Bernie Sanders

Wilds said:

mrussel1 said:

Interview with a black Sanders delegate post convention:

JS: Well, from her perspective she’s trying to do what she can to help the movement she believes is necessary. As a Sanders delegate, why do you believe supporting Jill Stein is such a mistake?

RM: I had so many conversations this week about people who said that they were supporting Jill Stein. And to them I’ve tried making this point clear: I don’t have the privilege of supporting Jill Stein.

I’m black, and I have four black sons. Some white liberals have the privilege to pretend that Jill Stein is going to be taken seriously. I don’t. If Donald Trump wins, he's more likely to appoint judges that oppose Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and who think that police officers — who can kill black people without being charged — already don't have enough power. That means if my kids get shot, the officers who did it would become less likely to be charged. A lot of white liberals don’t understand that they have the privilege of a protest vote that will hurt the people they purport to stand for — black people, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and so many people who will be affected adversely if Trump wins.

If they stay home or vote for a third party — particularly in swing states — these folks are gambling with real lives. Because here’s the reality: They won’t be affected by the fallout. Their privilege will inoculate them to it, but minorities won’t be. I don’t understand how they could not see that.

So I don’t have the luxury of conviction. I can’t afford four years of tyranny. Trust me, I would love if Hillary had every position that Bernie has. But I live in the real world, and in the real world — even if Hillary isn’t 100 percent where I want her — at least I trust that she will be better than Trump for the people I love.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12337522/bernie-bust-sanders-delegate

I understand that point of view, but have a couple of points to make on the subject.

In my opinion, the two worst things to happen to the poor and to minorities, are A.) The war on Drugs, and B.) The for profit prison system.

Both of these programs hurt those people more than anything else done in the last 30 years.

Both of those issues have given rise to the C.) Militarization of the police forces in this country.

When we talk about Black Lives Matter, they matter the most to the people who profit off of their incarceration, minimization, and the funding that goes into rounding them up, and keeping them down.

This is the problem I have with the corrupt two party system. Every President, and most every lawmaker is funded by the very people who want that system to stay in place, Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. They are paid to keep the status quo.

(This also pertains to the funding of the military and sales of weapons around the world, ((something Hillary knows a lot about for example)), and other big government programs that help the worlds wealthiest 1%, continue to build that wealth, while the income gap grows, and the American Dream shrinks.)

I hate Trump, and think he is among the worst human's on this planet. And thus I understand the desperate need to keep him out of office, and to keep his judges off of the Supreme Court, etc.

But as a white male, it is not "white privilege", that has me casting my vote for, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or myself. It is my passion to bring all people up and to stop the tyranny that affects minorities, and the poor, disproportionately.

By always voting for the lesser of the two evils, because one is going to make your life, and your children's lives better in the short term, just keeps evil in office in perpetuity. Voting one side of the same coin in, to keep the other side of that coin out, ignores the long term ramification of voting one or the other, and not for a 3rd party, or a 4th party, or a 5th party. The establishment does not want another choice, or another voice.

Yeah, life under Hillary, will be better than life under Trump, but if all we have to vote for til the end of time is either the next Hillary, or the next Bush, or the next, McCain, or the next Nixon, then we will never EVER have real change, and the plight of those less fortunate will be a continuation, and perhaps escalation, of the inequality that exists now.

Take a look at who funds these candidates. They fund them to keep the system as it is, and to keep the profits rolling.

This is white privilege at it's worst.

Voting 3rd party, a protest vote, is in my opinion, the only responsible thing to do if we ever actually want real change, and the only responsible thing to do if you actually think that Black Lives Matter.

Wilds said:

mrussel1 said:

Interview with a black Sanders delegate post convention:

JS: Well, from her perspective she’s trying to do what she can to help the movement she believes is necessary. As a Sanders delegate, why do you believe supporting Jill Stein is such a mistake?

RM: I had so many conversations this week about people who said that they were supporting Jill Stein. And to them I’ve tried making this point clear: I don’t have the privilege of supporting Jill Stein.

I’m black, and I have four black sons. Some white liberals have the privilege to pretend that Jill Stein is going to be taken seriously. I don’t. If Donald Trump wins, he's more likely to appoint judges that oppose Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and who think that police officers — who can kill black people without being charged — already don't have enough power. That means if my kids get shot, the officers who did it would become less likely to be charged. A lot of white liberals don’t understand that they have the privilege of a protest vote that will hurt the people they purport to stand for — black people, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and so many people who will be affected adversely if Trump wins.

If they stay home or vote for a third party — particularly in swing states — these folks are gambling with real lives. Because here’s the reality: They won’t be affected by the fallout. Their privilege will inoculate them to it, but minorities won’t be. I don’t understand how they could not see that.

So I don’t have the luxury of conviction. I can’t afford four years of tyranny. Trust me, I would love if Hillary had every position that Bernie has. But I live in the real world, and in the real world — even if Hillary isn’t 100 percent where I want her — at least I trust that she will be better than Trump for the people I love.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12337522/bernie-bust-sanders-delegate

I understand that point of view, but have a couple of points to make on the subject.

In my opinion, the two worst things to happen to the poor and to minorities, are A.) The war on Drugs, and B.) The for profit prison system.

Both of these programs hurt those people more than anything else done in the last 30 years.

Both of those issues have given rise to the C.) Militarization of the police forces in this country.

When we talk about Black Lives Matter, they matter the most to the people who profit off of their incarceration, minimization, and the funding that goes into rounding them up, and keeping them down.

This is the problem I have with the corrupt two party system. Every President, and most every lawmaker is funded by the very people who want that system to stay in place, Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. They are paid to keep the status quo.

(This also pertains to the funding of the military and sales of weapons around the world, ((something Hillary knows a lot about for example)), and other big government programs that help the worlds wealthiest 1%, continue to build that wealth, while the income gap grows, and the American Dream shrinks.)

I hate Trump, and think he is among the worst human's on this planet. And thus I understand the desperate need to keep him out of office, and to keep his judges off of the Supreme Court, etc.

But as a white male, it is not "white privilege", that has me casting my vote for, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or myself. It is my passion to bring all people up and to stop the tyranny that affects minorities, and the poor, disproportionately.

By always voting for the lesser of the two evils, because one is going to make your life, and your children's lives better in the short term, just keeps evil in office in perpetuity. Voting one side of the same coin in, to keep the other side of that coin out, ignores the long term ramification of voting one or the other, and not for a 3rd party, or a 4th party, or a 5th party. The establishment does not want another choice, or another voice.

Yeah, life under Hillary, will be better than life under Trump, but if all we have to vote for til the end of time is either the next Hillary, or the next Bush, or the next, McCain, or the next Nixon, then we will never EVER have real change, and the plight of those less fortunate will be a continuation, and perhaps escalation, of the inequality that exists now.

Take a look at who funds these candidates. They fund them to keep the system as it is, and to keep the profits rolling.

This is white privilege at it's worst.

Voting 3rd party, a protest vote, is in my opinion, the only responsible thing to do if we ever actually want real change, and the only responsible thing to do if you actually think that Black Lives Matter.

Wilds said:

benjs said:

Wilds said:

mrussel1 said:

Interview with a black Sanders delegate post convention:

JS: Well, from her perspective she’s trying to do what she can to help the movement she believes is necessary. As a Sanders delegate, why do you believe supporting Jill Stein is such a mistake?

RM: I had so many conversations this week about people who said that they were supporting Jill Stein. And to them I’ve tried making this point clear: I don’t have the privilege of supporting Jill Stein.

I’m black, and I have four black sons. Some white liberals have the privilege to pretend that Jill Stein is going to be taken seriously. I don’t. If Donald Drumpf wins, he's more likely to appoint judges that oppose Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform, and who think that police officers — who can kill black people without being charged — already don't have enough power. That means if my kids get shot, the officers who did it would become less likely to be charged. A lot of white liberals don’t understand that they have the privilege of a protest vote that will hurt the people they purport to stand for — black people, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and so many people who will be affected adversely if Drumpf wins.

If they stay home or vote for a third party — particularly in swing states — these folks are gambling with real lives. Because here’s the reality: They won’t be affected by the fallout. Their privilege will inoculate them to it, but minorities won’t be. I don’t understand how they could not see that.

So I don’t have the luxury of conviction. I can’t afford four years of tyranny. Trust me, I would love if Hillary had every position that Bernie has. But I live in the real world, and in the real world — even if Hillary isn’t 100 percent where I want her — at least I trust that she will be better than Drumpf for the people I love.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12337522/bernie-bust-sanders-delegate

I understand that point of view, but have a couple of points to make on the subject.

In my opinion, the two worst things to happen to the poor and to minorities, are A.) The war on Drugs, and B.) The for profit prison system.

Both of these programs hurt those people more than anything else done in the last 30 years.

Both of those issues have given rise to the C.) Militarization of the police forces in this country.

When we talk about Black Lives Matter, they matter the most to the people who profit off of their incarceration, minimization, and the funding that goes into rounding them up, and keeping them down.

This is the problem I have with the corrupt two party system. Every President, and most every lawmaker is funded by the very people who want that system to stay in place, Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. They are paid to keep the status quo.

(This also pertains to the funding of the military and sales of weapons around the world, ((something Hillary knows a lot about for example)), and other big government programs that help the worlds wealthiest 1%, continue to build that wealth, while the income gap grows, and the American Dream shrinks.)

I hate Drumpf, and think he is among the worst human's on this planet. And thus I understand the desperate need to keep him out of office, and to keep his judges off of the Supreme Court, etc.

But as a white male, it is not "white privilege", that has me casting my vote for, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or myself. It is my passion to bring all people up and to stop the tyranny that affects minorities, and the poor, disproportionately.

By always voting for the lesser of the two evils, because one is going to make your life, and your children's lives better in the short term, just keeps evil in office in perpetuity. Voting one side of the same coin in, to keep the other side of that coin out, ignores the long term ramification of voting one or the other, and not for a 3rd party, or a 4th party, or a 5th party. The establishment does not want another choice, or another voice.

Yeah, life under Hillary, will be better than life under Drumpf, but if all we have to vote for til the end of time is either the next Hillary, or the next Bush, or the next, McCain, or the next Nixon, then we will never EVER have real change, and the plight of those less fortunate will be a continuation, and perhaps escalation, of the inequality that exists now.

Take a look at who funds these candidates. They fund them to keep the system as it is, and to keep the profits rolling.

This is white privilege at it's worst.

Voting 3rd party, a protest vote, is in my opinion, the only responsible thing to do if we ever actually want real change, and the only responsible thing to do if you actually think that Black Lives Matter.

I agree with so much of this, but at the end of the day, I struggle with one thing: if and when a third party candidate wins the presidency, how will they work with the House and Senate and Supreme Court, who have in the past even admitted that their primary objective isn't necessarily to better society with value-driven bills and laws and judgment, but also to perpetuate their respective party's presence in that segment of government? Would they not resolve to be the same petulant and self-serving people who will filibuster and vote against President-proposed bills, actions, or laws, thus giving us exactly what we have today? I know there's the Executive Order, but is that Order truly powerful enough to drive change in a political world of major adversity?

Yeah. In the short term, Bernie Sanders, had he been elected, would have found much resistance. But the people are still powerful, although not as powerful as we should be, and if we had elected him, we would have made one big step towards choosing someone not bought and sold by BIG everything. That small step forward would hopefully propel us towards more choices, less big money corrupting politicians.

Perhaps it wouldn't have been enough, but the fact that Americans choose Bernie and Trump, means that they are sick about politics as usual, and the machine that is currently in place.

Now that machine would not let Bernie win, but the people did make a statement.

Each of these small victories are important to the mission of taking back some of the power that has been co-opted by big $$.

The next step (in my opinion), is to get Gary Johnson to poll at 15%.

Then he has a voice in the National debate. Do I want Johnson to be President, not necessarily, but he will get my vote.

Because we need more voices pushing back on big ideas, that otherwise won't be discussed.

Hillary has this one in the bag. Trump is not going to win.

But we can all do our part to help the future by voting Johnson, or other, to say, we will not vote for their candidates any longer.

If enough people do that, we will get more choices, and those who are bought and sold, will have to take a different approach, as the people won't stand for that type of behavior from their elected leaders, and they won't be voted in.

mrussel1 said:

^^
Well if your objective is to institute progressive causes, it's 1 step forward, 2 back with Gary Johnson. People may find agreement on his laissez-faire attitude on social issues, but his economic positions are diametrically opposed to progressive policies. Two steps back because the die is already on social issues, generally speaking. So I would question that strategy.

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

^^
Well if your objective is to institute progressive causes, it's 1 step forward, 2 back with Gary Johnson. People may find agreement on his laissez-faire attitude on social issues, but his economic positions are diametrically opposed to progressive policies. Two steps back because the die is already on social issues, generally speaking. So I would question that strategy.

I don't know about Wilds, but I'm talking about getting representation for progressive causes in both the House and Senate, to give way to progressive representation in the President's seat. With 435 House seats and 100 Senate seats, it would probably be much more palatable to Republicans and Democrats to have progressive persons occupying some of those seats, rather than having a progressive person occupying the exclusive President seat (which clearly they are vehemently and vocally opposed to). On the other hand, a possibly-slower-moving and deliberate objective of getting proportional buy-in from these two levels of government, such that the checks and balances aren't so unreasonably skewed in favour of the status quo should a progressive President take office (the way things would be if Bernie Sanders took office today) might be a more effective way to strengthen this movement and its influence.

Yes, sorry I couldn't quote because the string was so long, but I agree with your strategy of working through the existing processes. Change is slower, but there is no evidence that a third party can effectuate change in this country. It's never happened. TR was ineffective as a third party, Nader, Perot, etc. And I don't just mean the results of the presidency, but the next step of installing party members into Congress. Our electoral system is not conducive to that. Secondarily, there are precious few examples where a true 'Revolution of the people' did not quickly turn into some sort of dictatorship. Look at France, Russia, Spain, the Balkans, China, etc.

Free said:

There is nothing "democratic" about our government anymore.

... And the two-party system is so corrupt it's not even funny.

Jason P said:

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:

Removing federal power will help address the concept of democracy. Give states the power to govern.

Sorry, that battle was waged from 1861-1865. It's a resolved issue. If you remove the federal power, you have a federation of independent states.

I'm not saying to remove federal power, just dial it down.