Thought so. :)

Still trying to put lipstick on the defecating pig?

More projection from the defecating pig who shits repeatedly on his chosen messenger.

It doesn't get much ignorant than that. :)

Why doesn't that popular support translate into votes?

* Culture wars
* Snowflakes/grievance
* Bullshit artists
* Gullible people

It's pretty impossible to make the political argument against expanding Medicare to include teeth, ears, and eyes.

But what about my hair. ;)

ARE YOU TALKIN' TO Me!?

OD sucks. Since you are trying to persuade us, failing to address the problems we point out is a nonsense strategy. What don't you understand about "engaging?" Saying stupid shit "Dims=Repugs" and name calling isn't the way you'll get any better results around here, if that's what you want.

[4]

Why doesn't that popular support translate into enough votes, that is, to pass progressive legislation without having to scale it down to the bare bones?

Let's add, why are Democrats apparently about to snatch DEFEAT from the jaws of VICTORY, even though not passing Bernie's package (favored by Repugs, too) will likely and deservedly cost them Congress next year?

ELIZABETH, I've been trying to figure this out for the four decades since The American Dream
got infected by Reaganism. I never understood why Dims didn't adopt no-brainer
arguments against starving our government in order to cut taxes for those who don't need tax cuts. IMO, opposing trading "The American Dream --for ALL" for "No Millionaire Left Behind" would have been easy and popular sale, if only establishment Dems wanted to.

ALAS, I've concluded that the Party of F.D.R.'s inability to message for, campaign on and thence to actually represent the interests of ALL Americans is because Establishment Democrats* are as owned by Murica's Ownership Class as are the Repugs.

Greed for ever more riches is common across the political spectrum, and until Establishment Democrats prove otherwise (allowing Bernie's plan to pass) they're posers, quite happy to let us plebes fight over social issues while they keep raking in the money.

*Establishment Democrats does not mean all Democrats, Don Harris. Saying that Bernie/AOC are no better than Joe Manchin/Establishment Dims, who are no better than #MoscowMitch/Repugs is nonsense. Even if the social justice differences

I still think you should keep at it, now that you have Nader's attention ...

I listened from the beginning until the end of the One Demand discussion and read your comment. And, I read your comment from the previous show.

You're right, they gave 'One Demand' pretty short shrift in the discussion. I'm thinking if they bring it up then they should address all of it. The guest said he didn't think it would work because the major parties don't have a problem with getting a lot of small donors and didn't elaborate further.

I don't think any of them showed any understanding of what One Demand is all about. So, I think you just need to keep listening and commenting but try to change up the way you talk about it. For me, I suffer from the MEGO factor when too many numbers are cited. You know, mine eyes glaze over! So, I would use less numbers and more philosphy in your advocating for One Demand. Maybe talk more about campaign financing (I know, I know, I know what you think about THAT!)

In any event, you have gotten Nader's attention - I think you can keep it and move the discussion along if you keep at it and try coming at it from different angles so it doesn't sound like you're just repeating yourself. Best of luck - it's a tough problem. Mostly because it involves getting voters, even 10% of them, to, well, get involved!

Don[27],

Heh.

I would say gun control has more to do with the rural/urban divide than lobbying. Your point #2 covering quite nicely even down to the state level. More people may support gun control but they are concentrated in cities, where rural has more representatives against it...

"If your country is so progressive and progressive policies so popular, then why is it that more progressives aren't elected to both houses of Congress and, especially, in numbers that give you a filibuster-proof US Senate?

The answer is easy, I suppose - your country isn't that progressive and Dems don't know how to promote and sell policies that are in the best interests of everyone."

Well my answers would be:

1) Gun control has overwhelming support too, but goes nowhere, because elected officials pay more attention to lobbyists who throw money at them, than to constituents who only write them letters.

2) Getting a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is pretty much impossible, when the 40 million people of California have the same number of Senators as the 500 thousand people of Wyoming. So it doesn't really matter how progressive the country is overall. When.....

3) You can scare and convince a few thousand in a state like Wyoming about big old bad "socialism" boogeyman.

Still waiting for you to get Nader mentioning One Demand.

How do you propose I do that? I'm willing to do a lot in order for you not to interrupt our music nights.

<Still waiting for you to get Nader mentioning One Demand.

How do you propose that I do that?

If you don't my theme for Sunday night(s) will be to interupt your music night until you do.

I hope you're joking.

Yeah, I have some understanding of how your Republic works. Which is quite unlike a parliamentary system such as what we endure in Canada.

But, I wasn't using popular support in the strictest sense of the phrase. MtnCaddy used popular to indicate how well Biden's agenda was resonating with the American people, whether they reside in blue, red or purple states.

So, let me re-phrase the question ...

If your country is so progressive and progressive policies so popular, then why is it that more progressives aren't elected to both houses of Congress and, especially, in numbers that give you a filibuster-proof US Senate?

The answer is easy, I suppose - your country isn't that progressive and Dems don't know how to promote and sell policies that are in the best interests of everyone.

"Why doesn't that popular support translate into votes?"

[4] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

"... enough votes, that is, to pass progressive legislation without having to scale it down to the bare bones?"

The easy answer to that Elizabeth is because that is not how our system was deliberately designed. Unlike yours in Canada, or the U.K.

Only white men with property were originally allowed to make decisions, popular will was looked at in fear.

The Senate is set up to represent the states, NOT the people.

Popular support only translates into enough votes in a parliamentary system, where the government lives or falls as a whole based on the overall vote total, and not on individuals each with their own power base.

How about we each pick a city and highlight bands from that city?

For my part, I pick Vancouver, baby! Especially, Vancouver Rock Bands from the 60s to 80s

The cost of running a cutter is also less taxing than that of a carrier.

Carriers require battle groups to protect them, it costs about 6 million dollars a day to operate a strike group. Cutters cost $75k to $100k to operate depending on size and mission, they require no external battle group, they can chase down drug runners, human smugglers, rescue people, and pull into shallow ports that carriers cannot.

If I was going to stick with this analogy I would have put the original bill and the asks, as the cutter, It was designed to be nimble, quick and attack multiple problems, sure it was costly, but then again the USCG is undergoing a very costly upgrade program due to lack of timely upgrades.

DINO Manchin and SheNaw Sinema (she seems to be proving she should not have been exposed to power in Washington) have determined that the bill should be unpaid for and not do very much, just to keep the GOPers happy... just like a carrier.

With a carrier, it's expensive, can't operate on it's own, and if a couple of the supports break it's not viable, carriers are only good at three things: being really expensive vanity exhibits, bombing small countries into oblivion, and showing how big a nations phallus is.

Hope you can see why I think it is backwards.

If one counts how overwhelmingly popular progressive policies are with the Murican public, then we are.

I keep thinking back to the fact that the 2020 election was so damned close and that 25,000 votes here and there and Trump would have been re-elected. That doesn't sound like a progressive country to me.

I love Bernie Sanders. He is on the right side of the basics and the politics IF his basics and politics can bring along the vast majority of voters in enough states to change the make-up of both houses of Congress.

And each and every time, progressives have had to grit their teeth and accept it in the hopes of getting anything positive done.

It looks like progressives are going to have to keep gritting their teeth and and keep hoping and fighting to get ANYTHING positive done.

And, I hope they don't sacrifice the "bipartisan infrastructure bill' on the alter of EON. Ahem.

Because passing the infrastructure bill and/or the 'build back better' bill will definitely be a step in the right direction - on the basics and on the politics - for a country that wishes to make progress.

And, there's the rub. What kind of a country do you have, at the moment. What kind of a country will you have when the midterms roll around.

And, the most important question of all - how successfully can Democrats persuade voters that what they have done will be beneficial for America and Americans while Republicans are doing everything to limit what can be done to strengthen families and the economy.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to keep pointing out how the Republican cult of economic failure is alive and well and stunting the growth of the economy and country at every turn. This, in fact, may be THE most important point Democrats can make. Though, I haven't seen much of this argument over the course of the last many decades, so ...

Anyways, looking forward to the pumpkins! :)