RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Galindez writes: "It is our job to give voters a reason to vote for us. Bernie showed us the way. We have to take the baton and pass it on. It's not time to give up on the political revolution."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder)

What Now? Resistance

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

09 November 16


just have to say it …We told you so. I was a team player the last few months and did what I could to try to convince people that that they had to vote for Hillary Clinton to beat Donald Trump. I fell into line after it was clear that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would be president. Prior to Bernie’s concession I fought with everything I had for the candidate who I believed would be the strongest candidate in November.

What we saw was that more people were motivated by coming out to vote for a cause they believed in than for the candidate they thought was the better option but not what they really wanted. In poll after poll last winter and spring, Bernie Sanders trounced Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton beat him by smaller margins. It isn’t rocket science: Bernie Sanders was the most popular candidate running for president, and Hillary Clinton had over half of the people rating her unfavorably. Supporters of Bernie Sanders matched the passion of of the supporters of Donald Trump. Its too late to do anything about it now, but I believe Bernie Sanders would be heading a transition team right now, not Donald Trump.

Our Revolution, Bernie Sanders political organization released the following statement:

“Tonight’s election demonstrates what most Americans knew since the beginning of the primaries: the political elite of both parties, the economists, and the media are completely out of touch with the American electorate.

“Too many communities have been left behind in the global economy. Too many young people cannot afford the cost of the college education. Too many cannot afford basic necessities like health care, housing, or retirement.

“Those of us who want a more equitable and inclusive America need to chart a new course that represents the needs of middle income and working families. The most important thing we can do is come together in unity and fight to protect the most vulnerable people of this country. Just like we did yesterday, Our Revolution will be on the front lines of the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal tomorrow morning. We will do everything in our power to ensure that the president-elect cannot ignore the battles Americans are facing every single day.

“Tonight Donald Trump was elected president. Our job is to offer a real alternative vision and engage on the local and national level to continue the work of the political revolution in the face of a divided nation.”

Don’t Mourn, Organize

Get involved in local community groups. The result of this election has to be a wake up call. It is time to once and for all say enough is enough to the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party. There is the old saying that the voters voted for the real Republicans. It doesn’t work to act like them. I am not saying that Hillary Clinton acted like a Republican, but in a change election, playing it safe and saying nothing on issues like the TPP, the Dakota Access Pipeline, student debt, institutional racism, and income inequality is not a formula for success.

Last year, Bernie Sanders articulated what the American people wanted. We must continue to fight for that message. We must not surrender and in fact must double down our efforts. We must protect our immigrant brothers and sisters. We must protect our Muslim brothers and sisters. We must continue to fight against the Trans Pacific Partnership. We must make sure that no oil flows through the Dakota Access Pipeline. We must fight to make sure millions of Americans do not lose their health care coverage while we fight for real universal coverage. We must fight to protect a woman’s right to choose and for pay equity. Black lives do matter, and fighting institutional racism has to be at the forefront of our agenda. We have to fight climate change …

We must continue to fight for a people’s agenda. It is also the time to take back the Democratic Party. The corporate Dems barely held on in the primaries. They lost the general election. We must seize on the platform we fought for this summer and appoint leaders that will fight for it. How?

1. Donna Brazile must resign and be replaced by the choice of Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. It is time for a clean break from the Clinton wing of the party. If the party nominating process was not rigged in the Clinton wing’s favor she would not have been the nominee. I’m hearing rumors of Jennifer Granholm for Party Chair, but that is not acceptable. Senator Tulsi Gabbard was right when she resigned her position in the party to support Bernie. She is one option who could begin the transformation of the Democratic Party.

2. Find out when your next local Democratic Party meeting is. Go there and take the open seats on the central committee. Most of you live in neighborhoods that are not fully represented. Once we fill those seats we can reshape the party. The establishment Democrats rely on the fact that they are more active in the party machine. We can change that, and the next time your county selects a chair we can empower a true progressive. That builds to State chair further down the road. It is not enough to continue to say the Democrats are a lost cause. We have to become the Democrats. Democracy is not a spectator sport. The Democratic Party is what the people doing the work make it.

3. Get involved in local groups fighting for what you believe. Our fight has to be inside and outside of the Democratic Party. We have to be in the streets. Join frontline groups like 350.0rg on climate change, Black Lives Matter, etc. Joining establishment groups like the Sierra Club is okay, but won’t transform our country. We need to be in the streets pressing for real change, not waiting for politicians to agree with us.

4. Support independent media. We saw this coming.… We saw the excitement gap. The problem was the media bought into the narrative that was sold to them by the establishment. As bad as Trump appeared the establishment media ignored the lack of excitement for Hillary. I was guilty of underestimating that in the last few months but was right earlier in the year:

Note to Establishment Media: Bernie Can Win

Bernie Supporters Are NOT Sheep

Bernie Sets His Sights on Transforming the Democratic Party

I remember a week before the Iowa Caucus correctly pointing out that he would win. I wrote this:

That sums it all up. Bernie Sanders is inspiring people. When people see him they say, “That guy is right, and I believe he wants to stand up for me and make America better.” Hillary wants to continue the status quo. Over the next 10 days, the Clinton campaign will show their true colors and throw the kitchen sink at Bernie. It will be a mistake, because when Hillary slings mud at Bernie, she will be slinging it at the rest of us. Bernie’s campaign is a movement. An attack on Bernie is an attack on the revolution. We won’t sling mud back, but we will fire back on caucus night and pack the rooms at 7 p.m. and win.

Okay … after a few coin tosses, Hillary overcame what was a tie. My point is that the same passion the mainstream media ignored was present a year ago. The mainstream media dismissed it then and they dismissed it with Trump.

Remember Michael Moore’s warning in June? He nailed it in 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win:

1. Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states.)

We must fire up our base again in 2018 and 2020. Over the past few months we became divided over process. Let’s move past who was right or wrong. We must come back together and take our country back. Trump fired up his base, which was angry white people who felt betrayed by the establishment. They rose up and gave the finger to the establishment. We had some of that energy last year. White working class voters can be won back, but not by corporate Democrats. Donald Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney. He won because Hillary Clinton ran against Trump. She told us why we shouldn’t vote for Trump. She failed to make the case for why we should vote for her.

It is our job to give voters a reason to vote for us. Bernie showed us the way. We have to take the baton and pass it on. It’s not time to give up on the political revolution.

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. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-120 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 11:41
We voted for less gov, fewer regs and not to invade Russia. Go ahead, resist that. Or some imaginary wealth creating evil. We want to create wealth, not steal it or redistribute it. Join us, the good guys.
+122 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 12:06
Who's "we". YOU voted for less regulations on clean water, clean air, public schools, etc.

Some of us just didn't vote for more war.

Don't try to pretend Trump "won". Millions of his own voters don't like him. He beat the only candidate he could have beaten.

"I don't want Clinton" beat "I don't want Trump".


Trump won with fewer votes than Romney LOST with 4 years ago.

So you can stop calling yourself "the good guys".


Oh, and, YOU OWN the next 4 years. I hope you can accept your responsibility for his agenda, when the shit hits the fan, and it gets flung right back in the faces of all the far-right racist lunatics giving each other high-fives right now.
-59 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 12:57
hillary was planning to invade Russia. Trump said no way. and that's a fact
+18 # Caliban 2016-11-09 13:30
Nobody was planning to invade Russia, but nutcase "liberals" [or rightists as Scott Galindez comments below] like #Depresiionborn kept ranting on with their fantasias of war.

With their lies and folly, #Depresiionborn and his ilk helped give the country to Trump.

Intentional? I begin to wonder.
+53 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-09 14:29
Depresiionborn seems like a right winger to me....
+36 # jdd 2016-11-09 15:31
Scott will never touch my charge that Hillary was demanding a "non-fly zone" in Syria, which Gen. Dunford testified would mean certain war with Russia. Nor will he admit that Trump has echoed Bernie in his public call for a return to Glass-Steagall, incurring the wrath of Wall Street and its flunkies in both parties. Rather than "resistance" we should work off of these two starting points bringing honest Democrats into alliance with the Trump populista.
-45 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-09 16:36
And Scott, I question your patriotism.
+17 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 20:54
Quoting skylinefirepest:
And Scott, I question your patriotism.

Skylinefirepest , I question your intelligence!

Stick your patriotism up your ass where it belongs.
+6 # CTPatriot 2016-11-09 23:22
Probably where you'll find his US flag pin too.
+3 # MidwestDick 2016-11-10 12:51
While I myself am fonder of vitriol than geritol, I think this rectal insertion post is a bit over the top.
+16 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:00
The Hil-bots have never been able to tell the difference between right-wingers and the left.
+14 # CTPatriot 2016-11-09 23:24
They also can't tell the difference between a progressive and a neocon, neoliberal plutocrat.
+9 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 01:57
Or they pretend not to know.
+35 # virtualaudio 2016-11-09 18:09
Thank you for articulating exactly what I was thinking as I watched in horror last night, and sorry I and others gave you such a hard time on John E's PoliticalRevTV.
Bernie had it right; he addressed the same blue collar concerns raised in Thomas Frank's book 'Listen, Liberal', concerns that almost surely propelled Trump to victory, and Bernie had the best chance to win in this 'change' election; but the HRC team & DNC undermined him for their 'inevitable coronation', which they did not get.
Now it is time for the Sanders coalition to step up and build the next wave.. starting NOW. No time to wait, no time to waste.
Regardless of what Trump does on infrastructure & foreign policy (both areas that he might [I stress the word 'might'] actually accomplish something positive), team Trump is sure to roll back environmental protections, minimum wages & progressive taxation. And with Pence as VP, we might also see a resurgence of the 'culture wars'.. possibly even the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
Don't lose sight & don't lose hope. Begin now!
+23 # Nancy Jakeman 2016-11-09 23:43
virtualaudio I agree. Bernie had the numbers coming to bring America together if he had not been undermined. I'm not mad but so sad. A new day is coming out of this nevertheless. "Our Revolution."
+14 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 01:59
Well he can't do it without Congress. The Dems. have to get over there queasiness and learn how to filibuster.
+8 # DaveEwoldt 2016-11-11 11:40
Yeah, I think the number one order of the Democratic Party, if it is to survive, is to grow a spine. They need to start calling for what they want instead of taking it off the table and starting from a badly compromised position.
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-10 11:35
So what? RWers are Americans too.

We need to be talking. QUIT the name calling and dismissiveness!

We need to find common ground. I am SO sick of the bickering -- and it is NOT a one-way problem.
-3 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 18:13
took 20 secs to find her"I will use military force against Russia" speech. Why do think she put us in Seria? go figure for yourself.
+9 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 01:55
Probably not invade Russia. Historically, that has not been a winner. She would have droned it.
+14 # anarchaos 2016-11-09 14:36
[quote name="Depressio nborn"]hillary was planning to invade Russia. Trump said no way. and that's a fact[/quote = "Extremism in the pursuit of peace is no vice, Mendacity in the pursuit of war is no virtue."
+1 # MD426 2016-11-09 15:31
That's a bunch of hooey .... why do you repeat ridiculous things like that?
-1 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 18:15
because i looked it up thanks
+3 # BoomerZoomer 2016-11-10 09:51
You looked it up in a "source" that doesn't even know how to spell Syria. You probably also believe what Trump says even though he may say the exact opposite the next day, and is a documented liar of unequaled magnitude.
+1 # Depressionborn 2016-11-10 12:09
o, i looked up her speaking [it is on u-tube\ she was then the actual source. i have big thumbs, you have a small, weak and biased mindset. sorry for your dogma, BoomerZoomer 2016-11-10 09:51 it really sucks.
-4 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-11 06:02
Its on youtube so it must be true.....
+3 # Depressionborn 2016-11-11 17:25
she said in a speech. don't be so stupid , you can listen to her if you are abl to hear.
-16 # Robbee 2016-11-09 17:53
Quoting Depressionborn:
hillary was planning to invade Russia. Trump said no way. and that's a fact

- thanks for that! - when you write hill's biography - be sure to let us know!
+10 # jenelle 2016-11-09 21:04
Quoting Depressionborn:
hillary was planning to invade Russia. Trump said no way. and that's a fact

It is abhorrent to me that you can call this a "fact" ...where???!?!?!?!?

I agree wholeheartedly that our federal budget is gerrymandered by private mercenaries who are now fat cats. They were the carpetbaggers in the wake of the Civil War. They did nothing to improve our nation; rather PROFITEERING--w hether TPP, healthcare moguls, railroad and snakeoil (Big Pharma). The entire waterfront of Louisiana has been commandeered by private military profiteering. We had pirates in the Revolutionary War, and throughout every military move since then. Let's invest in schools, education, transportation.

STOP PROMOTING WAR. I'm sorry: Cruz lost the election because he was rabid on finding out how to turn sand into glass using US tax dollars. Trump? You can be sure he has never paid for anything of value in his entire life.

We must get back to VALUES: invading Russia is such a outlier, you cannot be connected to the real world, which has a suffering Syria (please, at least spell the nation's name correctly if you want to be taken seriously: ah, there is that thing again: EDUCATION! It garners a mere 3% of our entire budget. Walmart gets a better deal, and they're only 1% of our workforce: our children represent 16 years of investment in our future.
+7 # Patriot 2016-11-10 00:00
Please, everyone, stop using the term 'gerrymandering ' incorrectly. It refers ONLY to how political jurisdictions are redrawn following each census, specifically, to redrawing them to favor a particular party by diffusing blocks of voters so that they will be minorities in various jurisdictions, and therefore will be unable to accomplish the election of candidates who support the issues they regard as important.

Gerrymandering does NOT refer to budgets, economies, or the sabotage of candidates or their candidacies.

Please, use our beautiful language CORRECTLY: We must have a common language, or we will have no way to communicate with each other, to discuss our differences in terms that we all can understand, or propose solutions in terms that mean the same to all of us. Heavens! These things are difficult now, when we have so many and so varied points of view! Let us not carelessly render discussion and comprehension impossible by mangling our languge!
+4 # Depressionborn 2016-11-11 17:29
hillary said in a speech that is still available. it is that simple and provides one answer as to why we are involved in the middle east. just follow the money.
-7 # Lgfoot 2016-11-10 11:23
Hillary might be a warmonger but only Drumpf would be crazy enough to go to war with the largest nuclear arsenal on earth.
+3 # RMF 2016-11-09 17:09
The agenda unbelievably enough includes eliminating the EPA, and repeal of the CFPB as well -- so that institutions like Wells Fargo will have a free hand in taking advantage of consumers like Depressionborn and many of the other uninformed voters who backed Trump.
Also, to the many Hillary naysayers here on RSN who objected to her candidacy on false grounds that she was going to frack for gas "everywhere" and set us back in fight against global warming -- well you ain't seen nothin yet -- with EPA on the chopping block, having been authorized by recent Sup Ct decision to regulate greenhouse gas under the EPA statutes you can kiss good by to any responsible limits or regulation on fracking and greenhouse gas.
The Oslo accord is on the chopping block as well, so get ready for renewed mountain top removal in Appalachia and a huge resurgence in King Coal under Trump and his GOP cohorts.
It means nothing less than the battle against climate change is over and done with.
There are many other big ticket items on the tea party shopping list -- e.g., privatizing public lands in western US for sale to extractive industries at fire sale prices, trashing the environment, and shafting the taxpayer all at once -- but will leave it at that.
My final word in my final post here on RSN is simply this -- those of you who worked directly or indirectly for Trump are sadly and pathetically uninformed. So adios -- Trump is all yours now. I hope you enjoy the shafting you are going to get.
+23 # Patriot 2016-11-09 17:32
RMF, the only battles that are over and done with are those we refuse to continue to pursue.

My mailbox is full, this morning, of messages from the dozen or so environmental groups Himself and I support, and from the dozen or so political groups we've been supporting.

We're not quitting, although we see an uphill path in front of us. And not Scott's "resistance", but perseverence, determination, and lots and lots of repetition. We feel a need to be even more vigilant, to speak out about, help fund, and work for all of the things in which we believe, a little each day, steadily and persistently.

Water wears away rock one drip at a time. We're prepared to do the same!

Are you? Oh, I do hope so!
-22 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:08
Quoting Patriot:
RMF, the only battles that are over and done with are those we refuse to continue to pursue.

My mailbox is full, this morning, of messages from the dozen or so environmental groups Himself and I support, and from the dozen or so political groups we've been supporting. (yadda, yada)

- rump! rump! rump!
another one bites the dust!
and another one gone!
another jilliebot gone!
another one bites the dust!

it took an election!
has pat rat finally woke up?
a day late and a prez short?
easy for a rat to say? what?
-19 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:11
Quoting Patriot:
Water wears away rock one drip at a time.

- if you can't do the time! don't do the crime! - next time?
-17 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:00
Quoting RMF:
The agenda unbelievably enough includes eliminating the EPA, and repeal of the CFPB as well -- so that institutions like Wells Fargo will have a free hand in taking advantage of consumers like Depressionborn and many of the other uninformed voters who backed Trump.

Also, to the many Hillary naysayers here on RSN who objected to her candidacy on false grounds that she was going to frack for gas "everywhere" and set us back in fight against global warming -- well you ain't seen nothin yet --

My final word in my final post here on RSN is simply this -- those of you who worked directly or indirectly for Trump are sadly and pathetically uninformed. So adios -- Trump is all yours now. I hope you enjoy the shafting you are going to get.

- wait a minute! lib promised to hold rump's feet to the fire! - problem solved!
+12 # Patriot 2016-11-10 00:01
Robbee, if you haven't something constructive to say, kindly stop your mindless, pointless drivel.
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-10 16:35
Well then the squatter would have nothing to post.
+80 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-09 14:28
The single most important task at hand is to expose the absolute corruption of our elections.
It was clear that the DNC engineered the theft of the primaries and there is absolutely no reason to believe the reported results OF ANY RACE OR BALLOT INITIATIVE in yesterday's election.

Until we force the adoption of hand counted paper ballots with a completely transparent system of tabulation we will never know if those black box "results" reflect the will of the voters.
If I had to bet on it I would say that many of last night's results were fraudulent.

One thing that I am certain about is that if it had been Bernie Sanders on the Dem. ticket we would all be celebrating the dawn of a new America today with a majority in both houses of Congress as well as retaining the White House.

Thanks DNC for once again doing the wrong thing to protect the corruption that benefits the party elite. You put forth the only candidate that could lose to Donald Trump!
+18 # Ted 2016-11-09 17:14

From experience I knew the voting computers would be rigged, unfortunately I assumed they would be rigged by the dem party this time because of their proven willingness to commit election fraud during their own primary.

But then I read about just this ONE instance, so far...
-22 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:19
Quoting Ted:

From experience I knew the voting computers would be rigged, unfortunately I assumed they would be rigged by the dem party this time because of their proven willingness to commit election fraud during their own primary.

But then I read about just this ONE instance, so far...

- i'm waiting for lib to explain H O W dems rigged all the P R I M A R Y voting machines all across the country - to explain variance from the exit polls! - sshhhh! - lib's thinking.
+24 # PCPrincess 2016-11-09 18:38
Robbee. Shame on you. You already have some of the information about the exit poll discrepencies in most states during the Democratic nominating process.

You were here when the reports of hundreds of thousands of people being removed from voter registrations in key states were printed here at RSN. You were here when the exit polls themselves were shown here at RSN. You were here when the stories were printed about Arizona's sec. of state filing a suit due to the massive irregularities in the exit polls and the long lines of people who found themselves suddenly un-registered. You were here when the news reports from New York were printed that told of entire city streets and apt. buildings tenants ALL having their voter registrations changed in Bernie's home district of Brooklyn. You were here when we learned first hand that due to the MASSIVE exit polls discrepancies, the 'powers that be' at the mainstream news stations determined that exit polls weren't necessary and stopped them just in time for the super Tuesday voting of approx. nine states, including California. You were here when we learned of the college statistician who statistically determined the odds that Hillary's win was 'natural' were 75,000,000 to 1.

Maybe you just forgot?
+28 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-09 18:52
And do not forget the video of the San Diego Registrar of Voters whiting out Bernie votes before placing the ballots into the tabulators!
Why is he not in prison?
+4 # ptalady 2016-11-09 21:21
Right on princess!! Let's get beyond the handwringing and into action: trump's win was obviously accomplished through election fraud. His pre-election ranting about the election being rigged was a classic, typical republican dirty trick: accuse the opposition of the wrong you are about to commit, or have committed. Get them making public statements against the fake issue; then use the statements to embarrass them out of investigating and blasting the real crime.

Come on, we need to fight this! Forget about silencing concerted speech (i.e. Citizens United) and first target the most fundamental of all rights in a democracy: a free and fair election!

So disappointing that Hillary conceded the election instead of challenging it. But this is an area where the media can take steps: start an investigation into election tampering and fraud. We all know this is not the first "very surprising" election result in recent decades, and we all know that bush just outright stole two elections through black box and other manipulations. It's time already!! Expose the tampering!!!
+16 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-09 22:37
YES! Expose the Trump theft of yesterday's election and expose Hillary's theft of the primaries and make Bernie President!

Sadly the most insidious part of electronic voting is that there is nothing to audit and all traces of the crime vanish into thin air.

That is why we need a system of hand counted paper ballots with very strict preservation laws if we are ever to be a free country again.
We are not one now.
+9 # Thomas0008 2016-11-10 07:43
not to mention, we need a press, that tells the truth. I doubt we get that from candidates. Didn't one of those old guys mention something about a Free Press being Essential to a Free Nation? Was he referring to "Free to Lie"? Somehow I don't think so. But I've been wrong before. I've said this other places, so I will say it here. Our representatives make laws constantly. The next law we need, maybe the only law we need, for a while is, mandatory HARD TIME, in REAL Prisons, you know, the one's with free sex, not the country club kind, with Minimum sentences starting at 10 years for the minimal lie, on up to life in prison, for elected officials who lie, as the lie gets more consequential. I can dream can't I?
+24 # Charles3000 2016-11-09 15:34
Don't put all of Depressionborn down. Trump is hard to pin down but most experts believe he will change US foreign policy in a very significant way and that includes stopping the provocations of Russia as HRC/Obama have been doing in Syria and the Ukraine. If Trump shows the door to the neocons in the State Dept like kagan then he will have done one thing right. As far as his "less gov", "create wealth" etc is concerned he is just another right wing nut who believes money is the important thing and does not understand that resources is the only limitation of what we do and that is our wealth as a nation. He probably even thinks taxes pay for govt operations!
-22 # Cassandra2012 2016-11-09 15:44
BC he is putty in Putin's hands?
+21 # dickbd 2016-11-09 16:19
Oh, come on! Do you really think Putin is a danger to the most powerful military that has ever existed?

However, Russia does have nuclear weapons, but that's not the only reason we shouldn't have intervened in Ukraine. There was no reason to do it. Why not work on friendly relations with Russia?

I know that once it was because of communism, but that's no excuse now--not that it was ever a valid one!

We should do some things because they are the right thing to do. And we should always be working toward peaceful relations. It is not up to us to promote regime change. That is what eventually led to the invasion of Iraq.
-24 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-09 16:40
Dickbd, "the most powerful military that has ever existed?" You've got to be freaking kidding after eight years of the liar in chief, drawdowns, not replacing ships or aircraft, multiple overseas postings, etc. Our military is getting worn out and I believe that our dickbird liar in chief wanted it that way!!
+19 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 16:35
I think this is going to be THE interesting relationship. Putin is smart but Trump is unpredictable.

I hope Trump will have good advisors. I hope Bernie will be one of them.
-15 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:50
Quoting librarian1984:
I think this is going to be THE interesting relationship. Putin is smart but Trump is unpredictable.

I hope Trump will have good advisors. I hope Bernie will be one of them.

- robbee says here putin will eat rump's lunch - rump! - don't come crying to me for cash - i'm too smart to pay taxes

rump gets advice from giuliani and christie - why would he ask bernie?

maybe rump will go to bernie for advice on how to cut rump's tax bill?

anyway rump knows more than the scientists about climate change - reproductive rights of women - radical islam - mexicans - so forth - pretty much all anyone really N E E D S to know to run our country - rump is pretty well squared away already?

for advice hill relied on bernie, warren and other dems - count on rump to pick other more reliable sycophants?
-11 # Robbee 2016-11-09 19:12
rump should ask bernie for advice how to put millions of folks to work? in rump's order of priority? - 1st, building a wall? 2) deporting all illegals? and 3) rebuilding our infrastructure - all while massively cutting taxes on the rich?

can bernie earnestly work for rump's most important constituency? rump himself? - i dunno - will rump like much of bernie's advice?
-11 # Robbee 2016-11-09 18:21
Quoting Charles3000:
Don't put all of Depressionborn down. Trump is hard to pin down but most experts believe he will change US foreign policy in a very significant way and that includes stopping the provocations of Russia as HRC/Obama have been doing in Syria and the Ukraine. If Trump shows the door to the neocons in the State Dept like kagan then he will have done one thing right. As far as his "less gov", "create wealth" etc is concerned he is just another right wing nut who believes money is the important thing and does not understand that resources is the only limitation of what we do and that is our wealth as a nation. He probably even thinks taxes pay for govt operations!

- rump smokes o.p's
+9 # John Puma 2016-11-10 01:52
To Charles3000

The neocon at Dept State to which you refer is Victoria Nuland, wife of one of the execrable Kagan's.
+10 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 02:08
Yes, there are a few good points and this is a very big one. I been alternating between relief that we won't have Hillary's wars and dread of what Trump will do domestically. But the truth is, we don't really know. He made so many contradictory statements that me can't know which he will act on, if any.
+10 # jwb110 2016-11-09 15:41
Quoting Depressionborn:
We voted for less gov, fewer regs and not to invade Russia. Go ahead, resist that. Or some imaginary wealth creating evil. We want to create wealth, not steal it or redistribute it. Join us, the good guys.

And you'll get just the opposite like you did with G.W. Bush.
-12 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-09 16:35
Depression...we ll said and look how many reddies it got you. We conservatives were expected to work with hillary for a better America and now I expect no less from the liberals. Resist what? Close the freaking borders, create jobs, overhaul that absolutely stupid, expensive obummacare, make sure we have a strong military, etc. Resist what? Mr. Galindez, put your money where your mouth nominated a criminal, a liar, a woman whose sole ambition is to get herself rich on the backs of the citizens who supported her. She got her ass kicked which is what most of the posters on here wanted. What is there to be sad or mad about?
+8 # librarian1984 2016-11-10 11:40
Yes, even conservatives and progressives should be talking. We have economic issues in common.

Conservatives have been right about government and surveillance, and progressives are right about things too.

I am far left but I am willing to talk and work together. I am tired of gridlock.
+8 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 17:04
First, Hillary won the popular vote by about a quarter million votes, and in any kind of real democracy would be president-elect . Don't get me wrong I refused to vote for either of those two assholes, I figured we were screwed whichever one won.

I still expect that Trump won't be able to keep any of his promises and buyer's remorse will set in quickly.

But I'm still not sure that it's going to matter. The deep government has it's mind made up, and will continue to pressure Russia and China. All the ingredients for WWIII are now in place. Tensions are extremely high, and any little fuck up could launch a war. Clinton didn't dream up being a militant all on her own, you give far too much credit to politicians. The plans for US domination of the world have been in motion for the last 70 years. Look at the writings of Kissinger and Brzezinski, this is how the pinnacle of the military-securi ty complex thinks. The intent is to gain control of the resources of the Eurasian land mass by whatever means necessary.

I worry that plans may be pushed up because of Trump's victory.

I'm sorry that you think you live in a Democracy. In fact you live in an oligarchy as does most of the world. Voting is not going to fix this shit! There will be no change without bloodshed.
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:13
I'm not so sure. Several weeks ago, Brzezinski wrote an article stating that their plans for global conquest were done. Basically, he felt we "blew it" by not conquering Russia and China while we had the chance, and now we had to work with them.

That may be why the let Drumpf win The elite are still in control, but are less anxious to press their agenda forward. This may buy us enough time to make meaningful change.
+8 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 19:09
Brzezinski did come to that realization, but he's been replaced with the neo-cons and neo-liberals who haven't lost that fervor. Our military believes it can win a war against Russia, the Army Chief of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, said so just last week. America fears that in 20 years Russia and China will be the dominant players in the world, militarily and economically along with the rest of the BRICS.

We're almost in the same shape as the USSR when it collapsed. Our military spending is sinking the economy and our new weapons don't work. We spend 4 billion on a ship, but can't afford the $800,000 a shot ammunition. So what good is it. The F-35 is a fiasco, it keeps costing more money, the plane doesn't do what was promised and the maintenance of the aircraft is extremely expensive, frequent and time consuming. The Russians and the Chinese have figured out how to defeat our stealth designs, they've upgraded their nuclear missiles and war heads, the Russians now have the most advanced tank in the world.
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-09 19:45
And now the NeoCons just got voted out of the Executive Branch.

Maybe Brzezinski knew that was coming.
+8 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 20:09
Quoting Radscal:
And now the NeoCons just got voted out of the Executive Branch.

Maybe Brzezinski knew that was coming.

Dream on. The neocons are fixtures in the CIA, State Department and military. They're going nowhere. They've been there since Allen Dulles founded the CIA and John Foster Dulles, ran the State Dept.

They scammed Eisenhower, killed JFK, manipulated LBJ, destroyed Nixon, ignored Ford, screwed Jimmy Carter, and got their way with Reagan and every president since.

They've only become more entrenched in our government.
+12 # Radscal 2016-11-09 20:21
Could be. As I wrote, I'm not sure.

But I am sure that the 0.01% are still largely in charge. But they are not a monolith. Not even the CIA or FBI are monoliths. I'm not sure which factions have the most control right now.

We'll see.

Oh, and ps. It could be that the NeoCons were really pro-Trump, and endorsed Clinton to hurt her chances of getting the liberal/progres sive vote. Of course, she did welcome them, but I am open to the idea that the entire election was a Kabuki Theater Show.
+12 # dbrize 2016-11-09 20:35
Quoting Radscal:
Could be. As I wrote, I'm not sure.

But I am sure that the 0.01% are still largely in charge. But they are not a monolith. Not even the CIA or FBI are monoliths. I'm not sure which factions have the most control right now.

We'll see.

Another salient point my friend. Like every mob, they fight among themselves, have turf battles and conflicting ideas on who, what, when and where.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that we witnessed a doozy throughout this election.
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-09 20:52
Indeed. And thank you, my friend. I have a lot of respect for you, so am simultaneously invigorated and humbled when it's reciprocated.
+3 # DogSoldier 2016-11-10 01:41
America you don're really want to go to war.
America it's them bad Russians.
Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.
The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia's power mad. She wants to take
our cars from out our garages.
Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Reader's Digest. her wants our
auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations .
That no good. Ugh. Him makes Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers.
Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help.
America this is quite serious.
America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set.
America is this correct?

That's from Allen Ginsberg's poem "America" written in January, 1956. Do you see much difference between then and now?
-2 # Caliban 2016-11-12 00:09
Kabuki requires more creativity than I saw in this last election from either side.
+7 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 02:15
I don't know. Getting rid of all of Hillary's appointees will thin them out a lot. And the President, if he choses to can just say no to them. Obama didn't choose to, but Trump might.
+8 # ptalady 2016-11-09 21:30
I binge-watched "breaking bad" this summer. The great difficulty of laundering all that money made fascinating tv! Remember the strategy they came up with? Fake books showing fake receipts for massively over-priced services. As soon as they figured out, my next thought was: oh! Now I understand the $500 toilet seats, the million dollar bullets, and the billion dollar airplanes! The cia et al have a huge amount of money to launder.... Why not do at least some of it at home?!
+2 # madame de farge 2016-11-12 13:23
And every year we spend more of our GDP on an inefficient and unweildly healthcare system for less than 80% of our population... and our education system is OVERWHELMED with Administrative personnel... like health care is overwhelmed with Administrative personnel and profits for wall street.
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 07:43
Just heard that the US employs more people to run an aircraft carrier than all the diplomats we send around the world. We have ten aircraft carriers and just commissioned an 11th.

And let's not forget our trillion $ nuclear makeover.

Progressives need to lead the conversation on changing US priorities. We are the mercenaries of the world, the arms manufacturers, the weapons dealers, the bullies pushing perpetual war.

These were not always American priorities and we need to start dismantling the MIC-intelligenc e-corporate state. While that seems unlikely under Trump, what DOES seem possible is riding the wave of Trump backlash that is surely coming.

Perhaps 2018 will make the Senate Dem. Perhaps Sanders or someone as good will run in 2020 and people will be over Trump and the left will have organized and mobilized. If that happens it would be a good time to take on this cancer on our nation.

Another major change we need is draining the media swamp. Not sure how other than just not listening to them. I watch shows to see pols and policy makers but am fed up with pundits. They're all acting as if they didn't betray us, and their mission, in every possible way, repeatedly and consistently. For all their navel gazing narcissism, they never seem to detect the problem let alone arrive at a solution.
+10 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 19:10
Something has got to give, and I don't see any solution. He'll be assassinated if he tries to cut deals with Russia. The deep government would have no hesitation. Kennedy was having secret disarmament talks with Khrushchev when he got whacked.
* JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James W. Douglass

Just today I saw there was an incident between the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean and a Dutch NATO submarine. Russian fingers are on hair triggers, they truly believe that NATO wants to go to war with them. I would too if I sat in Putin's seat.

In nuclear war, the country that launches the first strike has the best chance of winning. I don't know what they'd win but a radioactive, uninhabitable world. But I'm not one of the Masters of the Universe with bomb shelters and supplies for years.
+6 # librarian1984 2016-11-10 11:50
DepressionBorn, Wow, that's quite a discussion you provoked :-D

It's incendiary to say you're the 'good guys' :-D Let's say we're ALL Americans.

Don't understand the negatives. There are things we can agree on and things we should work together on.

I am for BETTER government, not philosophically opposed to smaller government as long as the jobs get done -- including the military and intelligence sectors.

Fewer regulations? That seems foolish for public safety reasons but we should talk about it. You don't want to stop elevator inspections and food safety regs, do you? Do you trust corporations to regulate themselves? I don't.

Don't know what you mean about imaginary wealth but I detest the Fed, Wall Street and paper shuffling wealth, does that count?

Taxes are necessary and wealth distribution is happening all the time, only it's all moving UP to the wealthy. Don't ban redistribution until you know what goes to whom and why.

I am 100% in agreement about voting against war. I believe there was a strong vote for economic issues like jobs and tax havens though, too, don't you?

Regards, comrade! ;-)
+5 # Eliza D 2016-11-10 14:05
So you voted for Trump. You'll have to do a lot more explaining to convince just about anyone on this site to join you. I briefly thought about voting for Trump partly because, like many others, I don't trust Hillary's promises and because I want Muslim immigration halted. You can lump me in with the thousands of Brits who do not want their culture sublimated by an Islamic one. But I quickly dropped that idea as I saw Trump make one vulgar comment after another and read first hand accounts of how he refused to pay contractors for work he had contracted to pay for. How could we possibly trust a President to keep his promises who has a documented record of cheating his business associates? Trump has, in fact, stolen the wealth of others.Scott is right-we have to get out there and work to change the Democratic party, or for some of us, work to get a third party funded and recognized. My family belongs to 350.0rg and we get out to rallies and protests as often as we can.
+78 # Ken Halt 2016-11-09 12:07
The Democratic machine got what it deserves. If the playing field had been level Bernie would have been the candidate and would have beaten Trump handily. We told you so, and now the whole country has to deal with result of that corruption and ineptitude. Thank you, Debbie Schultz, Donna Brazille, John Lewis, Delores Huerta, Paul Krugman, all you super delegates who chose HRC even before the primaries began, all the party apparatchniks who helped skew poll results and hack elections, thank you for your ignorance and stupidity, your allegiance to a corrupt party machine. Thank you, thank you for the Trump victory!
+38 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 12:35
Don't forget the paid trolls who've harassed, ridiculed, and instigated in Hillary's name, for the past year.

They should get a YUUGE check in the mail from Trump, for their tireless trollery on his behalf.

Hillary lost due to rust belt states tired of Democrats governing and campaigning even FURTHER to the right-of Republicans when it comes to economics, and trade.
-10 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:39
The real question is whether Midwest rural white voters are now like their counterparts in the south and in the Great Plains. If they are now voting the way rural white voters do in places like KS, NE, MS, OK, for example, then things are much, much worse. For, if these voters are now behaving like southern rural whites, then there are major problems.

Now that I look back on it both Gore and Kerry struggled in the upper Midwest. Gore barely won states like IA, MN, WI, and MI. Kerry struggled to win the same states and even lost IA. These midwest states have all elected Republican governors. Maybe Obama's win in those states temporarily forestalled long-term trends against Democrats.

On the other hand the few bright spots for Democrats were winning Orange County, CA, the home of Richard Nixon. They also won Cobb and Gwinett Counties in suburban Atlanta, the two counties that launched the Gingrich revolution.

I don't see anything how anything "progressive" could have won these voters. If they were voting against "those people" I fail to see how Sanders would have earned their votes. These voters don't seem "progressive" in the least.
+12 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 16:54
You don't win by appealing to the opposition. Every time the Democrat has lost in the last 16 years, that's exactly the mistake that was made.

Act like a Republican, you better BE a Republican, because you can't count on Democrats to vote for you.
+18 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:21
We've been warning you for 1 1/2 years that HRC would lose to any real Republican.

I've been pointing out to you that even in the "Republican rout" election of 2014, progressive issues won all across the country.

And that polls consistently show that the majority of USians are quite progressive on specific issues.

But your arrogant, elitist disdain for the people (which was perfectly exemplified by HRC) was quite apparent to those people. Just like we warned you.
+6 # DaveEwoldt 2016-11-11 11:35
Rain17, they don't have to be progressive to agree on some fundamental issues that affect their lives in ways that matter--living wage jobs, bloated military budget while streets and bridges crumble, affordable health care and functional schools, distaste for elite arrogance. These are not progressive issues per se, but human issues that a technologically advanced society that considers itself civilized should be able to handle.

If people could pay their mortgage and realistically expect their children to have a higher quality of life then both immigration and race issues would dwindle dramatically.
+13 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:15
Quoting anthraxripple:
Don't forget the paid trolls who've harassed, ridiculed, and instigated in Hillary's name, for the past year.

They should get a YUUGE check in the mail from Trump, for their tireless trollery on his behalf.

Hillary lost due to rust belt states tired of Democrats governing and campaigning even FURTHER to the right-of Republicans when it comes to economics, and trade.

I don't know why I didn't hear the term until last week, because it's so perfect. The Corrupt the Record shills were "Hil-bullies."
+27 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-11-09 12:53
The Dem party is dead. Need to drain the swamp of the DNC.

Let the chips fall!
+8 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 12:58
The neocon repubs more so. look whig demise before the civil war
+11 # Ted 2016-11-09 17:16
At least the demise of the whigs gave us Third Party Candidate Abe Lincoln!
+5 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 20:43
yes, and now both Bernie and Trump could be said 3d party. Neocon repubs have committed Whig suicide. Similarities between now and 1858 are weird: Corruption galore, a divided population, war, Financial manipulations. it is a long list. Slaves property then, unborn the same now; Dred Scott and Roe Wade. WOW
+8 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 20:19
No. Trump is already reaching out to Wall Street and Republican leadership to fill his administration. You'll more likely have Bush on steroids.

Trump wanted the title, not the job.
-30 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:16
No Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump. Sanders would have presented different problems in the general election. They would have red-baited him and turned him into "Comrade Bernie". And the affluent suburban voters, who largely stuck with Clinton, would have rejected his Socialism.

The idea that these votes who came out in droves to support Trump would have somehow supported a self-proclaimed socialist is absurd. None of these voters supports anything progressive. They voted to ban Muslims, build that wall, attack the disabled, and for "law and order". They didn't vote progressive or liberal ideas.

The bottom line, as I said elsewhere in this thread, the idea that these voters would have embraced Sanders is absurd. They would have still voted for Trump.

It goes to what I've said before. These voters believe that the Democratic Party is indifferent, if not hostile, to their interests. They believe that the Democratic Party cares more about minorities than their own needs. They may support some progressive things; but, if it means that minorities will benefit in any way, they will aggressively oppose those things--even if it means suffering for them.

I work in a conservative industry and know these voters. During the primary many of them mocked Sanders too. The idea that somehow Sanders would have prevailed with them is ridiculous.
+46 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:26
You STILL have it wrong. People didn't come out for Clinton but she sure motivated the GOP. Sanders would have motivated greater turnout and brought more progressives and Dems with him, possibly taking the Senate.

Trump won with Independents but Sanders was WAY ahead among Independents during the primaries, and Trump won the states that Clinton lost to Sanders. All the things progressives predicted.

Sanders polled at least ten points ahead of Trump for almost a year while Clinton was consistently statistically tied -- just as it went.

Sanders would have won. You have been wrong all year and you're wrong now.

We have Pres-elect Trump because you let the DNC steal the nomination from Sanders.
-16 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:41
I don't have it "wrong". I just find it really absurd that somehow these voters, who were angry and voting based on racism, would have suddenly done a 180 and voted for a socialist from Vermont. Somehow this group of voters, who responded positively to "build that wall", mocking the disabled, and for "law and order", would have supported a socialist is ridiculous.

These voters think that most liberals and progressives care more about minorities than their own needs. What makes you think they somehow would have turned around and supported Sanders?
+33 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:52
They were angry and voting on economic issues. Many people were embarrassed to support Trump because of his backward rhetoric -- but they were voting for jobs and economic justice -- and they were voting their anger at the Washington establishment -- appeals that Sanders made without the burden of social neanderthalism.

Do not make the mistake of looking down at Trump supporters and continuing to insult them. That arrogance drove voters away from HRC and to Trump.

YOU may be paranoid about Sanders' socialism but young voters are not -- and the DP turned away MILLIONS of young progressives and Independents. The Democrat establishment lost this race.
-14 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:09
Librarian, I'm not "insulting Trump voters". I am just saying that they are neither liberal nor progressive. The idea that Sanders, a socialist from Vermont, would have gotten their votes is absurd.

Nope these people were voting for what Trump offered. They were voting for the Muslim ban, building of the wall, attacking the disabled, "law and order", and abusing women. They all willingly voted for that--and wanted those things. So honestly, Librarian, I don't see how Sanders could have gotten their support because, in all honesty, they wouldn't have backed a Socialist either.

The problem is that the "white working class" largely believes that the Democrats care more about minorities than their own needs. At its heart that is the major issue here. They voted against multiculturalis m and diversity. That is what fueled them.
+20 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 16:48
Labels don't matter. We share common cause on many economic issues. I believe we also are in the right on social issues and we can discourse if we quit being so arrogant and dismissive. Conservatives are not lesser citizens. Yes there are plenty of shady Christians but there are many wonderful people who are generous and charitable. They're not stupid because they believe in god. Where is our humility?

If we believe we're right than we should be able to converse without looking down our noses at others. We are obnoxious. Bill Maher and Hillary Clinton have this in spades and we should renounce it.

Trump has offered unity. Let's trust that for now. He is outside the calcified dysfunctional system. I'm for that. I am not listening to fearmongering or any of these twit pundit morans.

I want Sanders to work with Trump. I want Pelosi and Warren to talk the guy's ear off. Educate him. He was a Democrat before the Clintons took the party over.

Let's try to get single payer healthcare RIGHT AWAY. Do NOT listen to the media. Think for yourself.

Let's try. Support Bernie. Work toward unity on middle class issues. Let's get to work.

We have common cause and need to work together without shoving PC down people's throats. If conservatives work with us they will meet LGBTQ people and minorities. We know we are right on these issues. If they meet us they will love us.

Adopt-a-Conserv ative. Like the Peace Corps for American politics!!
+12 # dbrize 2016-11-09 17:05
You and I have had this discussion before lib:

There is an antiwar right.
There is an anti-Wall Street anti-bailout right.
There is an Anti-FED right.
There is a pro-Main Street right.

If Trump understands that his election is about making government work again there are those on left and right who will play ball.
+15 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:33
Trump won with fewer votes than McCain and Romney LOST with.

HRC got 10 million FEWER votes than Obama got in 2008.

This was not a matter of winning over the racists and bigots who voted for Trump.

This was a matter of NOT ENERGIZING the huge majority of eligible voters. Sanders clearly energized them. HRC clearly did not. This was obvious from early on in the rigged primary process. But you and other establishment partisans refused to acknowledge reality.
+13 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 20:29
He lost the general election. The margins were razor thin. Democrat turnout was far lower than 2012.

Clinton lost because of who she was, too many people didn't like her and mistrusted her, and her status quo campaign. She didn't even campaign on what she wanted to do, it was all anti-Trump. Hillary owns this loss lock, stock and barrel. it was her arrogance that killed her.
+10 # Radscal 2016-11-09 20:55
Yep. More than that Trump won, this election was Hillary lost.

She kicked off her campaign as a "center right" candidate, which if you mean is what she wanted to campaign on, I agree. She was forced to pretend to support positions that Sanders stood for, and fooled almost no one.
+4 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-09 16:47
Rain, "voting on racism?" You've got your head up your ass. Conservatives are your neighbors, your friends, not your hated enemies...or if they are then you have a serious mental problem and should probably be visited by the "government" that you'll now hate in a couple of months. Do you honestly think that if you're in trouble that I could help you with that I wouldn't because you're a liberal? Do you think that if you need to be cut out of a wreck or your house needs to be saved that we would ask if you're a liberal or a conservative before helping? You are a symptom of the problem in this country right now!!
+9 # Patriot 2016-11-09 17:43
Amen, Skylinefirepest ! However it shakes out, we're ALL in this boat together, trying to keep it afloat while the 1/1000th% tries to finish swamping it. The poor are suffering, the middle class is endangered, our form of government is being not-so-slowly destroyed, our climate is on the ruin.

All of us are in deep peril, and we won't get out of it by pointing fingers at one another. Let's face forward and go after the people who are to blame: all of those who are, or who are doing the bidding of, the minutely small number of oligarchs. THEY are the problem! Not the folks standing next to us.

Hopeful sign: Even some of the very wealthy, and even some very conservative folks, are beginning to grumble about the economy, the wars, the duopoly. Let's try to join forces with them, and move forward!
+10 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 02:26
Because they did Support Sanders while he was running. It would not have been a turnaround. he knows how to talk to them without condescending. He's been doing it in Vermont for decades. There are a lot of pretty conservative people in Vermont, but Bernie routinely gets 60-70 percent of the vote. Vermont is not 60-70 percent progressive, but he has the ability to show people that he understands their problems and it is not an act. He really does.

And polling after Bernie pulled out showed that some of his supporters who didn't switch to Clinton actually directly transferred there support to Trump. Not all of it went to Stein. It fractured. Trump got a big chunk as did Johnson, at least for a while.
+6 # Anonymot 2016-11-10 09:48
Sorry that it rained on your Party, but you DO have it wrong. If you want an intelligent and sober picture of why Hillary was defeated and what an opportunity that opens, forget the bunkum and read this brilliant Naomi Klein article:
+1 # Caliban 2016-11-11 02:55
Idiotic argument.

There is nobody on this site with a magical, all-knowing, all-telling crystal ball or any reliable substitute.

Time for some humility and tolerance here.

We all mean well, but pretending to have all the answers is not the way to show it.
+5 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 15:40
Lotta bullshit flying these last couple days but this is the biggest load I've seen yet!
+11 # PCPrincess 2016-11-09 18:47
I agree with the previous replies absolutely. There were large swaths of Americans who specifically said that they don't like Trump, but like Hillary even less. Many people voted for Trump even though they don't like him.

The election results were less about Trump 'Mania' and more about the hemorraghing(sp elling?) of voters from the Democratic party due to its many many years of pandering, sell-outs, corruption and the very recent stealth theft of a Democratic primary from a VERY popular populist candidate: Bernie Sanders.
-12 # Robbee 2016-11-09 21:41
Quoting Ken Halt:
If the playing field had been level Bernie would have been the candidate and would have beaten Trump handily.

- bernie had certain handicaps you forget -

1. 13 million dems voted for hill - they preferred her
2. insipid citizen blackmailed dem super-delegates - testing that they liked getting pissed on
3. many independents disdained to register as dems - in order to vote in a primary for bernie
4. hill kicked rump's ass in all 3 debates - kaine played the veep rump-attack-dog role, against pence, to perfection - it's hard to second-guess - dems picking a ticket that wins all debates
5. hill got under rump's skin with the miss universe needle - that killed rump in polls tweet-by-tweet - death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts - until dem back-stabber comey came to rump's rescue
6. during primaries none of rump's white - blue-collar voter-base switched to bernie 7. "socialist"
8. rump is a canny, skilled tv-talk-show host - against rump it's not enough to be sincere and honest - rump does "sincere and honest" in his sleep - persuading both conservatives and progressives of opposite views at the same time - or in consecutive sentences - trust me! - bullieve me! - when you can fake sincerity - every instant - while contradicting yourself - now you're formidable - it's not enough to be sincere and honest about the issues

could bernie have beat rump? mebbe? mebbe not - 13 million primary voters said "no"
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-11-10 11:53
Your usual baloney, Robbee, you're a source of endless drivel. Polls showed him winning in matches with Trump. Turned out the polls showing the HRC would lose were correct, we'll never know for sure but polls showing Bernie would win were likely correct, also. The DNP betrayed voters and got their comeuppance. You should check out studies that show the primaries had serious statistical anomalies, the fact is that HRC was selected by the DNC, not primary voters. And, FYI, Bernie is now the most popular politician in the US. Wouldn't have gotten elected?
+29 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 12:09
Yep. The left will unite under a Republican president, who can't actually achieve as much of the right-wing agenda, as Clinton already promised.

If Trump is in for 4 (or less, due to impeachment) years, and is replaced with a LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE for a CHANGE, we'll be better off, than we would have been under a duplicitous 8 years of Clinton and cowardly "Democrats" unwilling to look into her secret policy deals with Republican interests.
+35 # kyzipster 2016-11-09 12:27
Best case scenario for sure. If we lived in a sane country, Trump would never have been nominated. We could easily see 8 years with Trump.

I never thought that Bush would get a second term, that surely voters could see what a terrible direction we were heading.
+35 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 12:36
Bush had something Trump will never have. Bush had the full support of the far right in the military, CIA, security state, etc.

Clinton was the closest thing to Bush running in this election.

That's why Bush announced that he was voting for her.
+12 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-11-09 12:57
And George Will and Glenn Beck and Richard Krauthhammer etc and on and on. The fake right media was on the Hillary train too.

I doubted all the NWO crap from Alex Jones until the right wing media came out for her. Seriously listen to him and realize a lot of stuff he says is probably true. He is being proven right every day.
+6 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 02:35
And Darth Vader Chaney.
+2 # kyzipster 2016-11-09 23:16
"Clinton was the closest thing to Bush running in this election."

We'll see, looks like Trump fooled more than white Middle America with his populist hot air. When factories in the rust belt get going again, I'll happily eat crow.

Establishment Republicans disowned him because he's dooming the GOP, they don't want their names associated with him for very obvious reasons. They probably never expected him to win. Sure, Clinton is a neoliberal conservative but that's not why they switched sides, because she's more like Bush than Trump.
+26 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-11-09 12:54
Bush stole his second term from Kerry. It is documented. Look for the ariticles go to blackboxvoting. org
+6 # Caliban 2016-11-09 13:36
But how does this matter now, #MsAnnaNOLA?

That is what we need to know for the future.
+13 # anarchaos 2016-11-09 14:41
Quoting Caliban:
But how does this matter now, #MsAnnaNOLA?

That is what we need to know for the future.

Quoting Caliban:
But how does this matter now, #MsAnnaNOLA?

That is what we need to know for the future.
= "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"!
+1 # Caliban 2016-11-10 02:47
Agreed. I was looking for a bit of this historical insight with my question. And still am - from any fellow RSN commenter.
+9 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:42
You need to ask yourself why the Democratic Party refused to investigate and halt election fraud. It cost them at least 2 presidential elections, and who knows how many down ticket elections?
+14 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-09 15:22
The 2004 contest was decided by the Republican theft of Ohio.
Look at the amazing work of Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wassernan at for a full analysis.

I suspect that Ohio was a repeat of 2004 last night, visit the website of for some insight on the litany of anti-democracti c tactics employed there.
+31 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 12:29
Clinton people,

We warned you and warned you that this was going to happen if you tried to shove Hillary down our throats.


Trump just won with fewer popular votes (a LOT fewer) than Romney LOST with 4 years ago.

You ridiculed and squashed Sanders and Stein because it was "Hillary's Turn" (to lose), and look what happened.



Please tell me you'll LISTEN to our voices before shoving another Clinton/Lieberm an/Reid/ triangulator and LIAR down our throats in 4 years.


+12 # Caliban 2016-11-09 13:49
Is there anything less useful post-election than this kind of self-serving BS?

I doubt it.

It was not RSN readers who lost this election for the Democrats.

It was the party as a whole that failed to correctly read how conservative and cautious the white working class electorate has become in the 21st century, particularly on fiscal and foreign policy matters.

Instead of fighting among ourselves, we liberals need to get more realistic about how to frame and sell our core principles to a broader (and larger) constituency.

PS...RSN and its readership supported Bernie strongly until he left the race.
+42 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-09 14:07
Bernie showed us the roadmap and the corporate Dems chose not to follow it....Polls showed it...We were right...self serving I guess but we were right...
+35 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-09 14:14
I am willing to bet that if you ask labor organizers if they think they could have turned out more of their members in the rust belt fir Bernie than Hillary they will tell you yes. Dont go and get a quote from a teachers union or government worker...Trade unions in the Midwest...the bosses may have endorsed hillary but they couldn't deliver their rank and file...
+11 # bardphile 2016-11-09 15:12
Yes, and that bodes well for '20. We need to roll up our sleeves and lay the groundwork for it. A strong progressive Democrat could, and I predict will, reform and unite the party and win the general. Demographics and 4 years of Trump will be in our favor.
+9 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:30
I am with you!
+1 # DogSoldier 2016-11-09 20:39
Not me, I accepted an offer on my house yesterday. (before Trump won) And I am out of here. I was going anyway, i wasn't going to live under either of those two.

Hasta la vista. You can have this fascist, police state. You can have Big Brother reading your e-mails, recording your phone calls, following you around with their network of cameras and facial recognition software.

There will never be change in the US without bloodshed. After more than 50 years of trying all I got to say is fuck it. America got what it deserved.
0 # Patriot 2016-11-10 00:12
Running away is cowardice and will not solve your problems. Will you be any better a citizen to any other country? I doubt it.

We will be better off without you--but so would any other country. If you're not willing to work and fight, if necessary, for what is important to you, then, good riddance!

Go and be damned to you!
+8 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 02:40
Yes, but we have to get our terminology straight. No more putting lipstick on a neoliberal neocon pig and calling it progressive.
-10 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:24
Scott, Bernie would have lost with these voters too. Think about it honestly. These voters think that the Democrats are more concerned about minorities. They think the Democrats want to tax them for social programs that primarily benefit "those people". The idea that somehow a self-proclaimed socialist like Sanders would have won their votes is absurd.

They voted to attack the disabled, build that wall, the Muslim Ban, and "law and order". It was basically the reconstruction of the Reagan/Nixon coalition of the 1970s and 1980s--minus the suburban voters--who propelled Trump to victory. The idea that these voters supported anything progressive or liberal is absurd.

Sanders wouldn't have fared better with these voters. They would have rejected him too, possibly even by larger margins. What you had was a group of angry white voters who came out in full force. Sanders's platform would not have gotten their support either.

There is nothing in these election returns to suggest that, out in rural America, there is a hotbed of socialism out there. I don't think a far left platform would get these voters to switch from the GOP. Most of them are gone forever.

Theoretically they may support some progressive things--as long as minorities don't benefit. But, as soon as they find out that minorities will benefit, their support stops. It's really that simple.
+13 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 15:45
-8 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:58
What makes you think these same voters, who clearly responded positively to banning Muslim, to "build that wall", and "law and order" would have dramatically done a 360 and pulled the lever for Sanders?
+10 # tedrey 2016-11-09 16:43
It's not the Republican rank and file that would have carried Sanders; it would have been the real progressives, the independents, the new voters, the young voters, AND he wouldn't have raised the right-wing hordes against him by gratuitously insulting them.
+11 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 16:54
Some might have voted for Sanders. Trump won with college educated whites. I think Sanders had a chance with them.

But there were many who just didn't vote at all and it hurt the downticket races. Why did Clinton pivot to the GOP instead of the progressives?

She didn't even have the decency to say goodnight and thank you to her supporters.

Neither of them was worthy and she did not inspire enthusiasm.

Polls are dead. Punditry is dead. The GOP is dead. The DP is dead. The Bushes and Clintons are out. Good. Good. Good.
+3 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:47
"She didn't even have the decency to say goodnight to her supporters."

Hey, she was having a seizure. It took hours of "special" medication to get her ready to stand and speak again. ;-)
+9 # Radscal 2016-11-09 19:52
Oh, and ps. John Podesta then went before her supporters and LIED to them. He told them that the campaign would wait for full vote counts and not have anything to say until the next day.

Minutes later, HRC was on the phone conceding to Drumpf.

The perfect end to a perfectly duplicitous campaign.
+12 # anthraxripple 2016-11-09 17:06

Trump just won with less votes than Romney got WHEN HE LOST.

That can ONLY mean ONE thing.

Hillary did not get votes from the left (even though the country is becoming demographically more liberal every year).

Any denial of these facts is a denial of reality.
+17 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:59
You've always been against Sanders and you got your way. Didn't work out too well though, did it? And now you're trying to pretend that stealing the nomination for Clinton didn't give us a Pres. Trump -- BUT IT DID.

Sanders would have won.
-19 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:12
No he wouldn't have. And Clinton didn't "steal the nomination". More Democrats in the primary voted for her. Take it up with the millions who disagreed with you.

Sanders would have been called "Comrade Bernie". The footage of him talking positively about breadlines and Marxist dictators, which you can find easily by doing a YouTube search on him, would have run nonstop. These voters would have rejected him too for those reasons. You act like Sanders had no baggage, when he had plenty that would have been opposition research's dream.

The idea that somehow that this group of voters who turned out, many of whom were voting for Trump's offensive statements, would have voted for a Vermont Socialist is absurd. This group of voters is neither liberal nor progressive.
+11 # Ken Halt 2016-11-09 17:42
Rain: What a load of bull woofy! Polls showed that Bernie was the stronger candidate and would have beaten Trump, and that HRC was the weaker candidate and would lose to Trump. Seems as if the polls were at least half right, HRC DID LOSE! So the other half of the poll was probably correct also. Face it, you Hillbots delivered a fatally flawed candidate. The polls showed he would have won, you saying he wouldn't have is pretty lame. We told you so, and YOU DIDN'T LISTEN! The election has proven you wrong. BTW, Bernie is now the most popular politician in the US. And the DNC did steal the nomination, see the Stanford study about irregularities in the Dem primaries.
-13 # Rain17 2016-11-09 23:52
Bernie would have lost too. The idea that these voters who embraced Trump were going to do a 360 and embrace a Jewish, socialist senator from VT is absurd.
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-11-10 07:53
Bloviate all you want but good data showed that Bernie was the stronger candidate and in potential matches would have beaten Trump and that HRC would lose. Instead of paying attention to the base and changing demographics the DNP decided to roll the dice with their "don't rock the boat" candidate, a pol that symbolized the rigged system and defended the 1%. Pitiful! The Dem party got what it deserves. And it's not the Trump voters who would have embraced Bernie, it was all those voters who lost hope and didn't show up because the choices were so poor. A guy that was drawing tens of thousands to his rallies, while HRC and Trump were attracting a few hundreds or few thousands, would now be prez.
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-11 09:09
Still in denial. Not learning anything from your past mistakes.

Bernie would have won, and the DP took the risk of stealing it for Hillary because THEY were afraid of anything that would change the status quo.

Voters weren't afraid of socialism. The establishment was afraid of change.

Well, they gambled and they lost -- big time! It's time for the progressives to take over the party. How much worse could we do?
+6 # Patriot 2016-11-09 17:46
Okay, Rain, okay. So, you've made your point (although I still don't agree with it).

Now--what about tomorrow? How is your point relevant to tomorrow?
-4 # Activista 2016-11-09 13:33
People wake up and stop the hate. Hate master Trump with his prisons and killing wall on Mexican border.
Trump will stop Iran diplomacy and Middle East will explode again.
“Too many communities have been left behind in the global economy. Too many young people cannot afford the cost of the college education. Too many cannot afford basic necessities like health care, housing, or retirement."
Instead we got a new populist dictator Trump and Putin celebrates.
+8 # Charles3000 2016-11-09 15:41
Wrong. If Trump befriends Russia he will be supportive of Iran also. Can't do one without the other.
+7 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 16:15
One would think so. I hope so.
+21 # REDPILLED 2016-11-09 14:25
True resistance would mean abandoning the discredited Democrat Party and starting a People's Party which truly represents the 99%, including those who voted for Trump and will inevitably be betrayed by him and his Republican team.
+5 # Scott Galindez 2016-11-09 14:32
Good luck with that...been there and tried it...The system is rigged against starting a new party...but go ahead and bang your head against the wall some moe,,,
+10 # Thomas0008 2016-11-09 15:26
seems like that's what you did (bang your head against the wall)
with this disaster of a woman clinton... As a life long Democrat who sees no future with that party at this time, I say good riddance to them, their corruption, and their abomination of a candidate. They dug their own grave, now they should be honorable enough to lie in it...
+12 # Ted 2016-11-09 15:29
Yes, the system IS rigged against anything other than the two-party duopoly.

In my eyes that leaves us no other alternative EXCEPT to work our asses off to strengthen a third party and get massive public support to dismantle that rigging.

Recognizing the system is rigged but working hard to bolster that system from within it just isn't logical and it is why the Bernie movement fell apart so spectacularly,i t never stood a chance with it's own worst enemies at tge helm of the party it tried to "change". As for the 'Our Revolution' effort, let's not overlook the losses of Feingold, Teachout, and others.

The democratic party is a fraud that is more than happy to use both Progressive candidates and Progressive voters to achieve it's corporatist goals.

The "message" sent on election day was that we are not fooled by that fraud any more.

Scott, all the grand ideals you wrote about in the article ARE worth fighting for, they ARE true Proggressive ideals.

If you want true Progressive political change, join and support the only true Progressive Party, the Green Party. Otherwise you'll just keep playing the same sick duopoly game year after year.
+6 # tedrey 2016-11-09 16:59
You make sense, but still I'm not so sure the Democratic Party is still that monolith you describe, Ted. Just now the 50 state Dem. parties have just suffered a terrible shellacking. The DNC is defeated, discredited, exposed as weak and corrupt. Wouldn't it be a good time to get some of the DNC who are looking pretty much losers right now replaced by Warren, Ellison, even Sanders, before they regroup and strengthen their walls? Sounf fantasy? Never know if it's not tried.
+7 # Ted 2016-11-09 17:34
I'm hoping that will be what happens but the depth of the corruption is so embedded at this point that even the Progressive stars of tge dem party will have to end up compromising again, and then a little more...

Why couldn't those same Progressive stars just make an honorable clean break and dedicate their passion to the True Progressive Party and turn their backs on the ingrained, festering, corporate corruption once and for all?
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-09 18:53
"You cannot run a revolutionary campaign within a counter-revolut ionary party."

The rot is so deep in the DP that I have little hope for it. The Democratic Party is the place that progressive ideals go do die.
-4 # RicKelis 2016-11-09 14:39
What happened?

Two words: Cyber Warfare. We was hacked.

There has been a strong presence of cyber warfare throughout the 2016 election campaign - actually, back to the cyber crimes and information leaks. You saw it on Facebook in the form of paid corporate trolls sent into the conversation to sow unrest and create divisiveness. Not to sound conspiratorial, but we may have just witnessed and been a part of the first national election cyber battle -- another coup like the Bush saga in 2000. But this time done with precisely targeted smart info-bombs designed to create a small amount of flipped votes -- but in key cities, counties, states. It can be done -- an expert team of hackers could pull it off.
There should at least be an investigation. We should begin petitioning for that.
+10 # Radscal 2016-11-09 19:13
Do you mean those leaks that told voters the truth about the DNC and HRC?

Or do you mean the cyber attacks by the Corrupt the Record paid agents?
+16 # Merlin 2016-11-09 14:47
I had not planned on posting this as I wrote it for myself and my “ediary.” However, as everyone is voicing their opinion, here is my, or another, voice, to add to the opinion parade.

I must admit I am surprised. I fully expected, and predicted HRC to win. I didn’t see the resentment and rejection that had been building up all over the country. I believed the rejection of HRC was confined to the Progressive left and the RW rethugs. I thought that the LOTE feeling would win the day.

Thinking about that buildup of anger and resentment, it was Obama who created the unhappiness, from the moment he was elected in 2008. The story of his corporatist Presidency of 8 years, (trashing everything he campaigned on,) is well known here, and there is no need to elaborate on the details. But that 8 year, drip, drip, drip, on the forehead of the American public, brought their frustration screaming to the surface. That unseen anger was so great no amount of money spent on propaganda could overcome it. All the celebrities spewing forth their accolades, (some embarrassingly bad like Michael Moore, for instance,) had little effect. Not even the overwhelmingly partisan media swayed them. They just bided their time until November 8th.

Continued below:
+22 # Merlin 2016-11-09 14:48
If there is one event, which clearly defines Obama’s attitude toward The People, it is the ongoing standoff in North Dakota. His response to it, especially after Bernie Sanders letter to him, was a sharp slap in the face to people everywhere. It was so blatantly bad it was impossible to ignore. If people had any belief in Obama’s sense of justice and fairness, it was dashed on the rocks of his complacent arrogance. It was this background, of which Hillary was so much a part, that fueled the desire for change… any kind of change… no matter how bad! Both Bernie and Trump represented change, while Hillary represented more of the same frustrating, unbearable, drip, drip, drip.

There is one other defining event that should be noted. People are judged, not by how they act when they win, but when they lose any contest they enter into. Upon Hillary’s loss, she did not stay to thank her supporters, but rather abandoned them, and sent Podesta to speak in her stead. In my view this defines Hillary Clinton, and that definition could not be much worse.

If the corporatist DINO party really wanted to win this election, it would not have rigged the primary, and we would, no doubt, have a President Sanders today. The DINO party, Hillary, Podesta, DWS, the DNC, and all their sycophants have no one to blame but themselves. The system is badly broken, and We The People must pick up the pieces.
+18 # jimmyjames 2016-11-09 15:19
Merlin has it so right. You cannot blame this election loss on the Progressive Democrats (aka BernieBots). We fought hard for true democratic progressive values and were thwarted out of our success by the very Democratic Party we attempted to change for the better. Hillary, the DNC, and the corporate elite cheated America out of a decent man who should be the President-elect today. Shame on them! I sincerely hope they have learned a valuable lesson....
+14 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:42
Yea, after all the hoopla about Trump accepting the outcome Clinton just left all her supporters high and dry. No class at all.

If Trump had done the same thing they'd be screaming that he wasn't accepting the results.

I couldn't wrap my head around the returns. I figured more Clinton-friendl y counties were coming. It didn't seem real until the cameras went to Clinton campaign HQ and we saw her people crying.

And then Clinton didn't even have the grace to come out and thank her supporters.
+14 # economagic 2016-11-09 16:12
If you will recall, while Obama did not abandon those who supported him on election night, he did precisely that within the week, dumping his masterful grass-roots organization for a bunch of Wall Streeters and Chicago economists. I suspect that was part of his contract, but Clinton, as loser, has no such excuse.
-25 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:06
The bottom line is that you had a group of angry voters whose main motivation was hate and racism. It's really that simple. To many of them this was the final chance to strike back against Obama and what he represented. They seized that opportunity aggressively.

The idea that this group of voters, who hate the government, the social welfare state, and the ACA, would have embraced a Socialist like Sanders is absurd. They would have rejected him too, possibly even by larger margins.

The larger problem here is that, with these voters, they see the Democrats as being hostile to their interests. They think the Democrats care more about minorities in the inner city, who, in their mind, are all on welfare and/or drugs. They think the Democrats care more about minority criminals than the needs of people "who play by the rules". They think the Democrats care more about illegal immigrants. Sanders would not have overcome these feelings.

So, in all honesty, most of these voters are gone. I'm not sure what it would take to win these voters back. But it's clear that what they voted for is anything remotely liberal or progressive. They voted to ban Muslims, attack the disabled, and to build that wall. They would have had little interest in what Sanders would have offered them.
+24 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:36
No. We have an electorate that is angry and frustrated -- and Bernie found a way to channel that energy in a positive way. The DNC stole his rightful spot and gave it to an arrogant establishment figure so Trump cornered the market on anger and frustration.

You have been wrong all year. Why would anyone believe you now?

What would win them back is economic justice and a government not working against their interests.

If you continue to paint all Trump's supporters with the racist brush you are adding to the problem. We need to unite against the oligarch class.
-16 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:55
Librarian, as soon as that "economic justice" agenda means doing anything for minorities, they won't support it. It's really that simple. The idea that these voters are radical socialists who would have supported Sanders is absurd

What you had was a group of angry white working class voters who came out and responded to Trump's crude campaign. That somehow they would have voted for Sanders is ridiculous.
+16 # dbrize 2016-11-09 16:47
What isn't ridiculous is that they sure weren't going to vote for Clinton.

The Dems had a built-in blue state EC advantage no matter who they nominated. She not only lost that but even lost a tossup state like Ohio where its own GOP governor disavowed his parties candidate.

Sanders would have done worse? You no more know that than you know the date of the first winter snowfall.

Here is all Sanders had to hammer home everyday, every speech, every appearance:

"No more wars of choice."

"No more TPP's or NAFTA's"

"No more Wall Street over Main Street"

"No more beltway business as usual"

Details to be filled in later.
-12 # Rain17 2016-11-09 23:49
Do you really think that these voters who came in droves for Trump, who ran on "building that wall", "law and order", banning Muslims, attacking immigrants, and so froth were going to do a 360 and come out strongly for a Vermont socialist?
+8 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 03:03
What the majority of them voted for was not racism. It was no new trade deals. Obama did much better among white voters in the Rust Belt in 2008 than Hillary did. They were voting for their perceived economic interests. They were left no option but the racist to vote for their own interests since Bernie was cheated out of the nomination. Or to put it more accurately. WE were cheated out of the chance to have Bernie as president.
+3 # tedrey 2016-11-09 17:05
Of course, they wouldn't have become radical socialists, but a lot of them might have stayed home. (:-)>
+6 # lfeuille 2016-11-10 03:06
They would have voted for Bernie. Many people who are not radical socialists do it.
+13 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 15:55
The more you say, the more idiotic you sound.
Sanders energized the whole goddamn country! Hard to miss...
How did you do it?
-15 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:16
"Energized the whole country", but couldn't win the primary. If he couldn't win the nomination, what makes you think he somehow could have won the general election?

Do you really think that this group of voters, who were more concerned about "law and order", "stopping illegal immigration", "building that wall", and so forth would have voted for a Vermont Socialist?
+14 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 16:22
Does it look like "I REALLY THINK" to you? Are you listening to anything?

-15 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:41
No it wasn't despite your hysterical screaming.
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-11-10 07:58
Please see Stanford study and others that show irregularities in Dem primaries. The NYC voter purge? Or go ahead and stick your head in the sand but be aware of how ridiculous you appear.
+11 # dbrize 2016-11-09 16:55
Quoting Rain17:
"Energized the whole country", but couldn't win the primary. If he couldn't win the nomination, what makes you think he somehow could have won the general election?

Do you really think that this group of voters, who were more concerned about "law and order", "stopping illegal immigration", "building that wall", and so forth would have voted for a Vermont Socialist?

Ron Paul energized the country and didn't win any primaries either. What he did was light the fuse to a movement that in a few short years brought down the GOP status quo leadership and led to a crew of dissidents who got rid of Boehner, forced committee and rules changes and now has created a new party dynamic.

You don't have to agree with it to learn from it.

Who currently in Congress will challenge Pelosi? Who will lead the Dem insurrection? These are the next questions for the party and progressives.
+15 # economagic 2016-11-09 16:16
Rain, PLEASE stop characterizing everyone who refused to vote for Clinton, or even everyone who voted for Trump, as motivated primarily by racism. A good many of them certainly were: The Klan was seen this morning dancing on a highway overpass near my city of Durham, NC. So say it once, but stop trying to find a single simple cause for the outcome. There are myriad forces at work, and ignoring that fact will leave us in the same swamp.
-11 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:31
Economagic, I think racism played a role with some of these voters. I think that many of them did for Trump because they associated the Democratic Party with "those people". Trump ran on an agenda of mocking the disabled, "law and order", "building that wall", stopping immigration, and so forth. Those voters came out en masse to support that agenda.

If we are talking about "the white working class" demographic, which seems to be dominating most of these discussion, I do think that it's fair to say that many of those voters have turned away from the Democrats largely due to the perception that the "Democrats care more about minorities". Winning these voters back is going to be a challenge because, with many of them, they think that the Democrats are indifferent and hostile to their interests.

But if you want to go further I think a lot of the issues also come down to gun rights. I think that gun control, which has helped Democrats in cities and in suburbs, has driven other voters away from the Democrats. You couple that with megachurches and evangelical Christians and you can account for the hemorrhaging of voters that the Democrats have lost in rural America.

The scary question here is whether rural Midwestern whites are now voting the same way as their southern counterparts. If that's the case then there are much larger problems.
+11 # economagic 2016-11-09 17:38
"Economagic, I think racism played a role with some of these voters."

I acknowledged that, and I agree that all of those other factors you now include were factors. The Democratic Party has been losing people to the Republicans for almost 50 years for all those reasons. But the idea that Sanders would not have polled significantly better than Clinton with that demographic group just doesn't hold water, at least in the absence of the overt opposition for which the DLC misleadership is famous. They would rather have even a bad Republican than a Democrat who is not under their control. The big example this year is the actual Republican they ran against Grayson in Florida (and who then lost to Rubio), but he is far from the first.

It is also for all of these reasons that the DNC lost so many of Sanders' supporters, either to Stein or even Johnson, or to "none of the above."
+8 # Patriot 2016-11-09 17:55
Rain, even the most rabid racists would calm down a lot, and worry less about what minority groups might be getting, if their own lives weren't in tatters, their jobs and incomes gone, their grip on the possession of their homes enfeebled, and their hopes for their children's future demolished.

ANYONE who promised to rescue them--and seemed likely to fulfil those promises--could have won their votes. Lacking any hope for the future, they did what the desperate and frightened and hopeless always do; They looked for someone to blame.

I hope that, by now, even Mr. Trump has figured out what a mistake it was to promise them the moon, while blaming all of their troubles and fears on minorities and immigrants. Reoublicans have been doing that for decades, while stripping them of ever more well-being or hope of improvement. THAT is why they turned to Trump.

We shall see, I suppose. His acceptance speech was at least encouraging, although the list of his mentors isn't very encouraging.

I guess that's where WE come in....
+2 # A_Har 2016-11-12 17:02 were all wet before the election and NOTHING has changed. First off, and for those who have a memory, back in the spring it was widely reported that the sentiment in the electorate was *NO MORE CLINTONS, AND NO MORE BUSHES.* Remember that?? It seems the Democratic party did not GET the memo! So they proceeded to sideline a viable candidate in favor of the corrupt to the core D.C. mafia insider. Well now they get exactly what they deserve. Screw them all. The DNC rigged the primary so that the anointed Ghoul Queen would "win." The fraud was not triumphant in the end, and the voters were not fooled. In fact, and it looks like the DNC shot themselves in the foot as many betrayed Democratic voters probably voted for Trump.

And, she promoted the job killing and sovereignty ENDING trade deals (she was so FOR THEM until she found the voters were SO againat them) along with War with Russia that could go nuclear. She has so much baggage it would take a train to pull it all. But no matter what evidence was given to you: YOU IGNORE IT. But carry on with your is impossible for you to do anything else.
+19 # jimallyn 2016-11-09 15:09
"I just have to say it …We told you so."

No you didn't tell us so, Scott. WE told YOU so, but you went ahead and supported Clinton anyway. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
+2 # A_Har 2016-11-12 17:09
Quoting jimallyn:
No you didn't tell us so, Scott. WE told YOU so, but you went ahead and supported Clinton anyway. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Yes, and the media perpetrated FRAUD. Shame on all of them.
+2 # A_Har 2016-11-12 17:11
YOU--the media--became part of the problem. It was exceedingly pathetic--the whole mess.

You proved yourself to be corrupted and *your corruption* disgusted me.

Apart from all the noise of the mainstream media blabbering, Chris Hedges had this nuanced comment to make about why the MSM did what it did:

Chris Hedges: The End of the Election Will Not Mean the End of Public Anger

Posted on Nov 7, 2016

(Page 2)

SS: I’m just wondering - why is the media, even the right-leaning media, which created Trump’s phenomenon - turning on him in this campaign?

CH: Two reasons. One - he is attacking the trade agreements, which is how the elites make their money, and secondly, he’s a public relations disaster for the U.S. I think those are the two reasons. Maybe, the third reason is that they don’t know what they’re getting with Trump - nobody knows what they’re getting with Trump. Trump doesn’t know what he’s getting with Trump, and they know that Clinton will maintain both the imperial overreach and the design of the corporate state. So, Clinton’s a sure bet and Trump is just too volatile a candidate, and that’s why the establishment has turned on him.
Some more well thought out articles like this would somewhat improve the standing of the media, but I don't know who has the capacity for it apart from commentators like Hedges.

RSN ignores him lately.
+9 # Thomas0008 2016-11-09 15:17
What now? I say we celebrate our good fortune,that clinton is in the dustbin of history where she belongs, and do our best work to see Trump does good things. He IS our President, and in my view, he does have some good plans... not all, but some... -------------- in the mean time... --------------- -------
+19 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 15:39
THAT is the good news. The Clintons (and possibly the Bushes) are GONE, and the GOP and DP are in shambles. I don't know what to expect from Trump but I can honestly thank him for that right now.
+12 # Saberoff 2016-11-09 16:04
I agree. Pillary would only have listened to Wall Street, The MIC, Kissinger, etc. As Trump is a wishy-washy idiot (worse than W, though?) he just might be receptive to The Peeps(?) I don't know. One can hope. Besides, I think he (might) actually respect Bernie in a way.
+6 # reiverpacific 2016-11-09 15:33
I just have to say it: "Only in America!"
-2 # boredlion 2016-11-09 18:59
["reiverpacific "]I just have to say it: "Only in America!"

With the exception of Germany 1933.
+12 # PaineRad 2016-11-09 15:34
What is needed now is a rededication to the jobs of citizenship.

What is needed now are new media outlets to provide new voices to ears that have heard only Rushbo, Insannity, O'Really and Savage for 20 years. What is needed now is for us to listen to those who are rightfully angry. What is needed now is begin a dialogue without condescension and denigration of our fellow voters, the equally screwed over by a media pushing division and distraction.

What is needed now is searching for solutions to issues instead of blindly following failed political leaders pushing fig leaves and empty theatrics.
-10 # Rain17 2016-11-09 15:56
The bottom line is that most of these "working class voters" are gone. They think that the Democratic Party, liberals, and progressives are more concerned about the plight of "those people". It's really that simple.
+15 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 16:02
You can't leave out CNN and MSDNC and the networks. They did THEIR part! Credit where credit is due.
+6 # Majikman 2016-11-09 19:40
I love poetic justice....and after Slick Willy's deregulating the number of media outlets any entity could own we are left with just a few who saw their profits rise by running Trump 24/7. HRC didn't get the publicity the Donald did....and she had to pay for it, bless her heart..
+11 # djnova50 2016-11-09 16:09
Scott, I certainly hope that if you are around in 2020, that you will work to promote the alternative party candidates as much as you worked to promote Bernie Sanders.

Voters should have a choice and in this election, it seemed like MSM as well as RSN said that there was no choice. It was either Clinton or Trump, which one was the lesser evil? The voters have decided. Personally, I'm glad that Clinton didn't win. At the same time, I shudder to think that Trump is now President-elect Trump.

I voted for a woman with ethics, a woman with a consistent message. She was the only one running on a platform that put planet, people, and peace over profit.

Journalists/rep orters who say third party candidates can't win don't help the situation. The Republicans and Democrats have an exclusive club. Membership in that club requires that people be Republicans or Democrats and vote the same way. We had the opportunity to at least get the Green Party to 5% once Bernie dropped out, if only the media would have promoted the alternative party candidates.

Oh wait, there are only 6 media conglomerates; 5, if that merger can't be stopped. Please, next time, don't neglect the alternative party candidates.

I am an independent voter. I voted for Jill Stein and am proud of that fact. My vote for Stein did not cause Clinton to lose. The problem is way bigger than whether the Green Party gets 1.5 million votes or over 6 million votes.
+9 # djnova50 2016-11-09 16:11
continued: If we want change, we have to make the change from outside the corporate parties.

Admittedly, Donald Trump is change. Only time will tell what will come out of his administration; but, we should be prepared to fight like we did with Obama. I am complacent, no more.
+4 # economagic 2016-11-09 17:52
Change from the course we have been following for the past 25-50 years can hardly make things worse in the long run. The worst it could do would be to hasten the collapse of critical global systems including but not limited to climate, although the pain could be redistributed somewhat in the near term.
+8 # librarian1984 2016-11-09 16:27
Club for Growth says Trump should be 'realistic' about infrastructure spending. So here we go. hahaha Donald wants to build things. The GOP wants to stop him.

Destroy, Donald, destroy!

This is a chance for Democrats to support Trump. This is something all people agree on -- when interest rates are low, blue collar unemployment is high and the ACE gives our infrastructure a D- grade -- we should be spending on infrastructure! We all agree -- except the GOP legislators.

Let's work with Trump and Sanders for the 90%. Let's build a working coalition.
-4 # Rain17 2016-11-09 16:40
GOP Congress will do nothing for infrastructure spending. Trump will basically govern like a typical Republican.
+9 # dbrize 2016-11-09 17:11
Quoting Rain17:
GOP Congress will do nothing for infrastructure spending. Trump will basically govern like a typical Republican.

I am already counting my bets so as to not go over budget. That said I will bet you a six pack of your favorite beverage that Trump will propose and Congress will pass an infrastructure program within twelve months or sooner of his swearing in.

Are we on?
+3 # dbrize 2016-11-10 20:41
Quoting dbrize:
Quoting Rain17:
GOP Congress will do nothing for infrastructure spending. Trump will basically govern like a typical Republican.

I am already counting my bets so as to not go over budget. That said I will bet you a six pack of your favorite beverage that Trump will propose and Congress will pass an infrastructure program within twelve months or sooner of his swearing in.

Are we on?

Guess not.
+7 # economagic 2016-11-09 17:50
Your crystal ball must be of remarkably high quality, much better than mine, to make so many such sweeping predictions with such certainty.
+4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-10 11:59
Then we're no worse off than we would have been with Clinton.

You just (inadvertantly) admitted there's absolutely no difference between them.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-10 17:19
"GOP CONGRESS will do nothing for infrastructure spending."

I think it's going to be the first big battle and I hope it pits Trump against the GOP establishment so he learns to work with the progressives.

Game on!
+4 # cmp 2016-11-09 17:15
What's new, is in fact very old..

Last night, more than $160 million was spent on a Senate race in Pennsylvania.
.. $118 million of this, was by outside groups..

And, more than $120 million for a Senate Race in New Hampshire, where approximately 1/2 million votes were cast..
.. and, $90 million of this, was by outside groups..

.. Does Our Revolution have $240 that it can spend on every single vote for a Senate Seat? .. Does the Green Party?

... We put 2 families under one D roof, where will the money be targeted in a Primary? .. If we should lose the Primary, do we sell our souls in the General, because the Other Side's Money is even worse?

The Enemy is the same Enemy, that it has always been, Corporate Personhood and Money In Politics.

.. And with that as the target, it Unites all of us.
.. no need, to check your cards..
.. no need, to say your color (r,g,b, etc) is prettier than the other person's..

A government of the people, by the people and for the people, is good enough for me.

.. And hey, maybe if it were to ever be given a try, it just might work.
+5 # economagic 2016-11-09 17:49
Official corporate personhood is quite new, BIG money in politics only slightly less so even though that road was paved by the Buckley v Valeo decision in 1976. The ancient tyranny is the feudal aristocracy that goes back thousands of years but was severely brushed back by first the Industrial Revolution and then the financializatio n of the second half of the 20th century.

But it should be clear that US democracy IS now for sale, contrary to the wishful claims to the contrary. Since neither the one percent nor the 0.0001 percent are likely to voluntarily eviscerate themselves, it will probably take a crash bigger than '29 and '08 put together to get money out of politics. If we want government of, by, and for the people we are almost certainly going to have to do it on our own, under the table and under the radar, until the current system implodes. We may not have that long to wait.
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-09 19:38
Corporate "personhood" was set by a court clerk in the 1886 Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

In fact, more 14th Amendment Supreme Court cases were heard regarding corporations than the freed slaves most people thought that Amendment was all about.

Then, gradually, the Supreme Court granted ever more power and influence over politics to the corporations, including Citizens United in 2010, and culminating so far in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission in 2014 (which lifted caps on spending).

And surely you know that economic crashes always benefit the 0.01%. That's when they're able to buy up all our assets for pennies on the dollar.

But I do concur with your conclusion. The elite will never voluntarily give up their power and influence.
+5 # Radscal 2016-11-09 20:58
ps. This incremental political empowerment of corporations is why I've been writing that the campaigns to overturn Citizens United is a red herring (though I signed two petitions and yesterday voted for the CA Proposition to do just that, since we have to start somewhere).
+3 # Anonymot 2016-11-10 10:03
Yes, but most of these single point reasons are too focused to be valid. Everyone should read Naomi Klein's absolutely brilliant article:

Theonly thing she left out is that Trump also is a blow to Deep State as a whole and its hitman organization the CIA. I have a strong suspicion that in the long-running fight between the FBI & CIA that Mr. Comey just scored a knockdown in the subtle complexities of DC politics. But the count is not yet to 10.
+2 # Depressionborn 2016-11-09 21:18
i fear sir you are right. [# economagic 2016-11-09 17:49]
+3 # cmp 2016-11-10 12:13
The great irony of the Tea Party Movement was that the Boston Tea Party was actually a direct confrontation of one of the oldest Corporations of the world in the 'un-Honourable East India Tea Company.'

.. Wasn't that an ironic slight of hand that was performed on far right movement? .. I would go to their mobilizations on "Romney Care" just to witness their ginned up hysteria.. .. Ouch..

But, I love the way you talk about 'B vs. V' ".. Money is speech.." .. Talk about homage to the King and his Kingdom..

This is one of my favorite FDR quotes:
~ ".. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property.
.. These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike. "~
+3 # Radscal 2016-11-12 14:43
Nicely considered and tied-together. I hadn't remembered FDR's use of the term, "economic royalists" until I read Thom Hartmann's "The Crash of 2016."

And what did Trump name his youngest son?

+3 # cmp 2016-11-13 00:59
Hey Brother Rads!
I want to let you know, that it looks like I will be heading back to NY soon.

My step dad is real ill. .. And, I want to be with him and my mother for these upcoming holidays. .. I was there this summer helping them out, but it looks like now, things may have taken another turn. .. So, I want to be there to help them with the maintenance's around the house and cook them some good Baltic/Balkan foods. .. Our favorites. (

But, if I 'am not online to catch up with you for these Holidays, then, I want to be sure to say it now, ".. All the best to you and your family ("
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 08:08
cmp, sorry to hear about your stepdad. you're a good son. good luck and peace to all of you this holiday.

will miss your posts but getting away can be strengthening.
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-13 16:39
Thank you so much for being the good person you chose to be. How sweet of you to think to inform me (and us).

I hope your step-dad gets to enjoy your presence and assistance, as I'm sure will your mother.

Wishing you and yours only peace and love over the holidays, and always.
+2 # cmp 2016-11-14 07:51
It's me that owes you folks the "Thank You!"

This year has been a wild ride. .. And, there is just so much strength and wisdom here from all of you, the stakeholders, (those who share their strength, knowledge and time).

In our lifetimes, we have seen some of the traditional institutions of the left go through some dramatic changes. .. And, I cannot tell you enough just how much I have benefited from you guys taking the time to share as we travel this road together. (

I 'am heading out later this week. And, I hope I can stay through Xmas. .. He has been a mountain of a man for our family over the last 32 years.

Again, "Thank You" (I really appreciate it) and "All the Best to You and Your Families with these Holidays."
+6 # Ted 2016-11-09 17:58
Well said.

And knowing what we do about how both the dem party and the repub party are both owned by the corporatists, I'd say it's obvious we will have to join together under a third party that has no corrupt debts.

And since the Green Party has already been fighting for decades for the very same Progressive ideals you present, I suggest we begin supporting, joining, and strengthening the Green Party for the fights ahead.
+4 # cmp 2016-11-10 12:31
Hey Ted!
In 2008, when everyone took a powder on protesting the war with the D Party, I worked all the harder for Ralph.

.. And, in 2012, when Obama got a free ride, again, I worked all the harder for Rocky.

This cycle, the key for me was no concessions from the Corporate Democrats on Primary Fairness (reform) in the Platform Committee. .. This issue alone, would have showed a sincerity for the People and the Process. .. And it would have mandated a continuing dialogue on the internal front, with no wiggle room with which to later on - blame the Republicans..

It will be interesting to see how much money and effort the R's put into 2018, to maintaining and potentially increase their control. .. In 2010, the D's laid down..

But clearly, the money has to Stop! .. As long as the Owner Class of D's & R's have money as a tool, we will all carry a straight up hill battle.
+3 # Patriot 2016-11-09 18:00
I'm right beside you, CMP. Let's start to work!
+4 # cmp 2016-11-10 12:01
Hi Patriot!
I read your post on the pow training, it was brilliant!

.. And, it spoke directly to the questions and fears that I was asking myself at the moment before the election. It helped me a lot. TY!!!

But, yes, I think there is some targets that everyone can easily agree on, such as advocating Move To Amend and Dark Money .. I also think that Public Citizen and The Council Of Canadians are invaluable fronts that desperately need our support and appreciation; as well.
+3 # Patriot 2016-11-11 06:16
Hi, CMP. Thanks for the comments. I kept getting a mental picture; had it for several days..and all of a sudden I realized what it was: Our Chief telling us that, when there is no other alternative, we'd have to step up to the plate. His method of demonstration has never left my mind; I'd never had anything like that plopped in my lap before.

(He was--and is--an extraordinary guy. We've been married for 34 years. I'm the luckiest woman in the world.)

My highest priority is climate change. If Trump follows through on his pledge on November 9th, the military budget is about to drop, so there will be plenty of money for climate change...if we can convince him to admit it's real, and urgent, and critical. If we don't get that problem under control, none of the others will matter very much for very many more years....
+3 # Radscal 2016-11-12 14:47
I didn't catch your post on POW training. Can you post a link?
+3 # cmp 2016-11-13 01:10
This being an old thread, I think possibly that Patriot may not get back here. So, I thought I would reply.

The post is about 80% of the way down the page. .. It's a 3 part post that is just above a post that I had made. .. It's a truly great one by Patriot.
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-13 16:35
OMG! Thanks so much for sending me to an amazing, inspiring story which brought tears to my eyes.
+2 # cmp 2016-11-14 08:00
.. She is incredible. .. And, at that moment - I really needed it. I will never forget that reflection of Patriot's.
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-14 23:56
+3 # janie1893 2016-11-09 17:40
This past two years have highlighted the ignorance of the American electorate. Americans need to understand that they live in a mythological world called the United States.
1. the states are not united on anything.
2.the US is not the 'greatest' anything
except maybe 'bully'.
3. the US will never again have the ability to generate wealth as it did for the second half of the 20th century.
4. the rest of the planet does not rely on the US for existence.
5. the rest of humankind realizes that we human beings must learn to care for each other or we will soon be extinct.
6. the US Constitution is sorely outdated
let alone a perfect document.
7. American values have changed to "let us care for one another, but only after I have made my fortune".
8. Americans actually believe Hollywood movies and reality TV are real life.

There are more myths but this is a good start.
+2 # treerapper 2016-11-10 06:55
If you know anything about U.S. and European history, you might understand why, for Native Americans, whites are only humans, NOT human beings.Their routine abuse of other of their species as well as the air, land and water that gives them life has denied them the "being" epithet
+1 # economagic 2016-11-09 18:25
And the recriminations have begun, just as I predicted. Remember now, ONE WEEK ONLY!!!
+1 # Patriot 2016-11-11 06:17
Oh, yes, please, Economagic!! Or less, if everyone can get a grip!
+2 # Wind in His Hair 2016-11-10 05:06
This election was about guns. As a pole worker I saw NRA hats, pins, and belt buckles coming through the door one after another. Rural Pennsylvania spoke very loudly on the gun issue. Yet I hear nothing being said about changing the program on the second amendment. If you truly want to bring the country together leave the gun issue alone. Spoken as a long time Democrat with a carry permit.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 08:28
The election may have been about guns to some people but not most. There was too much other stuff going on. Never saw a news story about the issue in the leadup, though I wasn't watching toward the end. Maybe.

What I don't understand about gun voters is the constant fearmongering about the feds coming to take their guns -- but it never happens. I got real worked up about walking catfish and killer bees and butter and a few others but after a while I learned that the message wasn't catfish or ebola, the message was fear.

I think gun owners should slough off the NRA. They represent manufacturers not owners imo, and stand in the way of better laws and enforcement. We ALL want guns out of the hands of terrorists and psychopaths, but I don't care if people want to own a gun or .. fifty?

I enjoy target shooting, handgun and long, got rid of mine when I had kids and considered getting one if Hillary became president. Be glad you don't live in my head.

It's the NRA that put together the big long list of all America's gun owners, the way they kept saying the government would do. All the NSA had to do was tap their db, probably used the password 'guns', unless it was '12345'.

Recently heard gun ownership has become more concentrated. Not sure about the significance of that.

But what's wrong with smart guns?

+1 # Radscal 2016-11-13 16:54
I concur completely. Were it not for the actual movement to ban and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, I doubt the NRA would have whatever influence it does have.

Then we could unite to try to convince Congress to pass the laws that we already agree are reasonable.

The reason the NRA opposed "smart guns" was because at least one state had passed a law saying that once such guns were commercially available, they'd be the ONLY guns that could be sold.

Chris Hayes got the Congresswoman who had introduced that law together with some pro-gun ownership types to see if she'd repeal that law if it meant some smart guns could be sold.

She said she'd look into it, but never did anything.

Smart guns inevitably have potentialities for malfunction. What if the owner isn't wearing the RDIF chip at the moment of a home invasion? What if the owner is killed, and another family member needs to defend the family?

Or what if another piece of complicated technology simply breaks at the worst possible time?

If I had children in my home, I might consider those potential failures to be worth taking the chance to have only "smart guns."

But as it is, no one has ever laid a finger on any firearm I've owned without my first having cleared it and handed it to them.

And a woman in Oakland was raped and murdered after her car stalled and the anti-theft chip that prevents an engine from being restarted failed.
+2 # cmp 2016-11-14 08:11
I read a study a while ago, where the American Psychiatric Association stated that "the average American 18 year old has witnessed 40,000 violent deaths on television. .. And, they have witnessed over 200,000 violent acts."

.. But, we all know, that they have never seen a returning fallen soldier.

It's long overdue, that our airwaves carry the 1st Amendment for all Americans. .. Instead of the fictional corporate Americans.
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-15 00:09

And one of the things that infuriates me is that the Hollywood "liberals" insist that all the violence in "entertainment" has no affect on people's behavior.

Mind you, these are the same people who take $ millions for product placement, knowing full well that a coke can in a scene influences people (subliminal) to buy cokes.

And of course, they also work hand-in-hand with the Military and CIA to produce "entertainment" that normalizes that stuff and turns those agencies into admirable heroes.
+2 # cmp 2016-11-15 15:43
Hey Radscal!

I was about ready to respond to a thread on building a house (a Party) on top of a landscape that is foundationally about as secure as building the house on top of a swamp this morning. ... And, some (co-requisite) idea's that I have to try and build our movement on a little higher ground.

.. Then I got the call. .. We have lost - Yet Another - really great one. .. So, I 'am heading East.

Thanks So Much For Everything Brother! .. And I will catch up to you when I can. (
0 # Radscal 2016-11-15 18:12
I'm so sorry, cmp.

I hope you and your mom bring each other strength, and celebration of having had this man in your lives.

And I look forward to "seeing" you again.
+4 # treerapper 2016-11-10 06:47
This election was forfeited by the DNC. They undermined Bernie's campaign and failed to grasp the reason for his extraordinary popularity - that so many Americans of all colors and beliefs were sick and tired of the damned status quo.

It's the dirty DNC that gave the nod to HRC and Billy Boy. You just can't cram the likes of an HRC down everyone's throat and think they will swallow. Denying us Bernie opened the door to a Trump win.

If there's one thing we absolutely need to change it's the DNC. It needs to be responsive to a progressive agenda that sets democrats apart from the GOP and its brand of malevolence.

In addition, the statement:
“Those of us who want a more equitable and inclusive America need to chart a new course that represents the needs of middle income and working families." is unacceptable.

What about the needs of the poor, the disenfranchised . If we are going to make this a "people's" representation, then were need to create a society were the poor and disenfranchised actually have a chance to join the middle class.
+2 # geohorse 2016-11-10 07:53
The was forward is to get the media to cover Bernie and his movement--that' s how Trump won--free media catering to base instincts, fear/hate.
+4 # Anonymot 2016-11-10 09:53
Anyone with any pretentions of being Progressive or Democratic should hurry up and read this if you want an intelligent and sober picture of why Hillary was defeated and what an opportunity that opens. Forget the bunkum and read this brilliant Naomi Klein article:

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.