Out of doubt, out of dark to the day’s rising
I came singing into the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope’s end I rode and to heart’s breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
~King Theoden
1 Like
It’s funny you use a cartoon metaphor, because I think of Wile E. Coyote in times like this. I’m one of those weird kids that actually rooted for that ingenious starving beast, and I always wondered why he never tried the same gimmick twice. Sure, that time he got his foot caught in the rope, but if he hadn’t it totally would have worked! He just needs to try it again and be a little more careful.
Bernie Sanders is not the same person as Obama. He’s also, by all accounts, a lot less naive than Obama was coming in. Obama surrounded himself with crappy advisers with conflicted interests. I’m a hundred percent sure Sanders won’t do the same.
I will say this: Look at the alternative. And I’m not talking about the slew of obvious losers that are chomping at the bit for the Republican nomination, but the downright barefaced political opportunist that is Clinton.
7 Likes
Should it surprise anyone that wealth inequality has increased in a land of political money where debt is created and used to finance state-approved goals? Why don’t we start with ending the fed rather than treating the symptom by raising taxes?
1 Like
I’m the same way with Wile E. Coyote (super genius).
I’m not against Sanders. If he is the Dem nom. Great! But I do not understand the blind faith so many seem to have in him. It just feels like a sick re-hash of “Hope & Change” which was such a disappointment.
I do think Sanders is much less naive and has more autonomy. I’m just skeptical that any president can make the changes that need to be made. Hard to make sweeping changes from the top down. Sometimes easier from the bottom up as we’re seeing with Marijuana reform.
I think cow and I are much closer in general politically (I recognize and like lots of cowcide’s posts) than either of our posts here may indicate. Just a difference of opinion on the personality in question in this case.
Should it surprise anyone that wealth inequality has increased in a land of political money where debt is created and used to finance state-approved goals? Why don’t we start with ending the fed rather than treating the symptom by raising taxes?
3 Likes
Will we also reclaim the workplaces from the shareholders and bosses, then start running them with democratic workers councils for the benefit of the community? I’m not interested if you won’t do that.
7 Likes
The Teabags made a pretty quick change in the makeup of the House – time to turn the tables (their voting base should really be behind Sanders if they truly voted for what is best for them).
2 Likes
Nah, only seeking equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Real-life fairness rather than state-imposed, get it?
And always remember- this pointing at the opposition and blaming them for obstruction is a total red herring. The dems had their double majority soon after the '08 election, and look what they did with it. The entire system needs a huge shake up, and may I suggest that part of that would be electing someone who is not even part of the two party system. Hey! Look at the topic. What a coincidence, eh?
1 Like
You want to work locally? Try pulling your 401k funds out of wall street and invest them in your community. Find a way to pull every dime you touch out of wall street - find better places to invest.
1 Like
[quote=“bonetithed, post:18, topic:59913”]
History has proven most cynicism related to politics to be pretty on the money.
[/quote]So what? Perpetual cynics and naysayers also tend to sit on their asses on the sidelines while gains are made by others who have the audacity to change things despite the odds. Cynics don’t propel humanity forward. If all we did was listen to cynics, we’d still be shitting in caves. Yay… cynics… (snooze)
“Pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reproduces itself by crippling our willingness to act.”
― Howard Zinn
'll just leave this here from that paper:
"Holding cynical beliefs about others has negative economic outcomes unless such beliefs hold true. … (I also have no problem with my income… But cute attempted dig?)
The little winky guy at the door to the link should have told you it was a joke. It appears your cynicism has clouded your judgment and you’re wrong about my intentions there.
And yes that is a ‘bumper sticker slogan’ regardless of the thought behind it
Oh, joy… you’re going to be pedantic now.
Sorry, but I lose most interest once the trite, semantic argument spiel gets rolled out.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree that irregardless of the methodologies behind the concept (and their proven effectiveness), it all just boils down to a trite, meaningless “bumper sticker slogan”.
Net Neutrality wasn’t destroyed… It was voted for. And thank god. I think you have your terms in reverse there…
Re-read what I wrote. More slowly this time.
But even that battle isn’t over, nor is it a significant ‘win’ yet.
No progressive battle is ever over, ever…
There will always be assholes who screw things up for the rest of us until we evolve as a species. It’s our human condition. That why they’re often called “struggles” (see civil rights).
Nonetheless, for you to label the latest victories for Net Neturaality as “insignificant” pretty much shows me that you weren’t someone who spent much time (if any at all) actually fighting for it. It was a hell of a fight that took a hell of a lot of persistence, unpaid time, resources, fortitude and resistance to constant, droning, cynical naysaying from people who didn’t lift a finger to help.
Sanders is making the same promises Obama made.
Nope, wrong. Go educate yourself on that and get back with me. There are plenty of differences.
How many more times would you like Lucy to hold that football for you?
Have you looked at Sander’s voting record yet?
• Bush’s tracking citizens’ phone call patterns is illegal. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
• Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
• Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
• Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
• Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
• Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
• Endorsed as “preferred” by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women’s rights. (Aug 2012)
• Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
• Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
• Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
And, that’s just some of the stuff that focuses on civil rights… if I showed everything else you’d be scrolling for a very, very long time…
I agree there is such ‘progress’ but it is glacial
I can mostly agree with you there. Destruction is often rather quick and easy while building positive things can often take a lot of foundational care and time. However, there are times when progress move quite fast in the right environment. There’s some nuance there.
you’re better off putting your efforts into local work than backing a presidential nominee.
That’s terrible advice. It’s not that simple. Depending upon the specific issues, one effort can be very well stunted without the other. In other words ---- local, statewide and national efforts are very often symbiotic.
FYI, despite being up against one of the world’s most powerful lobbyists (pharmaceutical industry) among many other powerful foes (and plenty of cynical naysayers) others and myself worked locally, statewide and nationally to be the first state in the USA to get marijuana decriminalized (and now many others are following suit). We’re now also working on getting people out of prison and their records expunged. If you had worked with us on that and many other agendas, you’d know that a symbiotic strategy is what it really takes to move progressive agendas forward.
2 Likes
Who said anything about state-imposed?
5 Likes
So I take it you’re all for abolishing financial inheritance, then? Just for starters, I mean. And since you must be, given your logic, please do tell who, other than the state, would impose such a limitation?
But Bernie’s running as a Democrat. Interesting, no?
non_statist
I can’t wait to hear more of your highly original, neo-libertarian ideas on horrible debt and evil, statist goals that only seem to manifest themselves outside of corporate entities.
5 Likes
No. A lot of people say they are angry, but most of those will continue to vote for “their” people, the same old faces they have always voted for.
The majority of the population, though, is mildly concerned, if at all. Not concerned enough to overcome political inertia. When the time comes to cast the ballot, they will be wary of making changes… just as they have been conditioned to be.
[quote=“howaboutthis, post:35, topic:59913”]
No. A lot of people say they are angry, but most of those will continue to vote for “their” people, the same old faces they have always voted for.
[/quote]Evidence doesnt support your supposition. If your premise was correct, then Obama would have lost to “old face” Hillary Clinton.
Similar to our current situation, Hillary Clinton began her presidential bid as the overwhelming favorite and party establishment pick.
As we now know, despite the many naysayers… newcomer Obama beat “old face” Clinton.
The majority of the population, though, is mildly concerned, if at all.
I presented evidence that shows that Americans are increasingly concerned with disparity and increasingly supportive of doing something urgent about it.
A sense of urgency isn’t a symptom of “mild concern”.
1 Like
Obama is different in name only. Six of one, half dozen of the other. That is not the kind of change I was talking about.
As far as the polls go, what people say they want and what they actually vote for when the time comes may be quite different. It’s as if a lot of people lose their nerve on the way to the polls. Or they were never really as upset as they thought.
Time will tell, but I suspect the same basic players will be back in power after the next election.
[quote=“howaboutthis, post:37, topic:59913”]
Obama is different in name only. Six of one, half dozen of the other. That is not the kind of change I was talking about.
[/quote]You’re attempting to rearrange the goal posts. The point is that your supposition that only “old faces” like Clinton can win is wrong.
Someone with less name recognition ended up beating Clinton. Sanders can beat Clinton despite the fact she is the party establishment pick.
As far as the polls go, what people say they want and what they actually vote for when the time comes may be quite different.
You’re attempting to rearrange the goal posts yet again.
You made the baseless claim that most people are only “mildly concerned” about disparity.
I showed you evidence several times that proved you wrong. Evidence (beyond your baseless conjecture) shows that a strong majority say that wealth should be more evenly divided and that it is a problem that should be addressed urgently.
And, as far as the polls go, they show that someone like Sanders who has a long track record of fighting against disparity has the advantage over someone like Hillary Clinton who does not.
You may “feel” otherwise, but the facts don’t support your suppositions.
1 Like
I’ve already offered evidence with links throughout this thread that shows exactly why Sanders will be incredibly helpful with grassroots movements to reform Congress, etc.
I’d like to see your counter-evidence. In the meantime, here’s yet more evidence in support of Sanders:
(emphasis mine)
" …In addressing this and many other issues, he encouraged grassroots organizing, adopted local laws to protect the vulnerable, challenged the city’s business power brokers, and worked collaboratively with other politicians to create a more livable city. … "
1 Like
