regulation, contraceptives in Obamacare among other stuff. Also, I think he is more liberal than you might expect.


"On the one hand, the shift from Scalia to Garland, were the latter confirmed, would undoubtedly move the top court sharply to the left by overturning the five-to-four, conservative-to-progressive balance that has held for years. That change could have vast ramifications for the landscape of American law, from the future of abortion rights and gun laws, to civil rights and the injection of money into elections.

On the other hand, the White House is calculating that were the Republicans to sustain their obstructionism and refuse even to look at as non-partisan a figure as Merrick Garland, it would expose them to the accusation that they have run roughshod over the US constitution in the cause of party politics. That could hurt them in November at the polls, Democrats are surmising".

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court-dc-appeals-court-judge

[Prism]

19. Clinton is to the right of Obama.

So our choice is a little bit to the Right, or . . . God help me, I actually have no idea what Trump would do. And I'm paying attention. He's fascist in some ways and left of Clinton on others.

But whatever our choice, we're going to the right of Obama.

This should never have been the Democrat's choice.

[Demsrule86]

20. She is not to the right of Obama

She had a liberal voting record...she is not the third way...that was Bill.

[eridani]

23. Voting for the Irq war was definitely to the right of Obama. n/t

[Demsrule86]

44. Obama was not in the Senate at the time

And I have not seen Obama change the policy...I would not call hm anti-war...he has no choice. However, Kerry also voted for the war and it was not an issue. I consider that the Democrats were lied to just like the rest of us.

[Kentonio]

34. Her entire time in the safe Senate seat she was parachuted into was a carefully orchestrated plan

With the sole aim of setting her up for a run at the White House. She and her advisers will have been extremely careful to ensure that her voting record during those years offered her the best chance of marshalling the Democratic base and providing a solid background to run on. About the only really controversial vote was Iraq, and back then the neo-cons and neo-libs both believed it would be a success rather than the absymal failure it turned out to be.

If you have been voting for Hillary expecting her to be more left than Obama then you're in for a terrible surprise. If you honestly don't think she's third-way then you're in for an even worse one.

[Demsrule86]

45. First of all

I think Hillary was a fine Senator. Also, I am voting for Hillary because she is the best candidate. I like Hillary and consider her progressive. I actually voted for Bernie in Ohio in order to show my support of some of his policies. I pretty much knew he would not win Ohio. He says much of what I believe , but I don't think he can win a general. The important thing for me is the courts...you want a revolution that continues, then we must win in November. The primary voters have spoken. Hillary Clinton won. Thus, I will do everything I can to help the Democratic nominee to win in November. You should too.

[Kentonio]

54. You can't have a revolution that continues if it never actually starts.

A Clinton win in November means nothing changes. That's certainly better than things getting much worse under the GOP, but its still a loss.

[randome]

35. Your amorphous soundbites will have the same effect as OWS: a brief flare and then darkness.

You know Clinton voted > 93% of the time with Sanders, right? If you want real change, then we need to unite behind something specific. "No more oligarchy!" is nothing but an overused mantra and if that's all you have to contribute, then you will only ensure that the topic continues to be tuned out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

37. No more oligarchy...(or words to that effect) are exactly what is needed

We can work out the details, but unless we want to rein in a repressive and abusive system of, yes, Rule by Oligarchy, we have to acknowledge the problem.

That's not radical. It's what most people know in the guts. The Democratic Party ought to be expressing that and doing something about it. Not just ignoring it and twiddling around the edges.

[randome]

39. The problem was acknowledged long ago. If you can't get past that, then you won't succeed.

It's like the 'revolution' is forever stuck in first gear. It needs a tune-up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

41. It has not been acknowledged. The Oligarchs are doing better than ever.

The "revolution" is not stuck in first gear. I know the primary is effectively over and that partisan Democrats chose the "pragmatic" default candidate of Wal Mart politics.

The problem is not that there aren't many specific ideas, policies, etc.available. If you look at Bernie's history and his achievements as Mayor, he has plenty of ways to advance a progressive pragmatic agenda. And, Bernie aside, there are many, many people with many many ideas.

The problem is that the Democratic Party is still stuck in the belief that all they need to do us is to be a kinder and gentler version of the same Corporate Government that the GOP represents. The Clinton (TM) brand is familiar and comfortable to some partisan Democrats , but it has passed its sell-by date. Two of the most unpopular figures in America (Trump and Clinton) are competing for president. Something is wrong with this picture.

Bernie or no Bernie, the "revolution" requires that the default position for average people is NOT that both parties are equally corrupt -- or that the nation is mired in the gridlock of two opposing sports teams with no differentiation on issues of wealth and power.

The way to change that is that both in "message" and substance, the Democratic Party need to say it and mean it that they are the party that represents the interests and goals of average people of ALL races, genders and circumstances. And they party that will truly stand up against the Corporations and Wall St. both symbolically and in the nuts and bolts of governance.

[randome]

47. Then WE need to come up with specific ideas and push for them.

Why is there no national push, for instance, to have the minimum wage indexed to inflation? That sounds like something we could all get behind and can be better understood than "Break up the banks!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

38. Thank you for deeming the use of the word moderate as meaningless.

[B Calm]

42. Jim High tower knows what it means.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZAAFcbCJL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[Rebkeh]

51. Tell it