According to the Wikipedia page on the Green New Deal linked in the OP, here’s some of the specifics of the plan: (for what it’s worth...)

...the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

Well, I’d go further and say I oppose government intervention in general. I don’t think we need it to tackle climate change. I do believe that humans can get together and cooperate to solve problems without the coercive force of the government. — NOS4A2

Well, we’ve all been raised to believe the government will fix our problems, so it’s probably true that people will not collectively mobilize until it is too late. They would demand governments do something before they do it themselves. If we were to educate the opposite—that government does not fix our problems and only exacerbate them—I think it would be otherwise. But I still hope innovation will lead us to less pollution and cleaner water and I thInk the free market is best equipped to solve those problems than any government.

What about you? Will the governments of the world be our hero in the battle against climate change? — NOS4A2

(Alright then... I’ll play along, lol.) So what exactly are you saying here? Are you advocating some form of anarchism? Utopianism? Your line of reasoning is unclear to me. I am not a fan of large bureaucracies either, and think the USA’s two-party system is a virtual monopoly, as discussed in this thread... Any possible solutions that you could share with the classroom? Or just a potential “next step in the right direction”? I’m usually open to hearing innovative or original thoughts. Please share your practical ideas and solutions...

What country are you a citizen of? (By the way, if you don’t mind the question... )

Free market? You mean multi-national corporations? Small businesses? Equipped to solve any problem, beyond its own bottom line and shareholders? Who then? Tesla? Uber? Amazon? Apple? Could they join forces and produce a combination smart phone and electric vehicle that delivers your groceries to you, and also to starving homeless people while giving rides to working mothers? Sign me up! Excuse the facetiousness and bad jokes please, because I’m a closet Utopian and idealist. Even though pragmatism and a healthy grounded practical realism can be boring sometimes, but is necessary in any attempt at a large-scale improvement.

We've already seen (just in the US):

1. Franklin National Bank failing in 1964;
2. First Pennsulvania Bank failing in 1980;
3. Contintental Illinois Bank failing in 1984 (too big to fail mentioned for the first time);
4. Bank of New England failing in 1991;
5. the national banking crsis of the 80s (1600 banks failed and 1300 savings and loan banks);

The thing is Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers followed the same patterns where assets grew at incredible rates funded by short-term borrowing (with ridiculous maturity mismatch as a result). (... ) — Benkei

:up: Thanks for this post. Keep it coming...

Very American to condemn other states as authoritarian while the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. — Maw

Oh yes, exactly! There are so many issues like this that have reached meltdown level, that it is near impossible to get a visual on the situation. Even for those sympathetic to “the cause”. The mind boggles at the immensity of it all... Maybe that is why some cannot bear to open their heart to the suffering...

Sanders speaks to a very broad range of people across the board of ethnic diversity. Americans come that way, you see. Sanders speaks to all poor people, all those who have struggled, all those who have been taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, which are now legal as a result of the sheer demolition of antitrust laws in America. Sanders knows how these things came to happen. — creativesoul

(... and the whole rest of your post, edited for space). :up: :up: :up:

Thoughtful, insightful, well-written, and intelligent post. Thank you for taking the time to write that. It is much appreciated. Nice blend of a critique of recent (and extremely relevant) history, law, politics, etc. Exactly the level-headed approach that is helpful, imho.

I’m onboard the Sanders “freedom flotilla”, lol. And if like Spartacus, he is forced to turn on Rome itself in an attempt to free himself and his fellow outcasts and slaves, then he has my support. Emperor Nero is quietly quaking in his toga, despite his bluster and bravado and a torrent of arrogant “tweet-aganda”. (Please excuse the melodramatics).

Is it a risk? Definitely! Getting out of bed is risky. Driving a car is risky. Is it worth the risk? Even the risk of Trump 2.0? Yes. To me it is. Even as a protest, however feeble and ignored. Maybe the young shepherd David was given better odds versus Goliath. Not sure, exactly. However, there is a chance (a fighting chance) that the populist ocean tide that Trump has risen on has turned, and will swamp his fleet. (Don’t cry for him, though. He can retire in January to his mansion with Evita and the rest of his royal family, while the rest of us eat cake. Then we can all chuckle at his increasingly bizarre ranting tweets, as he relishes his role as political pundit and gadfly).

Certainly, I am still learning about the intricacies of the present situation, and many events leading up to it. The 2008 financial crash is most definitely NOT ancient and academic history, as you pointed out. The general conditions and symptoms that allowed it were medicated, but not changed or remedied in any significant way. Maybe it’s too late to swerve the Titanic away from the iceberg. The first step is to realize that we can’t plow through this one like before. And then get the foot off the accelerator... so to speak.

Speaking of Marlon Brando... the speech in his movie On the Waterfront by Karl Malden’s Father Berry character reminds me a little of Bernie Sanders’ style. (Maybe because he was playing just down the block in Brooklyn when this movie was filmed, lol).

I totally understand all of that. I would have thought that the higher priority would be to avoid another four annoying years of disgrace, executive collusion with our enemies, and the solidification of the SCOTUS in a conservatism that I don't really understand anymore.

But maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. We'll see, I guess. — frank

:up: I appreciate your reasoning and attempts at caring. I think that is the critical first step, no matter how one votes, or where they fall on the “political color spectrum”. (I’m a pale teal, lol). But so often Reason and Compassion are treated like bygones of an ancient era, superstitions, or totally optional. So I respect and respond to those who seem to value those ideals, and see that those ideals are actually quite practical.

Personally, I’m convinced to throw my lot in and take my chances with Bernie Sanders. Your experience and feelings may differ, no problem. My head tells me that his ideas have substance and merit. My heart tells me he either gives a darn about people or is the greatest actor since Brando. And my gut tells me that if I compromise with a “safe” Democrat once more, I’m going to vomit on the voting booth!

One would think that an effective strategy for the Democratic party in the November election season would be to support and fund independent, third-party conservative campaigns. Yes, conservative! There are many people I believe who have lost interest or faith in Trump, but would never vote for a Democrat. If the Libertarian party, for example, or an independent Conservative candidate such as John Kasich were seen as a viable alternative to the incumbent by those on the general Right, it would funnel votes away from him. And might cause Trump to lose some key states in the process. (There’s an idea for Bloomberg or Tom Steyer about what to do with all their money once they are out of the race). Just a thought...

Sometimes I wonder if Bernie Sanders actually has a tougher task to win the Democratic nomination than he would have in facing the current POTUS in the November general election. Maybe all of intra-party “frenemies” and potential plotting and backstabbing will make everything afterwards seem easier.

It’s like having your family yell and scream at you at the breakfast table, and you begin to look forward to going to your job hauling trash, or something, lol.

As a side note on the debates, it is somewhat encouraging to see several people over the age of 70 right in the middle of the action. Sometimes, the trend is to discount anyone near retirement age as clueless or ready for the scrap heap. Image is content in the Instagram age. So any kind of probing into something beyond the superficialities is encouraging, imho...

Also, I’d like to express the hope for a peaceful and safe 2020 US election process. Safe for the candidates, their families, supporters, and everyone else involved. This is one of the most highly charged election seasons here in a long time. And it is easy to get wound up and frustrated, no matter where your beliefs may lie on the political spectrum. Violence of any kind is no answer to the subtle and complex questions that we are facing. It’s like trying to solve an algebra problem with dynamite. That’s probably very obvious, maybe goes without saying. But extremist irrationality sometimes is very powerfully seductive, and difficult for an individual or group to resist... Peace to all, without exception. :victory:

Bernie Sanders says to NYC hotdog vendor: If I’m elected, you and your family will have free healthcare.

Mike Bloomberg says to NYC hotdog vendor: My good sir, would you happen to be able to break a thousand-dollar bill? It’s the smallest one in my wallet... :grin:

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. It would be insane for him to be president. — fishfry

I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he can beat him in 2020 unless there is a humongous economic collapse. And there is currently a seriously nonzero probability exactly that. The Fed's been blowing bubbles of digital money into the system since the last financial crisis, which in effect never actually went away. It just got papered over, literally. When the bill comes due it will be a crash the likes of which the world has never seen. — fishfry

And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country. — fishfry

I think I somehow can't believe a 78 year old who had a heart attack a few months ago is the likely nominee and is surrounded by screaming youngsters like a rock star. — fishfry

Interesting post with some thought put into it. Thanks.

But getting to the fine print... Ok, fair enough. You either don’t think Bernie can win, or if the unthinkable happened, it would be like having a former Hippie as president, throwing dollar bills and big doobies (marijuana) out of the Federal Reserve window to his crazed, brainwashed snowflaky fans. With Bob Dylan and the remnants of the Grateful Dead (including some holy relics from Jerry Garcia), Snoop Dogg with a reformed Public Enemy, performing a free concert on the White House lawn in some bizarre combination of Woodstock and the March on Washington. Bernie is inaugurated wearing a tie-dyed shirt, with Noam Chomsky standing next to him. (Ok, maybe that is going too far for a joke, lol. Anyway...)

You are not a “democratic socialist”. That is fine. Yes, obviously Bernie calls himself that. And his opponents do also, but use “scare quotes”, make clucking noises of disapproval, and warn of dire consequences. We have all seen the juicy sound bites. (Though I’m not sure what exactly these terms are supposed to mean anymore. I know in general what they are intended to mean. But words, labels, ideologies, and especially political philosophies have been ever so slowly drained of whatever meaning they once had. It all seems to be advertising, propaganda, and personal branding. Like how Christianity has somehow mutated into an apologist for the war machine. Oh pardon me, “national defense system”. Anyway, please excuse this tangential philosophical point).

But whatever other valid points you make, it is an extreme exaggeration to say Sanders “wants to destroy” the whole system. Come on now. Let’s be fair. That is practically calling him a communist, or something worse, but without the directness to do so openly. Because it is a totally unfounded cheap shot, either implied or explicit. Like calling Sanders “ignorant”. Ok, sure.. Par for the course in an election campaign, “sticks and stones”, etc. Hyperbole and humor. I do it too. (Like this silliness for example. Trump’s new slogan: “Four more years! Let’s Have Another Orangasm!” :snicker: Although come to think of it, Joe Biden has been looking a little orange lately. Is there a tariff-caused shortage of natural-looking makeup for men? Bernie is pale and proud, lol).

But most observers can see these type of ploys as a desperate attempt to trip up the runner who is 50 yards ahead of everybody in this preliminary track meet. Tackling is not officially allowed in a foot race. Just because it happens and often goes unpunished, doesn’t mean nobody notices or cares. Ok, maybe this is just some sideline forum of internet opinion, mixed with some occasional philosophical insight. But if one wants to stand on their words, they have to have some kind of rational foundation. (Or even a relatively honest emotional one. That is acceptable, if expressed fairly. Emotions are part of who we are, of course).

I used to be a left winger. It's spin I believe because I watched it happen and I think for myself. I stand with Trump, warts and all. As opposed to what's become of the Dems. — fishfry

A lot of liberals just don't get it. I used to be a liberal. I'm off the reservation. Just how it is. I'm not alone. A lot of former liberals are in shock at what's become of our former side. So yeah, I'm mind boggled too. — fishfry

Now look... (Just kidding. Don’t you hate when debaters start with that bossy-sounding introduction? It’s like... LOOK... (pregnant pause... either signifying depth of thought, or perhaps an unspoken insult. Such as: LOOK... ya big goofball etc... Almost as bad is someone saying “LISTEN... blah blah...” I’m waiting for the first debater to go all in with “LOOK... LISTEN... and LEARN...” ) Sorry for the rant.

Anyway, I am disillusioned (or perhaps “realistic”) about the Democratic Party. (I refuse to say I’m “woke”. Nor am I a “Bernie Bro”. Nor any other kind of “bro”. Buzzwords are as annoying as flies). But I had hopes for the Obama presidency. I thirstily sipped the Kool-aid, but only a little. I thought maybe, somehow he would understand, hoped he would care, figured he would at least try to make some little thing fairer. Maybe he was slightly better than the alternative. Maybe the Middle East would have exploded with 4 more years of Neo-Con meddling (and that’s putting it very politely). Maybe not. What do I know? Very little probably. My point is that the Democratic Party (which is neither democratic, nor much of a party) is NOT “liberalism” or even “the left wing” in its entirety. Not even close. The two-party system is an effective monopoly, a good cop/bad cop routine. Two sides of the same coin. They speak for no one except themselves mostly.

If Bernie were any more independent, he’d be on the sidelines with the rest of us. If he were any less independent, he’d be another gravy train rider looking for the path of least resistance. He definitely is NOT Frodo Baggins trying to destroy the evil Ring, nor Luke Skywalker trying to blow up the Death Star. He is not even trying to “level the playing field”... whatever that means. There is no playing field. There is a pyramid and a ladder, with those at the top of it pouring boiling oil on those below. Maybe at one time, the middle-class dreamed that there was room for more at the top of the pyramid, but there never was. Not a pretty picture. At best, Bernie Sanders SEEMS to be TRYING to go in a new direction that is at least a little tiny bit fairer for most people. I’ll take that chance, and hold him to his wager.

The casino has stacked the odds against us, and rigged the slot machines. Even the glittering showgirls are picking our pockets. Now it seems the only way to win... is to leave.

March 4th is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...)
— 180 Proof

At this point, given that she's come in a pretty abysmal 4th place in Nevada, it would be prudent for her to drop out and endorse Sanders. Her polling is terrible in South Carolina and every Super Tuesday state save for her own (Massachusetts), which she's projected to lose to Sanders. And she doesn't have the money for ad spending across 14 states to turn it around. — Maw

(The “cut-to-the-chase” summary, aka TLDR: Sanders and Warren should unite quickly before their opponents can swallow their distaste for each other, and form a formidable and frightening foe).

(Live commentary from the world championship of political chess, USA division... )

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if it would be better for BOTH Sanders and Warren, for her to join Bernie RIGHT NOW. Before the South Carolina primary. Because Joe Biden is showing signs in Nevada of thawing out after his long winter nap. He might actually have a pulse (though the spin doctors opinions differ). One would imagine that his general strategy would be to keep his leaky yacht afloat until the democratic national convention. Then Obama will rise from the tropical seas like a giant Neptune, drown his opponents, and guide the righteous ship into safe harbors where glory awaits. (yawn... )

Anyway, for Warren and Sanders to join forces now would swamp the good ship SS Biden His Time. He could not gain any momentum if he is completely torpedoed by the USS ElizaBernie. (Sorry, I’ll stop this boat metaphor now, lol). A possible Sanders-Warren merger seems to be a remarkably fair quid pro quo. Warren gets an excellent chance at a being the next VP, the first woman to do so, of course. And she would definitely not be a trophy VP, like the current chair warmer. (Sorry Mike Pence. You’re probably a decent chap.) She would get very involved, as active as her rechargeable lithuim batteries will allow. (By which I mean she is quite energetic). Bernie would get at least as much out of the deal. He gets Warren’s primary votes first of all, which are crucial to achieving a quick and decisive majority. (He could feasibly have an insurmountable lead by St. Paddy’s day). And he would have a top-notch VP, who could well become POTUS sooner or later. (Unless, of course, Bernie wants @Bitter Crank to be his VP. :wink: )

But all of this speculation (and it is all speculation on my part obviously) hinges on actually defeating the Incumbent once the nomination is secured. Ahh... the details, lol. My crystal ball at this point does the “spinning beachball” thing my computer does when I’ve asked it to do something too difficult before its coffee break. (I’d consult the I Ching for some timely wisdom, but it appears not possible ATM because of the China trade situation). In other words... flip a coin (remember those?). Anyone who breathlessly tells me that they know EXACTLY what would happen in a Sanders-Trump heavyweight bout is either guessing/speculating, lying/clickbaiting, wishful thinking, or has just flown in from the future in nuclear-powered Lambo. (Sorry, DeLoreans were out of style even in the 80’s). I think-hope-wager that Sanders would win. Just as I’m guessing that DT has plateaued, and the novelty and shock value has worn off. Maybe he could change tactics, appear to need sympathy. Say that he feels our pain; and plead for a kinder, gentler MAGA. Say that orange people have been an oppressed minority, too. He could be tender, and show us his soft, great-white underbelly. (Eww).

Where were we going with this again? Oh yes... imagining a united front of Sanders And Warren, (SAW for short). They could chop through the DNC red tape, cut the crap, and beat the others to the punch bowl. Before the moderates can figure out who’ll be the presidential nominee and who’ll be the VP. (BTW, Pete Buttigieg appears very vice-presidential. If Biden or Bloomberg offer him that spot, it might be worth a gamble. Not a bad potential job for anyone, let alone at age 38... ) So c’mon Elizabeth and Bernie... you both know you want it, lol.

About Elizabeth Warren... as great a candidate as she may indeed be... when would it become advantageous to the “progressive movement” (for lack of a better term) for her to clear the way for Sanders, and to unite forces?
— 0 thru 9
March 3rd is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...) — 180 Proof

Ahh, a guess with an exact date! Nice. (You win the donkey stuffed animal, signed by Jimmy Carter :grin: ). I might be inclined to agree with that thinking. I wonder if perhaps they have an agreement to do just that. We shall see soon enough. (I’m assuming that they even like each other? Seems like it. Hope so.)

Super Tuesday less than 2 weeks away, approaching like a tornado.

Thanks for the indepth response! I’ll check out the article that was linked.

About Elizabeth Warren... I certainly would not mind to see her elected President, and she may have a very good chance at the nomination. She is very impressive, intelligent, likable, and has not shown any large weakness. At least none that I’ve seen from my distant seat in the peanut gallery, lol.

But... (how to put this in the right way?)... she is in the same “lane” as Bernie Sanders (to use that buzzword). And she is the only other person close to sharing his viewpoints, and therefore his potential voters. Now, even though she might conceivably do as well against “the incumbent” (or even perhaps better, her being less somewhat less radical or “socialist” than Sanders in the view of some voters)...
The question could soon arise as to if (or when) the best time for her to “throw her support” behind Bernie might be.

Now, in another campaign year, the normal strategy would be to stay in the race as long as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. But this time is a bit unusual, with its still crowded field, and polarized sides. Like many have mentioned, both here and in the media, it would GREATLY benefit Sanders to lock up the nomination as quickly as possible, long before the convention. Every single delegate is important. The thinking seems to be that Biden walks away with the nomination if the “super-delegates” decide the matter.

So... as great a candidate as she may indeed be... when would it become advantageous to the “progressive movement” (for lack of a better term) for her to clear the way for Sanders, and to unite forces?

But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).

I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. — Xtrix

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Much appreciated. :up:

What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water.

but Trump is an animal all of his own. — Xtrix

Certainly. Where I live, the city is very quick to respond to a call about a rabid animal, and quickly puts it out of its misery, for everyone’s sake and safety. Just a random thought... (so vote early, and often!) :lol:

William Rivers Pitt wrote an interesting (and occasionally humorous) editorial article on the Nevada debate.
https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-made-a-meal-of-mike-bloomberg-in-las-vegas/

I'd love that, but I think they're all probably courting Booker and Harris right now. I prefer Booker, myself, but Harris would be okay as VP. — Artemis

I was just wondering about Kamala Harris. Thought that she’d be one of the finalists. But yes, she (or Booker) definitely could be someone’s VP choice. There’s a lot of soap opera left to go...

I’ll say this... if Sanders or Warren wins the upcoming election, then in some strange way I’ll be glad that HRC lost in 2016. (I felt devastated then). Even though the last four years have been white-knuckle anxiety at times. If Hillary were occupying the White House for 8 years, keeping the status quo while trying to seem to appear to care... well, it’d be depressing for everyone on both “sides”.

But that’s IF Sanders or Warren win, of course. Just my two cents, adjusted for stagflation, lol.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. — Xtrix

I think that this (or something close) will indeed be the case. Truly hope so anyway. For people like me on the back edge of the sidelines, it doesn’t affect much whatever we say. For those directly involved, I imagine they have plans A, B, C, D, etc. lined up ready for any contingency.

I sometimes wonder how much the exclusive two-party system in the US feeds the imbalanced situation. The two parties pretend to be so different, but to my eyes they are very similar. Even if Sanders is elected, any improvements that the general public sees might be slow coming. Guess we’ll take what we can get, and get the type of leaders we ask for. For the leaders really don’t do much on their own. They just get in front of whichever way the people and times are going.

Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker with anger issues, but I was impressed by Klobuchar's Midwestern restraint in not ripping Pete Buttigieg's head off. — Maw

Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. I imagine that it must be torture up on that stage. One is either a forgotten loser, or the target of everyone else. Difficult sometimes to watch the Roman senators play gladiator.

Some random impressions about yesterday’s Nevada debate...

In terms of composure, confidence, and handling a possible debate with DT (if he would even deign to appear at one) “Bulldog” Bernie seems the strongest and the best. Followed by Warren, with Joe Biden a distant third IMHO. The others are so-so, and Bloomberg looked like a deer frozen in the headlights, maybe thinking to himself “when did the word billionaire ever get to be a curse word? What planet am I on?” Trump would be relentless against Bloomberg, and just might make him cry. No one wants to see that. Yesterday’s debate was a tickling match, by comparison. (Bloomberg’s use of the word “communist” towards Sanders smacked of desperation. And did anyone else chuckle when he said “the Me-Too mutant... er... MOVEMENT... ? Freudian slips are always fun. And is it me, or does Michael Bloomberg have a slight but noticeable whining tone to his voice? He seems decent and sincere, but to me it’s a case of “too little, too late”.)

Pete B. does indeed present himself rather well. However, as inexperienced as he is, his lukewarm, middle-of-the-road stance on most issues appears to me even more problematic. Just very uninspiring, despite his pride in being the safe choice, or whatever. Vanilla. Sanders is 40 years older and has the burning passion of a college student handing out leaflets. Pete has all the fire of someone preparing their retirement fund, or something. One day, it would be good to see a LGBTQ President. Just not him, not now anyway. Though perhaps he could be Biden’s VP choice, going for a Batman / Robin “the boy wonder” vibe. Not sure. Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol.

Elizabeth Warren did well, as usual. She is probably more articulate when saying similar things than Bernie Sanders, who sometimes shouts a little too much and doesn’t appear as intellectually and verbally subtle as Warren. Am I wrong in assuming a Sanders / Warren ticket if Bernie wins the nomination? Personally, I don’t mind who would be president and who would be VP in that scenario. But Bernie has the mojo at the moment, so he’d be the nominee, one supposes. (Though as an aside, Warren loves to launch into “personal stories” that sometimes cause my eyes to inadvertently roll. I was waiting for her to say “I was talking to a Nevada man who was hospitalized because he had no head. He couldn’t afford the medical treatment, so it had to be removed. That he could still speak was an inspiration to me... :lol: )

If Bernie wins the plurality of votes, but loses the nomination in this way you might as well hand Trump the election — Maw

Well, yes... that’s the nightmare scenario, in my opinion. Of the DNC getting cold feet on a hot Bernie and screwing him and his many supporters over even worse than in 2016. It hopefully will not come to that. Personally, I hope Bernie Sanders wins the nomination handily. But as the saying goes, there is many a slip between cup and lip. Bernie must go full-speed until it is completely decided, not making any big mistakes, such as insulting potential Trump voters. Sway them, praise them. Don’t anger them as HRC did.

IF some sneaky shenanigans kept Bernie from the nomination (as opposed to getting beat fairly), then the difficult question of his running as an independent would arise. Running in the presidential election as an independent, conceivably with Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, he very possibly could win a three-horse race, despite the anguished cries of “you’ll split the vote!” Hopefully, a conservative independent candidate (or three) would take some votes from DT in that unfortunate and avoidable scenario.

One of the issues that has bipartisan support from voters — Benkei

Oh yes, definitely! Thanks. Though since as you know DT seems to favor the status quo (according to the article linked below. But who knows what the heck his real thinking on the issue is. He is a master at obfuscation, bluffing, and misdirection. And he would probably take that as a compliment on his “gamesmanship”, lol.) of the individual States decisions on cannabis, a Democrat opponent who favors immediate national legalization would seem to have an edge in possibly swaying any voter partial to total legalization. In other words, “stealing” votes from Trump, who conceivably would not want to lose his powerful support from the anti-cannabis lobby in its various forms. This is of course speculation on my part, an attempt at an educated guess. I could envision other scenarios as well. But this issue is more than just “some pot in every pocket”. It concerns the decades-long practices of overly harsh criminal sentences and racial and political discrimination. It’s an issue with deep roots, and one that might have an impact on the presidential election.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/16/donald-trump-and-marijuana-everything-you-need-to.aspx

Speaking of Bernie and cannabis, I have just now seen his recent statements on the issue, as quoted in article below. He wants it “on day one”. :grin: (Definitely NOT the most important issue in the election. However it just might be worth hundreds of thousands of votes in key swing states. Therefore, it is critical strategically. Also it is good IMHO how Bernie also wants to keep the marijuana money away from big tobacco companies.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/02/01/bernie-sanders-pledges-legal-marijuana-in-all-50-states-on-day-one-as-president/#39cbb1231c16

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, and he unleashes a “recreational pot for entire country” in first week of office plan... well... If Bernie didn’t already have it, there’s the margin of victory right there. The younger crowd who love him now will DRAG their friends to register and to the polls. When you are 20 or so, you don’t think you need free healthcare, because you’re going to live forever, or tech is gonna turn people into Marvel Avengers, or something lol. But legal weed for all? For real? Fo sho!

Then Diamond Donnie can verbally pound the Bernie Bros and Bern-outs like Lou the bar owner pummeled Tyler Durden in the basement scene from Fight Club, but all he’ll hear is “Hahahahahhaa! You don’t know where I’ve been, Lou!” :sweat:

One day, at a time of growing strife and increasing anxiety, the Goddess of Wisdom incarnated into visible form and approached the great city and lamented, “O Empirium, city that kills the innocent, devours the Earth, and stones those who are sent to help it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For the days have come upon you, when your enemies set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed are they who come in the name of compassionate wisdom.’”

(Translated and adapted (for whatever it may be worth) these familiar quotes for those whom, like myself, have developed (unfortunately yet understandably) an allergy to the once-inspiring beliefs and ideals stolen and distorted to serve the unquenchable fires of greed and hatred).

You need to justify and frame your request for public opinion — Noblosh

:grin: ... :grin: :grin: :grin: ... :grin:
:grin: ... :grin: .... :grin: ... :grin:
:grin: ... :grin: :grin: :grin: ... :grin: !!!

What are we... your mental Kickstarter? Your creative crowdfunding or something? Come back when you have some more posts here about philosophy. Then MAYBE I’ll share some of the ideas I’ve been stockpiling over the years. (ok... fine. I’ve got nothing. :sweat: )

:up: Yes, those are my general thoughts and feelings as well on the matter. It seems like part of the presidential duties is to be a rubber stamp for the big players, corporations, banks, etc. Especially those that bribed supported their election campaign. “It never hurts to grease the wheels”... never hurts THEM, that is. How many hundreds of millions of dollars does it actually take to run an election campaign anyway? Racism and sexism definitely exist and are most serious concerns. But one could propose that MONEYISM is just as wide-reaching and (slowly and quietly) devastating. Like a rotting tree, political corruption can only go on so long before the whole thing collapses.

With that in mind, it seems hard to fathom the Democratic party “giving” the nomination to someone who would really and truly have free healthcare for all. I’m still learning the particulars, but wouldn’t this put the insurance companies (eventually) out of business? Or what? I’m currently in favor of total healthcare, as long as it doesn’t double taxes for the working class or something. But it is a HUGE step. I can’t see the current Democratic party giving the go ahead on that. One wonders if anyone (like Sanders, Harris, or Warren, et al) who sincerely intends to follow through on it might conceivably need to run outside the party to avoid answering to recalcitrant party honchos or whatever. But what do I know? My cat is more of a political insider than me. :blush:

I'd actually rather a system with no parties. — Terrapin Station

Interesting! Any thoughts on how that could be implemented or how it would function?

I don't think it's a monopoly, but I do think it's a mess, and a big problem is that there are only two viable parties for major offices, with candidates having to kowtow to the norms of those parties. — Terrapin Station

I fail to see the messy problem of two enormous beasts that live under a well-traveled bridge and won’t let anyone pass without playing a game of “good troll, bad troll”, and coughing up a cash tribute. Just politics as usual, right? :blush:

Many thought-provoking ideas here, thanks. I guess that one couldn’t have such without at least a little provocation, lol. In trying to sort out the players and positions (sounds like a sporting event), I found the Wikipedia on the relationship between science and religion helpful. Like this:

• Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair of the early-17th-century, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate (c.  1874) a conflict thesis, suggesting that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. Some contemporary scientists (such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, and Donald Prothero) subscribe to this thesis. However, the conflict thesis has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[12][13][14]
  
  Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or interdependence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians regard religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.

So in a generalization, there could be said to be perhaps three or four meta-positions: “Winner takes it all” aka the science vs religion worldview death match (Dawkins and creationists). The “two ways of looking at the same reality” view (Ayala, Teilhard de Chardin, et al). The “separate spheres” aka non-overlapping magisteria position (Gould). And the related view of “mostly separate, with some overlap and interconnection” (Wilber, et al). For whatever it is worth, I find all except the first (“only one winner”) interesting and worth exploring...

it has to be argued that the two ruling parties do have a stranglehold over the political arena in the US. — ssu

Stranglehold, yes. Could have used that word instead of monopoly in the poll. Cue the Ted Nugent song.

The biggest chokehold they have is of in the thinking of the American voter: if you vote "third party", that is argued to be a vote for the worst candidate hate, because the voter isn't voting against him or her. People cannot fathom a third party to succeed. — ssu

Definitely. “You’ll split the vote! You’ll split the vote!!!” So sick of that refrain. The 2020 presidential election could be the first since 1992 (and Ross Perot’s 19% of the popular vote) to have some serious “third party” challengers. I wager if Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, he’ll run as the Independent he really is. On the other side of the political spectrum, the Libertarian party and Independents (possibly including the likes of John Kasich and more) could make it an interesting race with a larger field. Getting a spot in the debates seems to be both problematical and key.

Well said. To bring it back to the original question - does the spirit exist? I think the answer I would offer is that it does not exist, but it also does not not exist.

The reason for this is, that to assert the existence of something, is to say that it is this, as opposed to that. In Western philosophy, this became formularised through Cartesian dualism as 'spirit, as distinct from body'. Then this lead to a false conception of the nature of 'spirit', because of the subsequent question of how 'spirit' could relate to 'body' when they're so utterly different (this is the 'ghost in the machine'). It made it a relatively simple matter to then dispose of the notion of spirit altogether, as it couldn't be seen or measured and appeared to make no difference, and to then assume only the reality of 'body', which can indeed be seen and measured - which is precisely the basis of today's scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the reply. That covers it nicely: “it does not exist, but it also does not not exist” , as you put it. There are times that words seem to fail, are just too imprecise. Like trying to perform eye surgery with blocks of wood. Dark matter and dark energy might be under our control before that which people call spirit is even satisfactorily described. Kant’s concept of noumenon (as contrasted with the observable phenomenon) might be helpful. (Though I use Kant only in case of emergency, lol). The whole Transcendentist movement tiptoes in this area, of course. Internal experience vs external “stuff”. Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants (comprising interior and exterior, individual and collective) I find to be a useful and balanced way of considering matter and mind. He acknowledges that mental events have physical aspects (neurological chemicals and so forth) but refuses to “collapse” the mental/spiritual to merely being (and wholly explainable) in terms of their material components. Denying the extreme scientific materialism, as you also alluded to.

But Buddhism subverts this, not by asserting the existence of spirit or any kind of 'immaterial substance' (which is an oxymoron) but by re-examining the process which lead to the division in the first place. But that re-examination is not a matter verbal or a discursive analysis, but of perceiving the way in which the mind and language divides up the world into these conceptual categories. So it takes a kind of meta-cognitive act, by which the mind begins to understand the way in which it construes experience (usually unconsciously) - leading to confusion about meaning, symbol, reality, concept, and so on, in which modern cultural discourse (and we ourselves) finds ourselves enmeshed. — Wayfarer

Yes. Dividing any whole into parts, and naming them is theoretically an endless process, with arguably diminishing returns. Dissect the golden goose, or not? All things being equal, having scientific data about X is a wonderful thing. But in our relative world, all things are rarely if ever completely equal. How could it be if everything is constantly changing in some way? I’m curious about subatomic particles and space travel. But the skepticism about the amount and priority of such research being militarily useful is difficult to ignore, for one thing. We apply math to the world. Dividing, multiplying, adding, and subtracting this, that, and the other. Which is fine, as long as we can turn off the calculator now and then, and see what happens.

My favorite part of the Gospels is where Jesus lays a logically airtight argument for the existence of God on a crowd of thousands. Then he fed them all with just a pie chart and two syllogisms. Many were converted that day.

Q: Which form of government works best?

A: Wait a minute... there’s a government somewhere that actually works at all?


Q: How many marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.


Q: Which is the one true religion?

A1: It’s a secret. You think they want us poor nosepickers attending their services and annoying everyone with our crying babies and fidgety kids?

A2: None of the above.

A3: The one located closest to your house that has a noon service and a nice school.

A4: The one your parents belonged to. Or possibly the one your significant other believes in, if you can’t be arsed to debate about it.

A5. Scientology (see answer #1).

A6. It is an ancient Sumerian religion whose main ritual was one that predicted the future and told the meaning of the universe by examining the droppings of donkeys. It is called Asstrology.

A7. I can’t pronounce the name of it, but it’s some trendy place where everyone is bowing and wearing yoga pants.

We needn't reshuffle the deck. We need to make all the cards equal in value. — TheMadFool

Well, that would be a whole new game, from my perspective. Or maybe a magic trick beyond even Houdini! :gasp:

The underlying problem in the Buddhist view is 'objectification' - that we seize upon objects, often in the form of ideas, and say 'this is it!' or 'this is not it!' 'Higher self' is one of those ideas; 'spirit' another. When we name them, we 'make something of them', so to speak. 'Look! That's the important thing to understand!' But that is the process of reification, of making something out of a concept. (A lot of talk about 'God' is exactly like this.)

In this sense, Buddhism is near to some themes found in existentialism. It's not as if there is some 'self-essence' which we have to apprehend somehow; it's rather that there's nothing that can be grasped, and we demonstrate our understanding of that by not grasping at it. So it's actually a stance or a dynamic action - the dynamic of not clinging. That becomes, in Mahayana Buddhist terminology, a skill or a mental competency - the skill of non-attachment. — Wayfarer

:up: Thanks for the in-depth reply. Much appreciated. Oh yes, not grasping is absolutely central. (Noble Truth #2, the cause of suffering, IIRC). At the very least or as a start, seeing how comically pathetic it is! We laugh at the naive fool in a movie, but usually the character learns their lesson by the end of the two-hour film. We should be so lucky! :blush:

I tend to think that (outside of meditation, but perhaps even there at times) some reification is perhaps inevitable, and not necessarily a problem. Being so omnipresent in the calculating and naming part of the brain, that recognition/awareness of the process (and the attendant skepticism or caution) is usually sufficient to avoid confusion, I would think. I can have a model toy 1957 Chevy convertible and enjoy it. As long as I don’t try to cruise the boulevard in it, everything is fine. If Lao-Tsu would have stopped after writing “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao”, we would have been the poorer for it. Form is emptiness, emptiness no other than form, as the mind-bending (but strangely comforting) sutra whispers to us.

We call energy, dreams, rivers, music, and evolution “its”. We make nouns out of verbs and adjectives. We want to freeze the dynamic interdependent world into little solid bite-sized nuggets. We make language, and language returns the favor. It may be part of our reptilian brain, seeing the world as food, shelter, danger, or background. I would love to shed my reptilian mind like a snake sheds its skin, but until then perhaps the helpful thing would be to see all things and concepts as empty. But wonderfully empty, for the emptiness is the flow of unlimited energy and connection. In a way, it is like our cosmic electricity, Wi-Fi, and food delivery all rolled into one, times a million (to wax poetic for a moment).

Nothing to do with the topic, but I like the new avatar. Curiously, for some reason I was just thinking about Wacky Packages yesterday, thinking I need to look for info about them online because I hadn't seen them in so long. And then I see your avatar. ;-) — Terrapin Station

All thanks to Google images. :smile: Like the saying goes... leave ‘em laughing, and leave ‘em thinking. With a silly avatar, there is a chance for the former. If one can’t even leave ‘em laughing, then just leave!