I think you may mean that you're a bunch of neoliberals who believe in oligarchic plutocracy.

@RoboGraham Nah that's far right.

@Storm1752 That is the democratic establishment. Which is why so many people are joining Bernie's democratic socialism bandwagon right now.

@RoboGraham ,No, it's the REPUBLICAN establishment who's into oligarchic plutocracy!
Jeez, get your labels straight.

@Storm1752

It's the republicans too.
Which party is Michael Bloomberg running in?

@RoboGraham I think you're just f--king with me.

@Storm1752

The republican establishment is very much plutocratic.

But so is the democratic establishment.

Bloomberg- He has 60 billion dollars, he was the mayor of the largest city in the nation, he owns a media conglomerate, and now he is running for president, in the democratic party. Can you think of any better example of a plutocratic oligarch than Michael Bloomberg?

@RoboGraham Yes.

@Storm1752

Who?

@RoboGraham It's not enough to have a lot of money to be a plutocrat in today's America. You must also spend lavishly on candidates who embrace policies which add to income inequality, deny climate, denounce public education, condemn progressive taxation, among other things,.
People like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Woody Johnson, Joe Ricketts, Foster Friess, Peter Thiel, Ken Langone, Norman Braman, and other Libertarian, Conservative, Objectivist (Ayn Rand philosophy of Makers and Takers) types.
Conversely, if you support candidates (or are a candidate yourself) who espouse policies which are progressive, you are not a plutocrat.
Trump is a plutocrat; Bloomberg is not.

@jorj I've said all I wish to say, made my point(s), and am done for now.
There's nothing I can add which wouldn't be repetitive.
I'd only recommend you look at Mike's positions, and compare them to those of the men I've mentioned,
Decide for yourself who are the elitist, dangerous, anti-democratic plutocrats working feverishly to strengthen our oligarchy, and who are working to re-energizere momentum toward egalitarian democracy.
Not one to paraphrase the book of lies, but---by their fruits thou shalt know them.

@jorj Mondale and Gore might've been better than Reagan II and W., though.
And I'd have taken Hillary over Rump any day.

@jorj We have a basic disagreement.
Not to be dismissive or rude, but if you disagree Dems are fundamentally preferable in almost every way there is no basis for further discussion.
There just isn't.

@jorj I DO believe Dems have starkly different agendas. To me, that is absolutely, without question, the case.

@jorj That's possibly because Pubs started being stubbornly obstructionist about that time.
One of the last times they weren't, we balanced the budget for the last time in probably our lifetimes.
I doubt they'll EVER abandon their utterly phony supply-side economic voodoo. It's too conveniently logical, given their false premises, as a justification for an endless series of tax cuts for the wealthy, and dismantling the New Deal.
I WILL admit, Obama--because of the perfect storm of Iraq and the 2008 Great Recession--squandered a golden opportunity to fundamentally change the dynamic, and instead blew it by actually believing the Pubs would compromise on ANYTHING.
Instead of plucking low-hanging fruit, he went for the health care Holy Grail and got crushed.
Other than that, the Pubs have had it their way and are in the process of turning back the clock to pre-Enlightenment days.

@jorj All good points, but given the political climate these days after Pubs successfully brainwashed so many gun nuts and Jesus freaks it might've been the best we could expect.
First the Pubs wreck the economy and get us into phony wars, then the Dems come in and clean up the mess as best they can, but always half measures and Band-Aids, not systemic change.
Hey I'm with you a political revolution is needed; I just don't think anything short of a MAJOR economic and/or military upheaval will be enough to provoke it, and I don't think Sanders is the right messenger.
I could be wrong, and I may vote for him in the primary, but I just don't want to see yet another Northeastern socialist go down in flames...even though I personally am one myself.
Like it or not, the country has lurched so far right it'd take a 'miracle' for a true liberal-progressive 'lefty' to get elected, and we simply cannot afford another four years being pushed around by ultra-right fanatics.
If Ralph Nader's would've faced reality in 2000, we never would've never had the 2008 meltdown and the Iraq disaster. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, as you well know.
I fear if we do the same now ANOTHER buffoon even worse than W. will continue to allow these fanatics more time to consolidate power and perhaps ruin our democracy for good.
These are not alarmist rantings and ravings; this is real. Are you really willing to roll those dice?

Yes indeed.

It is a dumb process when the person who gets the most votes does not win.