RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "There was one question I kept hearing from the corporate media at the People's Summit. All they wanted to hear from the People's Summit organizers was how they would get the Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. For them, the election is a horse race that ends with a fight between the two candidates who survive the flawed nominating process. What they fail to understand is that Bernie Sanders has always believed that building a long-term movement to transform our country is more important than one election."

Journalists Juan Gonzales, John Nichols, and Naomi Klein, Actress Rosario Dawson, and RoseAnne DeMoro from National Nurses United at the People's Summit. (photo: Gerardo Mora/Getty)
Journalists Juan Gonzales, John Nichols, and Naomi Klein, Actress Rosario Dawson, and RoseAnne DeMoro from National Nurses United at the People's Summit. (photo: Gerardo Mora/Getty)


The People's Summit: "Together We Can Win!"

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

22 June 16

 

here was one question I kept hearing from the corporate media at the People’s Summit. All they wanted to hear from the People’s Summit organizers was how they would get the Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. For them, the election is a horse race that ends with a fight between the two candidates who survive the flawed nominating process. What they fail to understand is that Bernie Sanders has always believed that building a long-term movement to transform our country is more important than one election.

This past weekend in Chicago, National Nurses United convened a summit of many sectors of the movement that rallied behind Bernie. They understand that Bernie didn’t create the progressive movement, he exposed it. He united groups that have been organizing for decades. Bernie’s campaign also attracted young people and breathed new life into what is now a political revolution.

It was a great networking experience for all involved. I attended with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI). I plan to get further involved in their work as one way that I will continue to support the Political Revolution.

The combination of younger and older activists at this conference was inspiring. The enthusiastic energy of the youth combined with the wisdom of long-time activists created a powerful dynamic.

Day 1

The summit began with a panel called “Visions of Justice.” The segment was moderated by Democracy Now! host Juan González. González opened with a story from 1968, in Chicago. Juan was a member of SDS at Columbia and came to Chicago to protest the DNC. He talked about how they had unseated the sitting president and how Eugene McCarthy was their candidate. We all know what happened. There was violence in the streets, and the DNC establishment nominated Hubert Humphrey even though he didn’t compete in a single primary. Juan explained that they were in the streets fighting for a better world. The problem was that the rest of America saw the protests and clashes with the police in a negative light. The movement then decided to vote in the streets, and not for Humphrey or Nixon. Gonzalez said it was the right slogan—“vote with your feet”—but the wrong tactic. We got Nixon.

For me, Juan was telling us to be careful. A tactic that we think it is right for 2016 could lead to a result we don’t want.

Also on the panel was author and activist Naomi Klein. Klein talked about how we won a battle against neoliberalism. A democratic socialist was successful in capturing the hearts and minds of the American people. She cautioned however that we have not won the war, and that neoliberalism is alive and well in our country.

Klein also offered lessons from the past, telling a story about her time in Argentina prior to an election. “Our Dreams Don’t Fit on Your Ballot” was the slogan of Argentina's workers. She explained that it didn’t mean not to vote. It meant don't expect to get everything you want from an election.

John Nichols of The Nation echoed that sentiment and told the summit that we are making progress but shouldn’t let elections swallow up our movement.

Actress Rosario Dawson was also on the opening panel. She has been out there campaigning for Bernie Sanders for months. Dawson called the campaign and the Summit a “call to encourage courage.” Rosario stressed that we all have to support each other no matter what tactics we use. She said that some will be in the street, some will vote, some won’t, some will engage in civil disobedience, but no matter what, we must support each other.

Calling the political revolution a movement of movements, Dawson called on the activists gathered to discover their power. She told the crowd we didn’t lose and we must continue the fight.

Day 2

I have to apologize. There were many great panels and breakout sessions on day two that I missed after Nina Turner brought down the house. There were many Sanders campaign surrogates at the Summit but none with more knowledge of what Bernie is planning to do next, so I followed Turner and Tulsi Gabbard around the rest of the afternoon. Like I said, Nina Turner brought down the house.

Tulsi Gabbard and Chuy Garcia were also on the panel that was billed as “A People’s Agenda."

Cook County Commissioner Chuy Garcia, who is from Chicago and gave Rahm Emanuel a scare in the last mayoral election, opened the panel. He spoke about the gains progressives have made in Chicago and Illinois, but warned at the end that we must do a better job of diversifying the revolution. People of color must be at the table if we are going to build a movement for all of us.

Nina Turner then took the stage and even left the stage during a speech that had some asking her if she was ready to announce her candidacy in 2020. I heard others saying that they wished she was on the Ohio Senate ballot instead of Ted Strickland. At one point, she left the stage to be with the people as she told a personal story about her upbringing and explained why Bernie Sanders resonated with her. The crowd was on its feet giving her high-fives as she passed them, calling for people to be “Doers of the Deed.”

I heard a woman standing in front of the press riser tell her friend, “I really needed this. She is reigniting the Bern!”

Election after election I have been disappointed by the Democrats' poll-tested message about fighting for the middle class. Nina correctly pointed out that candidate after candidate refuses to acknowledge the poor or talk about poverty. Turner said that there are 100 million people in this country who either live in or on the brink of poverty, and it's time to fight for them.

She had fighting words for the establishment as well, warning them that, "We don’t have time for the okie dokie. We need people elected who actually give a shit! We are not going back to business as usual. We don’t care what their party affiliation is, whether they be Democrat or Republican. We need to form the party of the RT, the party of the right thing.” Turner then held a brochure up in the air and pushed the hashtag #ReformTheParty.

After her rousing speech, she met with reporters. When asked about her feelings on people being angry at the Democratic Party, she called herself a rogue Democrat and vowed to stay in the party and fight to change it.

If you won't watch any of the other videos, watch the next two. I believe Nina will play a huge role in whatever organization Bernie forms beyond the election.

Following her speech Turner took questions from the press:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard had the hardest task of the weekend. She followed Nina Turner on stage. Tulsi was one of the few speakers to tackle foreign policy. She was a medic in Iraq and is the first American-Samoan to be elected to Congress.

Tulsi called on the Summit to stand up and fight against regime change interventions in general and specifically the intervention in Syria. It was the only anti-war message that I heard on the main stage. It was a message well received by the conference attendees.

What followed on day two were many breakout groups that I missed. One was on the media and you can see it at the end of this video of the whole day...

Day 3

We got going early on Sunday morning…8:30 a.m. The theme for the day was Juneteenth. Juneteenth is a holiday that commemorates the June 19, 1865 announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas, and more generally the emancipation of African-American slaves throughout the Confederate South. The keynote speaker for the first session was Heather McGhee, the President of Demos. She spoke about racial politics in 2016. McGhee challenged the audience to change their thinking about racism. She pointed out that while most people think racism benefits white people and only harms people of color, in reality it hurts all people.

She concluded: “Our movement must be an irresistible call to experience solidarity across race and class and origin and gender and sexual identity.

"Our policy demands, as Bernie has shown us, must be audacious because of the very notion that those that have more money are worth more in our democracy and economy.

"This is our destiny, this is our charge, this is our sacred compact we have to make with each other and with our country. This political revolution has begun and will never be stopped. We have to be able to say that my children's dreams are not a threat to yours, that we all do better when we all do better and that today, this generation, the most diverse in American history, the Bernie generation of revolutionaries, are going to be the ones to finally create a Demos in this country. One people united by a shared fate.”

McGhee was followed by an emotional, inspiring call to action from two young women who told us how racism affected their lives. One young African-American who experienced the brunt of racism, and one white daughter of an alcoholic father who took ownership of her role in racism.

Alicia Johnson talked about going from playing with Barbie dolls to being a teenage mother who stole 500 dollars to pay her rent. She then had age, race, and her criminal record used as strikes against her when looking for work at the age of 16. Allison Kennedy was in the back seat when her alcoholic father was pulled over. She explained that because he was white he was just given a warning and not arrested like Alicia’s father would have been. She spoke of people like her prepared to vote for Trump because they haven’t been organized yet. Kennedy said: “There are masses of people who look like me who are voting for Donald Trump because no-one has bothered to organize them yet. I have not bothered to organize them yet, because I haven’t been clear in my stake in ending racism.”

It was a powerful call to action on racism and economic justice. For me it was a highlight of the weekend.

Another highlight was a segment called stories from the field. We heard from a dreamer, a student organizer, a millennial, an environmental activist and a labor organizer. They inspired us with stories about their work and how it impacts their lives. Take a look:

The final keynote speech came form populist, activist, and syndicated author Jim Hightower. He was happier than a flea in a dog pound to be there. He was billed as a hell-raiser by the organizers in their program. Jim told the crowd that "those who say it can’t be done shouldn’t interrupt those that are doing it.” Hightower's message was that it is up to us, its not up to Bernie. It's not up to some organization, its up to you and me. I’m proud to be a part of the revolution with each and every one of you.

National Nurses United convened the summit so it was fitting for their leader RoseAnn Demoro to close the Summit. It was an inspiring weekend. One of the reasons is there wasn’t an agenda in place. There was no starring committee bringing proposals to the floor. For example, when people broke down by state, they created their own agenda and began the work of planning action in their communities. Change comes from the bottom up and that was the model for the People’s Summit. Bernie united us. We don’t need a few national talking heads to give us marching orders. We need to keep organizing and making relationships in our communities.

The answer to the corporate media’s question about how we will bring the movement over to Hillary was loud and clear in that room: We are not going to Hillary. Hillary and the Democratic Party have to come to us. They have to earn our vote. But it really isn’t about November. We are building a movement to transform America. Elections are just one tool in our box. Some of us will vote for Hillary, some will vote for Jill Stein, some will write in Bernie or someone else. All of us will fight for a just society and we will win. See you in Philly!

Here is RoseAnn closing out the Summit:



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+32 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-22 15:07
Quoting from above:

"John Nichols of The Nation echoed that sentiment (regarding Argentina's elections) and told the summit that we are making progress but shouldn't let elections swallow up our movement."

I cringe whenever I see any mention of The Nation as any kind of legitimate voice regarding elections. They are not.
That publication has consistently denied the reality of stolen elections and attacked the evidence of massive fraud in our elections since the 2000 theft of the Presidency. Since then the use of electronic vote switching and massive disenfranchisem ent has been the mainstay of Republican "victories" and has now been adopted by the DNC to ensure the nomination of their recklessly irresponsible war hawk corporate owned candidate.

It makes me wonder... who REALLY owns The Nation?

The primaries were clearly rigged and I hope that Bernie does not fail to challenge this theft of our only avenue to freedom .
Al Gore failed the American people in 2000, Bernie can do much better.

Joseph Stalin famously stated:
"Elections are decided not by the people who cast the votes but by the people who count the votes."

Hillary and her cohorts in the DNC have adopted this policy.

Bernie please, never accept HRC as the nominee no matter what happens at the convention.
Any promises that she makes or any liberal positions that she espouses are lies that she will abandon as soon as she can safely do so.

She is a threat to America and to the world.
 
 
+29 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-22 15:15
HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-23 12:37
Officially, The Nation is owned and controlled by Katrina vanden Heuvel, whose father William was trained in the dark arts of OSS/CIA by none other than Wild Bill Donovan.

Straight out of Law School, he was red-carpeted into the powerful Wall Street law firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine as an Associate, at the same time he was appointed to the US Embassy in Thailand. He was even Donovan's personal assistant from 1958.

He also worked with Wall Street lawyer/banker Averill Harriman, and has held directorships in a number of powerful corporations/fi nancial businesses. They include: the U.S. Banknote Corporation, Time Warner, Inc., and the North Aegean Petroleum company, and others. Since 1984 he has been a Senior Advisor to the investment banking firm Allen & Company.

In short, he has been a lifelong servant of the Wall Street/CIA nexus who serves on the "liberal" wing of Empire on domestic social policy issues.

It appears the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-23 19:35
Didn't know that about Katrina's father. My freshman government teacher at Oberlin College in 1965 was W. Carey McWilliams, son of the (then) editor of The Nation (which I had never heard of at the time, having grown up in Oklahoma). He was one of the better teachers I encountered in college, and he was at Oberlin only briefly, on his way from grad school to Rutgers.

I mention that because at least at some times in the past, The Nation was a reliable publisher of investigative journalism. By the time I got around to subscribing, in the early 90s for the first of several times, the caliber of the writing, much less analysis, was lower than I had been led to expect.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-23 20:27
Cool. Yeah, The Nation was founded around the time of the Civil War, and was once a pretty consistent voice of the people. I started reading it not long after your college course, and it was a pretty fair voice of the "new left" at the time. Though nothing as radical as Ramparts.

But under vandal Heuvel, it became a Democratic Party House Organ.

I'm still more bothered by the takeover of Mother Jones since it really was a radical muckraking rag. The consolidation of media has been devastating.
 
 
-6 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 12:41
I agree completely that Hillary is a threat but do you honestly believe that things would be better or it would make no difference if Trump were elected with a republican super majority in both houses of congress?

I don't understand how people can take such a position.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-06-23 19:33
The difference is Hillary's wars. She will implement the neocon dream of "the long war" in the middle east to secure Israel's right to steal Palestine from the Palestinians. It will go on for decades after she has left and increase the blowback that is used as an excuse to steal our civil liberties. It will expand the surveillance state by magnitudes. It will suck up all the resources that should be focused on ending income inequality and rebuilding our infrastructure. Future presidents will be afraid to end it lest they be accused of "losing the middle-east".

Trump, on the other hand will likely not accomplish anything good or bad and be gone in 4 years.
 
 
0 # dipierro4 2016-06-23 22:09
...The difference is Hillary's wars. She will implement the neocon dream...Trump, on the other hand will likely not accomplish anything good or bad and be gone in 4 years....

I see it exactly the same way, except that there are so much that is unknown and unpredictable. We really don't know how good or bad Trump is, or who his cabinet, staff, and brain trust will be. Or how either Trump or HRC will handle a really crucial crisis or trial.

We know HRC better, and a lot of it is bad. Trump could turn out to be a pleasant surprise, a worse nightmare, or somewhere in between.

The only thing I feel certain about is that I should not condemn a fellow progressive for what he/she ultimately decides to do in the ballot box: Vote HRC, Trump, Green or Lib, write-in, or not at all. Any of those might turn out to be the right thing.
 
 
+13 # djnova50 2016-06-22 22:57
I don't believe the Democratic Party can be changed from the inside out. I believe that in order for the Democratic Party to change, another party needs to be brought into the contest. Individual members of Congress might be able to change; but, if they are not inherently progressive, then they are likely to only give it lip service.

I am glad that Bernie has kept his campaign going. I am glad that he has gotten his message out and that so many have had a chance to hear it.

The progressive movement can happen with the Green Party. If you read about Jill Stein, you will see that she is much closer to Bernie Sanders. On some issues, she may even be more progressive.

If the DNC comes to its senses and realizes that Bernie is the better candidate, he could end up the nominee. I would vote for him in November. If Hillary is the nominee, then I will vote for Jill Stein.

While I think it is good to elect progressives to all levels of government, in some areas of the country, that is not likely to happen. For example, where I live, the two Democrats that consistently get reelected are the Sheriff and the county auditor. Just about everybody else who holds an elected office is a Republican.
 
 
-13 # ojg 2016-06-23 17:05
dj, why is it that all you people can talk about is changing the Democratic party. I am a Democrat and I think my party is pretty great. We have a wonderful presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. You and your comps are NOT Democrats, so why don't you spend your time with your party, the Green party or the Republican party and make one or both of them in your likeness AND leave the Democratic party alone. I keep hearing about the Green Party. If it is that great, why don't you spend your time doing whatever it needs to be greater and stop trying to change a party that you do not belong to. Thanks.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-06-23 20:00
I'm a Democrat too and right now the party sucks. It is as much controlled by big donors as the Republicans. It will not take a stand on anything important. It has no message except the Republicans are worse. It's primary process is totally corrupt and rigged. I think it is probably very much like it was before FDR.

I will stay a Democrat for several reasons. Winning the Democratic primary in DC is tantamount to winning the election. Anyone who wants to have a say in local politics has to be a Democrat. Also, unlike djnova, I do believe it can be changed from within. It has happened before when the party was equally corrupt. And I am not that enamored of the Greens. A couple of people here have reported bad experiences with them. Some of them show no interest at all in social justice. Aside from that, I do not believe anyone can be elected president who doesn't present themselves to the electorate to be vetted. Jill Stein has not done that. Outside of progressive networks, very few people know who she even is. And she has no electoral experience. The Greens have a great platform, but there is no way to judge how serious they are about implementing the various parts of it. As for a new party, there just isn't time.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-23 20:02
I am a Democrat and have every right to criticize it and urge it to change.

And, many of the people you complain about used to be Democrats and left because of the high handedness of the party elites. If they party expects their votes and their money (it does) it will have to start listening for real, not faking it to get elected.

The party isn't a closed club that only those who agree with you can join.
t
 
 
+10 # Anonymot 2016-06-22 23:00
I have serious doubts that America will survive 4 years as a free country If the wars that have been planned by Deep State to be carried out by a Clinton administration take place. My suspicion is that Jeb Bush was to do it until he got steam rollered by the anti-war spouting renegade Trump.

Easily handled Secretary of State Clinton was seen as an acceptable substitute. Intractacble Sanders was totally off the Deep State screen.

So unless a Jeb or Cruz can take back the republican nomination they only see Hillary as their choice.

However, if you look at the numbers there is one way that neither a Jeb or Hillary or even Trump can win: if Bernie Sanders is a third party candidate with Jill Stein. She is already registered in 20 of the major states and the others do not look so difficult if there was the funding available to pay for them. That's not impossible, either. See this: https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

I should think that there have been well positioned people who have already thought of this and I wonder if Scott ran across any such conversations.

SEE P.S. BELOW
 
 
+16 # Anonymot 2016-06-22 23:01
P.S.
Yes, we have a movement, yes, we have moved the platform in our direction, but yes again, few believe that Hillary will respect it if elected. She's a congenital liar and a Goldwater trainee.

I believe that there is a strong possibility that Sanders could win the election and that those sitting on the House floor today could form the core of getting things actually done in Congress.

Now the difficult question is in the laps of Stein and Sanders.
 
 
+16 # lorenbliss 2016-06-23 00:38
Though Sanders seems to have pledged to limit his 2016 political activities to remaining within the confines of the Democratic Party, the way the party has repeatedly betrayed him is such an unquestionable display of not just bad faith but malicious bad faith, he would surely be justified in abandoning that pledge.

A basic principle of contract law is the willful and/or malicious violation of an agreement by one of its parties voids the agreement, thereby releasing all the signatories from its bonds. Then of course there is always the moral issue of whether to remain bound by the terms of an agreement one of the parties obviously never intended to keep -- particularly when the fate of the nation, our species and the planet itself are obviously at stake.

My hope is yours: that Stein and Sanders will unite in an epic effort to save us from the predatory capitalists and their vassals, whether Hillary or Trump.
 
 
+7 # kundrol 2016-06-23 10:35
I too hope that Bernie will change his mind about staying with the Republicrats, He would do much better by accepting Jill Stein's offer. It would bring some badly needed sanity to the election.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-06-23 12:43
Yes, and now that the Guccifer leaks include DNC plans to promote a Hillary v. Drumpf campaign as early as February, 2015 (long before ANYONE had announced their candidacy), it's clear that undermining the democratic will of the public was the plan from the start.

Sanders/Stein in 2016!
 
 
-3 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 12:45
If we are relying on any one (or two) people to "save us" in one single election then I think we have learned little if anything from history and don't understand that this has never been about Sanders or Stein or even this one election. Building a movement can't happen once every 4 years to elect some "savior." It is almost impossible to develop a national 3rd party in this country (as the last hundred years or more has shown) but i do think it's possible but we have to work over the 4 year cycle and not just before a single election.

Hillary is a pig and the democratic party totally sold out the US working class decades ago so i have no illusions about either but Trump as president with a republican super majority in both houses of congress will bring untold misery to tens of millions in this country beyond anything we have experienced in either of our life times if not ever.
 
 
+3 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-23 20:51
True- one or two people cannot save us as a result of a single election. It is also true that building a movement every 4 years will not work either. But how could a movement possibly succeed if it gives in and supports its anti-thesis every 4 years?

Is there really reason to believe that the Rs will have super majorities in both houses? And if that does turn out to be the case, is there really reason to think that they would support the policies of Trump more than those of Clinton?
 
 
+15 # lorenbliss 2016-06-22 23:21
Thank you, RSN, for daring cover that which the One Percent's Mercenary Mainstream Media Ministry does everything in its considerable power to suppress.

Reports of this quality are vital not only for their information but for the boost they give our revolutionary morale.
 
 
+8 # e7695 2016-06-22 23:24
I echo your concerns about the positions taken in The Nation (that bills itself as the oldest progressive newspaper, if I'm correct). I do generally think that Nichols has stood up to the likes of Scott Walker and others, but he can be a little tepid. The paper itself doesn't always publish the strongest journalism--too much opinion and very little investigative stuff.
 
 
+11 # lorenbliss 2016-06-23 02:51
The Nation is the voice of the liberal bourgeoisie. There is nothing revolutionary or even radical about it.

It is eternally shackled to the definitively (and perhaps purposefully) self-defeating Big Lie capitalism can be reformed. It is therefore as counter-revolut ionary as any Rightist journal, albeit far more subtly so, and therefore with far more damaging results.

Hence its obvious function is to preserve capitalism and the socioeconomic status quo.

The Nation maintains its reputation as a "progressive" publication not because of any real commitment to meaningful change, but rather because the mainstream media has drifted so far to the morally imbecilic Right, anything less blatantly savage now seems a voice of genuine humanitarianism.

Implicit in the above is the core principle for measuring the revolutionary value of a publication. If it believes capitalism can be reformed, it has no revolutionary value whatsoever. On the other hand, if it recognizes the challenging truth the only cure for capitalism's malevolence is the total abolition of capitalism itself, then the publication is definitively revolutionary -- courageously so.
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 12:31
Yeah, The Nation will occasionally run something progressive, but it always seems to be by mistake. They occupy the same neoliberal spot on the political spectrum as DailyKos--growt h in privatization and markets with the fantasy of "greening" capitalism. The status quo of the Democratic Party.

It's almost like Libertarianism with a small, begrudging social safety net.
 
 
+27 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-22 23:25
"Hillary and the Democratic Party have to come to us. They have to earn our vote."

HRC will not be coming to us. She will not turn 180 degrees in order to represent The People. Do not be fooled. Do not believe a single thing as a result of her saying it.
 
 
0 # Hey There 2016-06-23 00:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXjSbeoULk
 
 
+15 # USADUDE 2016-06-23 01:27
From the LA vote counters....
********MAJOR CALI UPDATE*******
**********PLEASE SHARE!**********

From Nomi in LA, California...

Dear friends,

Our tiny little Los Angeles ballot supervising team, credit mainly to our lead Julie Tyler, just did something really big.

Here goes.

Provisional ballots have to be counted last, mainly to avoid duplicate votes. They make up an enormous amount of ballots this election cycle--50% of them--and they began their count on Sunday, June 19th, just two days ago.

We noticed that out of the first 4,000 provisional ballots pulled, 1,000 of them were snagged because they were cast as "Democratic" ballots instead of "NPP/crossover Democratic" ballots. If you are NPP and received a Democratic ballot, you fell under the umbrella too.
 
 
+15 # USADUDE 2016-06-23 01:29
2nd
For the record, I have never even SEEN an "NPP/crossover Democratic" ballot. Throughout the whole campaign, we, and hundreds of thousands of others, apparently, assumed a Dem ballot and a crossover Dem ballot were the same thing. Anyway, my guess as to why so many miscast ballots rolled in was either due to a misinformed poll worker, or the voter insisted on getting a Democratic ballot thinking they would be safer that way.

After spending so many hours supervising ballots, the main reason I've trusted the efficiency of it is because of their unwavering commitment to honor the voter's intent. So where did that go?

The concern of 25% of the provisional votes being tossed aside due to a formality was immediately reported on Sunday afternoon.

Yesterday, our little group banned together outside in heartache and frustration. Then something interesting happened. The chief executive took us into a little area down the hallway on the 5th floor, where we received the groundbreaking report:

"I have a bit of good news for you. I want you to know that we looked into it, and we agree that this issue falls under the category of voter intent. We want you to know that we have decided to count every Democratic ballot cast by an NPP voter." -Aaron Nevarez, Chief Executive Assistant of the Los Angeles Voters Registrar
 
 
+20 # USADUDE 2016-06-23 01:30
3rd
Now that 66,500 NPP voters' Democratic ballots will be counted in Los Angeles as of around 1:00pm yesterday, this could mean the recovery of up to 580,000 uncounted votes in California. That's an eighth of the votes of the state. We have 16 days to get the word out to Secretary of State Alex Padilla and every county in California, who need to follow LA's lead and get those votes in.

On a personal level, nothing will replace the wave of chills over my body and the tears that came when we heard the news. We continue to show, ask questions, take notes, have meetings and conference calls, get angry, make headway, take steps backward, but all while continuing to say: "This is not okay. Our system can do better."

Never ever underestimate the power of people vehemently pursuing love and truth.

OUR VOICES ARE THE REVOLUTION.

And no, this is will not be on the news. So please share it.

Love,
Nomi

"The peaceful political revolution begins between your ears"
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-23 12:48
Great News. And thank you so much for hanging in there for all of us of planet earth.
 
 
-23 # ericlipps 2016-06-23 04:47
Quote:
Some of us will vote for Hillary, some will vote for Jill Stein, some will write in Bernie or someone else. All of us will fight for a just society and we will win. See you in Philly!
So if you're planning to vote for Jill Stein, what right do you have to BE in "Philly"? Stein's not a Democrat (even Bernie Sanders only became one to run for president as a candidate of a party which has actually won the White House before, but at least he calls himself one now), so why should her supporters have a voice at the Democratic convention any more than Trump's will?
 
 
+23 # Ken Halt 2016-06-23 05:52
eric: It's called democracy, something that HRC and the hillbots should learn about and respect.
 
 
-7 # ojg 2016-06-23 17:14
Ken, since you believe so much in democracy, I fully expect you and your pals to also be in Cleveland making the Republican party more progressive and pure. Surely your style of "democracy" does not just apply to the to the Democratic party, does it? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-23 19:24
Non-sequitur -- look it up.
 
 
+3 # rural oregon progressive 2016-06-24 03:36
Who, on this page gives a flying fig about the Republican Party's process? Unless, of course, YOU are a Republican. What we care about, until we are no longer Democrats, is democracy within the Democratic Party! If that cannot be addressed and repaired, the Democratic Party can go to hell as we create a REAL progressive party...
 
 
+17 # USADUDE 2016-06-23 06:43
Hey Lipps,

You ask about who has a right to voice their support or opposition to the DNC. You don't know the voter registration status of the posters here unless they share that. There is a good chance many Bernie voters are currently registered Democrats. But all this petty you're not a real democratic or some such high school silliness. The last time I looked I think without Sen Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont caucusing with the Democratis Harry Reid wouldn't have have had his majority of 51 in 2007. Maybe that's why he was a Chairman. Furthermore, as far as the FDR, LBJ, Truman wing of the party, Bernie is more of a New Deal Democratic Party member then most of the current crop of corporate democrats are. His policies are in the best tradition of the party. HRC and her moneyed donors are corrupt beyond all imagination. Public service shouldn't be the road to a fortune of $200 million like the Clintons have. What do they sell for all that money? Access, influence and favors that's what.
HRC needs to sit down with the FBI. HRC needs to release the transcripts. HRC deleted government records a violation. The family foundation and her husband got tens of millions at the same time as HRC was doing gov business with the donors. How sad,that Obama who has had a relatively scandal free administration now has multiple criminal investigations of his first Sec of State. Of course it's HRC. Judgment is important in a POTUS. The lack there of seems disqualifying.# NeverHRC #StillSanders
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-06-23 12:52
Perfect, ericlipps

It is so quintessential for a member of the fascistic arm of the Democratic Party to question citizens' ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.
 
 
+11 # aramis48 2016-06-23 06:55
All these passionate arguments are good, but if you will read the other essays published by RSN, you will see that we are very close to starting World War III. I don't know why every human being who wants to go on living is not concerning himself or herself first and foremost with this likelihood! How do we have time to work on anything else?
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-23 20:18
As for every human being who wants to go on living, they just don't know. The press just doesn't cover it at all or makes it seem so routine that people miss the significance of it.

I am disappointed that the people's summit didn't put more emphasis on it, but that probably would have led to conflict between the one's who'll settle for Hillary and everyone else. They apparently were striving for unity. But papering over the conflict won't make it go away.
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-23 21:03
Yeah- unity is not that valuable if it is not based on the facts regarding the most pressing issues.
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-06-23 07:46
"Jim [Hightower] told the crowd that 'those who say it can’t be done shouldn’t interrupt those that are doing it.'"

This is what I THOUGHT I saw in two other reports on the People's Summit, despite numerous dismissive and defeatist comments. Plenty of those here too, but a few willing to attempt to "change the things [we] can." Here are other quotes from the article that I consider relevant to this all-important issue of defeatism:

"For me [Galindez], Juan was telling us to be careful. A tactic that we think it is right for 2016 could lead to a result we don’t want."

[ANYTHING we think is right today is likely to lead to a result we don't want. ANY vote for president this year -- or refusal to vote -- is an act of conscience, as it was in 1968. The Supreme Court IS important (Nixon appointed Lewis Powell), but it is not "supremely" important to the exclusion of all other issues. Had more people, including me, NOT given in to fear and voted for the "lesser evil" in 2000, this country might be on a much saner path today.]

"Klein . . . explained that . . . 'Our Dreams Don’t Fit on Your Ballot' . . . didn’t mean not to vote. It meant don't expect to get everything you want from an election."

"John Nichols . . . told the summit that we are making progress but shouldn’t let elections swallow up our movement."

[Regardless of what you think of Nichols or The Nation, or Klein, electoral politics alone will not save us -- very important.]

(continued)
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-06-23 07:59
(continued)

"Rosario [Dawson] stressed that we all have to support each other no matter what tactics we use. She said that some will be in the street, some will vote, some won’t, some will engage in civil disobedience, but no matter what, we must support each other.

Calling the political revolution a movement of movements, Dawson called on the activists gathered to discover their power. She told the crowd we didn’t lose and we must continue the fight."

[Naomi Klein also "talked about how we won a battle against neoliberalism, [but] that we have not won the war." Gar Alperovitz has said we can expect to lose some battles, including some big ones. It is possible that we could lose the war, but the one course that assures that outcome is our refusal to continue to fight.

On the occasion of the retreat from Dunkirk, Churchill told the House of Commons:

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

I believe Ms. Dawson underestimates the "movement of movements." The political revolution itself is an entity within a much larger movement worldwide, addressing each of the myriad issues we face.]
 
 
-11 # Robbee 2016-06-23 08:45
look at the quitters! - those who refuse to follow bernie's lead! - they're so full of themselves! - with quitters like them! - each makes one less supporter in bernie's quest to take over the dem party! - i hate hatchet men! those who say we can never change the dem party! so we shouldn't even try! - such as - # djnova50 2016-06-22 22:57
I don't believe the Democratic Party can be changed from the inside out. (so lets all jump ship and try some 3rd party)

us bernie progressives here! - specifically including bernie! warren! reich! scott galindez! marc ash! steve weissman! wm. boardman! and frank rich! - are closer to taking over the dem party than at any time in my life!

singling-out! comments to Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie, By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 11 June 16! - matt, # elizabethblock, # reiverpacific, # wrknight, # grandlakeguy, # MD426, # REDPILLED, # jdd, # futhark, # Jim Rocket, # DesertProgressi ve, # harleysch, # Karlus58, # djnova50, # dquandle, # Old Uncle Dave, # markovchhaney, # tomwalker8, # Dale, # cymricmorty, # danireland46, # Blackjack, # Buddha and # Vardoz!

we have no less than 24 regular commenters here EAGER TO QUIT ON TURNING OUR DEM PARTY PROGRESSIVE! - EAGER TO STOP LISTENING TO BERNIE! REICH! WARREN! AND RSN!

ARE ANY HERE DESPERATE TO MAKE DEMS SEEM A HOPELESS CAUSE? - WELL, CERTAINLY! RUMP TROJANS! - AND RSN IS THICK WITH THEM!
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-06-23 09:02
quitters, part 2

matt leads a strong contingent of quitters here on rsn - we may as well call the "throw-in-the-t owel on dems!" contingent - which strongly opposes bernie's efforts to take over! - or to steer! - the dem party in a strongly more-progressiv e direction!

if you have a constructive approach to gov’t! - in other words, if you want to act for progress! - you will prefer to support bernie! warren! reich! scott galindez! marc ash! steve weissman! wm. boardman! and frank rich! - who have no quit in them!

to avoid the mistake of calling hill - not progressive - as though we define the term as "progressive as each of us is" - one-by-one - the way commonly used here on rsn - to cast aspersion on any lesser progressive - as MORE progressives our mission must be 1) to make america MORE progressive and 2)) to turn the dem party MORE progressive!

go bernie! and go dem!

the NON-PARTY grassroots movement of millions bernie is building - whose holy grail is to overthrow plutocracy! to restore democracy! - by public funding, only! federal! state! and local! elections! - is sidelined until bernie negotiate MORE progressive policy and leadership, including RoseAnn! into the dem party! - we rely on bernie's wisdom how and when to proceed!
 
 
-6 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 09:28
I was at The People's Summit and while there was much there that was very encouraging and in at times inspiring i thought it was also a YUGE missed opportunity (more on that shortly).

However, i think many here miss the point that Bernie's campaign was neither about Bernie nor this one election. It was and is about building a sustainable progressive (and for myself radical, anti-capitalist ) movement that develops the organization and alternative institutions that will be necessary to develop the political leverage and power to implement real transformationa l change in this country. This never happens through one election that starts at the top. There have been attempts for more than 100 years to do this in this country and they have always failed for multiple reasons not the least of which being the impediments that the two parties put in place to run on a national third party line.

But, even this is not the main issue for me at this point. The main issue i believe will be the consequences for tens of millions of our most vulnerable citizen comrades should Trump become President and as a result also enable the Rethuglicans to take back control of both houses of Congress.

The domestic repression that will be unleashed should this happen will pale in comparison to that unleashed by Richard Nixon (whose years in office i lived through).

(continued)
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-23 09:36
dkonstruction, I too lived through the Nixon years, and survive still. I agree with your second paragraph and am looking forward to reading your continuation after I run a few errands. But I do not agree that a step sideways or backward facilitates forward progress in any but a handful of cases. Neither am I convinced that this country would be in any better position today had Humphrey been elected in 1968. We would not have had Nixon to use as a whipping boy, and it could have spelled the end of the Democratic party. Speculation on what might have happened had history been different is roughly as futile as speculating on what has not happened yet. Note my comment about acts of conscience being unavoidable due to these unavoidable uncertainties.
 
 
-2 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 10:02
economagic, i have no illusions about Humphrey but do you believe that if he had been elected that we would have gotten COINTELPRO? Or that he would have expanded the war in Vietnam the way that Nixon did (including the secret bombings in Cambodia)? Somehow i doubt it.

But, again, my point was not to speculate with historical "what ifs." The point i was trying to make is that i do believe that the consequences for tens of millions of working class people, women, people of color etc., should Trump win and the Rethugs gain an absolute majority in Congress...to the issues i already listed i would add the consequences for the Supreme Court with 3 probably new Justices being appointed in the next 8 years, the total privatization of social sccurity, elimination of unemployment insurance and all remaining shreds of the welfare state (as minimal and often contradictory as these are).

I would also add that i think it is dangerous at this point for the continued growth of "the movement" to put it in the position of being branded as the new "Nader-like spoiler" (and i voted for Nader and don't believe he cost Gore the election)...i think this has the potential to kill the movement that is emerging at this moment.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-23 11:44
Good points in all four (five?) comments. I THINK I will be able to respond to the most pertinent later in the day. From all that you say I surmise that you probably understand well that informed and thoughtful people can and do disagree on matters that cannot be firmly established on rational principles. It is through such disagreement and discussion that we refine and expand our understanding, the reason I have been participating in these forums the past few months.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 12:20
Quoting economagic:
Good points in all four (five?) comments. I THINK I will be able to respond to the most pertinent later in the day. From all that you say I surmise that you probably understand well that informed and thoughtful people can and do disagree on matters that cannot be firmly established on rational principles. It is through such disagreement and discussion that we refine and expand our understanding, the reason I have been participating in these forums the past few months.


Yes, i definitely agree that thoughtful people can disagree. It is sad that so many of the comments on this board (on all sides) are increasingly just nasty and basically attack the other person for being "the enemy." So, i truly appreciate the tone of your comments even if i may not agree.

At the same time, while i agree that it may not be possible to "firmly establish" potential outcomes and consequences based on "rational principles" i do believe that we can learn a lot from the past even when those situations are not identical (nor can they ever be) to our current situation. Unfortunately, i also find way too many of the comments on this board suggesting that the poster either knows nothing about history in general (and the history of both successful and unsuccessful social movements) nor do they have any understanding or appreciation of the difference between tactics, strategy and goals.
 
 
0 # economagic 2016-06-23 19:23
Well said. I did not make it today, not sure about tomorrow. Retirement ain't all it's cracked up to be: In six months I have not been fishing once!
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-23 13:02
COINTELPRO was officially started in 1956, according to the FBI.

https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

Neither JFK nor LBJ ended it. In fact, LBJ LOVED it. Whatever makes you think that Humphrey would have been different?

For a revolutionary, you sound more like a partisan.
 
 
-7 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 09:35
In addition, it's at best naive and at worst self-indulgent to ignore the impact that such a victory will have for tens of millions. It could well mean the total end to all legal abortions in this country...so, sure if you're a "trust fund" leftist or will have the resources to go abroad for your abortion you may not give a shit but for poor and working class women that won't have this option this is YUGE. And, what about those that depend on public assistance? It too could be totally eliminated. And, what about the massive additional voter disenfranchisem ent that will occur when the Voting Rights Act is repealed? And, then of course there would be the complete opening up all of federal lands (not to mention private lands) to fracking and off-shore oil drilling. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Again, i have no illusions about Hilary or the Democratic Party. None. They totally suck. Hilary scares the shit out of me especially when it comes to foreign policy. So, i get it. I'm not defending the Democratic Party nor do i have an delusions that it can be reformed into something genuinely progressive let alone radical or transformational.

But, i don't understand those that then make the illogical leap that there would be no difference if there was then a Trump Presidency with a Rethuglican majority.

This position is insane and i believe more often than not comes from people who will not suffer the way the vast majority of working class people would if this were to happen.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-23 09:45
I resent being called insane, and I don't know anyone who is saying there is no difference between Clinton and Trump. Otherwise my comment above covers this, except for one of Marlene Dietrich's last songs on the big screen:

"See what the boys in the back room will have,
And give them the poison they name."

We will all drink poison this fall, and in a sense we will all choose what we believe to be the lesser evil on the basis of our judgment given what we think we know. As more than one participant in the Summit mentioned, we will make different choices, some of which may turn out to carry the day and then be agreed in hindsight to have had egregious consequences. This is one case in which there really IS no alternative (to choosing based on judgment and what we conditionally assume to be true). Excoriating those who make different choices, even if they come to fruition and turn out to have been bad, does not carry the movement forward. It is those unwilling to act at all -- out of fear or out of despair -- who hold us back.
 
 
-3 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 10:08
I have heard from many that they do not believe that there is any difference between Trump and Clinton or that it would make no difference which one is elected. This to me is an insane position that denies the reality of what a Trump presidency and a total rethuglican majority in both houses of congress would mean for tens of millions of people.

I'm not saying that Hilary is an "alernative" and have no illusions that she is a genuine "progressive".. .the democratic party as a whole sold out the US working class 40+ years ago. But this to me is not the issue. The issue is what would the consequences be of a Trump presidency and a republican majority in both houses of congress and i think it would be massive repression and misery on a scale we have not yet seen in this country for tens of millions moving us back to 19th century conditions (including a real new jim crow).

Electing Hilary is no "solution" of course and no matter who is elected we need to work hard to continue to build the movement but the "alternative" (i.e., a Trump presidency and republican super majority) will be a disaster of epic proportions.
 
 
+9 # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 12:55
The anti-Trump fear mongering just seems so out in left field to me. The Republicans don't even like Trump. How would he get his insane ideas through even a solid Republican majority in both houses? The fact that Dems are so worried is the prime evidence even they understand what a terrible candidate Hillary is for everyone outside of the defense industry--and multinationals in general.

The most logical conclusion to this that I can see is that we have historic low turnout this November except in competitive congressional races featuring a progressive candidate. But we also have a larger than average portion of the electorate who have awoken, and have access to ideas and information outside of the corporate media. This unique set of factors could bode quite well for the Green Party if handled correctly.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-23 13:06
The ultimate in selfishness is to vote for a candidate who promises to cause mass death and destruction of lives for survivors because one believes she might favor one's views on a handful of domestic social policy issues.

This election is between the Establishment and change. With election fraud, it might not matter how anyone votes. With HRC's support for "Free Trade" that is really the establishment of a global fascistic rule with the power to overturn any laws, this could be the last chance we have for peaceful change.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-06-23 17:59
Insanity Speaking:
Let me suggest that there is a flaw in the organization in this very interesting dialogue above and below. Leaving the Libertarians aside; there are 4 candidates, Hillary, Trump, Stein, & Sanders. Between them there are great differences in style, but so what? There is only one great divide in the philosophy or ideology between them all and you all seem to be focusing 98% on one side.

Domestic policy/Foreign policy
For a couple of decades we've been so abused and drained by faulty foreign policy from NAFTA to a multiplicity of wars that domestic matters have drifted into the sewers. Hillary failed to get a health care program 20 years ago, because she was second string and didn't know how to play the game. Under Daddy Warbucks fresh out of CIA Directorship, she didn't realize that the State Dept. Was being infiltrated by the CIA. Everyone expected Bush to be re-elected. Remember Gen. Clark's speech? It's a must: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861&v=f7NsXFnzJGw
Bush/CIA already planned to conquer the Middle East in 1991, but his defeat slowed that. Bill, however, was enchanted by rising from the poorest state in the Union to the Presidency. His New World Order came straight from the CIA, the Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission Wall Street bible. Hillary danced right along. They saw themselves as Emperor/Empress .

Then 9/11 was the excuse to put the Bush family/CIA wars into action.

continue
 
 
+4 # Anonymot 2016-06-23 18:37
We've been at war ever since and sick of it so everyone is focused away from foreign policy and on domestic: race, gay, inequalities, guns, budget, etc.

Stein has the narrowest domestic focus, Bernie next, Clinton, then Trump. They all mention foreign policy and oppose war, but only one has really railed about it, Trump.

Only one of them has proven that there will be more war, Hillary with her continuance of the Bush/CIA plans for conquering the Mid-East via the Arab Spring, Syrian aggressivity, and her planning of the Ukraine putsch. The CIA thinks a Russian regime change is another easy victory and so she became a verbal bully of Putin, and carried it on to China and Iran.

The Clintons are so involved with their fame and fortune that whatever the CIA ventriloquist says the dummy will repeat. You will be guaranteed war and potentially atomic. The mindless egos of the CIA/DOD/MIC really believe it will be another victory. They do not understand that they've lost every conflict since Korea.

More war & you can forget domestic issues. We will continue to pump all of our resources into war. Everything will continue disintegrating domestically.

Trump will be a domestic disaster, but he's said loud and clear that he wants our troops back here.

If Sanders ran and on a Democrat or Third Party ticket with or without Jill Stein that would be the ultimate good. But if my choice is between Trump and Clinton I'll choose No War or Stein or a bunker in Patagonia.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-23 20:39
I largely agree, but HRC and Billy were fully complicit from the start.

Her health care plan was HeritageCare, RomneyCare, ObamaCare... mandatory purchase of defective products from for-profit corporations.

Yes, the plan to destroy the Middle East goes back to before 1991. Billy (with Bernie's vote) did impose horrendous sanctions and weekly bombing of Iraq, but his big foreign policy "success" was destroying Yugoslavia and expanding NATO to Russia's border.

So, was the Middle East project delayed because Bill wasn't onboard or because the course of Empire after the collapse of the Soviet Union shifted to Europe?
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 09:41
What was really missing from The People's Summit (and this was the YUGE missed opportunity) was for the organizers to have come to this with the intent to begin to bring people together under a national umbrella organization around a common "People's Platform" that in many ways Bernie's campaign has already "road tested" for us. That organization could then have reached out to the millions that contributed to Bernie's campaign to ask them to contribute another $27 dollars (Bernie's average contribution) to raise another $200 million (as Bernie did) to fund such an endeavor.

We need organization and then we need resources to sustain it and build the kind of alternative institutions that will be needed to be successful in what is not going to be a one-election victory. It's going to take time. Real change always does. That's not an argument for "incrementalism ." Rather, it's an argument for movement building that takes the long view.

The civil rights movement didn't begin in the 1950s because Rosa Parks sat down on the bus. African Americans were organizing since the 1920s (if not back to the days of slavery).

The fight for women's rights, voting rights, against the war in vietnam, etc., all took sustained campaigns over many years with the organizational muscle and political power to force real change.

Making this about some litmus test of voter "purity" may feel good but it's stupid politics with a complete lack of real strategies or tactics for change.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-23 09:51
Absolutely. I am under the impression that such was not the purpose of those who organized the summit. If I turn out to be mistaken and the next step does not emerge in the next week or two -- from Sanders, or from Stein, or from the nurses, or from someone (the House Dems sitting in for a gun control bill ?!?) -- let's do it ourselves. Seriously. In fact, we should probably be asking this question today of "the likely suspects."

Not what I had planned for the second half of my first year in "reallytiredmen t," nor my area of expertise, but "somebody's gotta do it" -- even though as someone mentioned in a parallel thread, John Wayne was a fraud, or at least the persona he adopted was.
 
 
+2 # kundrol 2016-06-23 11:08
A great idea if all the leftist groups could agree to work together. However, yet another leftist organization ving for donations does not seem reasonable unless at least some of the large number of those organizations already in existence agree to come under one big umbrella. I get between 10 and 20 pleas for donations every day, and have to wonder why all these entities are competing with each other. Capitalism run amok I guess. Not good for lefties wanting change from all that.
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2016-06-23 11:14
Quoting kundrol:
A great idea if all the leftist groups could agree to work together. However, yet another leftist organization ving for donations does not seem reasonable unless at least some of the large number of those organizations already in existence agree to come under one big umbrella. I get between 10 and 20 pleas for donations every day, and have to wonder why all these entities are competing with each other. Capitalism run amok I guess. Not good for lefties wanting change from all that.


I agree (sadly) that this is a tall order but that's what leadership is supposed to be about. Unfortunately the vast majority of the left in this country couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag nor do they understand that "action" is merely a tactic and that tactics must be chosen wisely and used to pursue a strategy to reach a goal.

If the groups around Bernie could come together and get past the identity politics that ultimately divides us along lines such that we are pitted against one another so that none of us reach our goals for a just and equitable society then yes we're in deep shit (or perhaps far deeper than the shit we're in now and have been in since at least the early 70s).
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 13:04
One thing to consider is that the left may have finally begun figuring out how to build multi-issue coalitions. There were over four million people in the streets of New York for the People's Climate March from a pretty wide swath of single-issue advocacy groups. The cross-over with the Bernie Revolution seems real close to me.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-06-23 19:04
That's exactly what I mean by "a movement of movements": single-issue advocacy groups coming together for a purpose they all have in common. It's not that the political revolution that we are positing to be underway is monolithic, but that it is a part of even larger structures.

The metaphor that comes to my mind, although it may leave some people scratching their heads, is the discovery of the structure of the universe over a wide range of scales. It could be seen as beginning with Copernicus' sun-centric model in the 16th century. Not much happened for three centuries, then in the 19th century it was realized that our star system is one of an unfathomable (to many people) number of such systems that form a more intricate system on an unfathomably larger scale.

In the 1920s Edwin Hubble showed that this is but one of an unfathomably large number of galaxies of different forms, unfathomably distant from ours, and then in the 1940s that they are speeding away from each other (the "Hubble red shift"). These discoveries were followed by the discovery that galaxies form clusters, which in turn form "super-clusters " (clusters of clusters).

With the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic background radiation, by Arno Penzias at Bell Labs and others, it was soon realized that even the super-clusters form still larger structures on even vaster scales.

I didn't verify the details so some are inevitably off, but the point is the metaphor for the movement of movements.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-23 10:41
the ostrich wing! here on rsn! - # economagic 2016-06-23 09:45
I don't know anyone who is saying there is no difference between Clinton and Trump

- then you haven't been paying attention here on rsn! - there is a large contingent here who ask? because they simply don't know? because they simply avoid informing themselves? - how bad can rump be?

# lfeuille 2016-06-15 11:02
Trump would be worse that Hillary. THAT is not a documented fact

# dbrize 2016-05-06 15:29
(hill) won't be an authoritarian dictator?

# wirelesswatch@yahoo.com 2016-05-06 14:02
I am much more afraid of (hill) than Trump

# Johnny 2016-05-06 14:16
Better Trump, the clown, than Hillary Clinton, the sadistic murderer.

# Anonymot 2016-05-06 14:31
I, for one, doubt that the Clintons will be better than the Trump

# Billy Bob 2016-05-06 11:35
Trump is no threat at all

# lorenbliss 2016-05-06 00:52
I think Hillary will actually do much worse.

# FIRSTNORN1 2016-05-06 08:01
If NO Bernie, then we will support Trump

# economagic 2016-05-06 09:51
"You go, Loren!

all but the first comment above arose in outrage at this story run here - We Must Do Everything Legally Possible to Prevent Trump From Becoming President, By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page, 06 May 16

these comments appeared among 22 outraged by the horrors of doing everything possible - that is, voting dem! - to stop rump!

rumpistas in denial! - how bad can rump be?
 
 
+6 # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 13:06
Perhaps if you had better reading comprehension skills, Robbee. No one is saying there's no difference--the y're saying they can't tell who would be worse. Depending on whether one is more concerned about domestic or foreign policy issues it could go either way.

It simply isn't clear who the lessor of the two evils is when comparing the two least liked candidates in U.S. presidential history. And they're least liked for different reasons, not because they're identical.
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-06-23 11:08
says - # economagic 2016-03-26 16:42
The longer we prolong the agony the more agony we will endure. There is no reason to assume that we would not be better off to take our lumps (or Trumps) now and let the first shower fall on the people and party responsible, if we can't elect someone who is not so cynical as to continue unchanged the disastrous policies of both parties for most of the past fifty years. Think about it.

- the last time, year 2000, naderite progressives said "what the hell? how bad could bush 2 be for america?" - he invaded iraq and turned 2 or 3,000 terrorists worldwide into 2 or 3 million terrorists worldwide! - millions of families lost their jobs and homes! - shipped 60,000 u.s. factories to china! - massively cut taxes on the rich for a dozen years! - and gave us the supreme court that gave us citizens united, unlimited corporate money in elections!

how bad could rump be? - here are 17 things rump consistently promises! to do! - that hill promises not to! - that rump as prez! with a repug congress behind him! - will do! - it's high time rump trojans in denial! cowards all! here on rsn! - discuss!

1) torture prisoners!
2) kill spouses and children of enemies whom our "patriot act" says he names;
3) curb press free speech! also protect billionaires from slander!
4) on his first day in office, tear up the iran treaty (that prevents iran from building nukes!)
5) deport 11 million illegals!
6) build a wall clear across mexico!
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-06-23 11:09
in denial, part 2

7) make mexico pay for it (which takes invading and occupying mexico!)
8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", or 3, or 4, just like scalia!
9) abolish the inheritance tax! - our nation's ONLY TAX ON WEALTH! THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH - AS IN SOCIALISM! - PART OF OUR LAW SINCE THE 1890'S - THE AGE OF ROBBER BARONS!
10) cut income taxes almost in half! for the rich only!
11) register muslims! ground muslims from air travel! ban new muslims from entry!
12) "rebuild our military!”
13) “make" america "great! again!”
14) abolish hate crimes!
15) abolish planned parenthood!
16) abolish dodd-frank! and
17) implement his “great”, but secret, plan to destroy isis!

next! 12 things hill consistently promises! to do! - that rump promises not to!

1) equal pay for women!
2) paid family medical leave at birth!
3) raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour!
4) hill beat bernie to 1st proposing a path to citizenship for illegals!
5) civil rights for oppressed minorities - blacks! latinos! lgbt! muslims! and union members!
6) gun control! more progressive than bernie!
7) bernie and hill both endorse obama's iran treaty!
8) in 2006, while in the senate, hill proposed sweeping reform of shadow banking, including jailing banksters and protecting whistle-blowers!
9) while in the senate together, bernie and hill voted together 93% of the time!
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-06-23 11:12
in denial, part 3

10) hill proposes to gradually expand the ACA to cover everyone! - plus add the public option! - hill proposes incremental, but real, progress!
11) support choice! women’s reproductive rights!
12) fund planned parenthood!

note that military spending is not the be all! end all! of hill's campaign! - our choice! is clear! - between a serious conservative militarist and a serious progressive! prez! - who cares about american humans! - not just cheney-rumsfeld style imperialism!

go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-23 21:31
Your argument, where coherent, is based on HRC's promises. As her record belies her promises, your argument has no merit.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-06-24 08:27
another in denial! - # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 12:55
How would he get his insane ideas through even a solid Republican majority in both houses?

- in this repug congress no idea is too insane! - check off his list and ask yourself which of his ideas - either he as commander-in-ch ief or executive orderer he cannot do? - as for the rest, with his mandate as prez winner? would this repug congress not do? - is cutting taxes almost in half only for the rich undoable? - why that is this congress's enacted budget!

is anything he proposes unconstitutiona l? - not according to the supremes he appoints!
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-24 08:51
rad and i have been thru his same "ultimate in selfishness" woodshed before! - # Radscal 2016-06-23 13:06
The ultimate in selfishness is to vote for a candidate who promises to cause mass death and destruction of lives for survivors because one believes she might favor one's views on a handful of domestic social policy issues.

rad has one and only one reason to ignore rump's 17 promises and hill's dozen! - rad has loved ones in iran! - and BEFORE obama's iran treaty - that she endorsed! - hill repeatedly argued to bomb iran!

so rad can hold his nose on rump! - all the evil he promises! - and deny all the good that hill promises! - specifically because rad believes that rump is the key to the safety of his loved ones! - in effect rump holds rad's loved ones hostage! - to rad's support for rump here on rsn!

it is remarkably selfless of rad to promote rump when only his loved ones can, as rad sees it, benefit from denying hill the presidency! - that is - if, as we all pray, wherever else he may bomb? rump does not bomb iran!
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-24 18:08
Once again, you selfish little jerk. I have loved ones whose family's live in countries your Queen of Chaos has repeatedly threatened to "obliterate."
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-24 09:13
that's facile! - # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-23 21:31
Your argument, where coherent, is based on HRC's promises. As her record belies her promises, your argument has no merit.

- hill's record belies none of these 12 promises!
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-06-24 21:31
HRC will say anything she perceives that her audience wants to hear. She is the militarist. And her wars are the "end all" of many human lives that she cares nothing about. This brings us to the one area where I can agree with her-American lives are worth no more than any others. And you are just a lame troll, and to HRC, are as expendable as anyone else.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-06-24 09:39
more ostrich comment! - # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-23 13:06
It simply isn't clear who the lessor of the two evils is

- you propose a false issue! - an election is not about who is evil or who is less!

hill is a serious progressive! - rump is a serious conservative!

if you are conservative, you will find hill less conservative!

if you are progressive, you will find rump less progressive!
 
 
+4 # DaveEwoldt 2016-06-24 13:50
Robbee, you are absolutely amazing. Your comments about denialism and head-in-the-san d thinking are classic projection.

American elections for at least the past 40 years have been predominantly lessor evilism.

Hillary is Progressive. War is Peace. If you haven't read "1984" it's time you did.

Hillary is a serious neoliberal. Trump isn't a serious anything.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-06-24 18:10
I get the feeling this evil creature isn't concerned about 1984.

I get the feeling the only year that matters to it is 1948. And of course, to "complete 1948."
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN