Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09 Aug 2017, 12:12 AM   #675508 / #101
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Your constitution has been amended 27 times out of 33 proposals so far. Although this means constitutional change is possible, I almost completely agree with Sohy. I do shy away from using the word "never", though. It keeps company with words like "absolutely" in a box labelled "Avoid as much as you can". How about "extremely unlikely"?
That's right, but too many liberals argue themselves out of fighting for goals that are perceived to be unattainable in the short run--election reform, gun control, single-payer health care, etc. I think that we need to keep talking about those things in order to obtain them in the long run. Meanwhile, we need a plan for getting from here to there.

Eliminating the electoral college will cure us of gerrymandering as far as presidential elections go, but not in the case of House races. It is inevitable that someone will draw lines on a map to carve out proportional election districts. Australia still has gerrymandering, because it is possible to manipulate the demographics of election districts. So we need a number of election reforms--
  • Require a majority (not plurality) vote to win an election
  • Remove partisan politics from control of election districts, to the extent possible
  • Eliminate the electoral college
  • Universal voter registration for new adults
  • Give all adults, including convicts, the right to vote

IOW, we need to embrace the principle of egalitarian representative democracy. If such reforms require a constitutional amendment, we should work on bringing that about. Saying that it is impossible to amend the Constitution and that we shouldn't waste our time is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I do hope you are active within the Democratic Party's machinery. The Dems need people like you. And lots of them.

Depriving felons of their civil rights after they've paid their dues is absurd, especially if they have been gaoled for something as piffling as smoking cannabis, which apparently the majority of your prisoners are in for.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Aug 2017, 10:29 AM   #675525 / #102
Worldtraveller
Will work for fun.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. OR.
Posts: 3,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Your constitution has been amended 27 times out of 33 proposals so far. Although this means constitutional change is possible, I almost completely agree with Sohy. I do shy away from using the word "never", though. It keeps company with words like "absolutely" in a box labelled "Avoid as much as you can". How about "extremely unlikely"?
That's right, but too many liberals argue themselves out of fighting for goals that are perceived to be unattainable in the short run--election reform, gun control, single-payer health care, etc. I think that we need to keep talking about those things in order to obtain them in the long run. Meanwhile, we need a plan for getting from here to there.

Eliminating the electoral college will cure us of gerrymandering as far as presidential elections go, but not in the case of House races. It is inevitable that someone will draw lines on a map to carve out proportional election districts. Australia still has gerrymandering, because it is possible to manipulate the demographics of election districts. So we need a number of election reforms--
  • Require a majority (not plurality) vote to win an election
  • Remove partisan politics from control of election districts, to the extent possible
  • Eliminate the electoral college
  • Universal voter registration for new adults
  • Give all adults, including convicts, the right to vote

IOW, we need to embrace the principle of egalitarian representative democracy. If such reforms require a constitutional amendment, we should work on bringing that about. Saying that it is impossible to amend the Constitution and that we shouldn't waste our time is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've been saying this for years, but it is entirely possible to eliminate politics from gerrynamdering, at least. It would be simple (and has been done) to write a computer program to create the districts within a state following a few simple rules.

Of course, only a couple of (more liberal, of course) states have adopted this model. (Washington is one.)
Worldtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 10 Aug 2017, 07:03 AM   #675559 / #103
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 13,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
... So we need a number of election reforms--
  • Require a majority (not plurality) vote to win an election
  • Remove partisan politics from control of election districts, to the extent possible
  • Eliminate the electoral college
  • Universal voter registration for new adults
  • Give all adults, including convicts, the right to vote
About requiring a majority, what happens if no candidate wins a majority?

One can do runoff elections, but that would add to the expense of elections. The "top two" scheme used in some states is essentially a runoff system: an open primary with the top two continuing to the "main" election.

I think that a better system is preference voting, and a common way to count votes there is a sequential runoff: Instant Runoff Voting. Here is a poll of 2016 Republican primary candidates done with IRV: Ranked Choice Poll of GOP Voters Yields Insights - FairVote


We also ought to consider multimember districts and proportional representation.


As to voter ID, I am willing to support it with these conditions:
  • Any legally-valid ID ought to be valid ID for voting.
  • One must ensure that everybody has some legally-valid ID.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 12 Aug 2017, 02:19 PM   #675654 / #104
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

And it just keeps getting worse: The Bernie Bros and Sisters Are Coming to The Republican's Rescue. Snippet:

Quote:
Bernie Sanders’s advisers are promoting a “litmus test” under which Democrats who don’t swear to implement single-payer health care would be booted from the party in primaries. Sanders pollster Ben Tulchin penned an op-ed with a colleague under the headline “Universal health care is the new litmus test for Democrats.” Nina Turner, head of the Sanders group Our Revolution, told Politico this week that “there’s something wrong with” Democrats who won’t “unequivocally” embrace “Medicare-for-all.”

That notion — not just taking a stand but excommunicating all who disagree — is what Republicans have done to themselves with guns and taxes, and it would seriously diminish Democrats’ hopes of retaking the House next year.

At the same time, Our Revolution has stepped up its attack on the Democratic Party. Turner this week sent an email to supporters complaining that she and others attempted to deliver a petition to Democratic National Committee headquarters but “were shut out.” In a follow-up interview with BuzzFeed, Turner expressed particular outrage that the DNC offered her . . . donuts. “They tried to seduce us with donuts,” she said, calling the gesture “pompous” and “arrogant” and “insulting.”

It’s not just about breakfast confections. The Bernie crowd has begun accusing freshman Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), a rising Democratic star, of being beholden to corporate money. Also in California, Kimberly Ellis, who ran for state Democratic chairman with the support of Sanders and lost in a close race to a former Hillary Clinton delegate, is refusing to concede and threatening to sue. Ellis told Adam Nagourney of the New York Times that the “Democratic Party is in many ways right now where the Republican Party was when the tea party took over.”
And all of this in spite of the following:

Quote:
Fortunately, Sanders seems to have lost clout. Candidates backed by Our Revolution have lost 31 races in 2017 and won 16 — and the victories include “Portland Community College Director, Zone 5” and “South Fulton (Ga.) City Council 6.”

Candidates endorsed by Sanders have struggled in high-profile races. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) lost the DNC chairman race (he was appointed deputy chairman). Sanders-backed Tom Perriello lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia, and a Sanders campaign official was blown out in a California congressional primary . Neither did the Sanders magic get the job done for Democrats in special congressional elections in Kansas, Georgia or Montana, and his candidate lost the Omaha mayoral race.

Yet the attempt by the Sanders movement to impose a health-care litmus test on Democratic candidates shows its destructive potential within the party. Support for single-payer health coverage has been growing, and it would become a real possibility if Republicans sabotage Obamacare but don’t help the tens of millions who would lose insurance.

But to force Democrats to take some kind of single-payer purity oath would set back the cause. Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House, yet there are only 23 Republicans in districts won by Clinton — and only eight of those were won by President Barack Obama in 2012. There are a dozen Democrats in districts Trump won. In such swing districts, it would be suicidal to pledge support for something Republicans will brand as socialism.
So, it's necessary to be flexible about women's rights (something few if any female Dems will ever even consider to be flexible about and for good reason), but something that has proven to be problematic--and a guaranteed deal breaker--like single-payer requires a purity oath. Instead of something far more realistic like fixing the ACA (since Republicans keep claiming it's "broken"--thus fixing what's broken is the logical sound bite--in spite of the fact that they are the ones who broke it), the proven failure of the Sanders' approach is to alienate women and force allegiance to his pet cause that didn't motivate the first time he pushed it.

He is literally behaving exactly like Trump; denying he lost to Hillary and just doubling down on everything that fucked him over to begin with. Only now they've wormed their way into the DNC based on the same illogic (Hillary "lost" so jettison anything connected to her, but the same logic can't be applied to Sanders).
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Aug 2017, 12:47 AM   #675673 / #105
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

Literally?
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Aug 2017, 02:06 AM   #675675 / #106
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
Literally?
...denying he lost to Hillary and just doubling down on everything that fucked him over to begin with.

Yeah. I'll stand by it.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Aug 2017, 07:01 AM   #675677 / #107
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

Ok man.
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 06:07 AM   #675739 / #108
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,273
Default

In my local city council election (Bellevue, WA), Heidi Chiat, a self-described "Bernie Sanders Democrat" ran against the one backed by the local Democratic Party, Karol Brown. Final results to be certified tomorrow, but the current tally shows that Chiat and Brown combined beat the Republican candidate, Jared Niewenhuis, a local real estate guy who opposed a local heroin injection site that would have saved lives of addicts. The results are not yet final, but it looks like he will win the plurality. Chiat bled enough votes from Brown to block the Democrat. Chiat showed up at my house and wanted me to put up a lawn sign for her. I told her I would think about it, because I didn't know who her opposition would be at the time.

Congratulations go to the Sanders Democrats. Chiat could not possibly have won, but Brown likely would have won, had she not lost part of her base to Chiat. Unfortunately, Brown was not being "primaried" by Chiat, since the race was nonpartisan in theory. All three competed in the general. Nevertheless, the voters knew the background of all three candidates. Chiat made a big deal about being the anti-establishment Democratic candidate.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 08:04 PM   #675757 / #109
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,317
Default

Sounds like the democratic party better get their shit together if they want to start winning elections.
__________________
Trump Troll
praxis is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 03:53 PM   #675795 / #110
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
In my local city council election (Bellevue, WA), Heidi Chiat, a self-described "Bernie Sanders Democrat" ran against the one backed by the local Democratic Party, Karol Brown. Final results to be certified tomorrow, but the current tally shows that Chiat and Brown combined beat the Republican candidate, Jared Niewenhuis, a local real estate guy who opposed a local heroin injection site that would have saved lives of addicts. The results are not yet final, but it looks like he will win the plurality. Chiat bled enough votes from Brown to block the Democrat. Chiat showed up at my house and wanted me to put up a lawn sign for her. I told her I would think about it, because I didn't know who her opposition would be at the time.

Congratulations go to the Sanders Democrats. Chiat could not possibly have won, but Brown likely would have won, had she not lost part of her base to Chiat. Unfortunately, Brown was not being "primaried" by Chiat, since the race was nonpartisan in theory. All three competed in the general. Nevertheless, the voters knew the background of all three candidates. Chiat made a big deal about being the anti-establishment Democratic candidate.
So, iow, the exact same thing that happened in the general. The poison from the Sanders camp caused just enough damage for everyone to lose.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 03:59 PM   #675796 / #111
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Sounds like the democratic party better get their shit together if they want to start winning elections.
Sounds even more like the Sanders zombie needs to have its head cut off.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM   #675798 / #112
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Sounds like the democratic party better get their shit together if they want to start winning elections.
Sounds even more like the Sanders zombie needs to have its head cut off.
You should get busy with that.
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 05:22 PM   #675800 / #113
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Sounds like the democratic party better get their shit together if they want to start winning elections.
Sounds even more like the Sanders zombie needs to have its head cut off.
You should get busy with that.
Believe me, I already am.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 04:31 AM   #675819 / #114
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

You're busy tearing the Democratic party down while trump destroys the country and maybe the world. Well, to each their own I guess.
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 04:32 AM   #675820 / #115
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

However, the policies he advocated for are pretty popular. This is shock politics and it's now or never.
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 12:48 PM   #675830 / #116
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
You're busy tearing the Democratic party down
Horseshit. The party is being torn down by Sanders and his ilk as the pieces I've already posted clearly show. Women make up the largest percentage of Democrats, so exactly how does slapping them in the face with capitulation on owning their own bodies build the party up? Single Payer is not unique to Sanders and he was not the first person to advocate for it (Hillary was, ironically, until it was discovered some thirty years ago that Republicans simply won't vote for it, let alone numerous turncoat Dems, which has not changed to this day). So how exactly is requiring some meaningless "unity oath" going to build the party up? Shame? We already know the Democrats who won't vote for it, but more importantly we already know Repubicans won't vote for it.

Worse, it's STILL repeal and replace, not simply fixing the ACA, which gives Republicans exactly what they want only without the spotlight. If Democrats are the ones pushing repeal and replace then Republicans can simply vote to repeal and then never vote to replace. They can't do that now because they would be to blame, but if Dems are the ones taking the lead then Republican re-election isn't in jeopardy as it is now.

If something is broken, you fix it. It's the smartest and simplest move. But Sanders wants vindication, not to actually effect change. Like Trump, he's still behaving like he's on the campaign trail. That doesn't help the party, that simply helps Sanders.

Plus, Single Payer wasn't an issue for anyone voting for Trump in any of the swing states, but personal rights (i.e., pro-choice) is ALWAYS an issue for every woman in the swing states. So who does SP appeal to other than people who are already Democrats? What swing votes--either "Independent" or Republican--will making SP a primary, oath-based platform garner?

The Sanders narrative requires that he lost and Hillary lost because of the working class males in the swing states feeling disenfranchised and that is exactly the demographic that is being targeted in regard to both SP and anti-abortion, but they weren't the problem as has been demonstrated repeatedly (here and here most notably, but also here in a more philosophical construct). So why is the Sanders camp once again insisting that they are the ones we should be targeting? The only answer is because that's who Sanders has been insisting are the problem literally for his entire career, never wavering once even after he was proven wrong both in the primaries and in the general.

In short, like Trump, it's all about Sanders and proving he was right (and thereby proving all of his supporters were right). It's Dunning-Kruger in full effect.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; Today at 01:10 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 12:53 PM   #675831 / #117
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
However, the policies he advocated for are pretty popular.
Magical ponies always are. Though how do you define "pretty" popular? He only managed to motivate 6% of Democrats to vote for him. That's not popular at all. There was a LOT of bluster--Russian fueled as we now know and Sanders evidently knew at the time and did nothing of substance to stop--but bluster, smoke and mirrors once the smoke clears does not equal "popular." Only the vote measures that and he was overwhelmingly rejected.

Even if you wish to keep pretending there was any kind of undue influence against him by some mythical all-powerful DNC leadership that can't possibly explain the dismal failure of his final turnout. He had Republicans working on his behalf; Putin working on his behalf; an entire "revolution" of the supposed best and brightest intellectuals in the Dems and Independent camps working on his behalf; and some three decades of anti-Hillary propaganda to exploit (which they did with reckless abandon) on the newest and most powerful form of media we have yet invented and when the smoke cleared, the best he could motivate was 6% of all Democrats. That's not in any way significant.

And please dispense with the whataboutism. For all intents and purposes, Sanders did not exist politically on a national scale, but certainly not as any kind of contender for President within the Democratic Party, so for him (as opposed to Hillary) the primaries were the perfect referendum. He was fully vetted and soundly rejected. Hillary, otoh, had already run for President against Obama; was the first to announce her presidency (after years of hints and general acceptance and great expectation within the party that she was the natural "first female" choice, etc); was, as so many Sanders' bots were livid about, basically accepted by all as being the nominee; and was always millions of votes ahead as well as a lock with electors, so as with the general, the belief was that no one needed to vote for her (in spite of the fact that millions did); that she had it locked. For Sanders, however, it was tabula rasa, so for him (and only him) the final numbers were significant in regard to a test of his place within the party.

It's so straightforward that it boggles the mind and yet we still have to deal with the "Hillary lost, so reject her, but that logic doesn't apply to Sanders at all, so double down on everything he did again" illogic.

Forget everything else and just focus on that illogic alone. If we are to reject Hillary (and all that she entails) because she "lost" (in spite of the fact that she did not), then why in the world should we not do the exact same thing with Sanders (and all that he entails)? He actually lost and on a much bigger scale and among people who were most likely to vote for him and his platform.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; Today at 01:58 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 03:26 PM   #675839 / #118
plebian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: America
Posts: 2,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
You're busy tearing the Democratic party down
Horseshit. The party is being torn down by Sanders and his ilk as the pieces I've already posted clearly show. Women make up the largest percentage of Democrats, so exactly how does slapping them in the face with capitulation on owning their own bodies build the party up? Single Payer is not unique to Sanders and he was not the first person to advocate for it (Hillary was, ironically, until it was discovered some thirty years ago that Republicans simply won't vote for it, let alone numerous turncoat Dems, which has not changed to this day). So how exactly is requiring some meaningless "unity oath" going to build the party up? Shame? We already know the Democrats who won't vote for it, but more importantly we already know Repubicans won't vote for it.

Worse, it's STILL repeal and replace, not simply fixing the ACA, which gives Republicans exactly what they want only without the spotlight. If Democrats are the ones pushing repeal and replace then Republicans can simply vote to repeal and then never vote to replace. They can't do that now because they would be to blame, but if Dems are the ones taking the lead then Republican re-election isn't in jeopardy as it is now.

If something is broken, you fix it. It's the smartest and simplest move. But Sanders wants vindication, not to actually effect change. Like Trump, he's still behaving like he's on the campaign trail. That doesn't help the party, that simply helps Sanders.

Plus, Single Payer wasn't an issue for anyone voting for Trump in any of the swing states, but personal rights (i.e., pro-choice) is ALWAYS an issue for every woman in the swing states. So who does SP appeal to other than people who are already Democrats? What swing votes--either "Independent" or Republican--will making SP a primary, oath-based platform garner?

The Sanders narrative requires that he lost and Hillary lost because of the working class males in the swing states feeling disenfranchised and that is exactly the demographic that is being targeted in regard to both SP and anti-abortion, but they weren't the problem as has been demonstrated repeatedly (here and here most notably, but also here in a more philosophical construct). So why is the Sanders camp once again insisting that they are the ones we should be targeting? The only answer is because that's who Sanders has been insisting are the problem literally for his entire career, never wavering once even after he was proven wrong both in the primaries and in the general.

In short, like Trump, it's all about Sanders and proving he was right (and thereby proving all of his supporters were right). It's Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
So, as long as they veer your direction, it's all good. Hmm. Well, I think there might be some legitimate differences of opinions on that.
plebian is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 03:55 PM   #675840 / #119
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Yeah, that's right, plebian. All I care about is my own self-aggrandizement. All the logic, argumentation, links proving my points; just avoid all of that and attack the man.

Alienating women--the largest contingent of the party--by accepting anti-abortion as part of the platform? Not legitimate.
Forcing people to sign a unity oath as a shaming tactic on a policy that has been repeatedly proven to fail when a far better approach--fixing what's broken--is actually obtainable? Not legitimate.
Unnecessarily targeting a pet demographic that had nothing to do with Trump being President and is already staunchly Dem (and voted for Hillary accordingly)? Not legitimate.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 08:07 PM   #675848 / #120
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
So, as long as they veer your direction, it's all good. Hmm. Well, I think there might be some legitimate differences of opinions on that.
Back in the early 80's a young me and the ex went to NY to see Paul Simon's Graceland Tour Concert at Radio City. It was a Sunday afternoon and we were browsing the street vendors prior to the start of the concert. There was this one vendor selling watches and a decent number of people were viewing his display. I remember a guy inquiring of a certain watch and asked to see it. The vendor took the watch out and allowed the guy to try it on his wrist. The fella and his girlfriend were admiring the watch when the vendor said: "I see you like that watch - I'll discount the price so you can buy it." The guy told the vendor that he'd like to buy the watch but it was still too much money for him. The vendor became frustrated and says: "buy the watch or I'll hurt you." I don't know what the outcome was but at that point me and a lot of other people walked away from that business costing the vendor potential sales.

Bullying, name calling and attempting to embarrass the people you're trying to recruit rarely works in increasing interest in any endeavor.
praxis is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 08:36 PM   #675851 / #121
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,317
Default

But I agree with Koyaanisqatsi that Bernie Sanders is not the answer to the Democrat Party's woes. The Democratic party is a completely dysfunctional party that can't figure out how to be an alternative to the outright and unapologetic capitalist Republican Party.

It's not like there isn't any interest in an alternative to the Republicans. There's plenty of interest in an alternative. The Democratic establishment just can't figure out how to coalesce the different factions.

The problem, as I see it, is that there have been too many crossovers in both parties that there isn't much daylight between them on subjects like foreign policy and intelligence, and these areas have heightened interest these days. There are so many Democrats who are neocons that it's scary. People on the left are being very cautious about war and they won't vote for any president that advocates any war at all. Clinton was brazen about her willingness of war and regime change that she alienated a lot of voters. Some of those voters went to Trump, some went to Stein and some chose to stay home.

Think about Schumer's comment regarding intelligence when he chided Trump on not taking his daily intelligence briefing. What Schumer unwittingly revealed was that he would in no way, shape or form buck the establishment. Too many elected Democrats think like Chuck Schumer and many progressives don't trust the establishment. The bill on Israeli BSD that featured sponsors from both parties is an example of what is alienating true progressives.

Last edited by praxis; Today at 09:02 PM.
praxis is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 08:46 PM   #675852 / #122
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Back in the early 80's a young me and the ex went to NY to see Paul Simon's Graceland Tour Concert at Radio City. It was a Sunday afternoon and we were browsing the street vendors prior to the start of the concert. There was this one vendor selling watches and a decent number of people were viewing his display. I remember a guy inquiring of a certain watch and asked to see it. The vendor took the watch out and allowed the guy to try it on his wrist. The fella and his girlfriend were admiring the watch when the vendor said: "I see you like that watch - I'll discount the price so you can buy it." The guy told the vendor that he'd like to buy the watch but it was still too much money for him. The vendor became frustrated and says: "buy the watch or I'll hurt you." I don't know what the outcome was but at that point me and a lot of other people walked away from that business costing the vendor potential sales.
That was actually a criminal act to say that.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 08:59 PM   #675854 / #123
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Back in the early 80's a young me and the ex went to NY to see Paul Simon's Graceland Tour Concert at Radio City. It was a Sunday afternoon and we were browsing the street vendors prior to the start of the concert. There was this one vendor selling watches and a decent number of people were viewing his display. I remember a guy inquiring of a certain watch and asked to see it. The vendor took the watch out and allowed the guy to try it on his wrist. The fella and his girlfriend were admiring the watch when the vendor said: "I see you like that watch - I'll discount the price so you can buy it." The guy told the vendor that he'd like to buy the watch but it was still too much money for him. The vendor became frustrated and says: "buy the watch or I'll hurt you." I don't know what the outcome was but at that point me and a lot of other people walked away from that business costing the vendor potential sales.
That was actually a criminal act to say that.
I know. It was a terroristic threat even back then.
praxis is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus