Forum Thread

An Anti Establishment Tidal Wave

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 27 1 2 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Observing the 2016 Presidential Primary during the past year one can only conclude that both parties have been caught flatfooted and totally clueless about the American peoples anger at Establishment Politics and a government that has been involved in endless wars costing trillions, is corrupt and criminally dysfunctional for a generation.

    The billions in bribe money have created one party and that is the corporatist party serving the interest of the 1% while the 99% got less and less. The American people realize that they have been lied to and cheated and they are not going to take it anymore.

    Trump is benefiting from this anger and so is Bernie Sanders, unfortunately, Trump is an overgrown spoiled 2 year old and to prove how low and corrupt the Republican Establishment has become they are supporting this evil, stupid man who will destroy any possibility of reforming our corrupt, corporate government and these Republicans have been proving during the last two generations how much they really hate this country and her people when they destroyed a great Republic and replace it with a corrupt, oligarchic plutocracy.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I look at it entirely differently.

    The Republican primary turned out exactly how I thought it would. Republicans who have listened to conservative talk radio have heard an endless stream of "Obama is the anti-Christ" and "Obama is ruining our country" garbage these past eight years. Is it really any surprise that a racist fascist is now their standard bearer?

    It's entirely different on the Democratic side. Everyone knew that Hillary was going to run and many people (myself included) wanted someone to challenge her. Bernie took on that challenge and has forced her to track to the left. The problem with Bernie is that 75% of the American population aren't socialists.

    You need to build a winning coalition if you want to win the Presidency. Bernie has spent no time building that coalition. Neither has Trump. That's why Clinton will win in a landslide this November.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "You need to build a winning coalition if you want to win"

    That is what the right wing talk stars have been doing for the last 20 plus years.

    And the mainstream Democratic official Party members condoned it by catering to and for the support of big money. And you propose collating it away. That is exactly what happened creating a wave of abandonment and unrest producing Trump. Now is the time to wake up the party of the working people and poor.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared - Bernie is NOT a Socialist. If anything, he is a REAL Democrat unlike the other Neo Democrats in power today.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    an interesting title to the thread.

    perhaps someone can provide a definition for "establishment." no? that's because there is none. the nonsense of populist movements lies not in their fervent belief or in their anger and anguish but rather in what they rail against. there is no "establishment." what there is and the distinction is important is a political economy that has been laid waste by failed economic theology. of course ALL economic theology is based upon faith and not factual evidence. and ALL economic theology in purest form must fail. just as marx provided insights but could not provide a coherent system that was implementable so with adam smith and his non-existent "invisible hand" and von hayek/freidman with their "the free market = freedom" nonsense. mixed economies with regulations, restrictions, boundaries, social safety nets and careful generalized planning (NOT central planning a la the ussr) are successful. what we have now is not any more because success must be defined as success for the vast overwhelming majority of society. the rising tide agitprop is useless if the tide rises 2 inches for 90+% of the population and 100 feet for the remainder. and since all economic theology is based upon consumption then populations no matter where product goes must be able to consume. so-called free trade agreements for instance are useless for a rich country trying to export to a poor country. there are not enough people able to afford to consume those products. ricardo was wrong just as smith, marx, von hayek and the rest were and are wrong.

    how much of the anger is people who can't get theirs against people who have gotten theirs? what the elites call class envy. but the elites fail to see that class envy is based upon the fact that they have created a system where those who can't get theirs have been told agitprop that they can be just like the elites "if they just work hard enough." this, of course, is pure, unadulterated bullshit. social mobility has disintegrated by and large. oh, sure, some move up but the iron laws of oligarchy and meritocracy work to prevent social mobility.

    thus the real anger must be at the system. the system is not some nebulous thing like "the establishment." rather it is the political economy which requires alteration and can only be done without massive social upheaval via the democratic process. that won't happen as long as those same people who rail against "the establishment" keep electing those who support the system.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    and btw, regarding money in politics are we going to eliminate all money including personal money all the way down to local elections? i am asking this because the system is upheld all the way down to local elections and groups like alec and the kochs provide funding and legislation all the way down to the local level.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird, What you have said above is exactly what describes my observation a while back that we no longer have an economy or capitalism. People use the words , economy and capitalism interchangeably with anything to do with the finances of the country. We do not have either any more. An economy is trade in goods and services. Our system is predominantly paper and now elelectronic transactions. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Ownership of super computers is the essence of our finances. And going further if you ask the average person what the stock market is or does they will say it is a way to provide financing for new, start up and existing businesses. Nothing is further from reality. Try and get the stock market to finance a start-up. Impossible !!! Only successful established businesses get to ring the opening bell. Now for an IPO the stock market is an auction house selling the promise of future earnings of a business. Not even remotely associated with the capitalization of or the real worth of a business. Money is supposed to facilitate the trading of diverse businesses and services. It is not supposed to establish personal wealth. When money is Used to establish personal wealth it limits the supply available for trading in goods and services. Production is hurt and a downward spiral to low activity starts creating unemployment and poverty. It is no secret to me why conditions for the minority decline and huge accumulated wealth grows. One simple word. Velocity. Money needs to be regulated back into the economy. A good example of the total contradiction of economy, capitalism and money is the IPO of facebook. The offering of the stock had nothing to do with the capitalization or capital of facebook. A price for the stock was the compilation of what venturists thought was the maximum price it could sell for based on brand. Nothing to do with a product, equipment or jobs. A transaction to maximize the worth of the brand in money. There is not enough economy, capitalism, stock market or money in the USA to represent the functional definition of any of them. Either continue to support the lies into complete financial collapse or regulate money back to what it is supposed to do, facilitate trade in goods and services.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: and btw, regarding money in politics are we going to eliminate all money including personal money all the way down to local elections? i am asking this because the system is upheld all the way down to local elections and groups like alec and the kochs provide funding and legislation all the way down to the local level.

    Lonely, the disaster is (political wise) that nothing is bound to change if the present still standing candidates ( Trump and or Hillary) are elected. With either one the corruption and bribery will continue. Indeed all the way to the local level. The election system with huge amounts of "money" and super Pac's will stay, as well the privileges for the rich and Wall Street.

    Both Hillary and Trump thrive on this; thus the same corrupt assholes all the way down and up are part of the "culture", which is so embedded that indeed only an real revolution can undo this. This is the American way to stay: corrupt and bribe the whole world; if that does not work then use our drones etc.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: Jared - Bernie is NOT a Socialist.

    I should have said "Democratic Socialists."


    My point is that Bernie Sanders needs more than 25% support in order to usher in the type of political revolution he is promising. Bernie supporters actually believe he can do what he promises, but the Executive is only one branch of our government. He is promising the all these things without showing how he's going to produce a single one of them.

    pr Wrote: If anything, he is a REAL Democrat unlike the other Neo Democrats in power today.

    What is a REAL Democrat? The Democratic Party used to be the party of state sanctioned racism until they weren't. The Democratic Party also got us into the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party used to be the party of Boss Tweed and the old machine politics of Chicago until they decided not to be.

    Hillary and Bernie agree on 85% of things, but Bernie supporters don't seem to grasp that. They would rather allow a fascist be elected President of the United States over supporting someone who agrees with the vast majority of their positions. It's just mind boggling to me.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    pr Wrote: Jared - Bernie is NOT a Socialist.

    I should have said "Democratic Socialists."


    My point is that Bernie Sanders needs more than 25% support in order to usher in the type of political revolution he is promising. Bernie supporters actually believe he can do what he promises, but the Executive is only one branch of our government. He is promising the all these things without showing how he's going to produce a single one of them.

    pr Wrote: If anything, he is a REAL Democrat unlike the other Neo Democrats in power today.

    What is a REAL Democrat? The Democratic Party used to be the party of state sanctioned racism until they weren't. The Democratic Party also got us into the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party used to be the party of Boss Tweed and the old machine politics of Chicago until they decided not to be.

    Hillary and Bernie agree on 85% of things, but Bernie supporters don't seem to grasp that. They would rather allow a fascist be elected President of the United States over supporting someone who agrees with the vast majority of their positions. It's just mind boggling to me.

    Jared again you disappoint me; Hillary and Bernie agreeing 85%, you must be kidding again.

    1) Hillary is for revamping "elections" without super PAC's and "bribery money"? Answer: NO

    2) Hillary is for "healthcare" for all, as well control of doctors fees and pharma fees? Answer: NO

    3) Hillary is for reducing our wars as well Pentagon waste? Answer: NO

    4) Hillary is for "term limits"? Answer: No

    5) Hillary is for upgrading minimum wages to $15 p/hr? Answer: No , only to $12 p/hr.

    6) Hillary is for changing Wall Street practices and taxing the rich progressively? Answer : NO

    Of course there are many more things Bernie wants to copy from Europe, but he knows he's fighting a lost cause because people like you and others feel very comfortable with a corrupt government.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What is the solution the ACA has for people that can't afford health insurance? They get a waiver that says they don't have to have health insurance. That is the answer to health insurance for everybody. Hillary ignores the most important part of health insurance, giving everybody health insurance. Can't afford it then you don't need it, health insurance for everybody !!! Got a problem then ignore it.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared again you disappoint me; Hillary and Bernie agreeing 85%, you must be kidding again.

    No, I'm not.

    Dutch Wrote: 1) Hillary is for revamping "elections" without super PAC's and "bribery money"? Answer: NO

    Hillary isn't promising things she knows she can't deliver on. Bernie is.

    Dutch Wrote: 2) Hillary is for "healthcare" for all, as well control of doctors fees and pharma fees? Answer: NO

    Do you not remember her being the architect of the 1994 health care bill?

    Dutch Wrote: 3) Hillary is for reducing our wars as well Pentagon waste? Answer: NO

    Can you point to any statement where she said "I want more war!"?

    Dutch Wrote: 4) Hillary is for "term limits"? Answer: No

    You do understand that Presidents are only allowed to serve two terms, right? And do you also understand that Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since 1991? Clinton only served in Congress from 2001 to 2009.

    Dutch Wrote: 5) Hillary is for upgrading minimum wages to $15 p/hr? Answer: No , only to $12 p/hr.

    And both are dead on arrival in Congress. Congress passes laws; not the President.

    Dutch Wrote: 6) Hillary is for changing Wall Street practices and taxing the rich progressively? Answer : NO

    Once again--dead on arrival in Congress.

    Dutch Wrote: Of course there are many more things Bernie wants to copy from Europe, but he knows he's fighting a lost cause because people like you and others feel very comfortable with a corrupt government.

    And many European countries are going broke because of it. They have an ever aging population and young people aren't having kids anymore. The promises they made to their citizens will never be able to be met in the long run due to that fact.

    That, and most countries in Europe have a population smaller than a typical state in America. It's much easier to get things done when your country only has 10 million people. It's a little harder when you have 315 million.

    The system of governance in Europe is so different than the system of governance here in America. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept. A prime minister can't just say what they want and have their coalition jam it through here in America.


    When have I ever said I am very comfortable with a corrupt government? For starters--corruption is vastly different from cronyism. I am uncomfortable with the role money plays in politics, but until we overturn Citizens United then that's just the way things are. Do you honestly think that Trump would ever nominate a Supreme Court Justice that would overturn that decision?

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Your answers are unbelievable; so your answers prove the 85% as you mentioned? What do you care if Europe goes broke? Bernie has got the right idea's, but you keep defending the system here. I call that being an real American armchair hypocrite.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sounds to me like Jared morphing into one of those newer Neo-Liberal Dems. Too bad! I expected a lot better, I must say!!!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    For anyone who has taken the time to study the proposals by each candidate, the 85 percent number is not far off the mark. I provided the links below in another thread, but I don't suppose anyone was interested enough to read them and compare. I guess it is more fun to engage in the Trump like tactics and throw out disparaging remarks, unsupported by any concerted research. So yes, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are probably in agreement on 85 percent of the issues, with the major differences in tactics being health care and affordable college for everyone.

    Hillaryclinton.com Issues

    Hillaryclinton.com Briefing/Fact Sheets

    Berniesanders.com Issues

    Feelthebern.org. Issues