It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
Scientist won't do shit because politicians have them by the balls- and we all know who has Clinton by the balls. Let the cycle continue, until there is no more.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
Scientist won't do shit because politicians have them by the balls- and we all know who has Clinton by the balls. Let the cycle continue, until there is no more.
Glass half full vs glass half empty. It must suck to live such a cynical life.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
Scientist won't do shit because politicians have them by the balls- and we all know who has Clinton by the balls. Let the cycle continue, until there is no more.
Glass half full vs glass half empty. It must suck to live such a cynical life.
Well that's why I'm doing all I can to expose Clinton and fight for better leaders. I'm very optimistic, but I'm also aware of reality. Don't be so quick to judge a life based on a comment.
One comment, no judging. Every comment, a pattern forms.
You are not "exposing Clinton." You are repeating what people have been saying about her as far back as 1967 when she stirred the pot at her college graduation. I'm not sure how old you are (but you seem very young). If you ever get a chance, listen to her commencement address. She, too, had the audacity to speak out against "political corruption" and it landed her on the cover of a magazine. She then spent the rest of her life trying to change the world. Gee, am I telling her life story, or yours? Funny how some of us talk about changing the world, and others actually do it.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,971
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
I think most people are simply parochial in their day to day concerns. You have a job, kids to tend to, bills to pay, soccer practice, band, and you hope to have a few minutes at the end of the evening to spend with your significant other. You're not focused on political parties, but every four years, you are thinking about the presidency because it's in your face everyday for some period of time (like now). My wife is exactly like that. But before we get all judgy, she graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond business school and is a CPA. She is very smart, but politics don't interest her. There are a lot of 'soccer moms' exactly like her in the country. And she is repulsed by Trump. But once this is over, her concerns revert to the everyday issues, not the electoral system.
Most of us will want a "vacation" from politics once this election is over!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
Scientist won't do shit because politicians have them by the balls- and we all know who has Clinton by the balls. Let the cycle continue, until there is no more.
Clearly you don't know any scientists, or understand the fundamentals of how scientific integrity and consensus work. It's a tired line from the right, it's lazy and either misinformed or disingenuous.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
You're right... As per your last post and rgambs' response, lazy, misinformed or disingenuous lines can come from both right or left (or centrist for that matter).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the notion that the majority of people in the US believe the two-party system is still working for us (it's not, it's working for the top tier wealthy). But I believe that is going to change. We've seen the beginnings of that change already this year with Bernie's campaign. My hope is that more younger people keep getting/get involved to make a more-than-two party system work for everyone. My wish for younger generations is that you don't flake out like boomers mostly have. We had good ideals but we were spoiled and wanted it all. Younger generations will have to learn to live within the limits of resources and the value of sharing and ccreating a society that is at least closer to egalitarian.
Great post.
The idea that most people flake out and only focus on day to day concerns may be a reality, but it is ultimately a tragedy. For the future of our planet, our country, ourselves. For when we are near death, too many look back and wished that they cared more and didn't waste their lives away worrying about the day to day, about getting to work, about working late to buy that next big purchase. Caring about the big things: making a difference, being a part of a greater goal, and overturning a system that only works for the 1% to work for the rest of us.., that's what makes life richer. For everyone.
I completely agree with this.......... sadly, it will never happen. Or not for maybe 1000 years, or whenever the world is like Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. And you know how they ended up with that kind of society? WWIII almost totally destroyed humanity, societies around the world collapsed, so they were able to start from scratch. Oh, and they discovered warp drive. I know that's silly, but actually that level of upheaval - something globally catastrophic that completely destroys all major governments - is almost certainly what is needed for a world like the one you're describing to come out of what we currently have.... And even if that did happen, it could go either way as people try to reestablish society. Could be good or very very very bad. Unfortunately, greed and the need of some for power usually beats out higher ideals. Depressing and cynical I know, but it seems to be true, too. Yes, that is a tragedy. Seems that humans are a lot better at idealistic desires than they are at idealistic actions. But to be clear, I'm not saying this because I think we should just give up. That would be bad for the soul. And things can very realistically be better in the US specifically.... you just need a different system of government. Simple, right? Yeah, of course it will have to start with younger people being more involved, from the bottom up. Best case scenario, America is still at least a couple of generations away from any real positive change.
It really is frustrating because I just really believe someday many people are going so say, "Oh shit! Why didn't we do more?" And kids are going to be saying, "Why didn't you adults do something when you could? Why were you so shrieking stupid not to do something more?" (The language will go from "fucking" to "freaking" to "shrieking". You heard it here first).
Or another theory is that the next generation of scientists will figure out how to solve the problems our genration made, but also create new problems that their grandchildren will solve. It's evolutuon, baby!
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
Scientist won't do shit because politicians have them by the balls- and we all know who has Clinton by the balls. Let the cycle continue, until there is no more.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
Just because someone might be aware of the Clinton corruption, doesn't mean they're in support of Trump. Duh.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,971
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,971
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Moot point of course since Trump will either a) get a last minute call and tell us he "got a better offer" (vacation in the Bahamas) or b) will be annihilated in the upcoming election.
My money is that b) will happen.
But does Hillary really deserve to set records for the biggest win in POTUS elections ever? I don't think so!
The influence Sanders had on American politics is huge. I hope we see this trend continue. It will do us well for that to happen. Otherwise, it's the same old thing: either snails pace progress in a world in big trouble or regress which could be argued as a good thing (i.e. the sooner we humans do ourselves in the better).
I'm for making faster progress (what I see as being "progressive") and giving our species and thousands of others a fighting chance. Anything else means bad news for all of us large mammals.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Voting the less of 2 evils in the election with the least liked candidates in history doesn't say a whole lot.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Moot point of course since Trump will either a) get a last minute call and tell us he "got a better offer" (vacation in the Bahamas) or b) will be annihilated in the upcoming election.
My money is that b) will happen.
But does Hillary really deserve to set records for the biggest win in POTUS elections ever? I don't think so!
The influence Sanders had on American politics is huge. I hope we see this trend continue. It will do us well for that to happen. Otherwise, it's the same old thing: either snails pace progress in a world in big trouble or regress which could be argued as a good thing (i.e. the sooner we humans do ourselves in the better).
I'm for making faster progress (what I see as being "progressive") and giving our species and thousands of others a fighting chance. Anything else means bad news for all of us large mammals.
Tim Canova is poised to lose his primary to DSW, after all the outside money that was poured in, all the DNC madness, etc. The Sanders team is even exiting already. It doesn't really say a lot as to how deep and wide the movement is.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Moot point of course since Trump will either a) get a last minute call and tell us he "got a better offer" (vacation in the Bahamas) or b) will be annihilated in the upcoming election.
My money is that b) will happen.
But does Hillary really deserve to set records for the biggest win in POTUS elections ever? I don't think so!
The influence Sanders had on American politics is huge. I hope we see this trend continue. It will do us well for that to happen. Otherwise, it's the same old thing: either snails pace progress in a world in big trouble or regress which could be argued as a good thing (i.e. the sooner we humans do ourselves in the better).
I'm for making faster progress (what I see as being "progressive") and giving our species and thousands of others a fighting chance. Anything else means bad news for all of us large mammals.
Tim Canova is poised to lose his primary to DSW, after all the outside money that was poured in, all the DNC madness, etc. The Sanders team is even exiting already. It doesn't really say a lot as to how deep and wide the movement is.
Someone didn't see the strategically placed debate of a Sunday morning at 8 am so no one would watch DWS embarrass herself. He has a good chance of winning, you're not fooling anyone, nor has Sanders' support diminished.
I love how people assume that if you criticize the left you must be from the right.
That will happen when you criticize the left exclusively. You dont seem to have an interest in anything here but bashing the most progressive real candidate running for POTUS.
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
Dude, you couldn't be more clueless about me. And that part about "...most progressive real candidate running for POTUS"?
LMAO
I only know what you post here, and it is almost exclusively related to Clinton's corruption.
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
With all due respect Gambs, isn't referring to Clinton as "progressive" a stretch? More than Trump? Sure. But Ann Coulter is more progressive than Donald Trump, right?
Hahaha no Coulter makes Trump look like a smart progressive lol
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
Clinton is a closet republican at best posing as a progressive to earn Sanders supporters' votes. She will say anything for a vote.
I'm less concerned with what she says than what she will do ad POTUS. The answer to that question is that she will do much less damage to our country than her opponent.
Moot point of course since Trump will either a) get a last minute call and tell us he "got a better offer" (vacation in the Bahamas) or b) will be annihilated in the upcoming election.
My money is that b) will happen.
But does Hillary really deserve to set records for the biggest win in POTUS elections ever? I don't think so!
The influence Sanders had on American politics is huge. I hope we see this trend continue. It will do us well for that to happen. Otherwise, it's the same old thing: either snails pace progress in a world in big trouble or regress which could be argued as a good thing (i.e. the sooner we humans do ourselves in the better).
I'm for making faster progress (what I see as being "progressive") and giving our species and thousands of others a fighting chance. Anything else means bad news for all of us large mammals.
Tim Canova is poised to lose his primary to DSW, after all the outside money that was poured in, all the DNC madness, etc. The Sanders team is even exiting already. It doesn't really say a lot as to how deep and wide the movement is.
Someone didn't see the strategically placed debate of a Sunday morning at 8 am so no one would watch DWS embarrass herself. He has a good chance of winning, you're not fooling anyone, nor has Sanders' support diminished.
The local political shows are on early, followed by the national shows. That's how it works down there. You think NBC Miami is going to put a congressional debate on prime time in one of the biggest markets in America?
And where are DWS supporters? There are none unless you count corporate interests...
Srsly Dude, anyone backing DWS at this point is a fool. Being publicly shamed and fired wasn't enough.
So you think the corporate interests are the ones casting votes in her district? I guess we'll see what happens on primary day, but the winds of change are not blowing for Canova right now, hence the strategists exiting.
I'm not saying I would vote for her, but she's not my rep so it doesn't matter what I think. I'm just making the point that all of these outside interests have donated millions to Canova and it doesn't seem to be working. It's not that much different than the dude that tried to unseat Ryan last week. I think he lost by 50.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,971
Trying to dissuade people who are truly in favor of a progressive movement from continuing to support that movement is like trying to persuade Pearl Jam fan that that band sucks. Good luck with that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
And where are DWS supporters? There are none unless you count corporate interests...
Srsly Dude, anyone backing DWS at this point is a fool. Being publicly shamed and fired wasn't enough.
So you think the corporate interests are the ones casting votes in her district? I guess we'll see what happens on primary day, but the winds of change are not blowing for Canova right now, hence the strategists exiting.
I'm not saying I would vote for her, but she's not my rep so it doesn't matter what I think. I'm just making the point that all of these outside interests have donated millions to Canova and it doesn't seem to be working. It's not that much different than the dude that tried to unseat Ryan last week. I think he lost by 50.
Watching someone side with big corporate interests is kinda pathetic. You're either a robot or one of those corporate interests.
Trying to dissuade people who are truly in favor of a progressive movement from continuing to support that movement is like trying to persuade Pearl Jam fan that that band sucks. Good luck with that.
Comments
I mean, would you want to live in Pittsburgh 100 years ago?
You are not "exposing Clinton." You are repeating what people have been saying about her as far back as 1967 when she stirred the pot at her college graduation. I'm not sure how old you are (but you seem very young). If you ever get a chance, listen to her commencement address. She, too, had the audacity to speak out against "political corruption" and it landed her on the cover of a magazine. She then spent the rest of her life trying to change the world. Gee, am I telling her life story, or yours? Funny how some of us talk about changing the world, and others actually do it.
It's a tired line from the right, it's lazy and either misinformed or disingenuous.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Stein couldn't make the debates even if everyone who knows who she is suddenly threw her their support.
LMAO
And yes, she is the more progressive of the two real candidates.
the election is rigged
The NBA Draft is rigged
Everything is rigged toward the elite
D'uh
Just because someone might be aware of the Clinton corruption, doesn't mean they're in support of Trump. Duh.
Clinton is certainly center-left, but she's definitely the most progressive candidate that has a chance at the Oval Office!
My money is that b) will happen.
But does Hillary really deserve to set records for the biggest win in POTUS elections ever? I don't think so!
The influence Sanders had on American politics is huge. I hope we see this trend continue. It will do us well for that to happen. Otherwise, it's the same old thing: either snails pace progress in a world in big trouble or regress which could be argued as a good thing (i.e. the sooner we humans do ourselves in the better).
I'm for making faster progress (what I see as being "progressive") and giving our species and thousands of others a fighting chance. Anything else means bad news for all of us large mammals.
And about Team Sanders... http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/tim-canova-bernie-sanders-strategists-226936
And where are DWS supporters? There are none unless you count corporate interests...
Srsly Dude, anyone backing DWS at this point is a fool. Being publicly shamed and fired wasn't enough.
I'm not saying I would vote for her, but she's not my rep so it doesn't matter what I think. I'm just making the point that all of these outside interests have donated millions to Canova and it doesn't seem to be working. It's not that much different than the dude that tried to unseat Ryan last week. I think he lost by 50.