Honest question: Eddie Vedder has supported both Ralph Nader & Bernie Sanders

13»

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,782
    CM189191 said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    In my opinion, neither are doing enough.  Which party has stopped endless war?  Which party has at least acknowledged Earth Overshoot Day?  Which US party has carried through with lowering our carbon output to 350 PPM? Which party has opposed the for profit prison system?  Which party has ended fracking?  Etc. 

    Neither.

    Some of you don't care for the way BBH has presented his viewpoints but regardless, I think he makes some good and irrefutable point about how neither party is making a big difference.  I don't understand why more here don't support the message, if not the messenger.
    There are more center-left voters than far/alt-left voters. Change will happen by engaging moderates, not the fringe lunatics. 

    Few things were more enjoyable than watching conservatives cannibalize and sabotage themselves by embracing the Tea Party. Few things benefit the GOP more than driving democrats to vote third party.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265

    Both sides may not be great, but one is objectively worse by nearly every measure. The United States has a two-party system and you aren't going to upend that structure by running a third-party candidate and expecting to win the presidency. It's simply not going to happen. 
    I agree with most of your points here.  I only voted third party in 2016 because I'm in California and I could afford to (Hillary had the e.c. votes in the bag).  I would love to be able to proudly say I'm a democrat but not until they stop playing footsy with big agra, big money, big corporate control and stop being so ineffective and compromising on environment.  Especially the latter.  Compromising on environment is literally suicidal. Our CA dem governor supports fracking.  And I'm supposed to support that?   Bah!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Big Bank Hank
    Big Bank Hank Seattle, WA Posts: 8,639
    edited February 2018
    x
    Post edited by Big Bank Hank on
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,782
    Americans are both slow to change and fearful of it.  A third party would not at all be a bad thing. 

    Would love to hear from others here who live in countries with more than two parties.  Tell us what you think!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Big Bank Hank
    Big Bank Hank Seattle, WA Posts: 8,639
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    In my opinion, neither are doing enough.  Which party has stopped endless war?  Which party has at least acknowledged Earth Overshoot Day?  Which US party has carried through with lowering our carbon output to 350 PPM? Which party has opposed the for profit prison system?  Which party has ended fracking?  Etc. 

    Neither.

    Some of you don't care for the way BBH has presented his viewpoints but regardless, I think he makes some good and irrefutable point about how neither party is making a big difference.  I don't understand why more here don't support the message, if not the messenger.
    There are more center-left voters than far/alt-left voters. Change will happen by engaging moderates, not the fringe lunatics. 

    Few things were more enjoyable than watching conservatives cannibalize and sabotage themselves by embracing the Tea Party. Few things benefit the GOP more than driving democrats to vote third party.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265

    Both sides may not be great, but one is objectively worse by nearly every measure. The United States has a two-party system and you aren't going to upend that structure by running a third-party candidate and expecting to win the presidency. It's simply not going to happen. 
    I agree with most of your points here.  I only voted third party in 2016 because I'm in California and I could afford to (Hillary had the e.c. votes in the bag).  I would love to be able to proudly say I'm a democrat but not until they stop playing footsy with big agra, big money, big corporate control and stop being so ineffective and compromising on environment.  Especially the latter.  Compromising on environment is literally suicidal. Our CA dem governor supports fracking.  And I'm supposed to support that?   Bah!
    LOL, the Democratic Party in California has a super majority, and they had a chance to get universal health care, and what did they do? They hired Eric Bauman, Bauman has been criticized for his ties to California's pharmaceutical industry. He has lobbied against Proposition 61 which would have prohibited the state from buying drugs that are more expensive that price the Department of Veterans Affairs pays.This criticism has re-emerged following his election to become Chair of the California Democratic Party. This has all but assured that there will be no consideration for single payer.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,782
    Big Bank Hank said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    In my opinion, neither are doing enough.  Which party has stopped endless war?  Which party has at least acknowledged Earth Overshoot Day?  Which US party has carried through with lowering our carbon output to 350 PPM? Which party has opposed the for profit prison system?  Which party has ended fracking?  Etc. 

    Neither.

    Some of you don't care for the way BBH has presented his viewpoints but regardless, I think he makes some good and irrefutable point about how neither party is making a big difference.  I don't understand why more here don't support the message, if not the messenger.
    There are more center-left voters than far/alt-left voters. Change will happen by engaging moderates, not the fringe lunatics. 

    Few things were more enjoyable than watching conservatives cannibalize and sabotage themselves by embracing the Tea Party. Few things benefit the GOP more than driving democrats to vote third party.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265

    Both sides may not be great, but one is objectively worse by nearly every measure. The United States has a two-party system and you aren't going to upend that structure by running a third-party candidate and expecting to win the presidency. It's simply not going to happen. 
    I agree with most of your points here.  I only voted third party in 2016 because I'm in California and I could afford to (Hillary had the e.c. votes in the bag).  I would love to be able to proudly say I'm a democrat but not until they stop playing footsy with big agra, big money, big corporate control and stop being so ineffective and compromising on environment.  Especially the latter.  Compromising on environment is literally suicidal. Our CA dem governor supports fracking.  And I'm supposed to support that?   Bah!
    LOL, the Democratic Party in California has a super majority, and they had a chance to get universal health care, and what did they do? They hired Eric Bauman, Bauman has been criticized for his ties to California's pharmaceutical industry. He has lobbied against Proposition 61 which would have prohibited the state from buying drugs that are more expensive that price the Department of Veterans Affairs pays.This criticism has re-emerged following his election to become Chair of the California Democratic Party. This has all but assured that there will be no consideration for single payer.
    People have such misconceptions about California!  Cracks me up.  But we are more progressive than Texas or Alabama, LOL.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Big Bank Hank
    Big Bank Hank Seattle, WA Posts: 8,639
    brianlux said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    In my opinion, neither are doing enough.  Which party has stopped endless war?  Which party has at least acknowledged Earth Overshoot Day?  Which US party has carried through with lowering our carbon output to 350 PPM? Which party has opposed the for profit prison system?  Which party has ended fracking?  Etc. 

    Neither.

    Some of you don't care for the way BBH has presented his viewpoints but regardless, I think he makes some good and irrefutable point about how neither party is making a big difference.  I don't understand why more here don't support the message, if not the messenger.
    There are more center-left voters than far/alt-left voters. Change will happen by engaging moderates, not the fringe lunatics. 

    Few things were more enjoyable than watching conservatives cannibalize and sabotage themselves by embracing the Tea Party. Few things benefit the GOP more than driving democrats to vote third party.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265

    Both sides may not be great, but one is objectively worse by nearly every measure. The United States has a two-party system and you aren't going to upend that structure by running a third-party candidate and expecting to win the presidency. It's simply not going to happen. 
    I agree with most of your points here.  I only voted third party in 2016 because I'm in California and I could afford to (Hillary had the e.c. votes in the bag).  I would love to be able to proudly say I'm a democrat but not until they stop playing footsy with big agra, big money, big corporate control and stop being so ineffective and compromising on environment.  Especially the latter.  Compromising on environment is literally suicidal. Our CA dem governor supports fracking.  And I'm supposed to support that?   Bah!
    LOL, the Democratic Party in California has a super majority, and they had a chance to get universal health care, and what did they do? They hired Eric Bauman, Bauman has been criticized for his ties to California's pharmaceutical industry. He has lobbied against Proposition 61 which would have prohibited the state from buying drugs that are more expensive that price the Department of Veterans Affairs pays.This criticism has re-emerged following his election to become Chair of the California Democratic Party. This has all but assured that there will be no consideration for single payer.
    People have such misconceptions about California!  Cracks me up.  But we are more progressive than Texas or Alabama, LOL.
    well I would certainly hope so, lol, and I used to live in California, way back in the day
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Big Bank Hank said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    yeah pretty much, the country would be much better with Libertarians & Democrats like FDR, and get rid of all the corporate warmongers, oh and I forgot both parties strongly oppose term limits, which would be one of the greatest helps
    Libertarians?? How on earth do you reconcile a supposed progressive agenda with that? Do you think there’s any chance that libertarians support universal health care, environmental protections, higher minimum wage or any of the other issues you claim to be in favour of?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Big Bank Hank
    Big Bank Hank Seattle, WA Posts: 8,639
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    yeah pretty much, the country would be much better with Libertarians & Democrats like FDR, and get rid of all the corporate warmongers, oh and I forgot both parties strongly oppose term limits, which would be one of the greatest helps
    Libertarians?? How on earth do you reconcile a supposed progressive agenda with that? Do you think there’s any chance that libertarians support universal health care, environmental protections, higher minimum wage or any of the other issues you claim to be in favour of?
    No but they would be a far better alternative on the Right than Republicans 
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Big Bank Hank said:
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    yeah pretty much, the country would be much better with Libertarians & Democrats like FDR, and get rid of all the corporate warmongers, oh and I forgot both parties strongly oppose term limits, which would be one of the greatest helps
    Libertarians?? How on earth do you reconcile a supposed progressive agenda with that? Do you think there’s any chance that libertarians support universal health care, environmental protections, higher minimum wage or any of the other issues you claim to be in favour of?
    No but they would be a far better alternative on the Right than Republicans 

    Far better based on what?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Big Bank Hank
    Big Bank Hank Seattle, WA Posts: 8,639
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    yeah pretty much, the country would be much better with Libertarians & Democrats like FDR, and get rid of all the corporate warmongers, oh and I forgot both parties strongly oppose term limits, which would be one of the greatest helps
    Libertarians?? How on earth do you reconcile a supposed progressive agenda with that? Do you think there’s any chance that libertarians support universal health care, environmental protections, higher minimum wage or any of the other issues you claim to be in favour of?
    No but they would be a far better alternative on the Right than Republicans 

    Far better based on what?
    Ron Paul is a Libertarian even though he was a Republican in congress, but fundamentally he is, and he is far better than any Republican in Washington 
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Big Bank Hank said:
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    oftenreading said:
    Big Bank Hank said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    yeah pretty much, the country would be much better with Libertarians & Democrats like FDR, and get rid of all the corporate warmongers, oh and I forgot both parties strongly oppose term limits, which would be one of the greatest helps
    Libertarians?? How on earth do you reconcile a supposed progressive agenda with that? Do you think there’s any chance that libertarians support universal health care, environmental protections, higher minimum wage or any of the other issues you claim to be in favour of?
    No but they would be a far better alternative on the Right than Republicans 

    Far better based on what?
    Ron Paul is a Libertarian even though he was a Republican in congress, but fundamentally he is, and he is far better than any Republican in Washington 
    Far better based on what, and what makes you think that he would be typical of libertarians?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    brianlux said:
    CM189191 said:
    So.... both sides are bad?

    In my opinion, neither are doing enough.  Which party has stopped endless war?  Which party has at least acknowledged Earth Overshoot Day?  Which US party has carried through with lowering our carbon output to 350 PPM? Which party has opposed the for profit prison system?  Which party has ended fracking?  Etc. 

    Neither.

    Some of you don't care for the way BBH has presented his viewpoints but regardless, I think he makes some good and irrefutable point about how neither party is making a big difference.  I don't understand why more here don't support the message, if not the messenger.
    There are more center-left voters than far/alt-left voters. Change will happen by engaging moderates, not the fringe lunatics. 

    Few things were more enjoyable than watching conservatives cannibalize and sabotage themselves by embracing the Tea Party. Few things benefit the GOP more than driving democrats to vote third party.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265

    Both sides may not be great, but one is objectively worse by nearly every measure. The United States has a two-party system and you aren't going to upend that structure by running a third-party candidate and expecting to win the presidency. It's simply not going to happen. 
    I agree with most of your points here.  I only voted third party in 2016 because I'm in California and I could afford to (Hillary had the e.c. votes in the bag).  I would love to be able to proudly say I'm a democrat but not until they stop playing footsy with big agra, big money, big corporate control and stop being so ineffective and compromising on environment.  Especially the latter.  Compromising on environment is literally suicidal. Our CA dem governor supports fracking.  And I'm supposed to support that?   Bah!
    It's nice that you live in CA and could afford to vote 3rd party.  But don't you think that affects voters in other states?

    Someone in PA or MI might look at the polls and see however many people voting 3rd party in CA and be persuaded to do the same, or sit out altogether.  The GOP loves it when people vote 3rd party, doesn't matter the state.  

Categories