Bernie Sanders
Comments
-
Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gary-johnson-i-m-having-an-aleppo-moment-7753216677570 -
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday had a message for the "Bernie-or-bust" voters: vote based on the issues, not "personality."
"People have got to get beyond personality, and they've got to take a hard look at the issues that impact the lives of middle-class and working-class people," Sanders told ABC News.
"That's what this campaign is really about."
The Vermont senator touted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's stances on education, environment and campaign finance, contrasting her views with those of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
"I think if you look at the issues — whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free, dealing agressively with climate change, raising the minimum wage, overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision," Sanders said.
"On all of those issues and many more, Hillary Clinton's positions are far, far, far superior to Donald Trump."
Sanders said he plans to do everything he can to ensure Trump does not become the next president of the U.S.
The Vermont senator has given similar advice to the Democratic nominee in the past.
Earlier this month, Sanders said Clinton needs to "get away from all of this personality stuff" and start talking about the real issues facing the country.
"The American people do not agree with Trump," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298350-sanders-tells-bernie-or-bust-crew-to-get-beyond0 -
Sounds right to me although I wish Bernie had included the others who impacted by all this. The one's who never get to vote-- the elephants, whales, seals, lions, rhinoceros, etc. times millions.. Which is why I'm voting for Stein. She talks about real issues. The others just do the old dance the one's who, as George said above, represent the owners. Not too hard to figure that one out.mrussel1 said:Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday had a message for the "Bernie-or-bust" voters: vote based on the issues, not "personality."
"People have got to get beyond personality, and they've got to take a hard look at the issues that impact the lives of middle-class and working-class people," Sanders told ABC News.
"That's what this campaign is really about."
The Vermont senator touted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's stances on education, environment and campaign finance, contrasting her views with those of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
"I think if you look at the issues — whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free, dealing agressively with climate change, raising the minimum wage, overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision," Sanders said.
"On all of those issues and many more, Hillary Clinton's positions are far, far, far superior to Donald Trump."
Sanders said he plans to do everything he can to ensure Trump does not become the next president of the U.S.
The Vermont senator has given similar advice to the Democratic nominee in the past.
Earlier this month, Sanders said Clinton needs to "get away from all of this personality stuff" and start talking about the real issues facing the country.
"The American people do not agree with Trump," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298350-sanders-tells-bernie-or-bust-crew-to-get-beyond"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I do remember the comments you had made and your reasoning. It's embarrassing for sure. Mathews is tough, he has a pressing personality and seems to always be speaking over his guest, usually by the time the interviewee is done trying to answer a question Matthews is already hitting them with another aggressive move. He knows how to set people up, for sure. Not making any excuses for GJ. That should have been an easy one for him to answer, but then again he's a libertarian and an isolationist so it probably doesn't matter. hahamrussel1 said:Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gary-johnson-i-m-having-an-aleppo-moment-775321667757
Are you suggesting that these third party candidates aren't qualified to be President because of failed moments like this? I would say Clinton is probably the most informed/experienced candidate when it comes to complex detailed world affairs. That being said it doesn't make her right on foreign policy. I would say Trump is probably the least informed of all the candidates in all the history of American. Yet he still has a real chance of winning. Crazy shit.
The world is getting smaller and many of these big country's are attempting to better position themselves against us. We're going to need a strong leader.
0 -
I am saying Johnson is not all that qualified as he is a neophyte on foreign affairs. He really struggles with it. Woodrow Wilson was an isolationist, but I'm sure he could name Neville Chamberlain and Kaiser Wilhelm as foreign leaders pretty quickly. Throw that in with his extreme positions on economics (anti-reg, anti-min wage, pro flat tax) and it is completely perplexing to me how an educated liberal could consider voting for him.tonifig8 said:
I do remember the comments you had made and your reasoning. It's embarrassing for sure. Mathews is tough, he has a pressing personality and seems to always be speaking over his guest, usually by the time the interviewee is done trying to answer a question Matthews is already hitting them with another aggressive move. He knows how to set people up, for sure. Not making any excuses for GJ. That should have been an easy one for him to answer, but then again he's a libertarian and an isolationist so it probably doesn't matter. hahamrussel1 said:Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gary-johnson-i-m-having-an-aleppo-moment-775321667757
Are you suggesting that these third party candidates aren't qualified to be President because of failed moments like this? I would say Clinton is probably the most informed/experienced candidate when it comes to complex detailed world affairs. That being said it doesn't make her right on foreign policy. I would say Trump is probably the least informed of all the candidates in all the history of American. Yet he still has a real chance of winning. Crazy shit.
The world is getting smaller and many of these big country's are attempting to better position themselves against us. We're going to need a strong leader.
I'm not saying that because he is a third party member he is automatically unqualified. Hell, TR ran as the Bull Moose candidate after he had already been president. He was qualified.0 -
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.'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 10 -
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.Free said:
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.tonifig8 said:0 -
i've had many discussions with a good friend about this ... democracy has failed and it doesn't work when the electorate are ignorant ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
and to your point about a lame duck president ... i say that the only way to change is for it the system to be blown up ... and the only way it will blow up is if it is exposed for all its faults ... what better way then a 3rd party candidate who wants to enact some policy that benefits the majority and then explain why it failed (the system) ... continuing to elect the same people who support economic imperialistic wars abroad and wall street fraud achieves only 1 thing ... more of the same ...0 -
"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.cottagesteeze said:
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.Free said:
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.tonifig8 said:
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.Post edited by Boxes&Books on0 -
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.0 -
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:tonifig8 said:
"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.cottagesteeze said:
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.Free said:
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.tonifig8 said:
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.
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 10 -
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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 10 -
benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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?Post edited by Free on0 -
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.Free said:
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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 10 -
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?benjs said:
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.Free said:
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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!0 -
It's a real problem. Unless it's shown to disenfranchise minorities, there's little that can be done.Free said:
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?benjs said:
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.Free said:
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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!0 -
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.Free said:
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?benjs said:
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.Free said:
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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 10 -
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".
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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?benjs said:
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.Free said:
How would you get rid of gerrymandering in congressional districts?benjs said:
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.Free said:
And how would you get rid of gerrymandering?benjs said:
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.Free said:
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.benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...benjs said:
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.polaris_x said:
fear politics!?benjs said:
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.JC29856 said:
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.rgambs said:
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.JC29856 said:
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 winsFree said:
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.JC29856 said: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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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!
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?0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help