Associated Press sues State Dept. over Hillary Clinton's emails

[quote=“anon15383236, post:44, topic:53477”]
We can always dream…
[/quote]Or… you can stop being cowed by the corporate media who have convinced you it’s only a dream and realize that you are empowered to join others to get Sanders elected if you’d… just… try.

It’s certainly an uphill battle against Clinton, no doubt, but if he can take her, he can certainly take on the lineup of right-wingers scrambling for the presidency. The worst that happens is Sanders loses to Clinton and then we all turn our support to her. The best that happens is we finally get America on track for the first time in many, many decades and have Bernie Sanders for president.

Bernie will try if we try.

I’m not going to say anything about who/if you should vote for anyone. I don’t live in the US and I am strongly in favour of bottom-up socialism which isn’t on offer anyway. I also doubt that The Revolution is about to happen (peaceful or otherwise).

What I will say is that no matter who wins, you should not forget what you want. Don’t go and vote and say you have done your bit. Your bit has only just started. If Sanders or Clinton disappoint, don’t say that things could be worse. Demand better from them. If there must be a president and government then they should be your servants, not your masters.

Keep fighting for what you care for and the people around you, and don’t give up even if you think you are being let down. If all else fails, you have the start of a movement capable of changing things later.

4 Likes

Just to be clear, yes, as a Massachusetts resident, I’m very aware of Obamacare’s origins, its pros and cons, etc. I’m very aware of Romneycare (which works quite well here). Obama wrote in his book that his original hope, as a Senator and candidate, was to push for a single-payer system. But when he saw the politics involved, he said that he knew that was a hopeless battle, which is why he pushed Obamacare instead as a “baby step” that could actually be passed feasibly. Which it was.

And please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that I’m just a sheep listening to the ‘status quo’. Sometimes the ‘status quo’ is right.

1 Like

1 Like

[quote=“the_borderer, post:47, topic:53477”]
What I will say is that no matter who wins, you should not forget what you want. Don’t go and vote and say you have done your bit.[/quote]Amen. That’s the only way we’ll ever get something close to a representative democracy within our struggling republic. The Americans that do bother to vote need to also bother to follow through. Voting without ongoing activism and involvement is what has gotten us into this horrific precipice (wars, environmental disaster, disparity) in the first place.

Keep fighting for what you care for and the people around you, and don’t give up even if you think you are being let down.

Until I die.

If all else fails, you have the start of a movement capable of changing things later.

Thank you for your wonderful, inspirational words. There’s not enough of that going around here, in my opinion.

[quote=“nungesser, post:48, topic:53477”]
And please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that I’m just a sheep listening to the ‘status quo’. Sometimes the ‘status quo’ is right.
[/quote]I apologize that I insulted your intelligence. I happen to very much admire your intelligence and my passion got in the way of that, and I’m sorry.

To some degree, I suppose we’re all sort of “sheep” that listen to the status quo, including me. I don’t think any of us can really escape it or we end up surrounding ourselves within an echo chamber bubble with too many monolithic, activist slants on things that can erode a wider perspective.

I don’t pretend to know the answers, nor do I think I can often predict the future within this complex world. I have to get at least some of my news and information from “status quo” corporations that have a decidedly corporatist slant just like anyone else has to do. The corporate media has vast financial resources to gather important stories we all wouldn’t learn about if it wasn’t for them and I’m most certainly influenced by their narratives, I’m sure of it. And, believe it or not, I’m thankful for it and I’m very thankful to brave journalists that work within that system and risk their careers and lives every day to bring me news and information that slips past the corporate censors.

However, I’ve also learned (even with some good intentions among journalists) that the corporate media lies and they lie often (especially with half-truths). I often have to research issues beyond their narrative and also rely on the few reliable corporate media watchdogs that exist today as well. Sure, sometimes the status quo are right, as you say. However, they often are only telling part of the story when they’re technically “right”.

For example, the status quo often preaches a recurring narrative that most of this nation is conservative and will only vote for conservative “centrists” such as Hillary Clinton. What the status quo would like us all to ignore is the facts right in front of our eyes. What they want us to ignore is the fact that a presidential candidate ran on a progressive platform in 2009 that involved (at the time) a single payer system for health care along with a progressive anti-war, anti-bankster, anti-disparity agenda.

With that progressive agenda, he won in a landslide with the highest voter turnout in 40 years. A conservative majority would have never allowed that to happen. When that same administration later failed to follow through (along with most of the rest of his party) to enable most of those decidedly progressive agendas, voting then turned towards a 70 year low.

That reality very clearly shows that this country is not looking for conservative Democrats (a.k.a., centrists), they are looking for progressive Democrats to lead this country and are damn well upset and disillusioned when they don’t get what they asked for. In the meantime, the status quo wants us all to ignore that reality. I say to hell with those destructive delusions. Look at the facts beyond the rhetoric. We truly are a progressive nation. We can get a progressive president if we would just try.

Another example…

The “status quo” corporate media is “right” that Democrats also ushered our country into the Iraq war. That’s now a narrative for many Americans that was induced by the status quo. What the status quo often doesn’t tell us is that it’s only part of the story and a half-truth, at best. The truth of the matter is the majority of the Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution while nearly all Republicans voted for the war.

What they don’t tell us is that if more Americans had gotten off their asses and voted, we very likely would have never entered into that war in the first place despite the Cheney Bush administration’s aggressive warmongering.

What the status quo conveniently forgets to tell us is the majority of the American public still wanted the UN inspectors to find actual evidence of WMDs and most of the Democrats reflected that with their votes against the war. But, all we hear is the narrative that Democrats simply voted alongside the Republicans for that war… and that’s that. And, that’s bullshit. That’s a narrative set up for a purpose and that purpose is to break us.

They do this over and over again and it’s time for us to look at the reality behind the curtain and stop falling for their half-truth narratives and allowing those narratives to dictate our own behaivors.

That’s why I say to hell with the corporate media narrative that Bernie Sanders can’t win and I say let’s just try. The best that happens is we change this country (as we’ve done before) and once again shock and terrify the status quo with our amazing resilience against the odds. The worst that happens is Clinton wins the nomination anyway and we support her to win against even more oppressive conservatives, the Republicans. So why not just try?

It’s not about the status quo being right or wrong on whether Bernie Sanders or anyone else who will fight for average Americans is a long shot. Progressive agendas always have been and always will be a long shot. It’s the nature of our reality. The incredibly powerful and wealthy status quo will often have the upper hand in everything from information warfare (see media examples above) down to being able to fund and outright bribe our politicians to conform to their will.

However, despite that situation, despite the bad odds, the will of the people continues to push this nation slowly (but surely) more progressive over time. Why? Because when the status quo and their compliant media tells us that human rights are a long shot and we shouldn’t even try to change things, we ignore their lies and sometimes succeed anyway because we TRY.

I’m just saying we should try. At least we can look in the mirror down the road and say we did that.

2 Likes

I guess the question becomes: should a President push a progressive agenda in the face of guaranteed failure, or should they water down that agenda in hopes of squeaking any tiny amount of progress by? Is it better to fail spectacularly and be remembered as a bravely progressive leader whose every plan was destroyed by an aggressively hostile Congress, or to win lots of minor victories under the radar?

It seems to me that Obama decided to play a long game instead of the brave and dramatic Hope/Change lots of people hoped for. He may not be the gung ho progressive president you wanted, but I think he’s more shrewd than you give him credit for.

All that said, I’d love to see amazing progressive change happen under someone empowered to do so. I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

guess the question becomes: should a President push a progressive agenda in the face of guaranteed failure, or should they water down that agenda in hopes of squeaking any tiny amount of progress by?

I agree with you that Obama strategically played the long game with some progressive agendas. However, I also think he was vastly (and suspiciously) too cautious with too many other agendas. He also didn’t even bother trying with many progressive agendas and blamed a Republican resistance he never faced nor even tried to overcome (and then concede from there).

Instead, he often played a game where he started his own agenda too far to the right and then pretended to concede from there. It was a corporatist-right shell game that the conservative Democrats and Republicans have been playing against the American people for a very long time now, and it’s a game that needs to stop. Things are too dire. Our world is going to shit and we’re running out of time.

It was like he walking up to a merchant and offering them a ridiculous amount of money and haggling them down a little bit from there when he should have made a lower offer to begin with. Or, he didn’t even haggle at all and just gave them his wallet. Except his wallet had our money in it, not his, and he and the merchant split the money later.

Is it better to fail spectacularly and be remembered as a bravely progressive leader whose every plan was destroyed by an aggressively hostile Congress, or to win lots of minor victories under the radar?

I don’t think there’s evidence he won anything under the radar. The Republicans watched his every move like a hawk. They have an entire network (FOX “News”) dedicated to watching Obama’s every move along with scores of conservative “think tanks”, staffers, other right wing media and so-called “liberal” media keeping constant tabs as well.

If Obama had truly even just put up a tepid fight for single payer and then later conceded to Obama/Romneycare after Republican obstructionism, I’d give him that credit. But, he didn’t do that. He conceded the battle even before fighting it and handed over a Republican agenda (Romneycare) gift wrapped to the Americans public as “the best he could do”.

I’m not buying it.

All that said, I’d love to see amazing progressive change happen under someone empowered to do so. I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

So, it looks like that person could be Bernie Sanders. If Clinton runs into trouble (and she might) and Sanders wins the nomination, he’s running on the same platform that landslided Republicans in 2009. The difference is, unlike Obama, Sanders already has a track record of following through. But he’s not going to run a futile, senseless campaign if he doesn’t see enough support to start it.

In my opinion, It’s not up to “someone”… it’s up to you and me. That may sound corny, but that’s the way progressive change has always happened in the past. It’s always started from the bottom-up whereas regressive change comes from the top down.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.