Democrats 2020

[Fentoine Lum]

I'm not so interested in punishing the banker class as you seem to be. I just want them held within bounds. I take the view that they consider Warren to be the plausible threat.

That's the difference between the two candidates in a nutshell. When Warren talks about her plans, she frames it as speaking to the manager of a restaurant because the service wasn't up to par. When Bernie talks about our movement, it gets people asking whether billionaires should even exist. Incremental reformism versus structural change. Asking for a loaf of bread knowing you'll only get half versus asking for a slice without realizing you'll probably get crumbs.

I'm not in favor of eliminating billionaires per se. I believe in capitalism. But we don't have capitalism when large segments of society have no hope of ever having enough wealth in order to invest in opportunities when they become available. Which is what capitalism actually means. So redistribution or whatever else it takes so that everyone has that opportunity sometime in their adult lives. The call to eliminate billionaires is attacking the symptom. I'm not in favor of socialism. The left has been duped by the right into accepting their definition of the term. It's a straw man. It's gaslighting. And I'm tired of having to defend whatever it means to be a democratic socialist.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

This place we're at, now, it did not just arise on it's own, as a "natural" market phenomenon.

 

[Treedbear]

How so when "both" parties serve the same donor class? We got "here" over decades of the people waiting on the system to live up to the rhetoric and self correct. No one party or swapping out personalities will deal with the situation, that's folly. Revisit the Powell Memorandum and the Trilateral Commission's publication "A Crisis of Democracy". There's nothing wrong with the system, it's working as designed.

Member how "fresh" Obama felt? Yeah well, there ya go, go pick someone who makes you feel better, try that one moe'gin.

Well you could just refuse to vote and see where that gets ya.

Were I to select that option, that would put me with half of my fellow countrymen in refusing to accept the lessor of two evils, which is still evil. When a 16 year old kid from Sweden will step up to reality and my entire political system is too cucked to do so? Yeah sorry, I'm not down with your/its concentration camps either. The notion that voting = representation is pure unadulterated bullshit in american society.

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting? You seem to be promoting the idea that the American people get what they deserve. Presidential and mid-term election turnout has been roughly 60% and 40% respectively since 1920. That happens to be about the time immigration as a percentage of total population began a long term down-trend. But whoever it is that votes tends to get listened to more than whoever it is that doesn't vote. But don't vote because it's patriotic or because some guys sacrificed their lives so you could. Vote selfishly. Vote as if the politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, and that means they'll sell their souls to get your, or the next guy's, vote. But they definitely aren't about to care if they think it isn't "reciprocal".

ETA- People who won't vote on-principle remind me of anti-vaxers who say they don't get a flu shot because they never get the flu, or don't get the measles shot because the risk of getting autism is greater than the risk of getting the measles. They're blindly obstinate to the fact that if everyone took that attitude then we'd go back to when millions died of these illnesses. They just don't get that they have their neighbors to thank for having gotten the vacine as a matter of public responsibility.

 

[PyramidHead]

Were I to select that option, that would put me with half of my fellow countrymen in refusing to accept the lessor of two evils, which is still evil. When a 16 year old kid from Sweden will step up to reality and my entire political system is too cucked to do so? Yeah sorry, I'm not down with your/its concentration camps either. The notion that voting = representation is pure unadulterated bullshit in american society.

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting? You seem to be promoting the idea that the American people get what they deserve. Presidential and mid-term election turnout has been roughly 60% and 40% respectively since 1920. That happens to be about the time immigration as a percentage of total population began a long term down-trend. But whoever it is that votes tends to get listened to more than whoever it is that doesn't vote. But don't vote because it's patriotic or because some guys sacrificed their lives so you could. Vote selfishly. Vote as if the politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, and that means they'll sell their souls to get your, or the next guy's, vote. But they definitely aren't about to care if they think it isn't "reciprocal".

ETA- People who won't vote on-principle remind me of anti-vaxers who say they don't get a flu shot because they never get the flu, or don't get the measles shot because the risk of getting autism is greater than the risk of getting the measles. They're blindly obstinate to the fact that if everyone took that attitude then we'd go back to when millions died of these illnesses. They just don't get that they have their neighbors to thank for having gotten the vacine as a matter of public responsibility.

That's a myopic view of what motivates people. An awful lot of non-voters are people who, rightly I believe, simply have not seen anything change for the better as a result of one party being in power versus another. You have to give such people the benefit of the doubt if they are ever to become politically engaged, rather than shaming them for not having the same political priorities as you.

 

[Treedbear]

Were I to select that option, that would put me with half of my fellow countrymen in refusing to accept the lessor of two evils, which is still evil. When a 16 year old kid from Sweden will step up to reality and my entire political system is too cucked to do so? Yeah sorry, I'm not down with your/its concentration camps either. The notion that voting = representation is pure unadulterated bullshit in american society.

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting? You seem to be promoting the idea that the American people get what they deserve. Presidential and mid-term election turnout has been roughly 60% and 40% respectively since 1920. That happens to be about the time immigration as a percentage of total population began a long term down-trend. But whoever it is that votes tends to get listened to more than whoever it is that doesn't vote. But don't vote because it's patriotic or because some guys sacrificed their lives so you could. Vote selfishly. Vote as if the politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, and that means they'll sell their souls to get your, or the next guy's, vote. But they definitely aren't about to care if they think it isn't "reciprocal".

ETA- People who won't vote on-principle remind me of anti-vaxers who say they don't get a flu shot because they never get the flu, or don't get the measles shot because the risk of getting autism is greater than the risk of getting the measles. They're blindly obstinate to the fact that if everyone took that attitude then we'd go back to when millions died of these illnesses. They just don't get that they have their neighbors to thank for having gotten the vacine as a matter of public responsibility.

That's a myopic view of what motivates people. An awful lot of non-voters are people who, rightly I believe, simply have not seen anything change for the better as a result of one party being in power versus another. You have to give such people the benefit of the doubt if they are ever to become politically engaged, rather than shaming them for not having the same political priorities as you.

Talk about being myopic. I'm talking about the attitude of all politicians, regardless of party. Do you want them to reflect corporate interests, or popular interests? And playing into the idea that voting is a waste of time favors corporate interests. Oh yeah, and apparently the interests of the Russian oligarchy.

 

[angelo]

Booker is charismatic.

Warren proposes great policies. She sees where the power of wealth has gone too far.

Either of them would be great.

Maybe both.

Booker is in the pocket of big pharma, nope. Where's Warren's funding coming from again? Fuck charismatic.

Agreed on Booker.

Choosing a president on charisma is a pretty shallow method.

Are you finally admitting Obama was a shallow President who just happened to have fairly good speech writers?

 

[southernhybrid]

What some of the posters don't seem to understand is that humans are flawed, always have been, always will be. We are great apes and like our closest ape relatives, we have a tendency toward aggression, among other things. There is no utopian society. So, when I vote, I don't think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. I think of it as choosing the better of two flawed humans. Ape society has leaders. That's how we evolved. Primatology is one of my favorite reading topics because it's helped me understand human nature from an evolutionary perspective.

While I hate the lesser of two evils argument, I would still consider a lesser evil better than an extreme evil. So, I have a very difficult time understanding those who expect perfection from our leaders. That ain't ever gonna happen. Get over it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Agreed on Booker.

Choosing a president on charisma is a pretty shallow method.

Are you finally admitting Obama was a shallow President who just happened to have fairly good speech writers?

Reading comprehension is a good thing to have. I suggest you get some.

 

[PyramidHead]

What some of the posters don't seem to understand is that humans are flawed, always have been, always will be. We are great apes and like our closest ape relatives, we have a tendency toward aggression, among other things. There is no utopian society. So, when I vote, I don't think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. I think of it as choosing the better of two flawed humans. Ape society has leaders. That's how we evolved. Primatology is one of my favorite reading topics because it's helped me understand human nature from an evolutionary perspective.

While I hate the lesser of two evils argument, I would still consider a lesser evil better than an extreme evil. So, I have a very difficult time understanding those who expect perfection from our leaders. That ain't ever gonna happen. Get over it.

Human nature is informed by our material conditions, so invoking it as a justification for maintaining those conditions basically as they are is inherently conservative and reactionary

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Were I to select that option, that would put me with half of my fellow countrymen in refusing to accept the lessor of two evils, which is still evil. When a 16 year old kid from Sweden will step up to reality and my entire political system is too cucked to do so? Yeah sorry, I'm not down with your/its concentration camps either. The notion that voting = representation is pure unadulterated bullshit in american society.

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting? You seem to be promoting the idea that the American people get what they deserve. Presidential and mid-term election turnout has been roughly 60% and 40% respectively since 1920. That happens to be about the time immigration as a percentage of total population began a long term down-trend. But whoever it is that votes tends to get listened to more than whoever it is that doesn't vote. But don't vote because it's patriotic or because some guys sacrificed their lives so you could. Vote selfishly. Vote as if the politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, and that means they'll sell their souls to get your, or the next guy's, vote. But they definitely aren't about to care if they think it isn't "reciprocal".

ETA- People who won't vote on-principle remind me of anti-vaxers who say they don't get a flu shot because they never get the flu, or don't get the measles shot because the risk of getting autism is greater than the risk of getting the measles. They're blindly obstinate to the fact that if everyone took that attitude then we'd go back to when millions died of these illnesses. They just don't get that they have their neighbors to thank for having gotten the vacine as a matter of public responsibility.

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting?

Brilliant. So if a system is corrupt, it is the fault of those who see it is corrupt, not those who participate in it and cooperate with it. All my vaccinations are up to date, but thanks for the concern. How do you feel about cooperating in and participating with our concentration camps? Thoughts and prayers?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

What some of the posters don't seem to understand is that humans are flawed, always have been, always will be. We are great apes and like our closest ape relatives, we have a tendency toward aggression, among other things. There is no utopian society. So, when I vote, I don't think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. I think of it as choosing the better of two flawed humans. Ape society has leaders. That's how we evolved. Primatology is one of my favorite reading topics because it's helped me understand human nature from an evolutionary perspective.

While I hate the lesser of two evils argument, I would still consider a lesser evil better than an extreme evil. So, I have a very difficult time understanding those who expect perfection from our leaders. That ain't ever gonna happen. Get over it.

No. This concept of human nature is bullshit with overtones of religion; you are a fucked up human being simply because you are a human being and all hominids are fucked up. What we glibly refer to as "human nature" is most certainly not the/a nature of every individual, however I'll concede there will always be these types of individuals among us, and they are attracted and drawn to positions of power/authority over others. Choosing between two flawed hominids for an elected office is quite different than supporting a perpetual system of economic and militarist oppression across the globe which goes out and intentionally destabilizes other nations and engages in bogusly justified preemptive endless war for profit.

The system itself admits it runs upon the the lessor of two evils dichotomy, and funding. What americans still yet have a difficult time understanding is that power concedes nothing without first a demand. Who expects perfection from our "leaders"? That's not how any of this works. Our "leaders" do not lead and that is not what they are there to do in a representative democratic form of governance; they are there to do the will of the people. "Leaders" follow the demands of the people, we're just not very demanding. Perfection? Please. We have become so cucked we follow them, that's how we got Don in the first place. Even decency and honesty is too much to demand. And frankly, Hillary was/is just as dishonest and corrupt and really really into more war.

So yeah, a funcitonal representative democratic society that works for all? That ain't ever gonna happen. Get over it. Stop pointing it out, ya such a perfectionist.

 

[PyramidHead]

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting?

Brilliant. So if a system is corrupt, it is the fault of those who see it is corrupt, not those who participate in it and cooperate with it. All my vaccinations are up to date, but thanks for the concern. How do you feel about cooperating in and participating with our concentration camps? Thoughts and prayers?

It's possible to do both, though. By which I mean, electoral politics can be used as one tool among many in the struggle, as long as it doesn't become the only (or even the primary) tool at your disposal. The American system of representative government is primarily a weapon used by the ruling class to oppress everyone else, either overtly (Republicans) or with a sigh (Democrats). As of yet, there is still ample opportunity to turn this weapon against them, by running and supporting representatives that are not beholden to the same class interests. There are material differences between the prospects of future struggles, depending on whether the overtly oppressive or oppressive-with-a-sigh party is in power, and it's foolish not to leverage whatever advantage we can.

The good news is that there is still one virtually incorruptible politician running for President. For people who recognize the stakes and the gravity of failing to take them seriously, this is a generational opportunity that might not come again in a long, long time.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The good news is that there is still one virtually incorruptible politician running for President.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting?

Brilliant. So if a system is corrupt, it is the fault of those who see it is corrupt, not those who participate in it and cooperate with it. All my vaccinations are up to date, but thanks for the concern. How do you feel about cooperating in and participating with our concentration camps? Thoughts and prayers?

It's possible to do both, though. By which I mean, electoral politics can be used as one tool among many in the struggle, as long as it doesn't become the only (or even the primary) tool at your disposal. The American system of representative government is primarily a weapon used by the ruling class to oppress everyone else, either overtly (Republicans) or with a sigh (Democrats). As of yet, there is still ample opportunity to turn this weapon against them, by running and supporting representatives that are not beholden to the same class interests. There are material differences between the prospects of future struggles, depending on whether the overtly oppressive or oppressive-with-a-sigh party is in power, and it's foolish not to leverage whatever advantage we can.

The good news is that there is still one virtually incorruptible politician running for President. For people who recognize the stakes and the gravity of failing to take them seriously, this is a generational opportunity that might not come again in a long, long time.

There are material differences between the prospects of future struggles, depending on whether the overtly oppressive or oppressive-with-a-sigh party is in power, and it's foolish not to leverage whatever advantage we can.

By which I mean, electoral politics can be used as one tool among many in the struggle, as long as it doesn't become the only (or even the primary) tool at your disposal. The American system of representative government is primarily a weapon used by the ruling class to oppress everyone else, either overtly (Republicans) or with a sigh (Democrats).

We got where we are operating within the very framework you call into question. The vote is a ruse, that is not where change comes from. See you in the streets.

 

[Treedbear]

How about the idea that this evil political system is the fault of people not voting?

Brilliant. So if a system is corrupt, it is the fault of those who see it is corrupt, not those who participate in it and cooperate with it. All my vaccinations are up to date, but thanks for the concern. How do you feel about cooperating in and participating with our concentration camps? Thoughts and prayers?

Everyone knows there's corruption and everyone participates in it. You do pay taxes don't you? Voting is one of the only things that can change it. You can vote for what you hope is better, or you can not vote and let others go for something worse. But spare me the sarcasm about thoughts and prayers. Governments will never be perfect. It's better than no government at all. You can wallow in your feelings of revulsion about government concentration camps or you can write your congressmen that you want something done about them. Or take to the streets and protest. I know from personal experience that they listen. And elections have consequences. You'd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to realize that. If you'll only settle for perfection maybe you should go find God or something. But you might have to stop getting your vaccinations.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Whether or not to vote is a good question. I have seen some very well thought out arguments about how participating the process means giving consent to the process.

The problem is, consent is manufactured either way. If you do vote, the PTB say "you participated, therefore you consent to the outcome." If you do not vote, the PTB say "obviously you are not concerned with the outcome, therefore you consent to the outcome." If people treated dating consent the way the government treats voting consent, the number of rapists would skyrocket.

Therefore I vote to throw sand in the gears. It is the only sensible outcome. Once you've been vetted enough by the party and the press to be within spitting distance of high office, you're too corrupt to do much good anyway. Sure there are maybe one or two exceptions, but don't count on them. No, Bernie isn't an exception.

 

[Elixir]

I know from personal experience that they listen.

Heh. Yeah, they do. And much more so if they happen to know you in an outside-of-work context. So to be effective it is sometimes necessary to suppress some revulsion and get to know and get along with your local congressperson or senator. Then, despite possibly having gotten some movement out of them you might have to turn around and stab them in the back by voting against them, taking a small step toward becoming what we revile. We are (mostly) humans, and are subject to our own feelings to some extent, no matter how "professional" we may try to be.

 

[PyramidHead]

Whether or not to vote is a good question. I have seen some very well thought out arguments about how participating the process means giving consent to the process.

The problem is, consent is manufactured either way. If you do vote, the PTB say "you participated, therefore you consent to the outcome." If you do not vote, the PTB say "obviously you are not concerned with the outcome, therefore you consent to the outcome." If people treated dating consent the way the government treats voting consent, the number of rapists would skyrocket.

Therefore I vote to throw sand in the gears. It is the only sensible outcome. Once you've been vetted enough by the party and the press to be within spitting distance of high office, you're too corrupt to do much good anyway. Sure there are maybe one or two exceptions, but don't count on them. No, Bernie isn't an exception.

I thought you said you weren't duped by anarchism though?

 

[PyramidHead]

We got where we are operating within the very framework you call into question. The vote is a ruse, that is not where change comes from. See you in the streets.

We got where we got by spending money, but we can't get out of it without spending money. We got where we got by accepting credit as a replacement for income, but credit can be useful for the working class all the same. We got where we got by using fossil fuels, but if I stop using them I can no longer do anything politically because I can't get anywhere. We have to look at the situation through the lens of practical material utility for our interests, not as a symbol of ideological purity.

Maybe an extreme example, but you seem the sort that might get what I'm aiming for by invoking it: the slave revolts that precipitated unrest in the American south and furthered the cause of abolition wouldn't have taken place if the slaves refused to use farming tools as weapons, or refused to steal whips and guns from their masters' households.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Whether or not to vote is a good question.

No, it really isn't. It should, in fact, be mandatory with strong penalties for non-compliance. The primary reason it isn't, of course, is that, if it were the right would lose every single time.

I have seen some very well thought out arguments about how participating the process means giving consent to the process.

Which are all predicated on a ludicrously unsupportable false equivalence fallacy.

Therefore I vote to throw sand in the gears. It is the only sensible outcome.

Not when you understand that you're not throwing "sand," you're throwing one grain into a gear that is the equivalent of a Saturn rocket mover. And before you think, "But if we ALL..." it still would simply grind it all and keep moving. It's government, not a Model T.

Once you've been vetted enough by the party and the press to be within spitting distance of high office, you're too corrupt to do much good anyway. Sure there are maybe one or two exceptions, but don't count on them.

It's so weird that people understand what an incredible uphill battle it is to ever do anything good in American politics--due exclusively to a smaller group of power-mad fuckheads that should be--and often are--imprisoned and then when two shining examples actually do manage--in spite of it all and against herculean efforts against them--to do good things, if they don't pull magical bunnies out of their asses, they're shit and nothing they did matters.

The fault, dear Jason, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

No, Bernie isn't an exception.

Because it's not church. It's a goddamned job interview. Maybe if we stopped deifying and instead read their resumes and asked them relevant questions regarding their job history and the like, we'd hire better candidates for the job.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it really isn't. It should, in fact, be mandatory with strong penalties for non-compliance. The primary reason it isn't, of course, is that, if it were the right would lose every single time.

You think that if everyone voted your side would win, so therefore you want to make voting mandatory. Yet you try to cast aspersions on the other side for keeping it non-mandatory. Fascinating.

Which are all predicated on a ludicrously unsupportable false equivalence fallacy.

Where is the false equivalence in "if you vote you are giving consent to the process and the outcome"? Either you vote or you don't. Either you consent or you don't.

It's so weird that people understand what an incredible uphill battle it is to ever do anything good in American politics--due exclusively to a smaller group of power-mad fuckheads that should be--and often are--imprisoned and then when two shining examples actually do manage--in spite of it all and against herculean efforts against them--to do good things, if they don't pull magical bunnies out of their asses, they're shit and nothing they did matters.

Gee, it is almost as if I didn't write "there are maybe one or two exceptions". But I did. Hmm. Let me double check... yes, I wrote that, and you don't seem to get it.

The fault, dear Jason, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

And you want to make the process mandatory no less.

Maybe if we stopped deifying and instead read their resumes and asked them relevant questions regarding their job history and the like, we'd hire better candidates for the job.

Like either you or I would get close enough to ask the relevant questions. Take an issue that is important to me - anti-war. The very rare candidate who opposes our unnecessary wars of aggression has to bring it up on his/her own just to get it out there because the reporters who cover presidential races don't ask. Are you going to barge into the debate, seize the microphone, and ask?