Yeah that requires political power transformed into political action, and it's only been two years since Trump was elected. What were the Dems doing that was "hardcore" to stop the surveillance state and war machine during the Bush years? Clearly nothing. It should also be pointed out that Sanders recently lead an effort to stop the war in Yemen, along with Mike Lee (a Republican no less), which managed to pass through a GOP controlled Senate (Trump of course vetoed it).

During the Obama era the war machine and surveillance state took no pause in its advance

(Add. In fact, at the the end of the Bush era, they were nothing compared to when Trump took over.)

Sure, and Obama was a disappointment to the Left as I pointed out in the previous page, but regardless you're original comment only mentioned the left during the Bush years and during Trump's presidency, so I'm not really sure what your argument is any more.

I have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office

have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below:

The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney). — Merkwurdichliebe

What a coincidence, that's my middle name. — praxis

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it — Maw

The elected personnel of government are a small minority; granted, they are a powerful small minority. But the "Permanent Government" is huge, and by reason of its size and control of government work, is also very powerful. Everything from the CIA to the GSA (General Services Administration), the military to the National Endowment for the Arts is a piece of the Permanent Government which grinds away in the secluded cellars, tunnels, and halls beneath the bright marbled and gilded Plaza where the Body Politic dances with Policy Wonks and lobbyists in crocodile shoes, schmooze, and rub up against each other to taste the pheromones of power and influence.

The political clusterfuck is on display above ground. The permanent government cleverly avoids publicity by staying below ground and out of sight.

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below: — Maw

The only thing they have to do with each other is that they are my opinions.

And the first sentence assumes that those who are in elected positions actually represent us. From my perspective, I see very few elected officials representing the interest of the electorate.

The political clusterfuck is on display above ground. The permanent government cleverly avoids publicity by staying below ground and out of sight. — Bitter Crank

Speak on my brotha

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me?

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me? — Merkwurdichliebe

I strongly supported Bernie over Hillary, and while the Democratic establishment clearly favored Clinton it shouldn't be discounted that Hillary received over 3 million more votes (+28% more votes) than Bernie. There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change.

Are you factoring in the superdelegate scam?

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/amp/

Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change. — Maw

Until they sabotage the next candidate.

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me? — Merkwurdichliebe

Is this a trick? You make a valid point, but if my choice is democrats or Trump? Doesn't seem too difficult. But don't worry, I won't give the democrats any money (if that is what you mean by support).

Until they sabotage the next candidate. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well if they end up running anyone who is not a black woman, then Trump will win anyway (unless we get lucky and he gets bored with this whole thing and does not run). The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. I would like to think that hating trump is enough for unification, but it didn't work last time.

Is this a trick? You make a valid point, but if my choice is democrats or Trump? Doesn't seem too difficult. But don't worry, I won't give the democrats any money (if that is what you mean by support). — ZhouBoTong

No, I'm baffled. To undermine your base in the way they did, is about the most shady rat-bastard thing a political party could do. I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote.

The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. — ZhouBoTong

That's too bad. Race and gender are two of the worst criterion I can think of for supporting a candidate. Not that this hasn't been the case the whole time. I'm just saying.

So what’s with the monkey business? You jealous of Rogers human dna?

I strongly supported Bernie over Hillary, and while the Democratic establishment clearly favored Clinton it shouldn't be discounted that Hillary received over 3 million more votes (+28% more votes) than Bernie. — Maw

I think the contention is the vote count would have been different without the democratic establishment heavily supporting Hillary (in particular friends in media, counting the super-delegates as already "for Hillary", not renouncing the super delegate system when it came under scrutiny). Also, even if Hillary would have won anyways, I believe the followup contention is the various unfair ruses lowered Bernie supporters and general voters enthusiasm for the democratic party.

That apologists for the Democrat strategy vis-a-vis Bernie (that they don't like him and wanted him to lose so of course they made things unfair) and vis-a-vis Trump (that losing to Trump is somehow not their fault) has no viable arguments -- which I don't think is what you're saying, but that Hillary got more votes without the super delegates doesn't directly relate to what people's issues are with the DNC of 2016.

However, I agree with your view that Democrats is still a better choice than Trump whatever the candidate, and I also agree that it's unfortunate that Trumps words and behaviour and policies is not enough for a strong uniting of the clans.

Trump won for the same reasons Obama did. The system is shit and people want change. Both brought the appeal of novelty to the table.

Trump won for the same reasons Obama did. The system is shit and people want change. But brought the appeal of novelty to the table. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not quite a fair comparison, considering Obama won the popular vote by a good margin and Trump lost by a good margin.

But I agree that what you point out is how Trump was able to compete, and what Hillary and the DNC completely miscalculated (especially with things like the bank speeches, and other completely avoidable "look at me, I'm establishment" self-branding).

There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change. — Maw

And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.

Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.

It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties.

The evidence that it's corrupt is found in the fact that they won't allow 3rd parties in the debate unless they have a certain amount of support. But they are unable to generate that support simply because they are not permitted into the debate.

Its obvious the rules are set up this way to prevent 3rd party candidates from ripping up the Republican and Democratic positions, and exposing them for the frauds they are

The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. I would like to think that hating trump is enough for unification, but it didn't work last time. — ZhouBoTong

A white male (sorry Pete, straight) war veteran appeals to Trump's base more I'd think. Additionally no #metoo references is a bonus.

#metoo — Benkei

pound me too

What do you mean?

I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote. — Merkwurdichliebe

:scream:

That's not thinking pragmatically. Think of the consequences! I know that what they did is self-harm, but you guys can't afford lost votes, as that will strengthen the opposition.

you guys — S

Who are you guys, I don't give two shits about them, I'm just making a point concerning self respect

Who are you guys, I don't give two shits about them, I'm just making a point concerning self respect. — Merkwurdichliebe

The American electorate who are opposed to Trump. I am not a member of that group, opposed to Trump as I am, so I don't have a vote that I could waste.

Then it seems we are similar.

so I don't have a vote that I could waste. — S

My vote is a boycott against the system. That's why I refuse to vote for a president.

The evidence that it's corrupt is found in the fact that they won't allow 3rd parties in the debate unless they have a certain amount of support. But they are unable to generate that support simply because they are not permitted into the debate.

Its obvious the rules are set up this way to prevent 3rd party candidates from ripping up the Republican and Democratic positions, and exposing them for the frauds they are — Merkwurdichliebe

There a mountain of difficulties made for 3rd parties to engage the political system, but the biggest obstacle is the view of the people. Voting a 3rd party means "that the other side wins automatically". That you "throw away your vote". This idea is the problem.

Another problem is this fixation on the President. As if a 3rd party presidential candidate would really get anything done with Capitol Hill in the hands of the Democrats and the Republicans. How a 3rd party ought to start is from the ground level up, with people in the communal and city elections and then continuing on to the state level. And when there is a will, there is a way.

What the US really needs is a parliamentary system.