Any recommendations for the best places to do that?
1 Like
Pretty much anywhere on the Internet. You never really know where youāll plant a seed with the right person and theyāll get curious and look into Sanders and, in turn, spread info all over the place.
You never know when youāll inadvertently hit up someone who is lurking around a forum and has hundreds of Facebook, Twitter, etc. followers and pings Sanders to everyone.
Some of the most obvious places can be preaching to the choir and what Sanders really needs is more outreach right now for those who donāt know heās not an Independent spoiler, etc.
Iām going to PM you some tips so I donāt derail this thread.
3 Likes
Not to pee in the punch, but I wonder if Sanders would be doing close enough to as well as he is to have made it worthwhile to stick closer to his principles? By remaining, that is, a socialist? Iāve long admired Chris Hedges, still find it hard to ignore what he has to say, as in this interview with Nader (who goes first here) ā
Bernie Sanders wants to break up the New York banks, he wants to impose a Wall Street transaction tax, he wants to regulate drug prices, heās for full Medicare for all ā everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital ā he wants to get rid of these corporate tax havens, heās pushing for a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, he wants to stronger labor unions. Whatās not to like?ā Nader asked Hedges.
āBecause he did it within the Democratic establishment,ā Hedges said. āHeās lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton.ā
āSo what he does is he takes all of that energy, he raises all of these legitimate issues and he funnels it back into a dead political system so that by April itās over.ā
āThat was the role of Van Jones in the last election,ā Hedges said. āHe was running around, using the language of Occupy ā Occupy the Vote ā and that is what Bernie has done. I donāt understand. He fought the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career. Now he has sold out to it.ā
āBernie has also not confronted the military industrial complex at all,ā Hedges said. āOn a personal level, having spent seven years in the Middle East, Iām just not willing to forgive him for abandoning the Palestinians and giving carte blanche to Israel. He was one of 100 Senators who stood up like AIPAC wind up dolls and approved Israelās 51-day slaughter last summer of Palestinians in Gaza ā the Palestinians who have no army, no navy, artillery, mechanized units, command and control.ā
The rest:
1 Like
Hmmā¦
Iām confused. I havenāt seen any Libertarian Socialists use the phrase āpull themselves up by their own bootstrapsā except to discredit it. Libertarian Socialism as I understand it is about removing the power imbalances that statism and capitalism tend to impose on people. Is that what you mean?
Not driving trollies, Iām just not used to the traditionally right wing phrases.
removing the power imbalances that statism and capitalism tend to impose on people.
That too. Being a slave to your job is no better than being a slave to your government. Thereās definitely the control versus freedom issue. It makes no difference to me whether someone is subject to a totalitarian government, a dogmatic church, or an all-powerful corporation- Loss of freedom is loss of freedom.
Part of it is that honestly, I believe in everything Ayn Rand said about capitalism being the ideal meritocratic system to reward peopleās intelligence, creativity, and hard work. However, that doesnāt mean she wasnāt catastrophically wrong about capitalismās inherent problems with power dynamics (and that any system can be gamed). Yes, I believe Rand and Marx were both right in their evaluations of capitalism, LOL. Itās not a perfect system, but itās the best one weāve come up with so far (I think itās time for a new and better one, though).
Finally, though, thereās the fundamental question of why we have governments in the first place. I believe that the role of government is to provide the foundation which private citizens and enterprise build on: Government builds roads, companies build cars, individuals start taxi companies and delivery services. Government provides education, those educated citizens create better businesses and vote for better, more effective government. The better an infrastructure that government provides, the more opportunity for entrepreneurs to grow the economy, innovate new technology, and all the other things that business is supposed to be good for.
Hope thatās enough of an explanation. Iām happy to elaborate if need be.
1 Like
āBernie has also not confronted the military industrial complex at all,ā Hedges said.
I never thought Iād be saying this about Hedges, howeverā¦ thatās an outright lie.
What planet is Hedges on? Sanders has spoken out against and confronted the military-industrial complex multiple times as well as voted against their interests.
Could Sanders do better? Sure. However, is there any other relevant politician who is better right now? Hell no. Not by a country mile.
It rhymes at least, Hedges.
Hedges is catastrophically wrong here on multiple levels. Heās acting like this is 2020 or 2024, instead of our current reality in 2015.
Under Hedgesā advisement, Sanders would be yet another fruitless, flaccid āprotestā candidate, if that.
With all due respect to Chris Hedges (and he is due quite a lot), heās unfortunately carrying on the inane, time-honored tradition of short-sighted, liberal self-sabatoge. What does he hope to achieve with his fruitless, anti-solidarity rhetoric right now?
With progressive friends like this ---- who needs conservative enemies?
If Chris Hedges thinks the American public is ready to elect a further left president than Sanders right now, heās terribly misinformed. If Hedges thinks heās right about this, I suggest he (or some other pipe dream candidate he approves of) runs for president and letās see how far they get running as an Independent spoiler against the entrenched Hillary machine.
At best, they would lose terribly. Not even a blip on the radar. Theyād be a circus āsideshow actā with most Americans not hearing their message. Clinton will handily win the election by simply ignoring them (because she easily could). At worst, their pipe dream āsideshow actā would siphon just enough votes away from Hllary to have her lose in an unexpectedly close race with a Republican.
Hedges must not have any idea how far that situation will set back progressive campaigns in the future. He mustnāt know that weāre already dealing with similar repercussions today. Itās clear to me he doesnāt have the pulse of the American public right now. Heās looking within his own bubble instead of looking outwardly at our current reality.
Hedges needs to step out of his bubble and get his ass to some Sandersā rallies and TALK to people.
If he had, heād know a critical factā¦
As it is now, most people who support Bernie Sanders werenāt interested in voting for Sanders only until after they were educated that he was not running as an Independent spoiler.
Many Americans are still under the impression (incorrectly or otherwise) that Nader ran as an Independent spoiler against Gore, and that helped to usher in a disastrous Republican administration. You can waste time spinning your wheels debating thatās untrue, but youāve already lost them by that point.
What Hedges is unwittingly saying is he wants yet another ping-pong bounce between Republicans and corporatist Democrats because he ridiculously wants all or nothing in 2016. Hedgesā āstrategyā will all but guarantee that Clinton or a Republican will win the presidency.
Currently, even if Hillary beats Sanders, she will then go on to beat the Republicans without anyone acting as a viable spoiler. It will be the first time in modern American history that weāve had consecutive Democratic administrations. How about we try that until we knock it and simply usher in another Republican administration on a silver platter? Thatās a hell of a lot better on tremendous levels than going back to the same, old destructive ping-pong approach weāve already been doing.
Chris Hedges is unwittingly attempting to keep the status quo in place instead promoting the first time in modern American history where we, at worst, have our country move slowly forward instead of massive regression after 8 years.
Via Chris Hedges:
āThat was the role of Van Jones in the last election,ā Hedges said. āHe was running around, using the language of Occupy ā Occupy the Vote ā and that is what Bernie has done. I donāt understand. He fought the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career. Now he has sold out to it.ā
If Bernie Sanders had run as an Independent spoiler, very few people would be supporting him right now. It would have been yet another moronic waste of time for progressives.
Apparently, Hedges is acting like heās never heard of the concept of reform. When Bernie Sanders wins, he can go about reforming the Democratic party as well as paving the way for future third party growth. With yet another win for Republicans by acting as a spoiler, that pathway would be sealed shut and put on hold yet another decade or even longer.
Chris Hedges is correct on one point. Heās right, he does not understand.
Sanders is an Independent running to win against an establishment, corporatist Democrat as a reformist Democrat. Unlike Hedges, Sanders spoke to people before deciding to run on a Democratic ticket. Sanders found out that heād might as well not run at all if he ran as an Independent.
I think Chris Hedges is a great person, but heās gone off the rails within this interview. I hope for the sake of all of us, he apologizes for his anti-solidarity rhetoric and turns his support behind Sanders instead of acting as a corporatist wet dream that will help to cause progressive infighting instead of solidarity that can pave the way to progressive third parties in the near future.
Thereās a part of me right now that wants to give up on Sandersā campaign because of progressives like Chris Hedges.
However, fortunately for meā¦ I did expect this lame shit from some progressives and I mentally prepared for this kind of self-defeatist crap beforehand. I didnāt expect it from someone like Hedges, but I hope this is just a momentary lapse in judgment for him.
Iām going to fight harder than ever for Sandersā campaign to make up for wayward, self-defeatist progressives like Hedges who lamely attempt to derail Sanders. I kind of needed a fucking break from work, but Iām going to double-down my efforts to support Sanders to help offset this drivel.
Iām not going to read, nor comment on the rest of Hedgesā interview. Iāve got important things to do and, frankly, Hedges is now just a ācircus sideshowā to me. At this point, heās just another part of the peanut gallery in the sidelines wasting our time.
6 Likes
I agree, mostly. But I think it is both more respectful and accurate to refer to peopleās party affiliations by actual name rather than lumping them together as āindependentā. Such as āGreen Partyā, etc. Itās reactionary to define them by who they are not, rather than who they are.
1 Like
I see your point. It wasnāt my intention to insult the Green Party. I like the Green Party and in an ideal world, Iād prefer if there was a viable Green Party candidate that could run right now against Sanders without helping to usher in yet another Republican administration or corporatist Democrat like Clinton.
That said, itās Hedges thatās saying Sanders should run as an Independent and thatās why Iām addressing the issue in that manner. My point about Nader was that most Americans think he ran as an Independent. They really donāt give a shit what party it was called. Thatās our reality. All they care about is that they think Nader helped to spoil the election and Sanders will do the same thing if he runs as an Independent right now.
If we had to sit and explain to people all the nuances of Naderās campaign on top of convincing them that Sanders wouldnāt be a potential spoiler, weād be wasting valuable time and losing mass amounts of potential voters in the process. Thereād be zero hope for Sanders. Thereād be no point.
I think itās highly debatable that Nader spoiled the race, but thatās beside the point. The point is if Sanders ran as an Independent or Green Party candidate, he might as well had not run at all. Thereād be very little support and I know for a fact thereād be critical, powerful grassroots organizations who wouldnāt have wasted their time on a plan guaranteed to fail. Sanders and Hedges would be sitting in a bubble together bitching about all the dire problems within the United States instead of performing lasting progressive actions with the power and influence of the executive branch emboldened by a huge grassroots movement.
Iām already seeing where Hedgesā bullshit is already causing internal nitpicking and distractions that are only going to help Hillary and/or Republicans win against Sanders. Iāve already given Hedges too much of my time already on this and the more I think about Hedges, the less Iām able to contain my anger with him. Iāve got real work to do. Hedges can spin his wheels within his defeatist, pipe dream bubble in the meantime.
Iām not going to wait on that pipe dream ārevolutionā that Chris Hedges called for some time ago. Yah knowā¦ the one that makes the rich āpanicā overnight with bullshit platitudes and zero real-world strategy? Get real, Hedges, youāre in a bubble.
2 Likes
I canāt speak for @MikeTheBard, but itās been distorted over time within the United States:
more:
2 Likes
Meanwhileā¦ hereās yet another reason why Americans should vote for Bernie Sanders:
Do we want a pandering flip-flopper who is funded by banksters who expect quid pro quo? Or, someone who has been consistent for decades and shuns bribes?
5 Likes
I guess I am suspicious about how āreal worldā party affiliations are in the first place. Would most of the people who voted for George W. Bush preferred somebody else if he had run in a different party, such as Libertarian? Would those who favor Hillary avoid her if she was not a Democrat? How much of the average voterās choice is really based upon what a given candidate stands for and brings to bear on issues? And what difference does the average voter assume that their party affiliation makes?
I have been in the US for 40+ years, and it still surprises me how precious little sense this makes.
1 Like
Also donāt forget it as one of the axis on the political compass: Conservative<=>Liberal, Authoritarian<=>Libertarian.
1 Like
I think itās about infrastructure to some large extent. One can have ideas that resonate with most of their potential, ideological base ā however, most Americans will never hear those ideas if one doesnāt have access to an infrastructure that can properly disseminate those ideas.
For example, If GW Bush had run on a Libertarian ticket, very few conservatives would have heard his message of tantalizing fear and macho warmongering.
Link above goes to Bush brochure I have that the Republican party mailed to their marks before his first presidential election.
I took a close look at the brochure back then before Bush was elected. Afterwards I said to my GF at the time, āIf Bush gets elected, this clearly shows heās going to take us into war in the Middle East based upon a repeat of Pearl Harbor.ā
Thatās why I saved the brochure. I wanted to see if it was a blueprint. Yep, it was.
I guess that resonated with 'merica and here we are today with mass deaths, trillions spent and ISIS.
Dependsā¦ If she ran on a Republican ticket, for example, I think plenty of progressives would avoid her. I mean, thereād be much more truth in advertising if she did that, but that would certainly work against her. Right now she gets to be a moderate Republican pandering to the left as a Democrat. I just hope that trickery stops working as well by 2016 for all our sakes.
Weāre about to find out.
Sanders is pushing a mostly issues-driven campaign. Watch his interviews with the corporate media who keep attempting to derail him. He waves them off and gets back onto the topic of the issues even against their will. Itās his thing. Itās obvious the corporate media wants him to stop discussing the issues. So does Hillary Clinton and most of her minions, for that matter.
Are voters going to be about cult of personality yet again or someone who speaks about the issues and has a lengthy track record to back him up? I guess weāll find out soon.
I sell the things you need to be
Iām the smiling face on your TV
Iām the Cult of Personality
I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
Iām the Cult of Personality
Cult Of Personality ā Living Colour
6 Likes
[quote=āKimmo, post:166, topic:59394, full:trueā]
Hmmā¦
[/quote]Mehā¦
Meanwhileā¦ Bernieās gonna need a bigger boatā¦ againā¦
The Vermont senator originally was to appear Saturday night at Comerica Theater, but now will speak at the Phoenix Convention Center.
The Comerica Theater seats 5,000 while the Phoenix Convention Center has rooms that can hold about 12,000 people.
Last Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump moved his Phoenix rally from a luxury hotelās ballroom to the Convention Center.
Trump reportedly drew 4,200 people inside the hall and countless more (CowEdit: pretty sure it was countable) people outside the event.
Sanders drew a reported 10,000 people at a Wisconsin appearance two weeks ago. (CowEdit: there was more outside the event, however the media doesnāt want to mention that, I suppose)
Meanwhileā¦
More people have contributed to Sandersā campaign than to any other candidate running for president, Democrat or Republican.
Think about how that above sentence is worded.
5 Likes
Meanwhileā¦ speaking of donations:
source: http://mic.com/articles/122405/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donors-2015
Hillary reminds me of another candidate:
New campaign filings reveal that an astounding portion of Jeb Bushās donors gave the maximum contribution
1 Like
FYI:
3 Likes
That does seem like an interesting perspective on political dialogue - take over someoneās event (when they actually support you), drown them out and accuse them of derailing when they want to talk about things that actually affect black lives.
2 Likes
Bravely done.
#BlackLivesMatter has managed to maintain some independence from the machine.
1 Like
