All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
As a millennial born in 92 I can say that I was huge on the Sanders train during the primary, along with a good chunk of my friends. Now I realize there are 4 choices. Johnson does not have anything going for him other than social issues, his economic and environmental views rule him out. The green party is too ridiculous and "hands off". Then we're left with Trump and Clinton and I know which one would make a better president. Some of my friends are either not sure if they want to vote or possibly going with a 3rd party as more of a "stick it to the man" type of vote, but really neither of the 3rd party options are great. Most of the millennials I am friends with are leaning with the best candidate for the job, even though we originally hated that choice.
"Stick it to the man" sounds great, but ultimately the choice is yours. I'm voting with my principles and values. They may not mean much in today's world, however they still represent something for me. I'm hoping that in the near future we go back to valuing honesty and good moral judgement.
Lastly if Trump is elected it wouldn't be your fault. The DNC has to do a better job of rigging general elections, not just primaries.
The argument goes that most will vote their colours (red or blue), and that the tipping point to get Obama into office was his success in appealing to younger voters. Based on this, it's just mathematical:
Trump voters = voters who regularly vote Republican minus voters lost due to Trump's policy/personality plus voters gained due to Clinton's policy/personality.
Clinton voters = voters who regularly vote Democrat minus voters lost due to Clinton's policy/personality including young voters who weren't properly addressed by Clinton plus voters gained due to Trump's policy/personality.
Unfortunately, if you buy into this equation with the assumption that neither Green nor Libertarian will suddenly have enough votes to be serious contenders, then yes - a vote lost by Clinton effectively is a push for Trump, because a voter for Clinton sitting out does not mean that a voter for Trump will.
'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
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
'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
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
'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
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?
It's a real problem. Unless it's shown to disenfranchise minorities, there's little that can be done.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?
Free, I wish I had an answer. All I'm trying to say is that the path to progress is through the path of least resistance. You feel that's through winning the Presidency. I feel it's through reclaiming the supporting levels of government. It's frustrating not to have the answer, but I still say that with the way civilians were mobilized for Bernie Sanders, that was an awe-inspiring effort to witness. Half of that could put at least some progressive minds in Congress, and some would be better than what we're seeing today.
'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
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,306
Free, benjs, good question- how to get rid of gerrymandering. Or for that matter, corruption in politics in general. Where do we start with that? Was the Bernie campaign that start or will it just dissipate over time? I sometimes think either Clinton or Trump being elected will set something in motion as a result of all the dissatisfaction we are seeing. Taken from that angle, a Trump presidency would get us there faster that way but a) too many deaths due to heart attack and depression would result and b) he won't win anyway so those who are concerned about that-- really, I wish they would relax. I have friends who are already FREAKING OUT over the possibility. This is bad for the heart, bad for the digestion, bad for the skin. I try to tell them, "Please, stop killing yourself over this. It's not the end of the world and if that end becomes imminent you will know it and then it's time to part one more time".
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?
Free, I wish I had an answer. All I'm trying to say is that the path to progress is through the path of least resistance. You feel that's through winning the Presidency. I feel it's through reclaiming the supporting levels of government. It's frustrating not to have the answer, but I still say that with the way civilians were mobilized for Bernie Sanders, that was an awe-inspiring effort to witness. Half of that could put at least some progressive minds in Congress, and some would be better than what we're seeing today.
Bernie's message was to get a movement of progressive community leaders out the rerunning for office - and they are. We have to support them to carry on the movement. But it's a war between establishment and progress. In addition to getting rid of gerrymandering, How do we make progress in govt when money in politics dictate outcome?
In One of my states districts, a Bernie endorsed candidate is fighting a republican who has, like Clinton, used billionaire money to get where he is. He is a nobody, but a superpac got him where he is. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57b21d62e4b0718404126567
This needs to change, the landscape has to change. We have to start at the bottom now because corruption stopped Bernie, but it will take a long time before money really is banned from elections, gerrymandering is stopped, and more when working from the bottom.
Look at history, how much history was made by drastic measures and massive resistance? how much history has been made by the least?
Look at history, how much history was made by drastic measures and massive resistance? how much history has been made by the least?
Gotta disagree here, assuming you are advocating drastic change... I would not advise you use the term massive resistance. It has a very negative connotation in this country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance
Drastic measures and changes have rarely led to positive outcomes: French Revolution led to the Jacobans followed by Napoleon (and empire) Red October led to Lenin and Stalin Iranian Revolution led to the Iran we have today Chinese Revolution led to the Cultural Revolution Spanish Revolution led to Francisco Franco. Confederate revolution in this country led to casualties that dwarfed those sustained by the US in WWI and II
The US Revolution was hardly one of the people.
Just saying... massive upheaval has rarely led to a better society in the aftermath. Bernie's message is one of grassroots change. That is not drastic change, that is working through the established system.
Glenn Beck on CNN - Talking about Never Trump and Never Clinton. He has a new image. Is he still a crazy nut job? Never thought I'd see the day where he'd be a guest on CNN or MSNBC. He's even got a new look. ... wow .
Glenn Beck on CNN - Talking about Never Trump and Never Clinton. He has a new image. Is he still a crazy nut job? Never thought I'd see the day where he'd be a guest on CNN or MSNBC. He's even got a new look. ... wow .
He went super weird on the Ted Cruz thing. He talked about how God sent Cruz or something. Drudge Report shredded him everyday until Cruz dropped. War of the Roses.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
To me, you're saying that we need a pretty much perfect situation in Congress to be ready for a progressive 3rd party candidate to take the helm (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means voting out our stagnant, greedy and lazy current reps. Which sounds great but not likely with a lot of gerrymandering going on. What we need to is what Polaris mentioned. Explosion or implosion.
First, Free, I don't know if you realize this, but we want the same thing: a progressive government which truly represents the will of the people, and factors in what is right and just, and not just what generates the most profit. In other words - we want noble politicians.
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
And how has getting rid of gerrymandering worked on this election? Again - I personally believe there will be less friction involved in getting past the intentionally designed barriers in Congress, than in the Presidency.
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?
Free, I wish I had an answer. All I'm trying to say is that the path to progress is through the path of least resistance. You feel that's through winning the Presidency. I feel it's through reclaiming the supporting levels of government. It's frustrating not to have the answer, but I still say that with the way civilians were mobilized for Bernie Sanders, that was an awe-inspiring effort to witness. Half of that could put at least some progressive minds in Congress, and some would be better than what we're seeing today.
it may theoretically make sense until you see how much money is being funneled into local elections ...
How could we know how millennials are going to vote without polls? Surely we aren't using polls to come to that conclusion, that wouldn't make any sense because polls mean nothing.
Anyway, this millennial and his millennial wife will be voting for the most qualified (though severely flawed) candidate, which is clearly Secretary Clinton.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
That's right. These are two disconnected political strategies. Drawing congressional districts falls to the state itself. So the Democratic loss of governors and state houses as led to the GOP durable majority in the House. Dems must do a better job of capturing lower level state seats.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
How will blowing up our political and economic system dramatically improve the lives of the lower caste in India? Or how will that help refugees fleeing war torn ISIS territories? If anything, it would hurt them.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
This is an excellent comment and speaks loud and clear to a new generation of voters. Just because our poorest citizens live like kings compared to other country's doesn't mean we need to continue to accept that for generations to come. It also doesn't make things right. Because at every point in our nations history that same claim could apply. We want genuine progress, and if that means Trump is elected to office, then don't come blaming us for it. Blame the establisment for it's outdated agenda. I find your post to be very insightful and informative.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I think Sanders was the closest we had- Although I don't think it would have been possible to simply pullout from one day to the next, however he would have probably done a better job of apologizing to the world and also made every attempt to end wars. It would be a progressive approach and open/honest approach.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I think Sanders was the closest we had- Although I don't think it would have been possible to simply pullout from one day to the next, however he would have probably done a better job of apologizing to the world and also made every attempt to end wars. It would be a progressive approach and open/honest approach.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
Can you really say that americans as a whole are tired of war when you have a guy running who talks about bombing countries and could be president?
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I think Sanders was the closest we had- Although I don't think it would have been possible to simply pullout from one day to the next, however he would have probably done a better job of apologizing to the world and also made every attempt to end wars. It would be a progressive approach and open/honest approach.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
Can you really say that americans as a whole are tired of war when you have a guy running who talks about bombing countries and could be president?
I haven't seen any indication that either major party is tired of war. That what keeps the beltway economy running.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I think Sanders was the closest we had- Although I don't think it would have been possible to simply pullout from one day to the next, however he would have probably done a better job of apologizing to the world and also made every attempt to end wars. It would be a progressive approach and open/honest approach.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
Can you really say that americans as a whole are tired of war when you have a guy running who talks about bombing countries and could be president?
I think the poles have shown consistently that the majority are tired of war, with the exception of those extremist who want to destroy "radical Islam". Some of my friends are republicans and they don't want war. They do want an end to "radical Islam".
The guy running as president isn't going to bomb anyone, however he is demonstrating muscle, something that a lot of Americans feel we aren't showing anymore. I complete disagree with flexing muscle, being the world police, and anything that has to do with aggression. The interesting thing about this guy is that he also wants to cut funding/handouts for many of these country's. So it almost seems as if he's using common sense. No wars, except for those that are attacking our interest and he wants cut funding because apparently America is broke. On the surface, you can't necessarily disagree with that (I disagree with war/aggression). There are a shitload of people who support that type of agenda.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned. Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top. Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression. Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
this is how you got into this mess to begin with ... and this is how they will continue to keep you in this mess ... the establishment rules ...
What mess? Our poorest citizens live like kings compared to half the world. And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
the most free and comfortable nation in history probably sums it up nicely ... why not throw in a U-S-A chant while you're at it!? ... willful ignorance ... just salute your troops and stand for the flag and all is well in this world ... sure, I get the fact you guys don't give a rats ass about people around the world you're affecting ... but thumping your chest now is just disgraceful ...
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I don't salute the troops or stand for the flag. I don't support the troops at all, I consider them to be willing participants in organized crime, or pathetically ignorant pawns. I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled. There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I think Sanders was the closest we had- Although I don't think it would have been possible to simply pullout from one day to the next, however he would have probably done a better job of apologizing to the world and also made every attempt to end wars. It would be a progressive approach and open/honest approach.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
Can you really say that americans as a whole are tired of war when you have a guy running who talks about bombing countries and could be president?
I think the poles have shown consistently that the majority are tired of war, with the exception of those extremist who want to destroy "radical Islam". Some of my friends are republicans and they don't want war. They do want an end to "radical Islam".
The guy running as president isn't going to bomb anyone, however he is demonstrating muscle, something that a lot of Americans feel we aren't showing anymore. I complete disagree with flexing muscle, being the world police, and anything that has to do with aggression. The interesting thing about this guy is that he also wants to cut funding/handouts for many of these country's. So it almost seems as if he's using common sense. No wars, except for those that are attacking our interest and he wants cut funding because apparently America is broke. On the surface, you can't necessarily disagree with that (I disagree with war/aggression). There are a shitload of people who support that type of agenda.
concerning what i bolded and underlined, can you tell me who determines what "our interest" is?
Comments
Trump voters = voters who regularly vote Republican minus voters lost due to Trump's policy/personality plus voters gained due to Clinton's policy/personality.
Clinton voters = voters who regularly vote Democrat minus voters lost due to Clinton's policy/personality including young voters who weren't properly addressed by Clinton plus voters gained due to Trump's policy/personality.
Unfortunately, if you buy into this equation with the assumption that neither Green nor Libertarian will suddenly have enough votes to be serious contenders, then yes - a vote lost by Clinton effectively is a push for Trump, because a voter for Clinton sitting out does not mean that a voter for Trump will.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Next - I'm not saying a perfect situation in Congress is necessary by any stretch. I'm suggesting that if there were mobilization efforts to bring in noble Congresspersons that were even half as effective as Sanders' efforts were, I think the demographics of those residing in Congress would be very different than they are today - and closer to the demographics of a noble Congress which could support a noble President. What I consider a noble President, in my opinion, will not succeed without the support of an at least somewhat noble Congress. Because of that, I feel that greater efforts to reclaim Congress must be made, in preparation for the right President. The only area we differ is that in this vision of government, you believe the change can come top-down, whereas I believe it must be done bottom-up. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense!
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
In One of my states districts, a Bernie endorsed candidate is fighting a republican who has, like Clinton, used billionaire money to get where he is. He is a nobody, but a superpac got him where he is. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57b21d62e4b0718404126567
This needs to change, the landscape has to change. We have to start at the bottom now because corruption stopped Bernie, but it will take a long time before money really is banned from elections, gerrymandering is stopped, and more when working from the bottom.
Look at history, how much history was made by drastic measures and massive resistance? how much history has been made by the least?
Look at history, how much history was made by drastic measures and massive resistance? how much history has been made by the least?
Gotta disagree here, assuming you are advocating drastic change... I would not advise you use the term massive resistance. It has a very negative connotation in this country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance
Drastic measures and changes have rarely led to positive outcomes:
French Revolution led to the Jacobans followed by Napoleon (and empire)
Red October led to Lenin and Stalin
Iranian Revolution led to the Iran we have today
Chinese Revolution led to the Cultural Revolution
Spanish Revolution led to Francisco Franco.
Confederate revolution in this country led to casualties that dwarfed those sustained by the US in WWI and II
The US Revolution was hardly one of the people.
Just saying... massive upheaval has rarely led to a better society in the aftermath. Bernie's message is one of grassroots change. That is not drastic change, that is working through the established system.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
http://commondreams.org/news/2016/09/29/undermining-democracy-corporations-pouring-millions-local-ballot-fights
Anyway, this millennial and his millennial wife will be voting for the most qualified (though severely flawed) candidate, which is clearly Secretary Clinton.
I hope we all realize that you can vote for Clinton and still seek to accomplish everything else mentioned.
Gerrymandering is tough, the GOP has the congressional races nearly locked up, millions more votes will be cast for progressives than conservatives and the cons will still clean up.
I will be voting for the most progressive candidate THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING from the bottom of the ticket to the top.
Voting for unicorns and fairies will not lead to progress, it will lead to regression.
Blowing it up with a radical change of direction just isn't going to happen, we have to keep plugging away with the best we've got or we will slip back into the dark days of conservative dominance.
And what alternative do you suggest? Should we take up arms and storm the capital of the most free and comfortable nation in history because we could be a little more free and comfortable?
The will to blow up the "establishment" simply does not exist, no matter how hard you wish upon a star.
I do understand the will to blow up the establishment does not exist ... how can it when people actually think voting for either clinton or trump is a good thing? ...
I find your post to be very insightful and informative.
I don't support our foreign incursions or worldwide distribution of weapons of war.
I do, however, live in the real world where shit happens and we do the best we can. If there was a presidential candidate that would end our war crimes who had even a slim chance of winning I would be thrilled.
There isn't.
I'm not casting my vote for a unicorn and letting a dragon into the castle just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Americans as a whole are tired of war. Expect for those that want to destroy "radical Islam"
The guy running as president isn't going to bomb anyone, however he is demonstrating muscle, something that a lot of Americans feel we aren't showing anymore. I complete disagree with flexing muscle, being the world police, and anything that has to do with aggression. The interesting thing about this guy is that he also wants to cut funding/handouts for many of these country's. So it almost seems as if he's using common sense. No wars, except for those that are attacking our interest and he wants cut funding because apparently America is broke. On the surface, you can't necessarily disagree with that (I disagree with war/aggression). There are a shitload of people who support that type of agenda.