Skip to main content

View Diary: The problem with presidents (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama's SCOTUS appointees have all been pro- (7+ / 0-)

    CORPORATE, just like Alito and Roberts.

    This is why Corporate interests are winning almost every case they're involved in that goes before the Supreme Court.

    •  Sotomayor is like Alito now, huh? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, Kathy S

      The cognitive dissonance and denial of reality on the anti-Democrat left here is as bad as anything I've ever seen on the right. It's really amazing.

      •  Corporate vs Social issues. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mkor7, on the cusp, annan, glitterscale

        Distinguish between them, or maintain your denial of reality.

        The vital question about Alito and Roberts was not, "Will they ban abortion?", it was "Will they vote for or against Corporate interests?"

        They were both Corporate attorneys, so guess how they tend to vote?

        Ditto for Obama's appointees.

        We have a Corporatist Supreme Court, with four social liberals on it.

        Guess which matters more?

        •  For me? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn, Kathy S

          Social policy matters more; thanks for asking.

          But forget about that -- Sotomayor voted against Citizens United, which I think falls into your ill-defined "corporatist" bucket, so what do you say to that, smart guy?

          •  If social issues matter (6+ / 0-)

            more to you, then you're a huge part of the problem with the contemporary democratic party.  I'm not saying that we should abandon our fight for social justice and equality, but economics is at the root of just about all our problems.  As a consequence, you can't address inequalities without addressing these economic issues.  The problem with third way democratic politics is that it entirely ignored economics, continuing deregulation and privatization as usual, thereby reinforcing all of these inequalities.  Limiting your politics to social issues is a bit like changing the color of paint on the walls of a rotten house.  Things look like they've been solved and cleaned up, but the walls are still rotting and the house is still tumbling down.  Your post sums up better what's wrong with our party than anything I've read here.  I'm not attributing any malice here to you.  I suspect that you're just ignorant of how economics pervades everything that we're dealing with.

            •  Suspect all you want (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annan, Kathy S

              about me being "ignorant" if it makes you feel better. I suppose that if I'm ignorant, I then seem less threatening to you.

              I see far more ignorance about economics on the far left side of the progressive movement. Too much conspiratorial thinking, bitterness, "us vs. them" mentality. Apart from that, the ideas are too simplistic, too immune to nuance. The goals are laudable; the means just too unsophisticated to take seriously. Economics is a very soft science indeed.  Most people who call themselves economic progressives, in my mind, urgently need a crash course or two in the laws of unintended consequences.

              My politics are by no means limited to social issues, though those are the issues where there are very clear dividing lines between right and wrong. When it comes to economic policy, I am content to support proposals to increase opportunity and prosperity by working within existing institutions, which "economic progressives" are too eager to cast aside (foolishly in my view).

              •  Supporting Plutocratic Hegemony is Stupid. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                maryabein, Superskepticalman

                Empty Vessel wrote an excellent diary entitle Rox/Sux Explained, arguing that the source of the debate here is that some folks value economic issues more, and others value social issues more, and that defines the divide between those who believe Obama has been an effective Progressive and those who believe he's been a destructive betrayer of Progressives.

                I agreed with the diarist, right up to the point where a false equivalence was declared between the two perspectives.

                Those who value social issues over economic/governance issues are well-intentioned, but myopic and clueless.

                I explained why in two comments under that diary.

                Here are a couple of excerpts, but if you actually care about the substance of this issue, and aren't simply trying to fight for your own ego gratification, I would suggest you read them both in their entirety before you reply to me again.

                ...They intend to teach us just who we are.

                A whole shitload of powerless nobodies.

                And if those powerless nobodies get to vote in meaningless elections, or not, or get to gay marry, or not, or have access to abortions, or not, why would the plutocrats give a flying fuck?

                Thus, the social issues are entirely meaningless once the social democracies are broken.

                We are in a fight for the survival of our Constitution and our way of life. Lose the economic/power fight, and none of the rest matters.

                And that's why those of us who prioritize economic and power issues realize that the cultural issues must take a backseat, and a much lower priority, to the survival of our democracy as we know it, or we will never see its cultural potential.

                ...if you vote for a Corporatist who collapses your economy and allows the economic elites to nullify the Bill of Rights, just so you can get gay married, have the option of an abortion, or maybe not get your ass kicked by a white cop, what have you accomplished?...

                ...The exploding power of the economic elites is an existential threat to everything this country stands for and everything we've worked for, for centuries.

                •  Oh my. Now I'm supporting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kathy S

                  plutocratic hegemony! How stupid I must be to do so. Thanks for opening my eyes about how we're in a fight for the survival of the Constitution and our way of life and how Obama is the Great Betrayer. You're definitely not a melodramatic fanatic or anything. I'll go ahead and dedicate my life to the destruction of the Corporatists. Are those the same as the Plutocrats?

                  •  And this is why we haven't been able to... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    One Pissed Off Liberal

                    ...have nice things.

                    Mockery does not trump evidence and logic.

                    In case you haven't noticed, the people who argue your position here are getting pwned...by evidence and logic.

                    This happened to W's admin. It got to the point, finally, where die hard mindless supporters were finally looking at events as they occurred and were forced, by their lying eyes, to say, "Well, that's fucked up...".

                    But look how much damage W and the Corporatist Rs and Ds were able to do in the six or seven years it took for that to happen.

                    Now the Progressives are living that same script.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site