Bernie isn’t expanding the electorate

H

HashBucket

Well-Known Member
TrippleDip said:
Others, like myself, like to take everything to one logical end or the other, and I personally believe it's wrong to impose on others period (ie all censorship is wrong and all actions (advertisements) are ok, barring murder and other acts that would prevent society from working).
Click to expand...
You're kind of making noise like a Libertarian.
Have you ever explored their platform?
I am prolly closer to agreeing with Libertarian than any other belief system.
It is all about freedom.
Freedom.
Freedom.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
HashBucket said:
You're kind of making noise like a Libertarian.
Have you ever explored their platform?
I am prolly closer to agreeing with Libertarian than any other belief system.
It is all about freedom.
Freedom.
Freedom.
Click to expand...
yet you vote for the guy who locks children up in cages and puts toddlers on criminal trial
 
H

HashBucket

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yet you vote for the guy who locks children up in cages and puts toddlers on criminal trial
Click to expand...
Yea, he should lock up the parents too for putting their own children in such danger.
Oh wait ... he is.

Illegal crossings have decreased a little bit, haven't they?
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
TrippleDip said:
Honest question, but do americans see bloomberg as a serious candidate? I never really thought he was. Just trying to get free publicity maybe? I dunno how you could consider voting someone to office that is on record saying how he is a businessman, and to do business in china you have to say what they want you to (re his newspaper).
Click to expand...
Lou at my job is voting bloomberg. If not him.. then trump. So there is serious people going for bloomberg, just not many lol
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
TrippleDip said:
I think I am starting to understand your position. So advertising is just as bad?
Click to expand...
Advertising is tough, it can be pretty invasive, but it is not the same as a government using their military to use psychological profiling to attack another countries citizens, and the government is able to hold them accountable if they get too predatory, make false claims, etc.

TrippleDip said:
I brought up facebook because they were caught performing psychology experiments on unsuspecting, unconsenting people. Just thought it was interesting because that is direct subconscious manipulation of the populace (albeit to make them happier) and they got a pass, but someone else using arguments (ads) to convince is somehow bad.

Ps, the whole thing with the dr li and grooming gang whistleblowers is that the state says they are criminals and tries to silence them, while they are demonstrably trying to work for the populace and the populace holds them as heros. They are good examples of why trying to police speech is bad. If they had been allowed to speak they could have saved lives. If what they were saying was false it could be disproved or argued against. Censorship is the last tool of a failing position and people recognise it, much like name calling. Censorship in both these cases eroded trust in the state.

I don't think our politics are really that different, most people are about center. The main thing I think, is that some people believe that lines can be drawn and redrawn for example with what is acceptable speech or advertising as the needs of society change. I think this is a very reasonable position. Others, like myself, like to take everything to one logical end or the other, and I personally believe it's wrong to impose on others period (ie all censorship is wrong and all actions (advertisements) are ok, barring murder and other acts that would prevent society from working).
Click to expand...
Facebook is weaponized, and scary at how effective of a tool it really is the way the Russians have used it and every other chat room to troll when combined with their slew of websites designed to look like actual news websites and mixture of planted/pushed stories in more responsible news networks. I get how similar it is to advertising, but at the end of the day businesses can be handled without going to war to stop them from bad actions on our citizens.

I needed to google who Dr Li was, and ended up with a bunch of local doctors, I had to add whistleblowers to figure out who you were talking about. China is too far I agree. Having a free press is vital to our democracy. We have to be able to see and understand facts and not just what Dear Leader tells us the facts are.

I think the best place to draw the line is for our political leaders once they swear their oath of office, they are honor bound to tell the truth, and if they are caught lying they are held as accountable as if it was someone sworn in a congressional hearing lying to the congress. Our political leaders should not be able to lie to us and misled the public. The Republicans have shown time and again how to use the government office as a shield to maintain their power since the civil rights era, and that needs to stop so they all can get back to the job we gave them, to govern our country.

 
TrippleDip

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
I get how similar it is to advertising, but at the end of the day businesses can be handled without going to war to stop them from bad actions on our citizens.
Click to expand...
"Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined", quite literally tens of millions of people. About half a million american deaths a year can be attributed to smoking. I see the distinction between political and commercial ads but it is subtle.


hanimmal said:
Politicians have shown time and again how to use the government office as a shield to maintain their power
Click to expand...
ftfy
 
TrippleDip

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
HashBucket said:
No. I don't think so.
But, remember ... perspective.

Pretend YOU are the grand-pubah of the DNC. Ok? Now, this is what you KNOW. You know that your party can not win the white house in 20. No way. No body that is in this thing can take it.
You know that if Bernie wins it could be the end of the party. The voters in America will not elect a commie. Sorry, won't happen. You might just blow up the whole party with Bernie running in 20.

So, what's the next best thing you can do FOR YOUR PARTY? ?
Make sure that you keep the Congress? Maybe, just maybe get a couple seats in Senate? Help out a couple of Dem Governors? and be patient. Make it to 2024 while mitigating the damage.
Who's the best to do that? A guy that has tons of money, and doesn't mind spending it. A guy that can be steered and programmed and puppeted to say what you want him to say. He will get the Dem message out to many, and he doesn't care if it costs million$.

So ... Bern will not have enough votes to take it in the first round. Then the super delegates (who you have in your pocket) will vote the way you want them to - and Bernie is OUT.

It's the way I see it FOR NOW.
Things can change, but if the convention were to happen now -- that's the way it will go down.

And, ya know, I could vote for Blumeberg. He's got no personality; but I like his action when it comes to interpersonal relationships with women, and legal relationships with gang-bangers in the 'hood, and business relationships with foreign countries.

He could be the guy.
He just might be a DINO.

PS: Thanks for an intelligent, well thought-out question and input. It is really, really rare here. I look forward to a further discussion. You see something different? I could be wrong.
Naw ...
Click to expand...
I appreciate the perspective. The media here is all sanders and warren.. I feel like they are pushed as the extreme left which is supposed to make you vote moderate, but further left than you would have (in our elections). It's interesting how the media is split and they are showing news that promotes a different agenda locally vs internationally.

I try to stay out of the politics section because it is easy to take things personally, but there is some real information here, and I feel it's improved in the sense that there is a lot more discussion and less name calling.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
TrippleDip said:
"Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined", quite literally tens of millions of people. About half a million american deaths a year can be attributed to smoking. I see the distinction between political and commercial ads but it is subtle.
Click to expand...
There are bans on smoking ads though, it is just people like to smoke. Advertising is a tough one, but I really think the easiest fix is to hold politicians accountable for telling the truth to the public.

TrippleDip said:
ftfy
Click to expand...
No, I disagree, people are humans, but since the enacting of the southern strategy, the Republicans have been doing the work of one demographic only, the Wealthy White Heterosexual Male. It has forced the Democrats to legislate for everyone else, and while the people holding those offices are still human and just as corruptible, the party as a whole is quick to tear down the corruption and get the next person in office.

The Republicans have been making loophole after loophole in laws to maintain their power, and trolling everything the Democrats try to pass as some sort of "-ism".

It isn't by accident that hate radio, and tv programs like Glenn Beck and Hannity don't have a 'left' equivalent.
 
TrippleDip

TrippleDip

Well-Known Member
HashBucket said:
You're kind of making noise like a Libertarian.
Have you ever explored their platform?
Click to expand...
I feel like most libertarians are as loopy as the anarchists. There has to be lines drawn somewhere, not everyone is good or has equally good intentions for everyone.. I also feel that different sized groups can use different organizations, eg a family might be libertarian, but an extended family might have more structure, the community might be socially liberal while the city is financially conservative. The truth is that there is not only one solution to any problem.
 
Jestocost

Jestocost

Member
TrippleDip said:
Honest question, but do americans see bloomberg as a serious candidate? I never really thought he was. Just trying to get free publicity maybe? I dunno how you could consider voting someone to office that is on record saying how he is a businessman, and to do business in china you have to say what they want you to (re his newspaper).
Click to expand...
No. He's a guy that hasn't heard the word "no" in 30 years, and doesn't have the type of people around him who could say it.

He could be a serious destabilizing force to the Dem nomination process due solely to his money but, is not a serious candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top