The Democratic Presidential Debates

oftenreading · November 2019

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Biden’s presidential campaign mascot, The Biden Bear.

https://apple.news/A8Fa7NmZ9QomXZScg0JuGiw

How are these people not freaking out? If a couple of black bears were anywhere near me I would be totally freaked out!

Those people are idiots, Brian. And they’re the people who get bears and other wildlife killed.

brianlux · November 2019

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Biden’s presidential campaign mascot, The Biden Bear.

https://apple.news/A8Fa7NmZ9QomXZScg0JuGiw

How are these people not freaking out? If a couple of black bears were anywhere near me I would be totally freaked out!

Those people are idiots, Brian. And they’re the people who get bears and other wildlife killed.

Yeah, people observing wildlife such as bears, wild boars, big cats, elephants etc. from afar or from an enclosure is fine but being near them- not good, not smart! If they want to get close to wildlife, get up close to a line of ants and watch them as they crawl across the ground.

Hi! · November 2019

mickeyrat said:

Gabbard on Rogan today

Hmmm, very interesting. Lots of good points made by Rogan, Gabbard, Jocko. I agree with a lot of what they said, not everything, but I feel they represent a large portion of the population with their thoughts. Makes me question a lot of things.

Indifference · November 2019

Hi! said:

mickeyrat said:

Gabbard on Rogan today

Hmmm, very interesting. Lots of good points made by Rogan, Gabbard, Jocko. I agree with a lot of what they said, not everything, but I feel they represent a large portion of the population with their thoughts. Makes me question a lot of things.

Totally Agree with this take - great listen.

Lerxst1992 · November 2019

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

You sound like a Jacobin. I hope this post is a joke. Regardless, the meme you started with is fundamentally dishonest and you agreed with my counterpoint. Surely you do not believe all of the centrists on this board (and there's quite a few of us) are okay with the KKK? I mean, we're not great with it, but we must be okay with it, right? Because that's what you fucking posted.

Sorry late to the game been spiraling out to Tool shows lately..

I dont view that as an attack on moderates. It's not our fault the right has gone extreme

The left's victories of late-

-marriage equality affects a tiny % of the population.

- marijuana reform is a state level victory that is not shared among all Americans

The biggest challenge of late- income inequality is very difficult to message on. The wealthy certainly deserve to earn more. But fixing that with a promise of M4A is a fool's errand.

But if we were to live in a room with 8 people and 7 slices always go to one white dude, maybe we have problems on the horizon.

cincybearcat · November 2019

mrussel1 said:

I'm so glad I'm X.

No kidding

benjs · November 2019

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

brianlux · November 2019

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them. I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence. But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire. No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not. I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

CM189191 · November 2019

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

mrussel1 · November 2019

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

Your words are extreme and alienate those you should be trying to convince.

Hi! · November 2019

https://youtu.be/Aurhp7RoC_A

mcgruff10 · November 2019

Just saw my first Bloomberg commercial, ugh.

Hi! · November 2019

https://youtu.be/TwmFRReGUco

Lerxst1992 · November 2019

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

Because in America you need bootstraps first.

brianlux · November 2019

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

It's not what you want (and I want the same things) that is radical, it's how you present going about getting them: "Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines." That kind of talk today is counter productive. You aren't going to win that kind of fight against the very rich and you're not going to change their minds with that kind of talk. Not in the 21st century.

benjs · November 2019

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

It's not what you want (and I want the same things) that is radical, it's how you present going about getting them: "Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines."    That kind of talk today is counter productive. You aren't going to win that kind of fight against the very rich and you're not going to change their minds with that kind of talk. Not in the 21st century.

Precisely. You can't take an idea to the bank.

brianlux · December 2019

benjs said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

Here, let's summarize Obama's opinion:

Y'all are being horseshoed. There's no room for centrists or third parties. Pick a side. Shit or get off the pot. And so on...

Spoiler alert: Both sides are not bad. One side had proven itself to be fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound. Traitors.

Except for that isn't true. Let's look at social issues.. Are you arguing that the center has moved to the right on gay marriage? How about civil rights issues? How about marijuana reform? The crux of your first meme seeks to argue that the centrists are okay with some discrimination. That bullshit opinion is not backed up by any reality of where the country has moved since the 60's. Get your history from somewhere other than memes.

So what?

We won a few battles in the 60s & 70s. Does that mean we give up ground now?

No, we keep pushing a progressive agenda. Because that's what attracts people to the Democratic party.

A mission, a goal, a vision. None of this try to make everyone happy all the time bullshit.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines.

I'm fucking tired of placating to racists, bigots, misogynists, and morons. These people continuously vote against their own self interest.

They can't be reasoned our bargained with. They only understand fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you want your big slice of nothing liberal rather than your small slice of something liberal, you truly can have it all. Enjoy.

You talk about voting against your self-interests, yet here you are. You can have a left-wing long-term vision, and execute incrementally to move the marker to the left so that what you call "just a little bit left" and what many others call "too far left", or you can demand a vision and execution equally far left, and lack the voters to even earn yourself a podium and a voice (let alone the authority to make changes). This is divisive and short-sighted beyond belief, and betrays any sense of logic.

Ben, this reminds me of something activist Dave Foreman once said about radical viewpoints: They lend credence to the voice of lesser radical viewpoints. He used this analogy in talking about conservation. He believed in his environmental visions, knew they went beyond what the average person would accept, and hoped that his views would make it easier for the public to at least accept the views of more moderate conservation groups like the Sierra Club. And as far as I know, that strategy worked. I believe, or at least hope, the XR extinction rebellion is playing that role (and XR follows the basic law of activist groups like the original Earth First! and Sea Shepherds which is "Do no harm to other persons"). They are raising the red flag and hoping the general public will wake up and respond before too late.

One of the main points here is that Foreman knew the public would not embrace radical environmentalism but might at least start moving in that direction. The same is probably true for political activism. Maybe Bernie Sanders has proposed radical politics in the hopes that a more moderately progressive will be accepted. Maybe Bernie really doesn't expect to win (wild ass guess here!).

CM, I admire your standing strong on your perspectives and I agree with a lot of them.   I do think with environment, a strong stand is necessary because it is a paramount issue with regard to the well being and survival of all large mammal species on the planet. That just comes down to triage and precedence.   But the hard-core pushing of a wide spectrum of social and economic issues will probably backfire.   No one is going to "eat the rich"- at least not the very rich (considering cost of living where I live, I make somewhat less than what the median or average American does, but in the world view, I am rich). The very rich are very rich and powerful and have the resources. You (I assume) and I are not.   I get the anger, but I hope you also get that you can't win this in a fight. For example, rioting nor guillotines nor fists won the right for gays to marry in the states where it is legal. That was done through hard, persistent work within the system. Same with marijuana legalization, Etc.

Health care for all. Education for all. Housing for all. No one goes hungry.

I don't understand how these are radical or even liberal views. It's the bare minimum we as citizens should demand from society.

It's depressing that this is seen as extreme. This should be the standard.

It's not what you want (and I want the same things) that is radical, it's how you present going about getting them: "Eat the rich. Bring out the guillotines."    That kind of talk today is counter productive. You aren't going to win that kind of fight against the very rich and you're not going to change their minds with that kind of talk. Not in the 21st century.

Precisely. You can't take an idea to the bank.

I should give that a try, Ben. Like maybe walk into my bank and say, "I want 10% interest on my savings account and if you don't give it, I'm going to eat the rich and bring out the guillotines!"