with 17 minutes of tape missing.



Try things like Citizens United. Money in Politics, over 90 percent of people wanted something done after a certain shooting involving kids, and Congress could do nothing.

By the way, here is a pro tip, people, regular people are also getting tired, as in exhausted, from partisanship.

instead of addressing what I posted. Cute. But this is the problem, partisans do exactly what you just did.

Thanks for the textbook example.

but I am not laughing. Doing all the reading I am into partisanship, you are a textbook example of both the denial and the tribalism. Most regular Americans, ergo those not part of either tribe, are getting tired of this crap. They see it for what it is, utter corruption of the system.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

I don't know who he might be from the Nixon Administration? But the corruption is more wholesale this time around.

I guess I see it as a yearning for something much better than what we have now. And (as I've said many times, lol) I'm satisfied with the job the Obama Administration has done. I think it's one of least corrupt Administrations in American history.

one by one, the candidates go on a pilgrimage to Vegas and Manhattan seeking the blessing of a sponsor

the billionaires don't even bother to hide their intent to shoot money at their favorite candidates with a fire-hose.

When people get a whiff of authenticiy in the midst all of this calculation and corruption, it gets their attention.

correcting my speech-to-text app. I will give it a spanking.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026856535

And I support President Obama. I don't think the Obama Administration is corrupt. But I do see some value in the original post. There's a general feeling of cynicism among people with whom I've been talking. I know that's hardly a scientific study. Just general zeitgeist I think.

from different strata, at least in my corner of the United States, which does not matter, so really don't pay attention to us. YOU SIR, ARE CORRECT.

Not into the WH.

has taken place at the presidential (or even administration) level? Please cite specific examples. Not just policies that have been advocated with which you disagree. That's not corruption. Corruption would mean taking a bribe with a demonstrable quid pro quo, or, as in Watergate, arranging a criminal break-in to steal materials.

You must be one up on the entire media, because this administration has been about as corruption-free as any I've seen in the past 45 years or so.

IMHO, this thread qualifies for the ODS award of the day.

super pacs? You know the revolving door at government? Captured regulatory bodies? You know, outside this bubble, in the real world, these are sen as the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sure you recall the president chastising the Supreme Court justices to their faces in the House Chamber during the State of the Union speech after that decision.

The OP is talking about PRESIDENTIAL corruption by suggesting a "new" president would end all the corruption we've seen. Well, we haven't seen any legal corruption in this administration. Citizen's United was a Supreme Court decision, and no president can stop or reverse the Supreme Court. The best they can do is get lucky enough to be able to replace a conservative seat on the court with a liberal one, should the occasion happen to arise.

with the war criminals being convicted at the Hague"

How about all the Bankster crooks who plead guilty and received fines, no prison?

How about killing American citizens overseas with drones with no due process?

Bankers, lobbyists, Monsanto, lawyers for Big Tobacco and Wall Street firms, all have high positions of influence in this administration.

You don't need outright bribes anymore. You get another well paid, cushy job for services already rendered, when you leave.

We got the liberal nominated who we all wanted.

And he lost 49 states to 1.

I think the Democratic nominee will lead a united Democratic Party in the general election, no matter which candidate is nominated. They were not united behind McGovern. There were too many of those dirty Woodstock hippies supporting him. But the battle must be fought. The principles of a progressive, social-minded Democratic Party must be on the ballot.

Bernie is speaking for just about everyone. Seniors, the young, students, veterans, and people tired of getting kicked down by a rigged system.

How dare people want there to be a primary. We all must line up behind the officially selected nominee!

'Cause the implication of saying "crazy liberals will doom the general election just like 1972" is that we shouldn't let the crazy liberals pick.

It was the first election I got involved in. I was still too young to vote, but not too young to work hard for McGovern. What an awful night that was, watching the returns come in.

You claimed 1972's loss was caused by the liberals getting what they wanted*. So to avoid repeating 1972, you'd need to not let the liberals get what they want.

This is a thread about people turning against status-quo politicians, like your preferred candidate. You seemed to agree with this by equating this election to another anti-status-quo election.

So to avoid that, you want to....do nothing. Just let disaster unfold.

Yet you reject this as not making sense. Which makes it apparent that you were just throwing out an insult.

*Btw, 1972 also featured a somewhat popular incumbent Republican. Might have had a wee bit of influence on the election.

almost as badly as McGovern.

At the time people condemned Humphrey for being a status-quo politician. In retrospect, Humphrey would have given us a better chance of winning in the general, and we would have been much better off with him as nominee than McGovern.

I also never said I "want" to "do nothing." If Bernie wins the nomination, I'll work for him. But I'm not supporting him in the primary because I don't see his candidacy as viable -- especially if he sticks to his policy of only financing his campaign with matching funds.

Good post, kentuck, thanks.

Other than the ability to make bad smells come out of my butt.

Remember what Washington, ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATS, did to Carter? He wasn't one of them. It's when the reich wing began their demonization of the word "liberal" and the "Democrats" willingly sat in the corner and let them take over the narrative. They didn't back him AT ALL for his re-election campaign -- they basically sat on their hands and let Saint Ronnie take it all. If Sanders wins the nomination have no doubt, the Establishment "Democrats" will do everything that they can (behind the scenes, of course) to defeat him.

you are right, but I fear you are not. Nixon's CREEP activities seem so small time compared to the systemic mess we've got going today. Watergate was easy to understand as it was on a human level. Some guys did something illegal at the request of some other guys and then some more guys covered it up. Burglary - pretty simple to understand. And yes, there were other aspects of the situation, but you didn't really need to go into details to know the obvious illegality of the thing. Let's vote for a guy who seems like he wouldn't do this stuff...Carter.

What goes on now is so much more convoluted, so all-encompassing, and so much less on the surface. You have to actually follow politics and understand what's going on to see the full slimy intent. Sub prime mortgages, legislation written by industry, Citizens United, corporate welfare, the possible Burwell tsunami on the horizon, and on, and on, and on. Most people don't really have a handle on those things, but this guy Obama seemed like he might be kinda above board. Oops, not so much.

The solution I see as a reasonable possibility is not voting for the next Carter, whoever that might be, it's not voting at all.

Watergate was an event that rang clear in the public's mind and got everyone's attention. People believed that something was wrong and it was time for change.

Most people now seem to be defeated, they do not believe change is possible. The overwhelming majority are not as focused as those here on DU. Instead when another stomach turning story of corruption is exposed, they just say 'this sucks, I'm going to watch a season of 'Orange is the New Black' to get my mind off of this'.

Too many people let the media and ads do their thinking for them. I fear that any informed vote will be swamped by the ignorant. I love the debate here at DU but I feel like it is insignificant in comparison to the total populace. I hope I am proven wrong.