I believe fewer grayhairs will be in office in 2020. Chuck and Nancy seem to be the right people right now to me.

@AstralSmoke oh please Nancy is for Nancy..1st and for most.
Chuck caved in to McCornholes demands more than Obama did..and I supported Obama ..

@Charlene I didn't say anything about them being people I'd like to emulate. They know the system and they know how to use the system against Trump. That's all I was referring to in my statement. 2020!

@MissKathleen No shit! The Dems have been that way ever since the DLC was established in the late 80s.

@MissKathleen Problem is a 3rd party prez won't happen anytime soon because of the way the electoral college is set up. Secondly, the media, all corporate, will never allow a 3rd party candidate a fair chance in media coverage. Third, too many people are brainwashed into thinking that 3rd party is a wasted vote and just won't seriously think about voting that way even when they freely admit the Dems are useless and corrupt like we do. They are addicted to supporting the Dems no matter what and need a 12 step program for it!

@MissKathleen It's a needless difficulty they want to have, rather than winning in a landslide with lots of former non-voters electing a progressive. Their strategy is to instead keep trying to eke out a narrow victory among middle class voters instead of trying to get the poor and working poor to turn out for them. The result is prez elections with 50% turnout and narrow victories for one party or the other decided by middle class independent voters, over and over.

You can complain about middle class voters all you want but they represent the majority of this country and most of them are moderate in outlook, left or right.

Letting one extreme (either one) run (dictate) everything and you get what we have now. A mess. All sides should have input in our government, with a consensus based on a common set of facts and an agreement of ideas, not being dictated from whichever alternative facts and extreme side you pull for. That IS what a democracy is, after all.

We are strongest when we work together, not pull in different directions.

If you want a third party candidate to win, then that candidate cannot come from an extreme. They must win over the electorate with honest facts and ideas that appeal to the majority.

@Rob1948 I guess you didn't learn much from the Occupy experience. The fact is that the middle class is no longer that large and has been rapidly shrinking since the 80s. It will continue to do so even more rapidly with continued outsourcing overseas of jobs and more importantly rapidly increasing automation of jobs. By 2025 the majority of the US will be poor because of these trends. You are wrong sir. Candidates who only speak to the top 10% level of wealth and income are not going to help most of the country, the 99% that Occupy was talking about. You are ignoring the tens of millions of eligible voters who know they are not represented by either party. It's time for candidates and parties that represent the economic interests of the 99%, not just the top 10% like the Dems do. The top 10% is the rich and the upper-middle class, over 100K a year or more. Mainly doctors, lawyers, accountants, execs, management, small business owners, etc. in the upper middle class.

Your argument conveniently ignores the fact of class warfare, in which the top 10% have very different, competing economic interests compared to the bottom 90% and consensous is not possible. Only one side can win and this has been going on in one direction since the 80s with neither party fighting back on behalf of the bottom 90%.

We have a mess in DC not because we have too much of one extreme running things but because we have a plutocracy, not a real functioning democracy where both parties are owned by the same people and serve them accordingly. Their squabbles over everything but economic and foreign policy( both of which they are very much in agreement) are merely kabbuki theater to make it look like the two parties are really that different.

@TomMcGiverin while you are right about the economic class divisions, you don’t take into account that those divisions still exist psychologically. Yes, the economic differences between the 1% and 10% and the rest have spread. But the Occupy movement does not cover the remaining 90%.

I’m ignoring no one. I did not say that candidates should appeal to the top 10%. I said they should appeal to the vast majority of people who are moderates.

Right now, the Republican Party is on the extreme right and look where we are. There are damn few Republicans in Congress who are moderates. Most of them are Democrats. If the extreme left of the Democratic Party takes control and wins, then we will have a similar problem and half the country or more will be unhappy. You might be happy but you aren’t everyone.

I do agree on one point, big business controls Congress. Not because of money alone but because of lobbyists and the simple fact that Congress has almost eliminated any technical expertise that they can rely on.

You might want to read these articles:
[washingtonpost.com]

[facebook.com]

@MissKathleen Bernie Sanders. Voters were pretty vocal about him and the Dems went with Hilary. As much as I like and admire her, it seemed like the trend was towards Bernie.

@MissKathleen IKR and this is exactly why I feel that they need to pay more attention this time.

@patchoullijulie Tulsi Gabbard has just announced that she will announce her candidacy. Very similar to Bernie in views and approach, but a ton better looking. She'll be our next president.

@patchoullijulie Exactly. The Dem leaders knew that all the excitement among the voters and Dem supporters was for Bernie, but they wanted Hillary so they rigged it even tho they knew Bernie had a better chance of winning. As long as there are super delegates, it doesn't matter shit what voters or the average Dem supporters want for a candidate.

@MissKathleen I would have to agree. sadly

The problem with bluster is, when you play with pigs, you get dirty. And, the pig enjoys it.

@AstralSmoke I am not that familiar with her. I have heard her name but not her record. I did hear that she was against same sex marriage. If that is true then I would not want her to lead us. I need to do some more research.

@AstralSmoke, @MissKathleen There is so much that has to be remedied in U.S. politics right now, it is completely overwhelming.

Absolutely. Her tweets. Her interview with 60 Minutes. This article. Others. All point to that. She has potential but if no one is willing to work with you...

@Rob1948 i have seen no indication that she is unwilling to compromise, and i think her support for pelosi is a sign of how reasonable she is. i think rushing to judgment is more divisive than anything i have seen from her.

g

@genessa everything I have seen and read indicates she is unwilling to comprise to any great extent on what she wants to accomplish, but willing to compromise on how to get there. As to Pelosi, AOC came out against Pelosi’s House Rules.

@Rob1948 unwilling to compromise on what she wants to accomplish but willing re the method... that sounds fine to me! or do we want republican wimps who go any way the trumpian wind blows? geez, give her a chance!

g

@genessa just because she wants something and is unwilling to compromise does not make her right. Being unwilling to compromise remind you of any politician you don’t like?

I’m willing to give her a chance but my way or the highway attitudes are a turnoff. She has the chance to change that perception. It’s up to her to do it. But, frankly, we have too much unwilling to compromise in Congress now. We need politicians to see that there are positions that take into account multiple points of view that can be good. And perhaps, if they do, little steps can turn into bigger steps.

@Rob1948 it doesn't make her wrong either. unwilling to compromise has levels. from what you've said, she does not have a my way or the highway attitude.

g

@genessa one can hope but, according to the article, her colleagues are concerned. I can see that in what I have read as well.

@Rob1948 i read all kinds of stuff in articles. i like to observe for myself. i get c-span.

g

@genessa you can watch 60 minutes then. She showed that while she thinks facts are important, that errors can be excused if the cause is right. While she is not seen as anything like Trump’s dishonesty, that logic parallels his for justifying his lies.

That is a huge red flag. And, something she needs to fix.

One trait in a leader is honesty. That means admitting and fixing factual mistakes when possible. Not shrugging them off because your intent is good.

@Rob1948 since when are errors lies?

g

@genessa when you don’t correct them because you consider the message/cause/purpose to be important and the error makes that point better than would correcting it.

Or, when it’s hyperbole and it makes your claim look better.

When ever you play loose with facts and do so on a regular basis.

I corrected errors, left in place as factual are no longer errors but lies when you know they exist but you don’t correct them, for any reason, when they are brought to your attention.

A just cause, no matter how just is never a valid excuse to leave known factual errors in place. While significance can mitigate, excusing a series of small errors of minor importance is sloppy at best. Do that regularly, skipping over big ones becomes easier.

And, let’s face it, get a reputation for playing loosely with facts makes one less trustworthy.

But, you know all that already.

Here’s an article about AOC and her stated attitude. Hopefully she will learn from the criticism. [washingtonpost.com]

@Rob1948 okay so we keep an eye on her. maybe she's not good at math and maybe she needs to learn to be more careful with her facts, which she won't do until she recognizes the importance of them. i am still willing to say, temporarily at least, that she was equally clumsy in excusing her errors. this could become a problem or she could grow into the job. i am not willing to condemn her as a person or as a congressperson quite yet. but yes we keep an eye on her.

g

@genessa thank you. I think that is far more sensible than some of the unquestioning, knee jerk support that has popped up for her here and nationally.

@Rob1948 i think at the moment we have bigger fish to fry. she's there. she'll be there for a while. i'd rather focus on getting everyone united and getting the whining baby out of the white house than making sure everyone on our side is perfect.

g

@genessa I understand the point but if she or anyone wants to be a future leader, they need to start out right with the habits and traits that a leader should have. We have to address today and for her and her supporters that means working toward a unified party, not one split along ideological grounds. It means a party with candidates that can reach the majority of the electorate with ideas and approaches that can work. Being divisive, which is an image that AOC has begun to develop by working against incumbent democrats because they aren’t progressive enough, is not the way to go now, or in the future. Just like we, in this country, need to learn to work together despite our differences, that is something AOC needs to learn too. And, one way to do that is by learning to compromise.

@Rob1948 sorry but you keep going back and forth with what's wrong with her. first it was divisiveness, which i do not see. then it was untruthfulness, which may be so, in a minor way, not that it's a minor issue. now it's back to divisiveness, which i still don't see. i am not going to get MY panties in a twist over this right now. i do prioritize, and i am doing so.

g

@genessa did you read the article? It’s discussed there.

@Rob1948 yes. and i didn't get from it what you apparently got from it. her high crime was telling people to run for office? or maybe vying for a committee position? oh wait, she tweets. how mean. sorry, not really getting bad vibes from any of that!

g

@genessa it’s a pity. The article is very clear about how she is being perceived by her colleagues.

This is straight from the article. It is clear that she is being viewed as divisive and unwilling to accept even her own party if they are not progressive.

“Incumbent Democrats are most annoyed by Ocasio-Cortez’s threat to back primary opponents against members of their ranks she deems too moderate.”

It wasn’t just a threat. She did, in fact, support several progressive candidates, in their primaries, against more moderate Democrats. But, hey, if you don’t think that that means she is divisive, I can’t help you.

@Rob1948 i READ the article. it is very clear about how it perceives she is perceived. and wy SHOULDN'T she back progressives? i guess that's going to piss some people off. if she backed moderate, that would piss progressives off. i don't need help, thanks.

g

@genessa it is clear yet you don’t see it as divisive? Whatever.

@Rob1948 correct. i do not see it as more divisive than her doing otherwise.

g

Then they need to nominate a candidate that can win.

Edit: I don’t think you can say the majority did not want her. She secured the nomination, more fairly than Trump secured his. She won the popular vote (Trump did not). She lost the strategic vote because she made some bad assumptions.

@Rob1948 Tulsi Gabbard!