I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies? Or did you just combine two random words? Quick: democratic monarchy! Communistic capitalism! Monarchalicly demotismanarchy!
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
"The anarcho-communists you will always have with you".
But in pretty small numbers.
I don't think that alone is any indication of what level of fucked the country is
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
That it’s not some grassroots level concern. I agree. This is coming from Sanders directly or from his supporters.
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?
No, it's that the positions look so perfectly aligned, they appear to be Sanders supporters who are running what is essentially a negative ad against Pete. I don't find it unusual that queer leftists support Sandes, nor would I expect homogeneous support of Pete just because he's gay. At the same time, when the pattern of 'complaints' against Pete so perfectly tie into Sanders campaign promises, then I think it's dirty pool. If you want to advocate for Bernie, that's great. I love it. But don't do it in this way, designed to specifically damage Pete's support in the community, without making it clear that you're really pro-Bernie.
Are you against all "negative" campaigning? I put the word "negative" in quotes, because I don't mean it in the traditional sense. Rather, I mean are you against all forms of politics that say "I'm against X" (with X either being a political position or a candidate)? And thus the only form of acceptable statement is "I'm for X" (with X being either a political position or a candidate)? If that's so, I don't necessarily disagree; I just think it would be a tough stance to uphold.
I don't like negative campaigning in general, but I agree that's a tough stance. However, I definitely do not like negative campaigning intra-party. You damage the party candidate and it's hard to walk that back. But if you're going to do it, at least be transparent. This is both negative and lacks transparency IF (and I say if which is the basis of my critique) it came from a group of people/person specifically aligned with Sanders.
My concern is that these attacks don't just weaken the candidates, but they also weaken the ideologies or themes they're aspiring to represent (which transcend the specifics of a nominee) - sometimes creating rifts that can extend beyond the absurdly long primary season. Whether Bernie criticizes the powers that be today and it loses Democrats voters in the general election if a centrist turns out to be the nominee, or whether Biden or Buttigieg do the same towards the left, either way, the potential exists to dissuade Democrat general election voters.
Based on the loss last time, I still don't believe that either the left 'branch' of Democrat voters or the centrist 'branch' of Democrat voters can win the election on their own, so they sort of have to cross this new inner aisle which has formed. I think Bernie has opposed this notion and chosen a 'no compromises' approach and believes the left 'branch' is larger than typically believed, Biden isn't quite as ornery about centrist ideals but isn't believed by the left 'branch', and Buttigieg attempts to toe the line to appeal to the pragmatism in either cohort.
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.
I was joking and I could claim denseness on your comment as well.
Abhor Biden? I was hoping for a defense of that, unless you are looking forward to 4 more years.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
As were the votes that allow billionaires to exist, eh?
That it’s not some grassroots level concern. I agree. This is coming from Sanders directly or from his supporters.
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?
No, it's that the positions look so perfectly aligned, they appear to be Sanders supporters who are running what is essentially a negative ad against Pete. I don't find it unusual that queer leftists support Sandes, nor would I expect homogeneous support of Pete just because he's gay. At the same time, when the pattern of 'complaints' against Pete so perfectly tie into Sanders campaign promises, then I think it's dirty pool. If you want to advocate for Bernie, that's great. I love it. But don't do it in this way, designed to specifically damage Pete's support in the community, without making it clear that you're really pro-Bernie.
Are you against all "negative" campaigning? I put the word "negative" in quotes, because I don't mean it in the traditional sense. Rather, I mean are you against all forms of politics that say "I'm against X" (with X either being a political position or a candidate)? And thus the only form of acceptable statement is "I'm for X" (with X being either a political position or a candidate)? If that's so, I don't necessarily disagree; I just think it would be a tough stance to uphold.
I don't like negative campaigning in general, but I agree that's a tough stance. However, I definitely do not like negative campaigning intra-party. You damage the party candidate and it's hard to walk that back. But if you're going to do it, at least be transparent. This is both negative and lacks transparency IF (and I say if which is the basis of my critique) it came from a group of people/person specifically aligned with Sanders.
My concern is that these attacks don't just weaken the candidates, but they also weaken the ideologies or themes they're aspiring to represent (which transcend the specifics of a nominee) - sometimes creating rifts that can extend beyond the absurdly long primary season. Whether Bernie criticizes the powers that be today and it loses Democrats voters in the general election if a centrist turns out to be the nominee, or whether Biden or Buttigieg do the same towards the left, either way, the potential exists to dissuade Democrat general election voters.
Based on the loss last time, I still don't believe that either the left 'branch' of Democrat voters or the centrist 'branch' of Democrat voters can win the election on their own, so they sort of have to cross this new inner aisle which has formed. I think Bernie has opposed this notion and chosen a 'no compromises' approach and believes the left 'branch' is larger than typically believed, Biden isn't quite as ornery about centrist ideals but isn't believed by the left 'branch', and Buttigieg attempts to toe the line to appeal to the pragmatism in either cohort.
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.
I was joking and I could claim denseness on your comment as well.
Abhor Biden? I was hoping for a defense of that, unless you are looking forward to 4 more years.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
"The anarcho-communists you will always have with you".
But in pretty small numbers.
I don't think that alone is any indication of what level of fucked the country is
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
Don’t be pompous, just because I teach doesn’t mean I know everything. So there are no rules on your farm?
I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
As were the votes that allow billionaires to exist, eh?
I'm trying to find some common footing and the only point you focus on is the one that allows you to bicker
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
Don’t be pompous, just because I teach doesn’t mean I know everything. So there are no rules on your farm?
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
As were the votes that allow billionaires to exist, eh?
I'm trying to find some common footing and the only point you focus on is the one that allows you to bicker
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
Emma Goldman was a pretty big deal, but your point is granted
Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
Right. If you start by recognizing the horrible things majorities have done, it’s not hard to make the next step.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
Emma Goldman was a pretty big deal, but your point is granted
I hope we can agree that this scene from the Grail is just an all timer of a comedy scene.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
Emma Goldman was a pretty big deal, but your point is granted
I hope we can agree that this scene from the Grail is just an all timer of a comedy scene.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
But Graham plays a tool in the film, does he not?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
Take that $ and reallocate to NYers struggling to find a spare $1500 for concert tix.
I can understand voting as violence in some circumstances. For example, "Should we take every dollar away from billionaires?" put to a popular vote. It passes and the federal government drains every billionaire and dumps that money into their coffers. That is violence.
Take that $ and reallocate to NYers struggling to find a spare $1500 for concert tix.
At least there's plenty of GNR tix available!
On a long enough timeline, all threads collapse into one.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
CAMPAIGN 2020: BERNIE SANDERS rips PETE BUTTIGIEG ties to billionaires in fiery NEW HAMPSHIRE speech
THE HEAT IS ON!
This is the very thing we were discussing earlier. Bernie doesn't seek to win on the merits of his position, he seeks to denigrate and disparage his opponents' motives. This is why his supporters are Bernie or Bust, because Bernie himself damages the opponent who is basically on his team.
He's not asking for a compromise; he's asking me to compromise.
Guilty as charged. "All or none" isn't working too well.
Curious...what currently living US citizen would you like to see be president?
I'm an anarcho-communist.
Not sure who is a leading US personality in that area. How far outside of that philosophy can you vote? Because I don't see one getting elected to, well, anything in the enforceable future.
Generally speaking, I do not vote. I consider voting a form of violence (that statement should go over well here). After much soul-searching, I did vote in the 2016 presidential election, however.
I don't think that statement would go over well anywhere. How is voting a form of violence?
It's a hit at parties!
Majoritarian rule is a form of violence; ergo, voting is a form of violence.
This is one of the starangest posts I've ever read on this board (and that's saying something). First off, as the 2016 election showed, it's not about majoritarian because Trump didn't get a majority of the votes. Secondly, what the hell type of system would you prefer if you think voting is a form of violence? Dictatorships? Monarchies?
See above: anarcho-communism.
Da fuck is anarcho communism? Is that like lord of the flies?
Don’t you teach history?
In fairness, not many history teachers study something that was in place for about a week in a few Spanish provinces.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
But Graham plays a tool in the film, does he not?
Everyone is a tool in the movie, even "Tim".
Okey. So him literally saying "da fuck" then doesn't really support your argument.
And it's been a long time since I've seen the film... hmm. I think it's on netflix.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"The anarcho-communists you will always have with you".
But in pretty small numbers.
I don't think that alone is any indication of what level of fucked the country is
They dont?
Nah. I was thinking bad seats.
Graham literally said "da fuck?" at this moment...
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Take that $ and reallocate to NYers struggling to find a spare $1500 for concert tix.
At least there's plenty of GNR tix available!
CAMPAIGN 2020: BERNIE SANDERS rips PETE BUTTIGIEG ties to billionaires in fiery NEW HAMPSHIRE speech
https://youtu.be/vrZlMRlzGlE
THE HEAT IS ON!
And it's been a long time since I've seen the film... hmm. I think it's on netflix.