But Trump is an improvement. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re one of the stupid people who doesn’t know Duverger’s Law.
Makes you a loser and Donald Trump appreciated your support.
Not worth responding to the rest. Not worth the time. Go to hell.
Trump thanks you for your support.
Donald Trump appreciates your support!
It’s called Duverger’s Law. Smart people know it. Dumb people don’t.
Thank you for being smart.
And you’re saying black people are stupid for not knowing that. Or stupid for knowing it but still supporting her.
That’s your position. Either realize it isn’t what you feel and change it or own it.
This hand-wringing third option isn’t working because we’re not as stupid as you think the black population is.
Yes. And everyone who did not support Clinton in the primary election is responsible.
Some of them are still gleeful about it too.
This is the long view of my OP. I wasn’t there with Bernie in Burlington but I was with him a few years before he did announce and was glad I was when he did run. I lasted a little longer than you but I finally got tired of apologizing for his bullshit and his dumbass fan club.
Because of “ideological purity” or some such horse shit. You don’t have to support her in the Primary, you don’t have to like her, but once that is over, vote AGAINST Trump. It was that simple.
Epic Fail.
Bernie’s candidates keep losing. What does that tell us? There’s no evidence that America’s ready for a Bernie revolution; in fact, probably the opposite is true. Americans in Trump country and probably throughout much of centrist and moderate left-leaning America don’t want revolution; they probably want political evolution instead.
I’m also getting fed up with all of this “independent” nonsense. The greatest leaders in our country were pragmatic partisans, not “independents”. Their candidacies expressed a clear platform based on a clear value system, and then they stayed in the party to hold it accountable for bringing that into effect.
This is something that I find a little bit underhanded about Bernie’s recent political career. He’s not really interested in changing the Democratic party; he just wants to use it as a vehicle to gain attention. Is it his right to do this? Sure. But it’s not going to succeed in doing anything other than weakening what is currently an opposition party – his candidates are losing, not winning, after all. And with that being said, I think most progressives can agree that there has never been a more important time to have a strong opposition party than right now. Weakening that party for the sake of some personal crusade is just off-the-charts egotistical and irresponsible for someone who has Bernie’s level of political experience and expertise. He understand the potential implications of his behavior, yet continues to engage in it anyway.
A crypto-fascist is anyone who claims to be a “progressive” who is, in reality, a right-winger. So, basically, the typical American liberal. It also applies to centrists. Basically, right-wingers in sheep’s clothing.
While nationalization would be nice, that’s not a requirement. Bernie certainly ain’t for it. He’s basically a social democrat. But still, that’s a hell of an improvement over the mess we’ve got now.
Bernie did hella well in the primary in rural areas the country-wide. So Bernie’s messages does resonate there. Find another broken record, please.
That’s where we’re headed anyway, so why not take a chance on a wild card? Ain’t a thing to lose.
It was Clinton who colluded with the Repiglickins and destroyed what was left of the safety net. Since then, Dems have been more than happy to go along with destroying it further. So no, there isn’t much of a difference left.
Also… why hello there, Fallacy of Relative Privation! Funny, I keep seeing you around. It’s almost as if people still think the “but people are starving in Africa!” argument holds any water. :rolleyes: Bonus points for throwing “But you have the internet!” in there.
Newsflash, it’s 2018. People in rural villages in Africa have smartphones now. buzz! try again.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Oops.
I indeed do, thanks. But that doesn’t obligate me in any way to support someone just cuz “lesser evil”. Sorry.
And he’s welcome. And so is everyone who thought Hillary - diving into a pool full of piss - was better than Trump - diving into a pool full of shit.
Well congratulations on finding two (or more writers) who agree with you, but let’s not confuse editorials with hard evidence. There is no evidence at all that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump, and as I said in the previous post: don’t just look at the fact that Bernie Sanders lost to the Democratic nominee by 3 million votes; look also at what has happened since then. Look at the Bernie Sanders wing of the party – how successful has Democratic Socialism been since November of 2016? Not very.
I will acknowledge one thing: the same energy that fueled Bernie Sanders’ unexpected rise during the 2016 is also fueling progressive some badly needed energy in local races. So the same kind of insurgency is starting to pump life into progressive causes, with more activism on things like women’s rights, immigrants rights, confronting police brutality and racism, and gun control – I think the Bernie energy is there. But I’m not sure it’s really Bernie who’s responsible for this. More like an entire recoiling in horror at the naked ambitions of the radical right wing and deciding that we’re going to do something about it. I agree completely that the Democratic establishment needs to find a way to make room in its party for these kinds of progressives, but at the same time, these progressives need to be pragmatic and understand they don’t always get to control the progressive agenda. There’s more than one way to define it, too.
Yes, people in African villages have smartphones now. Worldwide, hunger and extreme poverty have plummeted in recent years, while literacy and other positive measures have risen.
So why does the left wing gripe about how the PTB are supposedly taking us all to hell in a handbasket?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, basically just a snarl word for anyone that doesn’t agree with everything you say. Got it.
Nationalization of what, exactly? I am for the govt in sectors where govt makes sense, but I do believe that the private sector is better for many things, especially as far as distribution of non-essential goods and services. You need healthcare, I think that the govt should make sure that happens. You want a pony, go buy your own fucking pony.
Even in the cases of distribution of necessities, the private sector still does better than the govt, and it should be more on the govt to ensure that its citizens have the resources to attain the things they need, than to provide them directly.
Trump’s own pollsters admitted Bernie would’ve stomped him. The fact that Hillary was such a weak-ass piece of shit candidate that she managed to lose to Trump. Trump!
Jesus Murphy on a pogo stick, you just can’t admit that someone who managed to lose to Cheeto “grab 'em by the pu$$y” Benito was a shit ass candidate and would’ve been much better off stepping aside for a real progressive, can you?
And you would be amazed at what can collapse and who can lose when they’re systemic corruption and rigging going on. I love how y’all bring up “Bernie lost”. Bernie only lost because the DNC rigged the system.
Lol! Thanks for the laugh!
I get along with plenty of people I have disagreements with. I’m a Trotskyist. I get along with Maoists (except for the tankies), Luxembourgists, democratic socialists, social democrats, Posadists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists… the line is drawn at that center vertical axis on the political spectrum. Anything and anyone to the right of that line is, at their roots, anti-civilization (civilization is defined by the hard fact of the nature of social animals from bees to horses - always takes a form that is translatable to a human left-wing ideology).
nationalization in essential areas such as health Care and utilities, a mixed system elsewhere, in non essentials. Basically a “public option” for nonessential electronics, cars, etc.
Because the fact they have smartphones doesn’t change the fact that there is still a widespread underclass and that underclass is suffering and struggling, despite the flowery, but misleading and incomplete (no surprise you didn’t bring up the widening wealth gap, disparities in lifespan for rich vs poor, etc), statistics y’all “glass half full” types like to trot out. Y’all are a trip and a half, really. I’d be willing to bet that when radios hit the bottom of the economic pyramid in the late 1960s or so, people were making the same damn arguments.
“They have radios and the colonial powers have left, so why are y’all damn hippies complainin’?!”
For the suffering to end, and for humanity to have any kind of future that isn’t a continuation of the current dystopian novel we’re living in, true progressivism is needed.
The predictions of trump’s pollsters do not interest me. That you would take the opinion of people working for trump as gospel from above is pretty silly.
Yes, they rigged the system by having more people vote for hillary. We shouldn’t have allowed that, and instead overturned the will of the people to get what you want.
So, you get along with about 5% of those on the radical fringes of the left. That’s not a very good way to build a coalition. I get along with most people, on both sides of the aisle and all parts of the political spectrum. Sometimes people to the right of mehave good ideas, sometime it is the people to the left. To impose some sort of purity test before you even get into the ideas is foolhardy at best.
So, nationalize everything? I’m all for nationalizing services that the private sector is not able to provide, but the private sector is actually capable of proving the vast majority of everything we want or need. There is no reason to have a public option for non-essentials. Capitalism is really the best way of distributing limited resources to cover unlimited desires. It does have the downside of letting far too many people fall through the cracks, which is where a nationalized system to provide necessities is useful.
But nationalizing everything means an abrupt end to innovation and growth.
Trump’s own pollsters are entitled to believe whatever they want, but considering they never ran against each other, they’re merely speculating, as you are. The evidence that matters is voting behavior, not polling. And the voting behavior does not support your arguments (or theirs, for that matter).
I’ve already addressed the other points in your posts numerous times with multiple posters, so I’ll save some keystrokes.
What I’d leave you with is a thought, and that thought is that real change requires multiple ingredients. Real change requires passion and a good value system, and I’ll give Bernie his due – he definitely possesses these attributes and that’s what I’ve always liked about him as a Senator. And I appreciated his raising the profile of certain issues as a protest candidate.
But I think that some of Bernie’s contingent - and even Bernie himself at times - forget that real changes also requires opportunity and strategy. You can bang your head against the wall if you want and demand purity from other progressives but if the opportunity isn’t there to nationalize the health system, then its not there. And if you don’t have a strategy to capitalize on the opportunities that do exist, then you essentially do nothing at all and end up giving conservatives control of the agenda, which is partly how we ended up with an obstructionist congress after 2010 and partly why Obama found it much, much more difficult to deliver the goods for his progressive base after that point. It doesn’t help that people pick and choose the elections in which they want to participate in and pick and choose times when they want to select the progressive party.
And in the meantime, while people sit around and wait for purity, we’re living with the consequences. If war breaks out in North Korea - totally preventable I’d add - will it have been worth it to allow Trump to win, just to crash the system?
Clintonites love to dance around this because whether Sanders would have beaten Trump is something that can never be proved conclusively.
That said nearly all evidence that does exist suggests that yes, Sanders would have beaten Trump.
Sounds like a dystopia, all right. What a nightmare! :rolleyes:
I mean, what kind of world will it be in another 37 years if this trend continues?!? :dubious:
That’s silly. Sanders was a target rich environment, and there is no evidence that Americans in swing states are ready to elect a radical left winger—or they would have done so in the Senate or for governor. There are dozens of elections for those offices in those states over the past decade: where are these proof-of-concept test cases?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whack-A-Mole summed it up quite well. The evidence speaks for itself. See below as well.
Cheese and crackers, you’re denser than my homie Skelly. Love him, but that brotha doesn’t know a filibuster from a philodendron…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea/amphttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dnc+corruption
Have fun. Sorry the truth hurts.
You believe that social democrats, who I mentioned and are the most moderate you can be on the left without being a centrist or right winger, are part of the “radical fringes of the left.”
Ooh, ooh, lemme guess - you think American style liberals are “left” too, right? Lol. Give an average liberal the political compass test and they almost always end up on the right or dead ass center. The fact you think social democrats are “extreme left” speaks to this.
But hey, I’m not surprised, Mr./Mrs. I Get Along With Everyone. If I gave enough of a fuck to look into it I’d probably find you in a thread about the neonazis/alt-righters/etc defending their freeze peach. :rolleyes: surprisingly, I don’t have such tolerance for people who think I’m subhuman and worthy of the gas chamber because I’m dark skinned, disabled, and like to boink other dudes.
I never said a danggone thing about nationalizing everything being (absolutely) necessary. There can be room for a private-sector in non-essential Industries. However, I believe that there should be a public option in said Industries.
“Capitalism is really the best way” my Aunt Fanny. There’s a reason why my generation, who is having to foot the bill for Reaganomics and more, now favors socialism over capitalism.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html
(Side note: those clowns at the “Victims of Communism Foundation” can kiss my big black ass. BadMouseProductions did an excellent takedown of “Communism killed a jillion kapillion tillion people and capitalism is awesome!!!” Here: https://youtu.be/QnIsdVaCnUE)
And fucking lol again. Bernie is a “radical left winger” like my name is Archibald Aloysius Von Heisselberg VII. He’s a * social democrat!* If he sneezes too hard he’d end up with one foot in the center!
And Oh, my Lord. Lol! You can get a full deck to play with at Walmart for like two bucks, grab one.
$1.90 a goddamn day is where that line is set. Let’s see you survive on $2 a day - above that “extreme poverty line” - and see how you do. Lol. But I guess, to you, stopping people at “regular poverty”, which is staggering and growing, is cause for celebration.
Yes.
Okay, well, at least you’re an honest broker.
So what you’re saying, then, if I understand you correctly, is that a war with North Korea that potentially kills hundreds of thousands of people, a war with Iran that kills another few hundred thousand people, a possible trade war and massive deficits that devastate our economy…all that would be worth sending the Democratic party a message that they can’t just assume you will show up and vote AGAINST these things.
Seems to me your bottom line is you’re angry at the system and you insist that everyone be as irrationally angry as you are, or you’re taking your ball and going home. That’s now how progress is made but I’m not going to convince you. As I’ve said numerous times before on this thread, the only thing that will convince you is for you to personally live the consequences of your voting behavior. Not just you, but everyone. That’s why I’m a chicken little (and I’m right for being one by the way) - because I know that the only way an ignorant society like ours will ever truly understand what it takes to value democracy is to flirt with its destruction. Hopefully that flirtation doesn’t go too far.