I'm simply asking is there anyone out there right now, even from the progressive wing of the party who would actually do it?

I mean Warren dug in to the Wells CEO pretty good but at the end of the day he went right back to his high castle and business as usual.

[Edited on May 2, 2017 at 3:06 PM. Reason : In other words what needs to change internally and how do you accomplish it]

5/2/2017 3:06:01 PM

Actually he was fired (with a severance), and recently has been ruled subject to a claw-back of a chunk of money.

5/2/2017 3:09:01 PM

Quote :

" other words what needs to change internally and how do you accomplish it"

Well, for starters, we can stop excusing our leadership for taking money for speeches.

I mean, seriously. If you oppose this behavior, then stop shrugging your shoulders and saying, "mehhhhh wuddya gonnadew?"

Demand better. Want things to change internally?

Apply external pressure

5/2/2017 3:21:51 PM

+ 1 credibility for every vote against changing Obamacare

5/2/2017 4:32:52 PM

Quote :

" Is there anyone, anywhere who has run for office who would have actually done this? I can't imagine a Sanders or Warren would even. Maybe I'm too cynical though."

Pretty much everyone who ran for president other than Trump Clinton and Johnson.

5/2/2017 8:15:05 PM

You're deluding yourself if you believe anyone on the establishment right would do any more than a candidate on the establishment left.

5/3/2017 7:32:28 AM

^^ yeah man, noted Wall Street haters Rubio and Cruz would have totally gone after Wall Street!!! Cruz would have imprisoned his own wife I'm sure.

Stein may have but she probably would get lost on the way to the White House.

[Edited on May 3, 2017 at 8:30 AM. Reason : Although she loves a good payday]

5/3/2017 8:30:01 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/331788-obamas-donating-2m-to-chicago-summer-jobs-programs

400k for a speech, tho

5/3/2017 3:37:58 PM

Keep fighting the good fight.

5/3/2017 6:13:33 PM

Go ahead, Obama, switch yo style up. And if progressives hate then let 'em hate and watch the money pile up.

5/3/2017 6:18:54 PM

Its less about this particular speech and more about how revealing it is of what type of person obama was/is. We already knew he was wall street funded candidate. this just confirms what progressives believed about him.

5/3/2017 6:37:58 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obamalibrary/ct-obama-library-met-kamin-0503-20170503-story.html

5/3/2017 7:28:23 PM

Tulsi/Jesus, what exactly is the purity test for progressives? I think if you poll non-progressives (center democrats/independents/republicans), the majority would say Obama is a progressive (ACA, Cuba, Paris Agreement, minimum wage, Dodd-Frank, ect).

Who would pass the purity test for y'all? Most folks I can think of have red flags of some sort for people obsessed with the "purity" test (Bernie and gun control, Tulsi Gabbard and Assad, Ellison is getting shit for working with the DNC (although this is from observer.com which seems slightly biased)).

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 8:36 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2017 8:35:43 AM

That's the point of the purity test, nobody is able to pass it so there's always something to complain about.

and if somehow somebody does pass, you move the goalpost.

5/4/2017 8:58:13 AM

^^ it's as good a way to assure the GOP never loses control of government as only focusing on identity politics is.

5/4/2017 9:21:44 AM

The point of the "purity test" is not to find the perfect politician, it is to hold those in power accountable for their shortcomings.

Politicians only respond to money and pressure. If you mindlessly cheerlead for them, then they compromise with those on the opposite side of the spectrum, and thus move the political needle further to the right.

Force their hand.

5/4/2017 11:47:10 AM

Looks like Dodd-Frank is about to go bye bye.

Only put it here because it is actually one thing Obama did do to regulate Wall Street (though you could argue it hurt the smaller regional banks harder).

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 12:17 PM. Reason : X]

5/4/2017 12:16:49 PM

the problem with trying to "regulate" wall street is that everything that happened during the Mortgage Stock Crash of 2008 was completely legal.

So, I can see people getting pissy about regulating an industry where people didn't break any laws. The problem is that, under true capitalism, those banks should have been allowed to fail.



[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM. Reason : second ]

5/4/2017 12:34:12 PM

^not true

We have ample evidence banks engaged in mortgage fraud (specifically inflating buyer's income and forcing buyers into ARMs). We have evidence they participated in robo-signing and did not follow proper foreclosure procedures. It's also questionable that the way mortgages were bundled into derivatives, sometimes without a paper trail so that those instruments could be unwound.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

5/4/2017 12:50:37 PM

that can't be true, if that were true it would mean democrats declined to prosecute anyone and democrats would never do that

5/4/2017 12:57:15 PM

I mean the Justice Dept hung $200 BILLION in fines on the financial industry in the 5 years after the 2008 crash. But we couldn't prosecute any individuals? Hell the justice dept didn't even make them admit guilt in any of those settlements.

Obama and Holder fumbled it. While I don't give too much of a shit about Obama's 400k speech, I do hope this shit keeps him up at night (I'm guessing no).

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM. Reason : Mostly I hope it's part of his legacy, and doesn't get whitewashed out of history]

5/4/2017 1:12:14 PM

Eric Holder returning to Covington & Burling was far more egregious.

5/4/2017 1:23:21 PM

^^ I agree with most of that, and I'm far more upset with Obama's lack of prosecution than his paid speeches. The speeches are just confirmation that he never intended to prosecute or push forth legislative reform.

Why more "progressives" aren't disillusioned with O yet, and are actively post rationalizing his behavior is crazy to me.

I mean, it takes a special kind of gullibility to think that Obama can do more to curb wall street corruption and criminality with one half million dollar speech than he could with 8 years holding the highest office in the land. It's a comically pathetic position to hold, and there are people on here who genuinely believe it.

5/4/2017 1:38:58 PM

Quote :

"the problem with trying to "regulate" wall street is that everything that happened during the Mortgage Stock Crash of 2008 was completely legal."

This is as bizarre a take as I've seen even ignoring the fact that laws and regulations were, in fact, broken.

Akin to saying if murder was legal then murdering people would be legal.

5/4/2017 1:53:10 PM

Quote :

"Why more "progressives" aren't disillusioned with O yet, and are actively post rationalizing his behavior is crazy to me. "

Because he wins (or won). While it doesn't always translate beyond the presidency, he still won twice, while also being hammered as a scary socialist. And his "coalition" is what a lot of people imagined propelling the progressive movement for years to come. We need some of his electoral magic, and lots of folks think he is the one of the few that can provide.

Progressive policies don't mean shit if you're the minority party all the time. It's the difference between us debating whether the new healthcare law will increase uninsured by 20 million people or 30 million versus debating if single-payer should be included in new reforms to Obamacare.

5/4/2017 2:04:44 PM

Quote :

"what exactly is the purity test for progressives? I think if you poll non-progressives (center democrats/independents/republicans), the majority would say Obama is a progressive "

Thats the wrong question. Its N/A. We have a whole different system of thought. We aren't looking for a candidate to put on a pedestal and worhsip. We are looking for policies that will move the country/world forward. Thats the problem with democrats. They stand behind people and not values so they end up standing for nothing. There is no "purity test". No person and candidate should agree 100% on everything. I've always made compromises when voting.

Quote :

"Who would pass the purity test for y'all?"

Its not really a purity test but for me, accepting corporate donations is a deal breaker because with a conflict of interest, you can't really accomplish anything. I can't believe you will ever see a candidate sponsored by corporations actually govern in a way contrary to their interest. Once enough voters have this as a requirement, the demand will be high enough to make it worthwhile, but someone like me voting for a corporate candidate would be a step in the other direction and further delay the process.

Quote :

"it's as good a way to assure the GOP never loses control of government as only focusing on identity politics is."

I'm not interested in the GOP losing control just for the sake of it. I'm interested in putting people in control who have the courage to make real change.

Quote :

"the majority would say Obama is a progressive"

Progressive is a relative word and not absolute as you imply in your post. The majority thinks Obama is progrssive because they either are pretty conservative (so obama is RELATIVELY progressive) or, they don't pay attention to details and listen to his progressive speeches. Examples below.

Quote :

"ACA, Cuba, Paris Agreement, minimum wage, Dodd-Frank, ect)."

FAKE FAKE FAKE

PARIS is the perfect example of half-assed progressivism and I want you to think about what happened with Paris everytime Democrats claim to do something progressive. The aggreement was NONBINDING and set goals that never actually had a chance of coming true. Everyone involved knew that but they needed to be seen as progressives so they got together and talked about how we need to do sometihing about climate change, said what we could do to save the world and sound like heroes, but never intended on actually doing any of it. The Paris agreement is the epitome of Obama style progressivism. This is what they do with almost every "progressive" action they take.

year should be on the x co2 on the y. 2016 in the middle

Take a look at the orange part of the graph. That is the trajectory Obama had us on. The red line represents the Paris goal. It was never going to be reached under Obama's policies but he sounded progressive because that is what he talked about and the paris agreement. The difference between what Obama says and what he does is evident in that graph and the same idea can be applied to everything on the list. A small shift from "business as usual" is suddenly championed as "progressive". Its also very beneficial for GOP to label him as extreme, because then they can seem moderate. They are all in this together. Batman needs joker.
ACA talked about insuring everyone as a goal but never actually intended to insure EVERYONE. If you really wanted to insure everyone, there is an easy way to do that. ACA was setup to insure more people while making sure it protected the profits of insurance companies. That again is the problem with Obama progressives. They want to be progressive without making any sacrifices. They want to implement progressive policies and simultaneously grow profits for the corporations that put them office.

MINIMUM WAGE
Please remind me what he did? All I recall is him advocating a 10.10 minimum wage at a time where we need at least a 15.00 minimum wage because 10.10 would be enough for corporations to adjust to.

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM. Reason : pic]

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 2:07 PM. Reason : jeez]

5/4/2017 2:05:35 PM

Quote :

"We have ample evidence banks engaged in mortgage fraud (specifically inflating buyer's income and forcing buyers into ARMs). We have evidence they participated in robo-signing and did not follow proper foreclosure procedures. It's also questionable that the way mortgages were bundled into derivatives, sometimes without a paper trail so that those instruments could be unwound."

being lousy with paper work does not constitute a crime, even if said sloppiness correlates to profit gains. They were not stealing money from people or forging documents, they were literally selling a bunch of shit using their reputation and nobody was getting balls deep into the fact-checking to fact check it.

5/4/2017 3:01:05 PM

Jesus - I get what you're saying. I don't agree with it, but I understand where you're coming from. Who would you want to run in 2020?

Tulsi - I still don't follow. You went from "there's no purity test" to "accepting corporate donations is a deal breaker" in the span of one paragraph.

Ideally I wouldn't want my candidate to accept corporate donations. I think campaign funding needs to be massively overhauled. I think most people agree. However, I don't think you'd be able to compete with republicans if the democratic party decided to do away with corporate donations. I know you'd point to Bernie, and maybe he's a sign of things to come, but how'd you fund the down ticket politicians? Could you fund an entire party in a similar fashion? I doubt it.

Who would you want to run in 2020?

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 4:08 PM. Reason : obama wasn't progressive i get it guys]

5/4/2017 3:52:10 PM

just because they perceive him as very left doesn't change what progressive means

5/4/2017 4:00:01 PM

Bernie would have needed, and took, money from places he previously didn't had he won the primary. It'd have been suicide not to.

But you're arguing with Earl, who still thinks Trump was self-funded.

** actually I'd say that perceiving Obama as very left is exactly what BJ has said about the dial moving right.

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM. Reason : Obama, like HRC was center right. I'd actually say Bernie is center-left.]

5/4/2017 4:02:15 PM

Quote :

"Tulsi - I still don't follow. You went from "there's no purity test" to "accepting corporate donations is a deal breaker" in the span of one paragraph. "

I assume that for you, accepting money from a foreign government would be a deal breaker but you wouldn't consider that a purity test. I see multinational corporations the same way you see foreign governments. Its just a basic conflict of interest common sense requirement. I'm assuming you wouldn't put up with a politician who has stake in the interest of another country, but maybe you would and chalk up the "at least they aren't republican" excuse again.

Quote :

"Ideally I wouldn't want my candidate to accept corporate donations. I think campaign funding needs to be massively overhauled. I think most people agree. However, "

You either want it or you don't. You're delusional if you think a bunch of bought politicians will someday get in office and change the rules against themselves.

Quote :

"I don't think you'd be able to compete with republicans"

Ok continue to stand for nothing and have no values for the sake of "competing" with republicans who currently have 33 governors, 37 state legislatures, 25 state trifectas, house, senate and the presidency.

[Edited on May 4, 2017 at 4:34 PM. Reason : pics too big]

5/4/2017 4:34:13 PM

So your ideal situation would be to run a candidate on a similar platform that lost the primary by 3 million votes and drop funding to the already struggling down ballots so you can sleep better at night over your vote? Sure, you may pick up the presidency, but what would that mean if the republicans control the house and Senate and local governments by such large margins.

Also, for the third time, who'd you like to see run? Don't say Bernie, he'll be 79 in 2020.

5/4/2017 5:01:21 PM

Quote :

"Progressive policies don't mean shit if you're the minority party all the time. "

Not true. Highway safety legislation, Water pollution act, EPA, OSHA, food protection laws, and many other consumer protection laws all happened under NIXON, in large part to strong progressive movements that were not on power.

5/4/2017 6:31:30 PM

And both the House and the Senate had democratic majorities from like the mid- 50s to the late 70s. Granted, some of those were Dixiecrats but still, it's more complicated than "look what Nixon passed!!!"

And compare that to our hyper-partisan 2017 congress. Things have changed a hell of a lot in congress since 1970.

You either get democrats to congress and then hold their feet to the fire, or you're left pleading with a republican, which unless you're a mega-church pastor or run a SuperPAC they don't give two shits about you or your thoughts. So, it's unfortunate, and I hate it, but winning FIRST, is everything.

Like if I lived in WV, I would gladly vote for Joe Manchin in a general (I'd look elsewhere during a primary, if there is even another option).

5/4/2017 7:34:53 PM

When I watch Joe Manchin vote with Republicans, I wish that he would be voted out of office so that a more liberal Democrat can replace him; however, you're right - when will West Virginia ever vote for a senator more liberal than Joe Manchin?

5/4/2017 10:14:01 PM

shouts to TerdFerguson for his past few posts

5/4/2017 11:37:31 PM

Quote :

"You either get democrats to congress and then hold their feet to the fire"

You might need to communicate the bold part to our fellow progressives, who continuously excuse our Democratic leadership for their shortcomings, over, and over, and over again.

I'm pretty sure you and I have our different opinions about electoral strategies that we've discussed here before. And at the end of the day, that's fine. But it's the bold part of your statement that gets me every single time (not from you, but others on here) that makes their "progressive" leanings come across as empty and bogus posturing, because they bend over backwards when their guy does the same thing as everyone else. And it's fucking maddening to watch it happen.

5/5/2017 2:56:36 AM

I agree completely. Liberals (myself included) have had way too much of a tendency to win it, and then forget it. As if a politician on autopilot is going to advocate for us. I can also see myself reaching some theoretical point with a "progressive" incumbent where They just need to go and we need new blood because they aren't accomplishing shit. There should absolutely be more turnover here and I do hope we see a bench of more progressive candidates starting to aggressively challenge incumbents in primaries.

But those seem like luxuries right now in my district and state (hopefully not for long?).

^^I was outraged yesterday by that healthcare vote. My Rep lead the charge on the amendment that cratered pre-existing conditions protections. Rage posting means way more posts!

5/5/2017 6:28:05 AM

the problem comes from the assumption that centrists are the only people you can get in office, and that progressives shouldn't be allowed on the ticket because of course they will lose. this has been a losing strategy for decades

5/5/2017 12:22:26 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-breached-39-states-in-election-hack?via=mobile&source=copyurl

This is actually pretty nuts.

And Obama's lack of transparency and action is pretty damning. I know he though HRC would win comfortably and wanted to not give the appearance of politics being played but his inaction was... dangerous. And now we have a Presidnt who literally gives zero fucks it happened.

6/13/2017 8:59:14 AM

Where are you getting this "inaction" line of bullshit. This article makes it clear that there was plenty of action going on behind the scenes.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Quote :

"That idea would obsess the Obama White House throughout the summer and fall of 2016, outweighing worries over the DNC hack and private Democratic campaign emails given to Wikileaks and other outlets, according to one of the people familiar with those conversations. The Homeland Security Department dispatched special teams to help states strengthen their cyber defenses, and some states hired private security companies to augment those efforts. In many states, the extent of the Russian infiltration remains unclear. The federal government had no direct authority over state election systems, and some states offered limited cooperation. When then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said last August that the department wanted to declare the systems as national critical infrastructure -- a designation that gives the federal government broader powers to intervene -- Republicans balked. Only after the election did the two sides eventually reach a deal to make the designation."

It didn't help that Republicans and red states were basically complicit in the whole thing.

6/13/2017 9:22:39 AM

It clearly should have been made public. 100%. Full stop.

I like Obama. I think history will look kindly upon him. He made mistakes and this might be the most egregious.

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 9:36 AM. Reason : Democrats are STILL scared of the GOP. This is just more proof.]

6/13/2017 9:36:19 AM

It was made public, 100%, full stop. Fucking stop it with this revisionist history bullshit.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Quote :

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."

Quote :

"Release Date: October 7, 2016"

But again, no one cared because we were all (myself included) jubilant over pussy tape as the death knell for the Trump campaign. Or you had dumbasses saying "huurrrrr durrr, show me da evidence!!!!!!!".

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2017 9:42:12 AM

https://youtu.be/QiXuJCQneYY

clutch those pearls, rjrumfel

6/16/2017 12:28:47 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-bsi-blm-solar-power-coal-plants-20170617-story.html

Quote :

"Solar power, once so costly it made economic sense only in spaceships, is becoming cheap enough that it will push coal and even natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast. That's the conclusion of a Bloomberg New Energy Finance outlook for how fuel and electricity markets will evolve by 2040. The research group estimated solar already rivals the cost of new coal power plants in Germany and the U.S. and by 2021 will do so in quick-growing markets such as China and India. The scenario suggests green energy is taking root more quickly than most experts anticipate. It would mean that global carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels may decline after 2026, a contrast with the International Energy Agency's central forecast, which sees emissions rising steadily for decades to come. "Costs of new energy technologies are falling in a way that it's more a matter of when than if," said Seb Henbest, a researcher at BNEF in London and lead author of the report."

Remember all the shit Obama took for the billions in green energy loans that were part of the stimulus. Turns out that shit actually worked, despite all the FUD spread about the tiny percentage of defaults like Solyndra. This is just the beginning, Obama's entire agenda was forward thinking. We'll be thanking him for decades.

6/17/2017 6:34:10 PM

you cite one example of forward thinking and then say his ENTIRE agenda was forward thinking. Don't you think thats a bit overboard?

6/17/2017 7:23:12 PM

Obama might have been the first president to take a "scientific" approach to governance. The policy starting point was based on expert opinion on an issue then modified for political realities.

Compare this with Cheney or Trumpism which is based on emotion or ideology.

This wasn't a perfect approach (because "experts" have limitations) but it's the best approach.

6/17/2017 7:34:34 PM

^

6/17/2017 8:35:07 PM

Theres truth in that but

Quote :

"then modified for political realities."

i found the excuse hidden in there nicely

as long as "political realities" includes caving to special interests, corporations/banks/donors etc.

[Edited on June 17, 2017 at 9:45 PM. Reason : why cant you guys just say the bad stuff he did. then the good things you talk about would stick]

6/17/2017 9:44:19 PM

the 2 worst things are failure to address inequality, although he made a lukewarm attempt, and the drone program. Problem with the drone program is that the "experts" are all hawkish military people who aren't going to think outside the box for diplomatic and humanitarian solutions.

Obama talked a lot about Inequality but never found a way to get Buy in from the GOP.

There's a good argument that no matter how moderate Obama was the GOP would have opposed him bitterly but maybe Obama should have pushed through "smaller" in initiatives before ACA.

6/18/2017 12:16:37 AM