yeah that image is dope as hell, but the GOP gleefully calls everyone and everything they don't like a socialist, and they've been doing it for nearly a century so if they are going to call anything the Democrats do "socialist" might as well elect a socialist, or at least a self-described one.

OK. But if Bernie isn't nominated, will you still vote in the general election?

Fuck, yes, the GOP boys who cry socialist may as well get their asses bit by a real one.

Absolutely! Beyond question. Why? Because I'm rational. Any Sanders supporter who doesn't vote for the democratic non-Sanders nominee is an imbecile, in my view. Sanders essentially says this himself.

I 'voted' for Bloomberg. I'm hoping he gets some exposure here soon. From what I can tell thus far, he could be the 'moderate' (I'm a moderate independent) who has both political and business sense that appears strong enough to beat Trump. That could be a better alternative to sleepy Joe... .

Otherwise I'll settle for either Warren or Bernie (if I have to) as a protest vote to get Trump out. It's very clear now, Trump can't be trusted at all. (And finally BTW, Christianity Today recently saw the light in their Op-Ed where they apparently no longer have 'unanimous' support for the dumper Trumper. LOL )

Christianity Today recently saw the light in their Op-Ed where they apparently no longer have 'unanimous' support for the dumper Trumper. LOL ) — 3017amen

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused."

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

Stating the obvious, but good for them.

If one thing is very clear from the 2020 election is:

- Aggressive accusations and ad hominem attacks
- not much substance or debate about policies.

And Americans will be even more divided.

Whopee. Can't wait for this shit show.

Thank you kindly Baden!

I will forward that to my Fundy friend and get his take...needless to say, he and I have had our 'moments'... .

BTW, I've got a 2020 slogan, so if you're feelin-it, please pass it on:

Dump-Trump

yeah that image is dope as hell, but the GOP gleefully calls everyone and everything they don't like a socialist, and they've been doing it for nearly a century so if they are going to call anything the Democrats do "socialist" might as well elect a socialist, or at least a self-described one. — Maw

So it's like now the boy crying "Wolf!" can genuinely cry wolf, because what the heck, let's give him a wolf?

Yes, At least with Bernie you have a politician that has stated to being a socialist. So at least it's not just fabricated lies. And I think you know perfectly well how Trump will go on with the campaign: the only way he knows.

I don't see any other outcome than that the polarization will get worse, any kind of real debate will be marginalized with the ad hominems and the foolish invented topics. Likely it's even worse than in 2016 and this might discourage people from voting.

I fear is that all the ugliness in elections and polarization will come to this continent too as our politicians eagerly mimic what you are doing. At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there.

It's all just a big "wash." So let's just throw up our hands and give up. This is just superficial analysis.

Yes, there's plenty of lying, corruption, bribery, and hypocrisy in both major political parties. But they're not equivalent. To take just one example, and the most important: climate change. One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me.

At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there. — ssu

Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?

Baffling.

Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?

Baffling. — Xtrix

Quite logically: it's our neighbor. We have a habit looking to Sweden for examples how things ought to be done. We usually don't look to the East, for some reason.

One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me. — Xtrix

Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican?

Perhaps Eisenhower can be understood, but how could the American people pick Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior, Bush junior and Trump???

(hint: be as condescending towards your fellow citizens as you can in the reasoning.)

One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. — Xtrix

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring.

That said, we all know that our current President denies it, and nothing meaningful will pass while he's in office - and his party enables this.

Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican? — ssu

Exactly, when they're the party who's literally pushing us to the precipice of destruction. To say it's the party of Eisenhower or even Bush is a joke. They're now off the spectrum.

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring. — Relativist

The article's headline is the Republican plan is Big Oil's plan. Yes, they're been bullshitting for years about "clean coal" and other myths of that nature. They intend to do nothing, as the planet burns. For those who identify as Republicans who aren't outright deniers, to vote Republican at this point is simply insane. Either vote third party or don't vote at all if you can't stomach a (D) next to a name -- anything short of that, at this point, is voting the party who simply dismisses climatology as a hoax because their donors tell them to, and is thus insane.

For those who identify as Republicans who aren't outright deniers, to vote Republican at this point is simply insane. Either vote third party or don't vote at all if you can't stomach a (D) next to a name -- anything short of that, at this point, is voting the party who simply dismisses climatology as a hoax because their donors tell them to, and is thus insane. — Xtrix

So anyone voting GOP is insane. Nice. That will do the trick.

Have nice elections!

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change.

Another bit of insanity I see on the Republican side is a "no-compromise" stance. If Democrats adopt the mirror image of that, then big change cannot happen.

So anyone voting GOP is insane. — ssu

Correct. For the reasons I mentioned, which you continue to ignore.

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change. — Relativist

Their denial of climate change is what makes them insane. If they suddenly become interested in acknowledging the threat and make good faith efforts to help mitigate it, then they're no longer insane and those voting for them have more of a case. But I don't see that happening.

Voters themselves are, unfortunately, rather ignorant -- republican or democrat. They're not necessarily voting based on informed reasoning anyway.

But I agree the more people who join in, the better.

Voters themselves are, unfortunately, rather ignorant -- republican or democrat. — Xtrix

Are they actually so ignorant? 99% of the time, voters are being asked to vote for one ruling class candidate against another. They are not being asked whether the local power plant is sending too much CO2 up the stack. They aren't being asked whether neonicotinoids should be sprayed on crops, wiping out tons of insects. They aren't being asked to make specific decisions through voting.

What the electorate is asked to do is to vote for candidates they think/hope/wish will do something good for them (the voter) but which does not happen, much more often than not. Do voters have a lot of stupid ideas floating around in their heads. Sure they do -- but nothing as grandiose and ruinous as the stupid ideas floating around in the heads of the ruling class who are running things.

That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things.

I prefer the ruling class smear: There is much more evidence at hand to support their bad reputation.

BTW, how do you happen to be exempt from your sweeping generalization?

:clap: Right the eff on!

That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things. — Bitter Crank

I actually agree with you. I didn't say stupid, I said ignorant. Ignorant about science, ignorant really even about politics. They're ignorant of history and geography. People are ignorant about all kinds of things. I don't necessarily blame them, especially when the educational system is designed to fail and the media system is designed to brainwash (or else distract them from anything meaningful).

Point well taken.

BTW, how do you happen to be exempt from your sweeping generalization? — Bitter Crank

Because I've educated myself. The ability to do so in this country isn't impossible, but you have to be willing to make the effort.

Again, I don't fault people for having busy lives, having to work several jobs, etc. I wouldn't expect them to come home and do a research project, assuming they even had the interest.

Are they actually so ignorant? — Bitter Crank

Yes. Not only that, but they are totally insane if they don't disagree Xtrix. Those climate deniers!

That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things. — Bitter Crank

Your not listening to Xtrix.

They are insane. End of discussion.

(Btw, there's great series from PBS Frontline The Great Divide with interesting interviews. I base my pessimism on listening to likes of Robert Reich and Frank Luntz, who interestingly support each other in many issues,...and the various discussions on this forum. I think Luntz will be correct on his view on the election. I would hope I'd be wrong.)

What I hate hearing is 'how likely it is for Trump to win a second term'. This doesn't mean I don't believe it's possible, because I do. It's just that after all that has happened, after the many obvious disasters and malfeasance and constant barrage of lies, the fact that this can still be a prospect, even considered by otherwise intelligent people, makes by blood run cold. It's like, how can the world be this f***ed, that someone like that is even considered? — Wayfarer

Allow me a loud AMEN!

To each his/her own, but it is beyond me how any intelligent person can even consider voting to allow Trump to continue the carnage.

The Democratic field is obviously weak. The economy is ok. The impeachment trial will be forgotten. Trump has fairly decent chance of winning a second term.

It's a good time to get philosophical about things. Deflate your passions and look at the situation as if from outer space.

Yes. Not only that, but they are totally insane if they don't disagree Xtrix. Those climate deniers! — ssu

So judging from your attempt at sarcasm, we can conclude climate denial is NOT insane? Fine. How about completely irrational.

Eh, you're a waste of time. Stick with your battles against the dystopia of Sweden.

The Democratic field is obviously weak. — frank

"Obviously"? Not really. The simple fact that we have a candidate (Sanders) breaking a century of American political history, since the late 19th century, running on individual contributions -- also without establishment support or media support, and labeling himself with the scare word "socialist," -- this is a remarkable fact indeed.

Massive enthusiasm, huge popularity. All grassroots. And now he's leading or within the margin of error in the polls, including general election polls.

That's "weak"? Nonsense.

Stick with your condescending attitude about your fellow citizens. If you are an American, that is.

And insanity? People have believed in silly things (like the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make them insane. And calling them insane won't help. On the contrary. Your inability to notice (or understand) my or Bitter Cranks point about this just shows how deep this problem goes.

People like you simply show that the polarization is real. And it will not go away.

That's "weak"? Nonsense. — Xtrix

I'm sure he does appear strong in some places. It's a big country, though. I don't see him connecting with swing voters, especially after the promise to legalize pot with an executive order IIRC.

I love the guy. I'd love to have him as president. On the national level, he's a weak candidate.

Stick with your condescending attitude about your fellow citizens. If you are an American, that is.

And insanity? People have believed in silly things (like the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make them insane. And calling them insane won't help. On the contrary. Your inability to notice (or understand) my or Bitter Cranks point about this just shows how deep this problem goes.

People like you simply show that the polarization is real. And it will not go away. — ssu

Cry me a river. Sue me for believing I was talking to an adult.

I'm talking on a philosophy forum. This isn't a media junket. If you can't see my point here, you're just deluding yourself so you can make the same tired, fatuous points people want to make all the time about the perils of name-calling.

Even still, I'm not insulting people, nor would I use the choice of words like "insane" when dealing in most social contexts. But it's a description of reality, made to seemingly rational adults on an online forum. There's no other way to describe voting for utter environmental catastrophe than utter insanity, ignorance, or complete irrationality.

So sorry if that's harsh to your virgin ears. Grow up, Peter Pan.

I'm sure he does appear strong in some places. It's a big country, though. I don't see him connecting with swing voters, especially after the promise to legalize pot with an executive order IIRC.

I love the guy. I'd love to have him as president. On the national level, he's a weak candidate. — frank

And, again, that's nonsense. It's your own "gut-feeling" analysis, which is useless to me. Look at the facts: he beats Trump in national polls, he's been the most popular politician in America (according to even a Fox News poll take a while back), he's doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire (both fairly independent-minded states - more so NH), even better in California. Yes, 48% of the country will probably vote conservative no matter what -- that's not saying anything.

If he's weak, then what's Trump? Trump who lost by 3 million votes. Trump who's approval rating is consistently lower than most presidents. And on and on. So if Bernie is still "weak," then who the hell is "strong"?