Home Main Forums General Discussion Please,there is just ONE party

  • sadoldgirl (1816 posts)
    Profile photo of sadoldgirl Donor

    Please,there is just ONE party

    I mentioned this before, but it is important for the 90% to realize this:

    As far as foreign policy (wars and regime changes), economic policy

    (working for Wall Street and the transnational corporation), and

    National Security (CIA, NSA, militarized police) are concerned both

    parties agree. They try to look different using issues, which usually

    divide . And that is intentional, because if you can divide the voters

    you can stay in business. And this”business” is very important to claim

    that people have a choice.

    The last election made that very clear. Both nominees had over 60%

    in negative views from the voters, but they knew that one of them

    would be voted in. If a third party was mentioned, it was only to claim

    that voters choosing that route were helping their opposite party by

    being spoilers.

    Addressing the issues of peace, inequality, and the “right of the people

    peacably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of

    grievances” went out of the window a long time ago. The most obvious

    recent example of this was OWS.

    Since Bernie tried to wake people up about some of their “rights”, he got

    cancelled and had to join the Clinton choir.

    This has been my view for a long time, because history has proven that

    “divide and conquer” is a very powerful tool.

    ReRe2, strangeviews, Tuesday and 40 othersgordyfl, nevereVereven, VagrantPeters, chknltl, Passionate Progressive, Enthusiast, DesertRat2015, Xyzse, SinMentirasSinVerguenza, truebluegreen, canoeist52, madfloridian, ozoneman, Ejbr, joentokyo, h-32, Marym625, Dragonfli, Shlabotnik, Flying Squirrel, Coldmountaintrail, xynthee, Iwalani88, JEB, Jefferson23, Piperay, oldandhappy, Spanishprof27, tonyl, OCMI, 99thMonkey, kath, GZeusH, broiles, Cleita, daleanime, NV Wino, A little weird, djean111, PADemD like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
30 replies
  • 2 months ago #7
  • 2 months ago #11
  • 2 months ago #23
  • 2 months ago #30
    • ThouArtThat (5056 posts)
      Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

      1. DemExit In 2004 For This Citizen – The Veil Has Lifted – The Dream Seen Through

      eom

      "In America Today, Power Corrupts and Money Corrupts Absolutely" - Anonymous  
    • Hobbit709 (2771 posts)
      Profile photo of Hobbit709 Donor

      2. There is a "D" Wing and a "R" Wing of the Corporate Party.

      But it’s the same party, controlled by the same money

      I won't shut up and I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing
      • FugitiveBirdie (1706 posts)
        Profile photo of FugitiveBirdie

        3. Most of the Corporations are owned by the same money.

        That will happen when a handful of people have half the nations wealth.  The other half of the nation’s wealth is mostly tied up in illiquid assets.

        Democratic and Republican Parties are just corporations just like any other.

    • Cleita (2567 posts)
      Profile photo of Cleita

      4. Without a doubt, the party of big business is one and the same

      and they are in charge until we can get them out of their entrenched public offices. I really want a new party to form that appeals to the 70%.

      • sadoldgirl (1816 posts)
        Profile photo of sadoldgirl Donor

        5. Oh, I agree with your wish, BUT

        even our constitution is tending towards a 2 party system, and how

        many Americans would want to change the holy constitution? The problem

        becomes more difficult if you look at the M$M. My guess is that ~45-50%

        of our citizens don’t realize that they  are watching/listening to state propaganda

        (encouraged by Obama’s legalization of CIA indoctrination ). And how many voters

        have told me again and again that they are choosing party due to tradition, when

        I tried to tell them about the Green party choice! Even when I told them that 54cents

        of each dollar of their taxes goes to pay for idiotic wars, they claimed that the

        government and the MIC is protecting us.

         

        • Cleita (2567 posts)
          Profile photo of Cleita

          6. A new party for the 70% would still net a two party system.

          The other 30% will need a party, and whether that party calls itself Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter. They still will be the capitalists who are now running everything with their minority rule. When we get a new party without the baggage of the old Democratic Party then maybe we can be in charge.

          • Dragonfli (1285 posts)
            Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

            22. I agree, there is a very large vacuum that must be filled, at least 1 party will

            starve when it is and die of political hypoxia.

            “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall

              

        • Dragonfli (1285 posts)
          Profile photo of Dragonfli Donor

          21. We that see binary collusion must help the young to achieve a third option

          A real option, one that offers them hope and a direction away from our dickensian wealth disparity and our perpetual warfare which sheds their blood, for it is the young that die for the greed of old men who send the children of others less affluent than themselves as meat to be shredded to feed that 54% extraction of resources which should be funding their future wellbeing and happiness rather than wasted on global death and war profits.

          They are less gullible than our brainwashed peers and would follow a choice that allows them to expect – more not less, peace not war, and a future rather than an extinction. With enough support of these young adults and some guidance from the few of us sane elders that are left, a new option could easily form from the unaffiliated to replace at least one of the parties which now enjoy but small and ever decreasing percentages of members.

          From something I wrote some time ago:

          Politicians like Clintons and others that share their neoliberal third way philosophies are schooling young people to expect less and ask for less rather than discussing policies and goals to inspire people, especially young people, who will have to deal with the mess once we middle-aged and older people have passed on. What will we leave for them? I’m glad that Sanders is putting inspirational perspectives into the political conversation, and it’s up to us to turn it into policy!! Things like access to higher education and health as a right, things like achieving a sustainable future rather than destroying a biosphere for profit and perpetual war.

          IMO Bernie’s approach gives them the opportunity to fight for idealistic things, The Clintonite vision of “Me my banks and I” approach, devoid of actual policy, depending on Identity politics, attacks, lesser evilism, adaptation to unaffordable education, an acceptance of class and wealth disparity and advocation of endless warfare only discourages fighting for, or dreaming of, a future they want, a future they need, telling us all instead to rely on her and others like her to compromise away the fight in favor of “getting things done” One can only assume by finding common ground with a John Birch Society/near fascistic Republican party, something our “centrists” claim only they can do.

          If such Mentors as the Clintons, and Henry Kissinger are any indication of how they would “get things done” it would not only mean giving up on fighting and dreaming of a better, more equitable future, it would mean compromises that favor the wealthy, cut funding for the needy (and likely encourage more profit from college debt), more private prisons with more quotas to fill them, and more free trade that represents corporate interests that will send more jobs overseas leaving our youth nothing but service jobs at a min wage where centrists would begin negotiations at $12/hr and “compromise” on something less. Such compromises represent the “mentorship” of those like Bill and Hillary Clinton.

          The values Hillary and her followers learned from HER mentor Henry Kissinger will leave our young people but one option to min. wage jobs, a career in the military as such vile politicians will continue along the path (one of their now most consistent paths) of fighting in multiple wars, sometimes preemptively as per a New Democratic faith in the Bush Doctrine, as well as engaging in regime change across the world including, but not limited to, overthrowing Democratically elected leaders in favor of any blood-thirsty warlord that will agree to allow US corporate interests to thrive, let’s call that the Kissinger doctrine (or what he calls a pragmatic use of our military might to help further our country’s interests)

          They (the younger generation) deserve a chance to fight rather than have no power as the chosen establishment pieces move about the board compromising away their hopes, dreams, and futures.

          I want them to have the chance that we did when we fought the good fight and achieved some of our liberal goals. They decided (our party in the eighties, culminating in ’92) that there would no longer be a party to fight with the idealistic youth for things like labor rights, The New Deal, The Great Society, Civil Liberties, Equality for Women, Peace, and the last attempted fight that died on the vine, the fight against poverty that was abandoned in favor of a fight against the poor via welfare reform.

          They deserve to fight for these things as we did, not because they are easy, but because they are necessary to their survival.

          They deserve more than the smell of sulfur that summons forth a demon of lesser evil that says “no you can’t!” – “I will compromise away your fight for you so you may have the crumbs my corporate sponsors allow you to have.”

          They deserve the right to fight as well as leadership that will help rather than hinder that fight.
          We all had that (us older folk) but took it for granted. They have only had dismissal and the lack of support offered by Vichy Republican collaborators.

          Let us all help them elect someone (in fact a great many unpurchased idealistic representatives) that will allow them to fight for a good future rather than a poor and tortuous death!

           

          “We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” Thurgood Marshall

            

          • sadoldgirl (1816 posts)
            Profile photo of sadoldgirl Donor

            24. Thank you, dear and wise dragonfly.

            The problems the young have to face will be blamed on our generations

            anyway, when they realize how serious they are.

            Here is a problem I see just looking from a biological point of view: Humans

            are as tribal as chimpanzees and due to our “distant” weapons probably more

            aggressive. Yet the future of the young depend on cooperation with other countries,

            other cultures, and with the necessity of sharing. Resources are declining, the early

            signs of climate change disasters are showing up, the flood of refugees from wars

            or famine are increasing. While  the US is trying to block the results of these

            problems of the planet, nationalism is encouraged. If you look at Hungary, Poland,

            and especially Israel this kind of “isolationism” is growing. The young cannot hope

            for the same “rewards” we could envision. The reason why “america first” caught

            on was not only due to nostalgia, but to a blatant appeal to nationalism. Unless

            the younger generation realizes the faulty idea of this, and faces the facts of that

            phony song ” it’s a small world after all” with all its implications for limited

            possibilities for not just themselves but for all the other countries in the world,

            I see no real progress. Is that younger generation really willing to face those

            kind of sacrifices? Frankly, I doubt it.

    • tonyl (913 posts)
      Profile photo of tonyl Donor

      7. I agree ..

      It doesn’t matter if a representative has a D or R next to his name, they ALL subscribe to the party of self-interest. While issues may be characterised as ‘left’ and ‘right’ the so-called ‘representatives’ are neither.

      The reason Senator Sanders stands out in the morass of corruption is because he is the exception.

      Whenever you hear politicians use words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY and even RIGHTS, everyone should be on their guard because in THEIR lexicon, these words do not have the same meaning that we attach to them.

      They have no shame.

       

      Because you cant have integrity occasionally
      • INTJ (2401 posts)
        Profile photo of INTJ

        8. Also watch out for the word "Efficiency" in the capitalist lexicon

        efficiency refers to the ratio of Return to Investment.

        We’re forever told by capitalists that the private sector is inherently driven to the greatest possible ‘efficiency’.  Most people hear ‘efficiency’ and they think in terms of things such as advantages of well designed production lines and the minimization of waste.

        But capitalist efficiency in addition to traditional objectives such, ‘all the traffic will bear’ pricing, elimination of wage and safety protections of labor and environment, also means forcing communities to ‘compete’ for industries with free land, freedom from taxes, in general freedom from anything that would force them to internalize the cost of their own operation.

        The news, as pro-corporate as it is, reports with glowingly satisfaction on inter-community competition and thereby industrial capture of more and more concessions that beat down the responsibility of government to protect the community from the abusive behavior of off-loading the responsibilities of good corporate citizenship.   Foxconn, a known industrial polluter in China, today seeks in WI a $200 million per year state subsidy, along with thousands of acres of free land, freedom from property and income taxes, and escape from environmental laws and regulation of the WI Dept of Nat. Resources.   And state government cheers, as the balance sheet shows decades of million dollar losses to WI citizens and is now seeking additional sites for Foxonn to operate in this way elsewhere in WI.

        In recent decades the capitalist cheering sector have spun public acceptance of post-war meme of ‘efficiencies of scale’ into various mini-monopolies with the power to externalize, aka off-load, the costs of business and responsible corporate citizenship.   Efficiency, as we see it when we actually  stop to examine it, has come to characterized by the classic abusive behaviors of the worst European land holders over serfs.  And corporate managers are now trained in our best colleges to standards of performance which would have been the envy Belorussian Kulaks.

        We’ve watched silently as the Big Boxes captured and reduced retail competition and in the process developed, with the acquiesence of the courts and governments, business models that intentionally restrict work hours to below the minimum required for full time benefits.  This has had the joint benefit of externalizing business operating costs and providing them the benefit of secondhand gov’t subsidies as employees must seek and be granted government subsidies for nutrition, healthcare and housing to keep an under-compensated labor force available and on the job.  And as this model became standardized it spread because of the benefits of ‘efficiency’ to businesses of all sizes so that people who were once employees are now ‘contract-ees’ with no employer provided benefits and who also get no off-setting compensation, as would a ‘real business partner’ aka corporate citizen counterparts.

        Nowhere has the process of creation of capitalist investor/financier fiefdoms been more obvious than in health insurance, health and pharmaceuticals where patent protections and the creation of  ‘Healthcare Management’ has moved to create ‘in-network’ mini-monopolies that are functionally kleptonomic fiefdoms  protected by ‘natural and necessary economic law’ to ensure efficient R-O-I at the level of ‘all the traffic will bear’.

        Third-way, where cheques provide no balance.
        • Coldmountaintrail (2491 posts)
          Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

          13. exactly. who in hell's name believes it's 'efficient' to make one piece of

          something somewhere, another elsewhere, etc. all with resources shipped from elsewhere, then ship the whole mess yet elsewhere to be ‘assembled’.

          not efficient for labor or resources; must be efficient for something but increasingly it doesn’t even feel it would be efficient for profit.

          • INTJ (2401 posts)
            Profile photo of INTJ

            14. It may work if it gets 'the product' into the US with intact access to subsidies

            from various levels of our federal, state and local government.

            It’s not hard at all to imagine a car manufacturer producing sub assemblies in regulation free-low wage nations and then ‘assembling’ the final products in US, thereby making various tax-cuts and ‘incentives’ available that more than off-set the price of shipping sub-assemblies.

            Third-way, where cheques provide no balance.
            • Coldmountaintrail (2491 posts)
              Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

              15. yes it works for profits but in terms of resources its completely wasteful

              and inefficient and i think the big ‘profit’ goes into very few hands

              i also think that maybe there is a control function involved

              capital learned that big industrial plants can be sites of rebellion that jam up their profit

              better to break them up and be able to move from one to another with ease

              • INTJ (2401 posts)
                Profile photo of INTJ

                17. Yes, but, that's really point… capitalists redefine efficiency and waste

                only respect to the money-making.  For them wasteful is anything that loses money when it could be, and therefore -should be- contributing to profitability.   Having the most time-effective, waste and pollution-free assembly lines means nothing if those assembly lines don’t “efficiently” convert invested costs into realized profit.

                And to that end, supplementing the revenue stream with various tax-breaks and packages of incentives, can probably do much to promote that necessary profitability.

                In some cases that even penetrates marketing propaganda for brand promotion that leads to consumer acceptance.  The producer having a product assembled in a US territory, from components made outside the US, still gets to claim the product to be “American Made”.

                Third-way, where cheques provide no balance.
    • Jefferson23 (6582 posts)
      Profile photo of Jefferson23 Donor

      9. Well said. Good to see you posting too.

    • INTJ (2401 posts)
      Profile photo of INTJ

      10. The two-party system is rather like the retail system of big box stores.

      There are different names on the buildings, with different people raking in dividends from exactly the same sort of business-retailing.

      The two-big box political parties are separated not so much on the basis of their business philosophy and activity, which for both is the retailing of political services to donors while mouthing platitudes to the masses. Rather the separation comes from having slightly different voter tolerance to false advertising they push in different geographic markets.

      Third-way, where cheques provide no balance.
      • Coldmountaintrail (2491 posts)
        Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

        16. i like it: "the big-box parties" and "the retailing of political services to

        donors”

        • INTJ (2401 posts)
          Profile photo of INTJ

          18. I think it's what happens… I've seen the dems do a LOT of Blue-Light Specials

          for their donors ever since the DNC got in charge.

          Third-way, where cheques provide no balance.
          • Coldmountaintrail (2491 posts)
            Profile photo of Coldmountaintrail

            19. you should write something up following that analogy, including

            the blue light specials

            it’s a good one and easy to follow for the general reader i’d guess

    • Ferd Berfel (4943 posts)
      Profile photo of Ferd Berfel Donor

      11. You mean like this?

      this is an image I did early last year, before Bernie go screwed, before Trump emerged, when we still thought Jeb was going to get it. I never re-did it for Trump, after we realized Bernie was being railroaded what was the point?

      …and you think you’re going to stop this simply by ‘pulling a lever’, in a booth, behind a curtain, every 2 years? - Know yourself. And if you need help with that, call the FBI. -  There is only ONE solution to this mess:  New Party !  
    • Cassiopeia (2401 posts)
      Profile photo of Cassiopeia Donor

      12. Bernie didn't have to join the Clinton choir

      He chose to do so.

      Yes, I know he promeised to do so at the beginning of his campaign.

      It was still a choice, one made of his own free will.

      The only minority we should actually fear is the wealthiest 1%
    • Marym625 (25848 posts)
      Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

      23. On The Daily Radical

      As far as the almighty dollar goes, this is very true

      And it’s all about, and always about, the money

      "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • sadoldgirl (1816 posts)
        Profile photo of sadoldgirl Donor

        25. Thank you,Mary.Though I stated what I thought to be the obvious.

        • Marym625 (25848 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          26. I know. But the argument that they're different

          Keeps showing up. The biggest difference is the dems just like to talk a good game. But show me the legislation that helps any of the 99%

          "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
    • RealityCheck (910 posts)
      Profile photo of RealityCheck

      27. "you can divide the voters you can stay in business"

      That’s exactly what the two binary parties have been doing. They make huge money from supporters that they keep brainwashed in such a divide. Supporters who are also big business pigs slinging money for favors.

      Until Bernie’s political revolution breaks this mold set in stone, nothing will ever change. Go Progressive Party!!

    • chknltl (270 posts)
      Profile photo of chknltl Donor

      28. Yes. It is called the Capitalist Party.

      Capitalism and democracy do not work well with each other.  Imo, where the masses are in error is in the belief that both can coexist in our society.

      This coexistence has led yet again to an incredibly wealthy but small ruling class that does not feel any need to answer to the incredibly large but struggling ‘everyone else’ class.

      One need not look very hard to see our society based in capitalism is dieing as industries ship offshore seeking cheaper labor.

      One need not look very hard to see our democracy dieing as the government bows to the needs of the highest bidders instead of coming to the aid of it’s needy citizenry.

      One can not have an honest democracy where there is inequality because of gender, race, religion and most especially when there is a class system divided by economic wealth.

      How fair would a hypothetical democracy be where only females could vote and their votes would be the rules and laws that govern everyone for instance?

      How fair would a different hypothetical democracy be if only Catholic church members could vote?

      Would either hypothetical be actual democracies? Arguably no. But there are and historically have been many differing governments that called themselves democracies that are anything but.

      How fair is our democracy when the bulk of the citizenry have less to say about our collective fate than a very few ultra-wealthy capitalists?

      In any of the above examples, i see no honest democracy. I see instead the same pattern of a small ruling class and a much larger subservient class.

      Isn’t it time to be done with masters and slaves, lords and serfs, employers and employees?

      If We The People can be the government then We The People need to translate that notion into a new economic model.

      We need to replace capitalism with a new system that fosters better equality.

      Professor Richard Wolff has been suggesting a transition to worker co-ops. Under such a system one would be both owner and employee of the company one worked at.

      Under such a system there would be honest democracy in the workplace because the employees would decide on the means of production, sales and distribution of the profits.

      The company would grow or fail but do so because of the directions mandated by the employees.

      Would such a system work? I don’t know but as economic models go it has to be a better than our current one. It has to be better than our (fake)democracy run by a small group of ruling capitalists.

    • Hotler (342 posts)
      Profile photo of Hotler

      29. Not a dimes bit of difference. n/t

      For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed; And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
    • ReRe2 (1 posts)
      Profile photo of ReRe2

      30. I just call it…

      … “Uniparty.”