Stephen Hawking, Outspoken Progressive

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
14th, 18th, whatever. I find it really hard to reconcile your support for this "moderate Dem" given your other frequent statements. They just don't jibe.
Click to expand...
I support Mr Sanders because he's a centrist. I've said so many times.

The fact that you and the rest of the ballwashers keep trying to come up with other labels just highlights the fact that you have no valid arguments.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
He's suffering from a mind wipe done to him by the coalition of Putin, Bannon, Mercer, Trump and Cambridge Analytica

His post offers a shred of hope that he's recovering. Just a shred, mind you.
Click to expand...
I'm the one who called out the Mercer family's crimes against American democracy first, long before you or any of the rest of the ballwashers ever heard of them.

Mr revisionist dictionary grasps at more straws.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Stephen Hawking knew a thing or two about being treated differently because of how people see you.

His life is shining proof that A. it need not be a fundamental limitation and B. that society still has a long fucking way to go in its responsibilities to those considered 'different'.

I'm not surprised he was a Progressive. In fact I'd have been shocked if his politics went anywhere else.
 
trippnface

trippnface

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Bernie cold be called a fake liberal for claiming to be liberal but also voting for the 1994 crime bill or funding the Iraq war or for the gun lobby. I wouldn't call him neoliberal based upon the generally accepted use of the term but you might, depending on your definition as "fake liberal"
Click to expand...

Agreed.

You could argue Sanders had his heart in the right place, and he now states he looks at it differently ( I believe)? but certainly too little too late.

While I do enjoy examples of black & white, left vs right, I do realize Life functions on a spectrum, and obviously not everyone is perfect ( or even close) .

The difference between say Sanders and Clinton (imo) is more than one instance, more than a single vote.

While I can look at the crime bill and say I diasgree with Sanders, I don't disagree on most of his ideas or policy, and for the most part, I do trust him

When I do the same thing to the career of Hillary Clinton, you are constantly encountering sketchy votes and utterly backwards ideas that a serious Liberal would just not engage/support.

Sanders cant be considered a Neolib to me, because most of his policy ( and tactics) have never strayed that far. Hillary strayed that far earlier in the 1990's.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Last night I made a pretty good meal for dinner.
I wanted to make my chicken breast pop with flavor. I was very progressive in the layering of my spices, herbs, seasonings to create a unique flavor profile..
I was very liberal with the onions, bell pepper, garlic and celery. Went conservative with the thyme, salt, and lemon. The end result was absolutely delicious.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
trippnface said:
Agreed.

You could argue Sanders had his heart in the right place, and he now states he looks at it differently ( I believe)? but certainly too little too late.

While I do enjoy examples of black & white, left vs right, I do realize Life functions on a spectrum, and obviously not everyone is perfect ( or even close) .

The difference between say Sanders and Clinton (imo) is more than one instance, more than a single vote.

While I can look at the crime bill and say I diasgree with Sanders, I don't disagree on most of his ideas or policy, and for the most part, I do trust him

When I do the same thing to the career of Hillary Clinton, you are constantly encountering sketchy votes and utterly backwards ideas that a serious Liberal would just not engage/support.

Sanders cant be considered a Neolib to me, because most of his policy ( and tactics) have never strayed that far. Hillary strayed that far earlier in the 1990's.
Click to expand...
You make far too much sense to fit in here.

To be accepted by the self described liberals in this group, you have to leave your brain behind and fall in line with whatever they tell you to believe- including that being told what to think is 'democracy'.

Question them and they go instantly on the attack, with wilder and wilder accusations until they achieve their aim of forcing you into compliance or driving you off the board completely.

Both establishment Republicans AND Democrats are terrified of new ideas or indeed any ideas that don't square with the imperative of conformity (whose conformity? I'll come back to this).

It's where their power comes from and they're utterly intolerant of any new ideas. New ideas are a threat to their ability to control their corner of the political spectrum- for whose benefit? Certainly not the vast majority of citizens or even their own constituents.

Right wingers want strong authority figures 'to get things done', whether their goals and methods respect the civil Rights of civilians or the rule of law or not. So much for respecting authority; any authority but theirs is unacceptable.

Democrats call themselves THE alternative but they're just as terrified of new ideas- especially from the wide open spaces to their Left. The Democrats here will even abuse those to their left of being right wing! Anything to shame them back into line.

The result of decades of these party dynamics is two parties who have narrowed the 'choice' between them down to either conservative or downright authoritarian.

Thanks to legalized corruption (which even the Democrats here defend), the real owners of America's political system are large corporations and their major shareholders via outlandishly large campaign contributions. These people like things the way they are and have repeatedly shown their willingness to break laws, wreck countries and murder millions around the world in order to keep things the way they like them.

Anyone who suggests there might be an alternative to their thinking is immediately vilified and ostracized from the groupthink.

It doesn't help that the two major parties in America have colluded over time to make sure that no other parties or groups can get access to power, resulting in the current situation where more voters are not affiliated with either major party than there are members of either one, and when those eligible to vote but not registered are added in, they outnumber affiliated voters of both major parties put together!

Yet somehow we're the outliers. Somehow it's okay not to listen to us. Somehow far the largest group of voters in America is all but completely unrepresented in our 'democracy', one now driven by cash rather than voter support.

The fact that the establishment parties are so hostile to anyone not in line with their ideologies is strong evidence of their vulnerability and brittle, inflexible attitudes.

Our nation needs fresh thinking and new solutions to our problems. Doing the same things that created and grew these problems won't solve them.

The dynamic is unstable; it cannot last. No wonder the establishment parties and their owners are so terrified.

THIS is why Bernie is such a threat. If he can win, then the establishment parties will no longer be the only viable options and will be forced to actually represent the needs of their constituents rather than their cash cows- or face oblivion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top