Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

[ElectricFetus]

There are abortion clinics in Nebraska and in Omaha. Now imagine what would happen if the Democrats endorsed pro-life candidates who then shut down those clinics?

There is a republican pro-life mayor running hte city right now... has he shut down those clinics?

And you still fail to recognise how abortion is a very important issue for a large portion of voters?

Oh it is! It just a large portion of them are on the wrong side.

You think 'pro-lifer' is just a tiny part of the Republican Party policy? Heh!

just one part, and yes if it was the primary ideology then it would have been outlawed by now, instead of tax cuts for the rich there would have outlawed abortion, they have had decades in composite of total rule and have not yet outlaw abortion because the issue is only used to rally christian conservative vote.

Access to reproductive healthcare is a vital part of "healthcare" for women, EF.

Well nearly 50% of women here vote otherwise. More so most people care about "healthcare" for everyone, for every part, not just their wombs.

When those clinics close, so do cancer screening, access to affordable contraception, for example. If you still don't understand how access to reproductive healthcare is a deeply economic issue for women, then really, it comes down to you simply refusing to acknowledge it.

Oh I don't disagree, now go tell that to the voters!

How can you promise that? You can't know that. We know how pro-life politicians affect healthcare access for women. You are essentially making an empty promise at this point, with nothing to back it up.

Go back up to my first comment here, nowhere Nebraska has a republican mayor now, are those clinics closed? Mayors often do not even have the zoning rights to forbid such things!

Access to reproductive healthcare should not be ummed and aahhed by the Democrats.

Slippery slope: it is not going to be.

This should be an absolute baseline policy that is not shifted from for the sake of politics. The same goes for education, healthcare, civil rights, equal rights, the environment, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, for example. These are not things that the Party should be leaving open to ambiguity and misinterpretation or even contemplating running candidates that are counter to these core values. These should be absolute and not up for debate.

Then we will lose: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

Letting in a couple of rural democrats that will vote for education and healthcare and civil right and equal right and environment and LGBTQ rights and voting rights and even pro-choice rights when push comes to shove, but can speak the religious moron droll of the locals and get their votes, is worth it.

And yet, we find that women's rights, at least, is up for debate for Democrats and this isn't just locally. But nationally as well.

Nowhere in that link do I see a candidate being pushed at a national level, do you understand national? not mayor, but FEDERAL house, senate, president, that stuff.

​

What the hell? Why are Democrats running these candidates? How can they? How and why are women's rights again being debated for the sake of politics?

because not all women vote like you?

And yet, they do win in those districts.

yeah what party runs Kansas right now?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Really, you missed the part about how lack of access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, is dangerous to women's health?

That your premise, not conclusion, your conclusion is that a few pro-life democrats would do that, they won't. Just like all those moderate democrats "came out" for gay marriage after years of saying they were not for it.

Your pro-life candidates have a history of voting for denying women their fundamental human rights.

You have named one, singular, for mayor.

I mean, I get why you think that the fundamental human rights of women is a "narrow minded ideology", but if this keeps up, then you will be no better than the GOP. Your base, the majority of whom are women, will simply not vote for you.

SLIPPERY SLOPE! Here in USA 41% of women are prolife, and 55% are pro-choice (the rest unsure) We are not going to lose women voters by a few prolife candidates from red districts where pro-lifers hold the vast majority. The party policy will still be pro-choice, the bills will still be pro-choice, unless republicans rule.

No, they aren't hive minds. But if you want to risk losing your core Democratic voters, your actual base, for the sake of trying to win back a few Republican voters, then you will continue to lose.

What core democratic votes in red districts? Look we have lost everything going your way so honestly what is there to lose?

You have no way of guaranteeing that if the party itself is leaving itself open on a national level. And the last year has seen a shift on a national level.

I cite a survey, you cite a opinion piece, the end.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Welcome to America, where the candidates are lame and the votes don't matter

That the point, People like Bells and Birch simply don't understand how FUCKED it is here, they live in a modern hug-box version of "let them eat cake" mentality. Donald Trump is president and they are still harping about sexual harrasment? abortion? How about the millions of immigrants getting kicked out RIGHT NOW! How about the utter fucking of very american tax payer (other then the 1%) by this tax bill. No no no we need to focus on sexual harassment and how dare we try to elect some pro-life democrats to replace pro-life republicans.

When I was in Africa, I could have tried telling the men not to spank their wives (not the kinky kind of spanking by the way) but instead focused on how they need to make sure the kids and pregnant wives, not only the adult men, got the meat, don't just leave them the corn meal only, you know, priorities, I had to explain they can live without so much meat, the kids can't.

Tiassa: how the fuck can you appropriate Panty & Stocking imagery and say you are not a misogynist?

 

[iceaura]

Eh, the right wing has been fucking up for years. Doesn't matter.

Yes it does.
That's how Obama got elected. Carter. Clinton, B.
Hell, W had to commit electoral fraud and start a war, and he still barely edged it.

That's true. But what many people don't realize is that average voters are watching the dumpster fire and thinking "that's not so bad; it's fun and it keeps me warm. And I don't have to face any uncomfortable truths as long as everyone spends all their time talking about that fire."

Less than a third of the electorate. Trump voters. Write them off, and beat them like the backdoor rug.

This is the thing: The political situation is a gimme - 2/3 of the electorate is in the liberal/left libertarian pocket, politically. Not just a majority, but a large majority. As Molly Ivins put it, pointing to every poll and every survey on every significant issue in 2008: "This is the majority, you fools. What are you afraid of?"

When a candidate as bad as Hillary Clinton gets a three million vote margin with the most liberal third of the electorate staying home, what you are looking at is a landslide for the taking.

Politically.

 

[iceaura]

Letting in a couple of rural democrats that will vote for education and healthcare and civil right and equal right and environment and LGBTQ rights and voting rights and even pro-choice rights when push comes to shove, but can speak the religious moron droll of the locals and get their votes, is worth it.

But they don't. I mean they don't vote as you want them to. They vote Blue Dog, and block that stuff. The best you'll ever get is a guy like Collin Peterson - who joined the Republicans in voting against the jobs and infrastructure portion of Obama's stimulus bill, voting in favor of the W tax cuts, and so forth.

 

[ElectricFetus]

But they don't. I mean they don't vote as you want them to. They vote Blue Dog, and block that stuff. The best you'll ever get is a guy like Collin Peterson - who joined the Republicans in voting against the jobs and infrastructure portion of Obama's stimulus bill, voting in favor of the W tax cuts, and so forth.

Even blue dog is better then nothing! Would you rather have Obamacare or nothing?

 

[iceaura]

Even blue dog is better then nothing! Would you rather have Obamacare or nothing?

You keep saying you want to trade civil rights for jobs - well, with guys like Peterson you trade the civil rights and don't get the jobs. You don't even get sensible climate change votes, Cuban normalization, stuff like that.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You keep saying you want to trade civil rights for jobs - well, with guys like Peterson you trade the civil rights and don't get the jobs. You don't even get sensible climate change votes, Cuban normalization, stuff like that.

What civil rights am I trading? Blue Dog democrats are down to 18 house members, they got raped in 2012. And not the less we had sensible climate change and Cuban normalization under Obama.

 

[iceaura]

What civil rights am I trading?

If you don't even know, what are you talking about?

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you don't even know, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about having a few pro-life democrats in red districts replacing pro-life republicans, nothing lost, nothing traded.

 

[iceaura]

I'm talking about having a few pro-life democrats in red districts replacing pro-life republicans, nothing lost, nothing traded.

Except you had to run pro-life folks - with all that goes with it, from racism to tax cuts - as Democrats. Now they're in your Party, choosing your nominations, negotiating your legislation, representing you on the talk shows, writing platforms, etc.

Then you ask liberals and the like for support - votes, money, etc. But they aren't being represented by their local Democrat. Contributions slow, voters stay home.

Then you get beat by the Republican - because the Republican is the real thing, the Democrat is just an imitation without Party backing for half their stuff.

 

[Kittamaru]

the Democrat is just an imitation without Party backing for half their stuff.

The alternative being what, though? Sad as it is, we already know we aren't going to get much traction running independent characters (just don't have the finances to overcome the deep pockets, and the general public is too apathetic to do much more than tick their straight-ticket box of choice, if they bother to show up at all to the booths).

Unless we manage to massively change our electoral system, from the local up to the Federal levels, then we're rather stuck with the choices we have. I think, and I could be wrong, that EF's point is that a "pro-life" Democrat is closer to center than a "pro-life" Republican, and thus is more likely to at least attempt to work with their more liberal-leaning party mates (and listen to their constituents) than a deep-red Republican who knows his seat is safe against all but the most egregious of criminal misconduct and only has to represent whatever interest is supplying his money pool to stay in power.

Not a good compromise, nor a pleasant choice... but it's the choice we've been left with.

EDIT - for what its worth, it seems like we can either vote for the party that we have a chance of influencing and that might actually work for our greater good, or we can stay home and let win the party that we know is going to favor corporate interests and the removal of social safety nets, bodily autonomy, and other such important social and civil constructs. We are not likely to get that mythical "perfect candidate" in a lot of our races, and if we simply don't vote as a kind of "moral protest" against an imperfect candidate, all we've done is forfeited our influence and given up any real right to complain about whomever winds up elected.

 

[Tiassa]

The alternative being what, though?

Being smart enough to discuss an issue?

 

[Bells]

There is a republican pro-life mayor running hte city right now... has he shut down those clinics?

You mean the pro-life Democrats who have voted against abortion access, restricting access to reproductive healthcare and all that goes with it historically?

What do you think will happen if those candidates win? Those types of pro-life Democrats nationally have voted with Republicans against women's rights repeatedly. From 20 week bans, to closing and defunding PP, to voting for personhood from the point of conception.

just one part, and yes if it was the primary ideology then it would have been outlawed by now, instead of tax cuts for the rich there would have outlawed abortion, they have had decades in composite of total rule and have not yet outlaw abortion because the issue is only used to rally christian conservative vote.

Look around you, EF. Restriction to reproductive healthcare is so bad now, that in some areas, women can't even get treatment for miscarriage. And you think your party should embrace such candidates just to win?

Well nearly 50% of women here vote otherwise. More so most people care about "healthcare" for everyone, for every part, not just their wombs.

Reproductive healthcare is a vital part of women's healthcare. Closing down those clinics also means no cancer screening, reduced access to contraception, sex education and advice for men and women, fertility treatment for men and women. When you bring it down to "just their wombs", remember that this is for more than half of your country's population.

Go back up to my first comment here, nowhere Nebraska has a republican mayor now, are those clinics closed? Mayors often do not even have the zoning rights to forbid such things!

They have the ability to get council to vote against these clinics, not to mention reducing access to those clinics. You seem to think that this is a minor issue. It isn't.

Slippery slope: it is not going to be.

And yet it already is, with leaders of the party already opening the door to pro-lifers into the party, rubbishing on about big umbrellas. The party is moving away from its core values and voters in their bid to win over Republicans. That is not a winning strategy and keep embracing it and it will come back and bite you on your backside.

Then we will lose: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

Letting in a couple of rural democrats that will vote for education and healthcare and civil right and equal right and environment and LGBTQ rights and voting rights and even pro-choice rights when push comes to shove, but can speak the religious moron droll of the locals and get their votes, is worth it.

You will lose if you tack to the right, as the party appears to be doing so. You lose your voting base, those few Republican rural voters you might gain, won't be enough to get you over the line. Then your party will be bending over backwards to appease those Republican voters and things like education, healthcare, civil rights, equal rights, environmental policies, LGBTQ rights and voting rights go out the window, because those voters you managed to win over, will be the ones dictating the direction of the party. If they don't get what they want, they won't vote for Republican Lite, they'll go back to the Republican party and you'll be left with nothing. When you start going back on what should be absolute no-brainers, then you will lose.

Nowhere in that link do I see a candidate being pushed at a national level, do you understand national? not mayor, but FEDERAL house, senate, president, that stuff.

Were the words from the second paragraph too big for you? Not enough youtubing for your liking or comprehension?

because not all women vote like you?

No they don't. But if you continue to pull to the right and ignore women, then more and more women will stay home come next election. You cannot win without women voters and the greater majority of those will not vote for a party that is endorsing pro-life candidates who are on record for voting against the human rights of women. They will "sit on their hands". It will also mean less donations to the party, those women won't be door knocking for you, they won't volunteer. They'll stay home. Remember the women's marches after Trump won? You really think it's a winning strategy to alienate those voters? I don't know if you are naive or simply stupid.

That your premise, not conclusion, your conclusion is that a few pro-life democrats would do that, they won't. Just like all those moderate democrats "came out" for gay marriage after years of saying they were not for it.

That's because pro-life Democrats are already doing that in Congress. They vote with Republicans on those issues. It's not a premise. This is on record.

You have named one, singular, for mayor.

The articles I linked also gave one gubernatorial primary candidate. There are pro life Democrats in congress who are on record for voting to defund PP, restrict access to abortion, ban abortions from 20 weeks, etc. They vote with Republicans on these issues. If the Democrats keep opening up that door to allow more in, then women's access to healthcare goes out the window.

SLIPPERY SLOPE! Here in USA 41% of women are prolife, and 55% are pro-choice (the rest unsure) We are not going to lose women voters by a few prolife candidates from red districts where pro-lifers hold the vast majority. The party policy will still be pro-choice, the bills will still be pro-choice, unless republicans rule.

Ya, I guess you missed the uproar against the Democrats from its voters when they went to Nebraska to appear for Mello? The slapback was so harsh, your party's president had to release statements to try to back away from what his party was doing.

What core democratic votes in red districts? Look we have lost everything going your way so honestly what is there to lose?

You have no idea of just how women voters will turn on the party if they start to endorse pro-life candidates just for the sake of winning.

You want an idea? Omaha, Nebraska.. Want to know how the Democrats went with a pro-life candidate?

There are 282,290 registered voters in the City of Omaha, with 35 percent registered as Republicans and 41 percent as Democrats.

Jean Stothert (R) 51,413 53%
Heath Mello (D) 44,977 47%​

That's some winning strategy right there! And Mello had Sanders and the Democratic leadership jumping on their endorsement tour bus to campaign for him..

Now imagine this on a national scale. Only it will be worse. You seem to think, like Sanders and the Democratic leadership, that women's rights can be tossed away, that women will remain compliant, will buy the bullshit 'ignore what we say, vote for us and we promise to protect your human rights in the future' spiel. Your base isn't buying it anymore. And unless you wise up to that, you will lose. This strategy has failed in the past and will fail in the future.

I cite a survey, you cite a opinion piece, the end.

You cited a survey from a Catholic group, that is inherently pro-life..

That's like citing a survey by the KKK on immigration to show how and why immigration should be banned..

There's a reason why that poll only appears in right wing pro-life media...

 

[birch]

The articles I linked also gave one gubernatorial primary candidate. There are pro life Democrats in congress who are on record for voting to defund PP, restrict access to abortion, ban abortions from 20 weeks, etc. They vote with Republicans on these issues. If the Democrats keep opening up that door to allow more in, then women's access to healthcare goes out the window.

this is one of the ways party members switch and what represents their brand.

those that were democrats before are today's republicans and those that were republicans before are today's democrats.

i hate politics.

 

[Bells]

The alternative being what, though?

You getting a clue.

Sad as it is, we already know we aren't going to get much traction running independent characters (just don't have the finances to overcome the deep pockets, and the general public is too apathetic to do much more than tick their straight-ticket box of choice, if they bother to show up at all to the booths).

Unless we manage to massively change our electoral system, from the local up to the Federal levels, then we're rather stuck with the choices we have. I think, and I could be wrong, that EF's point is that a "pro-life" Democrat is closer to center than a "pro-life" Republican, and thus is more likely to at least attempt to work with their more liberal-leaning party mates (and listen to their constituents) than a deep-red Republican who knows his seat is safe against all but the most egregious of criminal misconduct and only has to represent whatever interest is supplying his money pool to stay in power.

*Snort*

You think embracing pro-choice candidates is the way to go? How far do you think you should cave just to win?

The most disturbing thing to emerge from this week’s badly bungled Democratic “Unity Tour” staged by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and new DNC head Tom Perez was the fact that the only thing on which the two men seemed to easily agree was that reproductive rights are not necessarily fundamental to progressive politics. This led to uproar and outrage among some precincts of the left, and eventually to mea culpas and “clarifications” from Sanders and Perez. But it is worth closely examining this fight over the importance of reproductive rights in the party because it is an argument that the Democrats seem to rehash over and over and over again.

To recap: On Wednesday, Sanders gave an interview in which he said that he “didn’t know” if Jon Ossoff, the Democrat who the day before had earned more than 48 percent of the primary vote in a longtime Republican House district in Georgia, was a progressive. It was an odd move for a powerful left-wing politician on a tour to rejuvenate Democratic politics to fire a shot of ambivalence at a Democratic candidate in any tight race, but it felt especially egregious given that Ossoff was now facing Karen Handel, a virulently anti-choice Republican who was forced to leave the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 2012 after trying to sever the organization’s ties with Planned Parenthood, and who actively supported voter-suppression efforts as Georgia’s secretary of State.

Sanders’s definition of what constitutes a progressive became even murkier when he suggested that the election of Heath Mello, who’s running for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska — and who as a state senator sponsored a 20-week abortion ban and mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions — would represent a “shot across the board, that in a state like Nebraska a progressive Democrat can win.” Not to be outdone, Perez amplified the message that reproductive rights are negotiable for the Democratic Party. “If you demand fealty on every single issue,” Perez said, “then it’s a challenge. The Democratic Party platform acknowledges that we’re pro-choice, but there are communities, like some in Kansas, where people have a different position.”

Well, sure. There are also communities in Kansas where voters have different positions from Democrats on immigration reform, labor protections, climate change, voting rights, and health care, and it would be vexing — and not at all progressive — for post-2016 Democrats to alter their stances on any of those issues.​

Put simply, are you going to start running Democratic candidates who refer to black people as "the negroes" in districts with voters who fly KKK flags on their front porches too? You know, since it's all about winning and all!

Not a good compromise, nor a pleasant choice... but it's the choice we've been left with.

What do you mean by "we"? Most importantly, who do you mean by "we"?

But right now, perhaps unlike at any other moment in history, it is also crazily blind to what’s actually happening around the country, as this week’s fierce pushback to Perez and Sanders showed. As Hogue — who went on a Twitter tirade about the proposed compromise on Wednesday night — pointed out, in 2006 Rahm Emanuel could get away with de-emphasizing women’s rights in part because the organized resistance of the moment was anti-war. This time, she says, “the organized resistance is women.” In fact, one recent poll showed that 86 percent of the people making daily calls to Senate and House offices are women, most of them middle aged. And after his better-than-expected showing in Tuesday’s primary, Ossoff said, “This is a story of women in this community,” noting the “thousands of volunteers and organizers … led by women who have been pounding the pavement and knocking on doors for months.”

In the midst of one of the most activated, energized, ground-up movements in modern Democratic political history — where the energy is coming from women who remain underrepresented in state and federal legislatures — the Unity Tour, with its two men making pronouncements about what the party should do next, felt exceedingly out of touch. And the dynamic — the women doing the labor of organizing and protesting and campaigning, knocking on doors and making calls and sending postcards, while guys speak from the microphones about the need to compromise on their rights — is depressingly retro.

“Open your eyes to where the resistance is really coming from,” Hogue urged on Thursday. “There are literally millions of women who have been pouring calls into Senate offices, House offices, going to town halls, filing to run for office; we are literally three months out from the largest protest in U.S. history that was overwhelmingly women, in the name of women; that’s where the resistance is. This is the Democratic party base. So why is the place to start negotiating the place that pulls the heart out of the resistance?”​

Those millions of women?

Or do you mean this "we"?

This circular formulation, in which reproductive-rights advocates are told that they must sacrifice their issues in order to make progress on those same issues, was repeated by Sanders in an NPR interview on Thursday, in which he explained that, “If we are going to protect a woman’s right to choose, at the end of the day we are going to need Democratic control over the House and Senate, and state governments all over this nation. And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on this one issue.”

Women have heard this argument again and again, and we have remained the reliable base of a party that has elected and elevated to positions of greater power anti-choice Democrats including Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and Bob Casey. In fact, it’s hard not to feel that it’s because of the dedication of women, and particularly women of color, to the Democratic Party — where else are they going to go? — that party leaders feel freer to take them for granted and trade their fundamental rights in obsessive pursuit of the great white male. This is how Dems always imagine that they can make inroads in red states. It’s third-way centrist bullshit.​

It's always interesting when I see people like you say "we", when it's not your human rights that's up for that "compromise".

EDIT - for what its worth, it seems like we can either vote for the party that we have a chance of influencing and that might actually work for our greater good, or we can stay home and let win the party that we know is going to favor corporate interests and the removal of social safety nets, bodily autonomy, and other such important social and civil constructs. We are not likely to get that mythical "perfect candidate" in a lot of our races, and if we simply don't vote as a kind of "moral protest" against an imperfect candidate, all we've done is forfeited our influence and given up any real right to complain about whomever winds up elected.

Ooohh.. "chance".. "might".. There's some choice words when the subject matter involves the protections of women's fundamental human rights..

 

[iceaura]

The alternative being what, though?

Running a strong, declarative, principled candidate who can be relied upon to back what are in fact the political stances of a large majority of the American people and of the citizens of most regions.

To not compromise basic positions in advance of being forced to, not triangulate with evil and criminal enterprise for calculated marginal and temporary gain. To build on rock.

To vote against the Iraq War Powers act, for example, as 135 Democratic Congresscritters (a majority!) found the backbone to do, despite the immediate cost, in the secure knowledge that when the smoke clears reality and reason will still be there. And not, as a Party, to kick those Congresscritters to the curb and elevate the compromising and cowardly to leadership positions.

I think, and I could be wrong, that EF's point is that a "pro-life" Democrat is closer to center than a "pro-life" Republican,

That could be his point, but he's very obviously wrong about that. The bulk of the American public polls left and libertarian of the Democratic Party - anyone to the right and authoritarian side of the Dems (as all pro-life Dems are) is even farther off center.

those that were democrats before are today's republicans and those that were republicans before are today's democrats.

A bunch of racists and fundies switched from Democrat to Republican, some years ago. Otherwise, the major movement has been the entire political structure (both Parties, the supporting setups) toward fascism, pulled and driven by a corporate class via campaign financing and a well-funded and long term rightwing media operation. It's been a one-way drift.

 

[iceaura]

just one part, and yes if it was the primary ideology then it would have been outlawed by now, instead of tax cuts for the rich there would have outlawed abortion, they have had decades in composite of total rule and have not yet outlaw abortion because the issue is only used to rally christian conservative vote.

Even though you are correct in noting that outlawing abortion is a cynically employed issue, not a genuine concern of the manipulating corporate elite but instead a button they push to get the fundie vote,

you are wrong if you think it won't happen, if the voters being conned, those who do in fact regard outlawing abortion as part of their primary ideology, succeed in electing publicly committed representation of their views. The manipulators have not actually had decades of the control they need, but they are close to gaining it now - and they have no interest in defending Roe vs Wade, say, or preventing the wipeout of the gains in women's rights so recently achieved. And there is no ERA in the US Constitution.

The Trump voter is, fundamentally, the Republican Party - a Frankenstein's Monster its creators can control only within certain limits. Whether outlawing abortion is a concern of the Koch brothers or Mercers or Adelsons or the like is not really central - they would obviously have no problem doing it, if it worked for them. They'll throw their monster a bone like that without a second thought. Throwing that bone yourself will not make it your monster.

 

[Kittamaru]

Running a strong, declarative, principled candidate who can be relied upon to back what are in fact the political stances of a large majority of the American people and of the citizens of most regions.

Great, where do we get one of those for each of these offices in question?

To not compromise basic positions in advance of being forced to, not triangulate with evil and criminal enterprise for calculated marginal and temporary gain. To build on rock.

To vote against the Iraq War Powers act, for example, as 135 Democratic Congresscritters (a majority!) found the backbone to do, despite the immediate cost, in the secure knowledge that when the smoke clears reality and reason will still be there. And not, as a Party, to kick those Congresscritters to the curb and elevate the compromising and cowardly to leadership positions.

If I had anything to indicate that this would or could happen without a major shift in the very way Politicks have been redesigned to work, I'd be a very happy person. Unfortunately, I don't see America's voters coming together enough to actually for a reality that Corporate America does not want.

That could be his point, but he's very obviously wrong about that. The bulk of the American public polls left and libertarian of the Democratic Party - anyone to the right and authoritarian side of the Dems (as all pro-life Dems are) is even farther off center.

If that is the case, then where are they? Are they that chuffed and lethargic about making noise, such that they let the obnoxious minority ruin the country?

A bunch of racists and fundies switched from Democrat to Republican, some years ago. Otherwise, the major movement has been the entire political structure (both Parties, the supporting setups) toward fascism, pulled and driven by a corporate class via campaign financing and a well-funded and long term rightwing media operation. It's been a one-way drift.

How do we reverse this course? We aren't going to buy them back - hell, the Koch brothers alone can (and have) throw more money into an election than the GDP of several small nations. We can't really force them to act by refusing to re-elect them; due to gerrymandering and a number of other things, the chances of unseating an incumbent congressperson are positively minuscule. I fear that, soon, we won't even be able to appeal the shit they put out up the chain to the Supreme Court; I can only hope that some of our more competent sitting Justices can hang onto life out of sheer spite.

 

[iceaura]

Great, where do we get one of those for each of these offices in question?

Nobody said it would be easy.
But there were 135 candidates for the role in Congress when the Iraq War Powers act came up for a vote. Nothing prevented the Democratic Party from choosing its leadership from among them.

If that is the case, then where are they? Are they that chuffed and lethargic about making noise, such that they let the obnoxious minority ruin the country?

Where are they? All over the place. The guys asking the poll questions run into them all the time.

We can't really force them to act by refusing to re-elect them; due to gerrymandering and a number of other things, the chances of unseating an incumbent congressperson are positively minuscule.

Darrel Issa just announced his retirement. Orrin Hatch. Jeff Flake. The rats are hitting the lifeboats. As in the aftermaths of Reagan and W, there will be opportunities.

One aspect of gerrymandering and fraud and suppression and big money thrown into backwater campaigns is that it can send a false signal about electability on a larger stage - the Dems might do well to look closely at some of their better losers. Russ Feingold would almost certainly beat Scott Walker in a national race, for example. My money says any of the Dems at the top of the running for Minnesota governor right now would do better nationally than any Rep in that race - even if the Republican wins the governorship in this screwed up mess.

Unfortunately, I don't see America's voters coming together enough to actually for a reality that Corporate America does not want.

Corporate America did not want Trump. And all that took was a minority - less than a third of the electorate.