Francis Di Domizio wrote: Interesting. My point was that you assumed I was talking about unions in your response. Not that I found "flaws" in your statement. Clearly you wanted to defend union participation in elections, which I hadn't even addressed. Corporate involvement on both sides of the two party system is more than enough of a problem without looking for more issues. Not that I don't think Unions have a strong influence on some Democratic officials, but that wasn't my point nor was in even inferred, yet that's where you jumped.
I wasn't assuming that you were talking about unions. I wasn't defending union participation. I was off on a tangent addressing the voice in my head that said "It' be great if there was no outside money involved" and qualifying that for people who weren't aware of that imbalance.
On the other hand when the industries being bailed out involved union jobs, you bet your ass the unions and the politicians they own were on board.
I usually focus on the more major of the problems. The $4-$9 trillion bank bailouts stick out a bit more than the tens of billions the Auto makers got. Likewise, I'd follow that with the wars in the Middle East and descend until we got to the Automakers. I think the best way to resolve problems is to go after the ones that have the most adverse effects first.
Sure and if Nixon had challenged the vote in Illinois in 1960, there's a chance Vietnam wouldn't have happened. Actually, that's more likely than Gore changing the outcome of 9-11.
I disagree with that. Kennedy would've pulled out if he would've lived past the 1964 election. Gore affirmed that there was no way he would've invaded Iraq with the info Bush had. Plus, with his focus on secured cockpits in 1997 to prevent terrorist hijackings, and the fact that he wouldn't have had 10 or so PNAC members in his cabinet like Bush did makes me believe he would've taken the 60 or so warnings about the coming attacks far more seriously.
The only point I'm making is that you have an incredibly idealistic view of the Democratic party's elected officials. Look at the list Ned posted
a few weeks ago. It's fairly pointless for tracking who's spending more since it spans 25 years, but it gives a good indication of where corporate America spends it's money, and it looks fairly even. Especially when you look at the financial industry.
I posted this thread as a joke as I totally realize how bad the Democratic party is. That's what they're supposed to stand for, and quite a few members still do, but not enough of them although I don't know what the %-age would be.
I voted for Nader in 2008, and only voted for Obama in 2012 because I think Romney would've been smooth enough to pull off even more wealth redistribution to the top on top of what BU$H did. Obama reminds me of the kid from Holland with his finger in the dyke. He pulls it out at times, but sticks it back in. With Mitt, it would've been a buffet of wealth redistribution.
I've also promised myself that I'm not voting for either of the 2 major parties unless I see real change. Not that my vote matters, I'm not wealthy enough to buy the kind of policies I'd like to see. So I'm sticking my hopes at the local level now.
IMO, we've hit the iceberg and we're about to go under, if we haven't already.