I'm hoping to win the lottery too. Progress seems to be a one forward two back thing sometimes.
Bernie
- Thread starter Tight_N_Juicy
- Start date
I'm hoping to win the lottery too. Progress seems to be a one forward two back thing sometimes.
Well, I'm still waiting to hear how removing the corrupting influence of money is possible given the SCOTUS decisions and a total lack of desire on the part of those who keep getting re-elected to change it. Again accepting reality and moving forward where one can seems better than the magic beans theory of one man getting elected and change following him. We've been there, tried that.
Right now, Southerners are in denial that they are racist at all, and Republican propaganda feeds that delusion.
But there is no denying that a bunch of rich northern conservative establishment types built a political strategy around the assumption that Southerners are all racist.
Right now there is tremendous tension in conservative ranks between the social conservative masses and the economic elites running the Republican party. If information about the Southern Strategy were to surface at a time like this, I imagine a lot of rank and file conservatives in the South will resent rich white northerners for assuming that they are racist. Whether or not the assumption is actually true will be irrelevant to them.
It's not easy, but it is possible. Electing someone like Sanders would be a start, but taking our country back from monied interested will be a long and difficult process.
Thankfully, we've been through this fight before. This is why Teddy Roosevelt made so many anti-corporatist statements and fought corporate influence over the government. FDR basically finished the fight that Teddy started, and he had to be pushed into doing so by voters.
Ahh yes, but..(Naomi Prins, All The Presidents' Bankers)
"Teddy Roosevelt, who historically we know as the great trust buster, didn’t bust banks—busted a lot of other companies, a lot of other industries, not banks. And the reason for that was he truly believed—and he says this in documents and memoirs that I looked through—he truly believed that J.P. Morgan, the man, and his bank and his friends could save New York and the country from a greater catastrophe after the panic of 1907. And J.P. Morgan got together with a bunch of people at the Hotel Manhattan at midnight, didn’t have the president there, didn’t have the treasury secretary there, told them later what they would do. And what they would do is save their friends. And that’s what they did, with some of their own money, little bit of Treasury money, saved their friends, saved the Trust Company of America, because they had interests in that. They decided they didn’t want to really have that kind of scare again, so they continued to push for this idea of a central bank, which was the Federal Reserve."
All the Presidents' Bankers: Nomi Prins on the Secret History of Washington-Wall Street Collusion | Democracy Now!
"Teddy Roosevelt, who historically we know as the great trust buster, didn’t bust banks—busted a lot of other companies, a lot of other industries, not banks. And the reason for that was he truly believed—and he says this in documents and memoirs that I looked through—he truly believed that J.P. Morgan, the man, and his bank and his friends could save New York and the country from a greater catastrophe after the panic of 1907. And J.P. Morgan got together with a bunch of people at the Hotel Manhattan at midnight, didn’t have the president there, didn’t have the treasury secretary there, told them later what they would do. And what they would do is save their friends. And that’s what they did, with some of their own money, little bit of Treasury money, saved their friends, saved the Trust Company of America, because they had interests in that. They decided they didn’t want to really have that kind of scare again, so they continued to push for this idea of a central bank, which was the Federal Reserve."
All the Presidents' Bankers: Nomi Prins on the Secret History of Washington-Wall Street Collusion | Democracy Now!
What I said a while back the NYTImes editorial echoes:
“Revolution” is Bernie Sanders’s go-to word. The candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination uses it to celebrate primary victories and explain losses, to rally his young supporters and, most of all, to answer sticky questions about how he’ll get what he wants.
Asked in Wednesday’s debate how he would address climate change, given opposition by Republicans in Congress, he answered: “I’m the only candidate who says no president, not Bernie Sanders, can do it all. You know what we need? We need a political revolution in this country.”
But, as he seemed to acknowledge, revolutions are typically bottom-up, not top-down, events. Mr. Sanders’s campaign is powered by $30 contributions and an army of young volunteers, but there are not enough elected office holders in Congress or in statehouses to carry out his revolution through new laws or policies. And that’s the big difference between running an inspiring campaign and actually governing.
-------
Democrats’ problems on the state and local level.....could take years — and that’s evolution, not revolution.
The Bernie Sanders Revolution
Not a pro-Hillary stance but a pro-reality stance.
“Revolution” is Bernie Sanders’s go-to word. The candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination uses it to celebrate primary victories and explain losses, to rally his young supporters and, most of all, to answer sticky questions about how he’ll get what he wants.
Asked in Wednesday’s debate how he would address climate change, given opposition by Republicans in Congress, he answered: “I’m the only candidate who says no president, not Bernie Sanders, can do it all. You know what we need? We need a political revolution in this country.”
But, as he seemed to acknowledge, revolutions are typically bottom-up, not top-down, events. Mr. Sanders’s campaign is powered by $30 contributions and an army of young volunteers, but there are not enough elected office holders in Congress or in statehouses to carry out his revolution through new laws or policies. And that’s the big difference between running an inspiring campaign and actually governing.
-------
Democrats’ problems on the state and local level.....could take years — and that’s evolution, not revolution.
The Bernie Sanders Revolution
StormfrontFL
Superior Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Posts
- 8,903
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 6,854
- Points
- 358
- Location
- United States
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
www.addictinginfo.org: Bill Maher Hits Dems Who Say They’ll Stay Home If Their Candidate Loses With Brutal Reality (VIDEO)
Vote blue no matter who. One less vote for the Democrats is one less vote the Republicans need to beat.
Vote blue no matter who. One less vote for the Democrats is one less vote the Republicans need to beat.
No.
Party affiliation is one of the worst reasons to vote for a candidate. Right up there with voting for someone based on gender, sexual preference, or skin tone.
Vote for someone who inspires you. Because you like their ideas and agree with their policies. Not because they have a [D] beside their name. If that's what Hilary or Bernie are going to be counting on in November, say hello to President Trump.
StormfrontFL
Superior Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Posts
- 8,903
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 6,854
- Points
- 358
- Location
- United States
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
So if the alternatives are to stay at home and not vote assuring a Republican victory, voting for a write in or third party candidate, or voting for one who isn't your favorite and preventing either Cruz or tRump from winning what do you do?
Is the election the time to send a message that might be ignored? Are you okay allowing either of those two to nominate either one or two more Supreme Court justices? Will your good feeling keep you warm as we see regulations undone, equality all but eradicated, and advances a thing of the past?
I wasn't implying any of that. I was saying that party affiliation alone (Vote blue no matter who) is a bad reason to vote for anyone.
Yep.
If we want change, then we have to make change happen. FDR had to be pushed into doing the things he did by the people.
StormfrontFL
Superior Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Posts
- 8,903
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 6,854
- Points
- 358
- Location
- United States
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
In a perfect world I would agree. In the past I've seen a few Republicans who have said things I could agree with and actually considered voting for them. As I've said before, if the McCain of 200 had been the same one running in 2008 I'm not sure where my vote would have gone. I just think now is too important to allow my pride or personal feelings to let the Republicans get another strangle hold on this country.
Do we want change? Yes. Operation Wall Street was a good start but they blew it. Instead of continuing and beginning to make changes at local and then state levels which could affect national interests they gave up. Instant change or nothing. If Sanders becomes President I don't see the current Congress working with him so my goal is then to start seeing that those who obstruct are removed. It may take a few elections but by the time Warren throws her hat into the ring Congress will have changed drastically.
I'd rather see a weak Democrat elected than a strong Republican. We all know that to most politicians it's all about being reelected so a Democrat who barely got in due to Democrats would be more beholden if he or she wanted to go back. We've seen what gerrymandering can do. Get elected by essentially a Republican minority and know that no matter what the Democrats in your area have no power so you can ignore their will.
- b.c.,
The ideal of "voting blue" is not merely based upon party affiliation as you suggested but upon IDEOLOGY which best aligns with what one VALUES. THIS is why either Sanders or Clinton are FAR more preferable to ANY Republican contender.
For the last eight years we've had nothing but REPUBLICAN obstruction and roadblock on a myriad of issues and concerns of value to us. Their five DOZEN or so attempts at undermining the ACA (in favor of WHAT else? They have YET to offer a viable alternative), their attempts at eroding gains in civil rights legislation, their opposition to a fair minimum wage (while they protect the interests of the wealthy), their phony assed "religious freedom" (i.e. freedom to discriminate), their opposition to programs and initiatives to aid and assist those MOST in need, their efforts to deny minority Americans the right to even VOTE, their denial of climate change... the list of their scurrilous efforts and ideology goes ON.
Couple that with a party that has capitalized on the DEMONIZING of America's minorities, their STRANGLEHOLD on Congress and the high courts, and their hate filled RHETORIC, whereby the two top contenders is one salesman who says ALL the shit MOST conservatives feel and BELIEVE (judging by who's WINNING), and the other who BELIEVES in all the shit the salesman SAYS....
No, bud, this isn't a vote based on "party affiliation alone."
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,639
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
In this particular election cycle, though, I will vote for the Democratic nominee (be it Clinton or Sanders) over the Republican (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or whoever).
^ you have little choice. The entire Republican lineup well all are terrible.....
newrepublic.com: David Brooks and the Depths of the GOP’s Delusions
newrepublic.com: David Brooks and the Depths of the GOP’s Delusions
With results like last night, the respect I hold for my countrymen (which was not all that much to start with) has fallen yet again. On the Republican side you have angry and stupid. On the Democrat side you have gullible and stupid. I'm not sure which is worse.
Hilary started this campaign cycle with no message other than "Vote for me. I have ovaries that will magically make me a great president." Then Bernie got in and she went on her "listening tour". She literally and openly went around the early voting states telling people "I have no message nor reason for running. Please just tell me what you want me to say and I'll say it. I'll say whatever you want JUST TELL ME PLEASE! Why don't people like me?" And from that she picked out enough talking points to build a BS campaign around. Talking points that ultimately failed her. Bernie's messaging was crushing her. Since she has no core beliefs, it was easy to shrug off everything she had been talking about up to South Carolina and then steal virtually every talking point Bernie has.
She's an empty pants-suit. Never met a war she didn't like or a wall street deregulation measure she didn't support. She still thinks regime change is a good foreign policy. She's a lying, greedy, war monger.A Neo-con's Neo-con. The vision she is pushing for the country is something she stole from Sanders because her vision... she never had one. She pitched Obama's vision and when that didn't work she cloned Bernie's. Yet people are believing every bit of bullshit she vomits up.
If she is what the Dems end up with in November, then President Trump is what we deserve. I won't be voting for him, but he is going to connect with vastly more people than she will. Hey! Maybe she'll start talking about "the wall" next.
Hilary started this campaign cycle with no message other than "Vote for me. I have ovaries that will magically make me a great president." Then Bernie got in and she went on her "listening tour". She literally and openly went around the early voting states telling people "I have no message nor reason for running. Please just tell me what you want me to say and I'll say it. I'll say whatever you want JUST TELL ME PLEASE! Why don't people like me?" And from that she picked out enough talking points to build a BS campaign around. Talking points that ultimately failed her. Bernie's messaging was crushing her. Since she has no core beliefs, it was easy to shrug off everything she had been talking about up to South Carolina and then steal virtually every talking point Bernie has.
She's an empty pants-suit. Never met a war she didn't like or a wall street deregulation measure she didn't support. She still thinks regime change is a good foreign policy. She's a lying, greedy, war monger.A Neo-con's Neo-con. The vision she is pushing for the country is something she stole from Sanders because her vision... she never had one. She pitched Obama's vision and when that didn't work she cloned Bernie's. Yet people are believing every bit of bullshit she vomits up.
If she is what the Dems end up with in November, then President Trump is what we deserve. I won't be voting for him, but he is going to connect with vastly more people than she will. Hey! Maybe she'll start talking about "the wall" next.
