One again, SolRo, I have to ask: how do you reconcile your loyalties, given that Russia (including their foreign media department, RT) is firmly against Hillary?
I mean, you have to be aware of this by now. The whole reason RT is hosting this video and framing it the way they are, is because they want Americans to see the truth about Bernie, Hillary, and the Democratic party. At the very least, the Russians want to sow enough doubt in the fictions being sold to the American left, that their man Trump can ride in and start the US Glasnost.
Sooner or later, SolRo, you will have to pick a side. A house divided cannot stand.
That's called a Duplex you great twit.
Have you *tried* living in a duplex, Meerkat? Neighbours constantly screaming at each other and blasting their country music right through your walls?
I stand firmly by my statement. A house divided CANNOT stand.
My favorite quote comes from Iowa Sanders delegate Chris Laursen: "Bernie basically fed us a bunch of Mountain Dew and now he wants us to go to bed. It’s not going to happen."
Aw cheer up Chris, think of the sippy cup as half-full.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
There are two kinds of people ion the world:
1. People who sometimes find it necessary to compromise their principles.
Sorry guys, you ended up on the wrong side of that.
Bernie supporters ARE compromising their principles, John. They are forsaking the Principle of Party Loyalty (which seems to be the only remaining operating principle of the late-stage Democratic Party) and are turning into Trump voters. They compromise, because they are not willing to embrace Hillary's imperialist dictatorship.
If you can see anything *wrong* with young people's willingness to compromise in order to avoid a dictatorship, then please, John, try and turn that insight around, to see how it might also apply to yourself.
Is that really what you hear when people talk about Hillary Clinton's problems, or the problems with the DNC? They have kept every war Bush started going, started military action in East Africa, promoted regressive trade policies and done the VERY MINIMUM to promote socially liberal policies at home. Do you dispute any of this?
5 for interesting times.
To William, as far as the continuation of our current wars, I feel like there's a false narrative here about how low-intensity insurgent wars work. Sure, ending our involvement in these theaters would be the principled and good choice to make, but it's also idiotic.
By idiotic I mean naive, actually, because in a globalized world such as the one we live in, destabilizing a country and pulling out will generally make things worse. Remember, we left Iraq in 2011--and by left that means we ended our combat mission and withdrew our military forces--and after we left hooboy things got WAY better.
Also remember that the US was in talks with the Taliban in an effort to bring them into the political process and attempt a peace process, but it's hard to bring a faction into a peaceful political process when that faction is not holding up a truce (IE still killing people).
Don't forget that in conflicts we were involved with and then left suddenly without helping to rebuild the nation or seek a lasting peace tended to at best do nothing to improve the desperate situation, but almost always make things worse (see Afghanistan 1980's edition, Somalia, the entirety of South America) and in countries we stayed have managed to create something of either a lasting (but sometimes tenuous) peace, like South Korea, or economic prosperity (Japan, Germany are gucci examples).
The only exception I can think of is Vietnam, but I think its because they hate China more than they hate us, and those fuckers beat us.
Obama (and by extension the Democrats) attempted to achieve his promised presidential goals, but it turns out fulfilling that promise (admirable it may be to always seek a peaceful and immediate cessation of all hostilities forever and ever) would be a fucking awful decision (and it was). So what have we learned? Nothing, it seems; people want their wars like they want their starbucks: fast and just they way they like it.
Lest we forget that war is a messy and horrid thing, but it's also a thing that we as a nation have to deal with, for a long time, to see it become something of a somewhat kind of decent sorta solution (but it never really feels like victory, tho).
TL;DR I know you want to end all wars but we made this bed and now we have to sleep in it. or the bed will catch on fire and we will have no beds.
The only conflict that we've pulled out of in the last 40 years IS Vietnam. Turning over the conflict to proxies or private contractors in Afghanistan or Iraq is not substantially different than continuing them at full bore with American troops. The fact is that if we stick around, nothing will change.
Saddam's Iraq could have eventually become a Democracy if we hadn't saddled it with impossible sanctions. Isis certainly wouldn't be happening right now.
Most of the Islamic World's problems are due to our addiction to Saudi Oil.
Afghanistan is the Graveyard of Empires. We really, really shouldn't be there.
How long will it take before our presence stabilizes these regions, in your opinion?
It wasn't that long ago that PoeTV was great because the level of discourse was smarter and more nuanced than, say, Youtube comments.
Remember those halycon days?
I don't know, OZ, have you actually been on Youtube lately? Have you tried to have a conversation with any of those people? You may think that the level of discourse is dropping here on poeTV - and that may indeed be the case - but I can assure you that we are still a loooong way from becoming another Youtube.
I'm not kidding! I've been trying to have rational debates with Stefan Molyneux's new batch of supporters lately, and my god has it been depressing. The other day somebody told me (without a shred of irony) that because "SJWs" were threatening his freedom of speech, "SJWs" should all be thrown into forced-labor camps.
Don't get me wrong, Youtube hasn't quite hit rock bottom (anyone remember Yahoo News?) but it's clear that the Summer of Chaos is taking its toll on people's minds.
John Holmes Motherfucker
I remember being told that, for giving birth to me, my mother''s uterus should be ripped out, and replaced with a rotting colostomy bag.
but that may have been POE-News
Wasn't that Orcs, John? That sounds like something Orcs would say.
OZ - I firmly believe we blew past the point of reasonable discussion long ago and nobody cared. The reality is that you get progressive legislation not by electing a progressive president but by tossing Republicans out of Congress (and the process needs to be repeated at the state level). This is not news.
Nevertheless, much of the Left fights strenuously to deny that; they have decided their proper function is outrage, and if they ever let themselves conclude a politician did the right thing, they are betraying their Leftie "principles". So they cannot accept any outcome other than, all Democrats are corrupt. (The only exceptions to that are politicians they consider "outsiders", such as the 25-year inhabitant of Congress with very little to show for his quarter century, or the medical doctor who has never won an election.)
Read JHMf's article. It talks about the problem of those who demand absolute agreement and insist on inexperienced politicians; to be sure that describes the Teabaggers, but it sounds more and more like Brand New Congress. These are not the adults in the room and I don't think reasonable discussion with them is possible.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Democracy works, Democrats don't.
Congress is controlled by idiots, because in a crucial midterm election, the idiots showed up and no one else did. What Sandra Bee didn't mention about the 2010 election is that it was so important because it was a census year, and so the Republicans were in control of redistricting. Hence the aggressive gerrymandering that has made the Republican majority as intractable as herpes.
So now, a lot of the same people who stayed home in 2010 (the youth vote) are talking about how the system is broken and we need a revolution. Couldn't we just TRY voting?
Oz, no, lol
This is what happens when people who must be comfortable while surrounded by rivers of blood lose their comfort, they also lose their shit and go full bore ragetacker. Like with any anti-intellect that has power over the lives of others, you probably should not engage them from a position of weakness. Just go behind their backs without dialog or consent and remove the parts of the environment which allows them to survive. That way, when they turn around, they are alone, powerless, and bawling in the wilderness.
This is what it sounds like when hawks cry. *dunt dunt dunt dunt* Ooooh! *dunt dunt dunt dunt* Ahhhhh!
Mr Bort, I think you are aware oif this already, but JHM's article is damage control. It attempts to focus people's attention on a non-issue, in order to keep them from facing the simple reality of the situation: Hillary is not a good choice for president. She is not even a remotely acceptable choice for president.
Bernie voters are unwilling to vote for Hillary because they see her for who she really is. Bernie voters know that vote for Hillary is a vote for the neoconservative agenda - it is a vote for war, tyranny, and oligarchy. It is a vote for more of the same. Now, admittedly, there are an awful lot of Conspiracy Theories floating around, speculating on all the scary things Trump MIGHT do. And, sure, yes, I suppose it is conceivable that he MIGHT wind up becoming a fascist dictator. But let us now assume, even just for the sake of argument, that consequentialism is a valid methodology for determining whom the individual should vote for (for the sake of your position it must be, because if it is not, then Hillary has absolutely no chance of coming out of this discussion on top). In that case, then consider the following:
Trump MIGHT be bad for the country. Hillary WILL be bad for the country.
Clearly, the principles pf consequentialism and political pragamatism tell us that we must take our chances with the devil we do not know, rather than the one we do.
Now, with that in mind, let us ignore the problems with Mr Holmes' article for the time being, and examine the argument presented therein as if it had merit.
As pointed out to John above, the argument presented in his article need not be directed against Bernie supporters. It could just as easily - in fact, I would argue more easily - be turned upon what few Hillary supporters remain! After all, can it not be said that Hillary's supporters *are themselves refusing to compromise*? They have a principle - 'the Democratic Party is always the right choice' - and they are willing to stick to this principle regardless of where it leads them, or their country. These stubborn, entrenched believers are fully aware, at least on an intellectual level, that Hillary Clinton is by this point nigh-unelectable. They know for a fact that Hillary is more of a warmonger than Rumsfeld, more of a corporate crony than Cheney, and guilty of a whole litany of crimes that, were they perpetrated by a Republican, would have made her the eternal enemy of anyone who has ever claimed, even in passing, to be a "progressive". Donald Trump, for all of his faults, real or merely speculated, has not got the blood on his hands that Hillary has. You and John may not agree with all of the things Donald Trump says, or even most of the things he says - but that is why you two need to take your own advice, and compromise.
It sucks, yes, but as you yourself have just now stated, we cannot "demand absolute agreement" from our would-be overlords. ***As per John's own argument***, I submit that it is incumbent upon you both to "compromise" and vote outside the Democratic Party for a change. Because I am sorry, the evidence is plain and unambiguous: a vote for Hillary is a vote for dictatorship.
I remember, and the shame is it only took three or four self absorbed dick bags to completely ruin it.
*does a Star Trek style explain with metaphor lean-in*
I see, Mister Homer, you're saying that it is like choosing between A.) An uninvaded Iraq that MIGHT pose a nuclear threat to the world, and B.) War in the Middle East WILL pose a conventional threat to the world.
When it doubt, Bush Doctrine that shizzle in the name of the largest imaginary consequences.
So voting for Hillary is invoking the Bush Doctrine on Trump, ignoring the known knowns for known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, which must be more important because there are more of them.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Welcome! It's time for the internet's favorite game show:
Audience (shouting in unison))
LUNATIC OR TROLL!!!!
That's right! And once again, we have our longest running returning champion, back again after stumping the judges 837 times, let's have a warm welcome for EVIL HOMER
(Crowd cheers wildly)
Basically, Mr Dumpster, yes! That is correct. Yours is a great metaphor, too, given Hillary's sixteen years of support for the policies of the Bush-Cheney Junta. Do you mind if I use it elsewhere?
Well, mostly great. Given that Hillary has publicly threatened to drop nukes on Iran, the situation is more like the difference between A) an uninvaded Iraq that might pose a nuclear threat, and B) war in the Middle East that WILL go nuclear the moment Iran or Russia coughs.
Mr Holmes - sorry, that's not an argument.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>Given that Hillary has publicly threatened to drop nukes on Iran.
Okay, I looked that up
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24246275/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_kei th_olbermann/t/clinton-warns-iran-us-nuclear-response/#.V5jiJu1pxA 8
What she said was that she would nuke Iran IF IRAN NUKED ISRAEL. That's a pretty big "IF"
If it comes down to it, I'm not sure I'd support her taking that step, but I'm perfectly fine with her SAYING that she would take that step. What kind of fucking idiot would say otherwise? Did anybody ask Bernie Sanders what he'd do if Iran nuked Israel? Did he say that he'd nuke Iran? Or did he dodge the question?
Well, see Mr Holmes, you've learned something new! This morning you were not aware that Hillary had threatened to nuke Iran (she also threatened to nuke them during an appearance at the Brookings Insititute, but that was quickly covered up as "a flub" - haha, she meant to say she wanted to drop CONVENTIONAL bombs on them, silly Hillary and that mouth of hers!). But here, by the afternoon, your understanding of Hillary's foreign policy broadened just a little bit.
Saying you are going to ignite World War III and end the planet in a fiery nuclear holocaust is KIND OF a big deal, and it's important to know this sort of stuff about the candidate you think you endorse.
John Holmes Motherfucker
No, Homer, I learned that you're full of shit, which is NOT NEW. What she said was if Iran nukes Israel, THEY trigger World War 3. I don't thinkshe should say anything else while Iran may be listening.
the opposition of Hillary Clinton by liberals isn't exactly misogynist, but it fails to acknowledge the misogynist reality, that a woman with political ambitions has had to jump through way more hoops than any male politician to get to where she is. She's had to make a big deal about being tough, and that's been used against her. If she hadn't made a big deal about acting tough, THAT would have been used against her.
A lot of it is just unfair. She wasn't the one who made up the fake intelligence that was the only information they had to vote on the Iraq War resolution. It smelled a little fishy, sure, and Bernie, the Senator from Vermont, he managed to vote against it. And Barak Obama, who was the US Senator from Nowhere at the time, he made a name for himself opposing a decsion he was in no way responsible for.
But Hillary Clinton was the US SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, and it was 2002. I'm going to spell the date out, so I can use ALL CAPS. It was TWO THOUSAND TWO! NEW YORK! See where I'm going with this? It would have been wrong, a dereliction of duty, to ignore the fake facts, in light of the real suffering of literally millions of her constituents. And it would have been political suicide. Christ she had only been a senator for less than two years. She had to trust Bush. And, of course, EVERYBODY trusted Bush back then. She's one of the few people to be held accountable, although nearly everybody had more of a choice.
The public did NOT trust Bush back then. The protests over the invasion of Iraq were the largest in history.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>>The public did NOT trust Bush back then. The protests over the invasion of Iraq were the largest in history.
You're disputing the least important part of my argument, and not very well. You could have 20 million people in the streets, and that would be considerably less that 10 percent of the population. Granted, I'm going on some foggy memory of public opinion polls from that era, and I'll add that I was personally against the invasion myself.
(I remember one thing that I used to see on the internet back then. People who spoke out against the invasion were said to be "hiding behind freedom of speech." What a crock of shit THAT was!)
What the fuck is this?
The #demexit is glorious.
Can't we come up with a better hashtag?
One star for the description and tags
Yes, very nuanced.
Y'know, the California Democratic party saw its ranks increase by 1/3 this season thanks to Bernie Sanders voters. It's not terribly helpful to shit on all of these new voters for not believing in your highly reactionary, status-quo candidate.
So many people walked out that the DNC is hiring actors to fill the seats via Craigslist. https://s32.postimg.org/ivqw7wv85/desperate.png
Brand New Congresd and its sentiment deserve all the shit it can get.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>It's not terribly helpful to shit on all of these new voters for not believing in your highly reactionary, status-quo candidate.
By "shit on them" do you mean "not give them everything they want, even though they lost?"
I've been a Democrat since before Jimmy Carter was president, and if Bernie Sanders had won, I would have been all in for Bernie. But he didn't. Even Bernie knows it, and he knows what's important. Six months into a Trump Presidency, you'll be begging for the old status quo.
You seem pretty quick to dismiss the fact the DNC actively campaigned against Bernie Sanders, in defiance of logic. Now we're left with the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Trump.
The DNC doesn't have to campaign for sanders, nor does it have to be neutral. It has no legal obligation for either of those things.
Its goal is to choose the best candidate that it thinks will win the general election.
You know what happens when a party has no super delegates and is completely subject to the whims of radical primary voters (who are a small fraction the total population of the country)?
You get Donald Trump as your nominee
Counterpoint: Donald Trump is far-and-away the most electable Republican candidate this cycle.
So is "status quo" the new "socialist" ?
I don't regret voting for Nader. And after the interactions I've had with various Shrillary supporters, I'm not sure what's going to happen in a voting booth come November.
Man I'm going to miss the days here on PoeTV of a second-term presidency where no one gives a shit anymore. It was so peaceful.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|