Bernie Sanders would have been a regular Democrat in the 30s and 40s just like FDR. Only since Reagan where center-right is called center-left is Sanders a socialist.

However, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, Mike Bloomberg is my friend.

Amy Klobuchar is the only candidate that is talking about mental health parity.

Andrew Yang was the only candidate who implied that people have intrinsic value, unlike Ivanka Trump who calls women an “untapped resource”, flashing dollar signs in her eyes.

You originally said that "the real mudslinging hasnt yet started", and I explained how that's not true given the examples you provided. If you want to expand, feel free to do so. — Maw

Right. New Hampshire is just behind us. The attack from the Republicans has not in earnest yet started (as you could see from Trump's remarks) as there are simply far too contenders to attack.

The accusations surely have already been done in the last election. Sanders has avoided them clearly and of course his supporters aren't bothered about it. Yet for them naturally it isn't at all focused. It's the Republican voters that have to be frightened in order to come to the ballot box. And if you don't find something bad that Bernie has said, then find something that his aides/staff/campaigners have said.

I’m thinking about starting a Twitter campaign. #DemsTrollTrump

Say something about his small hands, low IQ, failed businesses, orange skin, or baby-bitch temper tantrums and tag @RealDonaldTrump with #DemsTrollTrump.

That whiny little bitch couldn’t handle it, and I would bet he would die of a stroke before the election! :100: :party:

I’m thinking about starting a Twitter campaign. #DemsTrollTrump

Say something about his small hands, low IQ, failed businesses, orange skin, or baby-bitch temper tantrums and tag RealDonaldTrump with #DemsTrollTrump.

That whiny little bitch couldn’t handle it, and I would bet he would die of a stroke before the election! :100: :party: — Noah Te Stroete

I just want to fucking die

I just want to fucking die — Maw

No, that’s what he will be saying.

That doesn't make sense. The Constitution can still be amended so can be subject to change even if it were incompatible with Communism (which it isn't necessarily). So, for realz, a person born in the USA is by definition an American. If this person is also a convinced communist, is he still an American according to you? — Benkei

I do believe there is something thematic about the Constitution, and I don't know of an Amendment that has violated that theme, but I suppose it's hypothetically possible that an amendment could be passed that could be so antithetical to the established American ideology that it could change its very nature. So, could you add a chapter to the Bible that praised Satan and changed the entire nature of the book? I guess. I just have to pray to Lucifer that doesn't happen.

As to your second question, I've drawn a distinction between being an American and having an American ideology. It's sort of like I'm born Jewish, but I may praise Satan, which would make me a very unJewish Jew. Paradoxical to be sure, but clear now that I've clarified.

Feel free to hit me with another question that challenges the consistency of my beliefs. I'll come up with something.

It's the classic thing: ask a liberal, a right-leaning libertarian, a Trumpist, a progressive what is good in America and what is Un-American, I assume you won't get the same answer. — ssu

I draw a distinction between what is good for America and what is unAmerican. What is good for America is a pragmatic question. What is un-American is what violates its underlying ideology. For example, very strict gun control might be good for America, but it would also be unAmerican.

And that raises an interesting point, because a constant argument from the left is that the working class rural right often votes against its interests by supporting policies that favor the wealthy. The response is that they are not motivated by self-interest, but by ideology, which is as consistent as the very rich voting for socialism. The rural working class are motivated much more by American concepts of liberty than they are in receiving additional government social security measures, even if pragmatically, they'd be better off with a larger government.

And that raises an interesting point, because a constant argument from the left is that the working class rural right often votes against its interests by supporting policies that favor the wealthy. The response is that they are not motivated by self-interest, but by ideology, which is as consistent as the very rich voting for socialism. The rural working class are motivated much more by American concepts of liberty than they are in receiving additional government social security measures, even if pragmatically, they'd be better off with a larger government. — Hanover

This is a good point. Rural-white-male-right wingers believe in the mythology of freedom as given to them by their favorite pundits including Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, and now Trump himself is his own biggest pundit. They hear from them that the illegal immigrants are getting free healthcare and food stamps, and the welfare momma in the ghetto is driving a Cadillac, so they don’t want to be associated with them because they are gaming the system and taking the tax money of these hard-working poor white men. These pundits also tell them that the Democrats are going to confiscate their guns without any evidence for that claim. The poor rural white man believes them because these pundits speak their language, making the voter feel like pundit is one of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump inherited $250,000,000. Limbaugh is a multi-millionaire, as is Hannity, and none of these people would freely become good friends with the people they daily dupe.

Meanwhile, the Democrats with their liberal arts and law degrees speak to them as if they are speaking to a college professor, using fancy words and acting like namby-pambies, expecting the rural white male right winger to listen because the Dems policies would make their lives better, but who wants to listen to a pussy?

Meanwhile, the Democrats with their liberal arts and law degrees speak to them as if they are speaking to a college professor, using fancy words and acting like namby-pambies, expecting the rural white male right winger to listen because the Dems policies would make their lives better, but who wants to listen to a pussy? — Noah Te Stroete

Right, because all lawyers and educated folks are Democrats and smart and all rural white conservatives are dumb as shit. Only morons buy into the liberty mythology which has time and time again failed. One day they'll notice the wild success of Marxism and all the joy it has brought to the world and they'll change their tune.

Good post. Thank you.

Right, because all lawyers and educated folks are Democrats and smart and all rural white conservatives are dumb as shit. Only morons buy into the liberty mythology which has time and time again failed. One day they'll notice the wild success of Marxism and all the joy it has brought to the world and they'll change their tune.

Good post. Thank you. — Hanover

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, WIC, the right to form a union are not Marxism; but you certainly sound like a conservative pundit. Conservative politicians don’t like these programs that help the rural poor. These politicians (who have law degrees as well) don’t sound like Democrats with law degrees. You see this on the political ads on TV.

I was making the point of how the Democrats appear or come across to people like my ex-wife’s brother. People who work the factories, work construction, or who are now struggling to live after 40 years of union-busting and Reaganomics.

Conservative pundits and Trump know how to manipulate them, while the Democrats don’t know how to speak their language.

You live in Atlanta. I have lived in rural Wisconsin for most of my life apart from six years in the ghetto. I think I know rural America better than you.

Over 40% of working class Americans are people of color and vote Democrat, this type of stereotyping is 40 years outdated

That means almost 60% is white. I’m not saying that this is good or bad. I’m explaining how Democrats lost to Trump.

Have you seen the crowds at the Trump rallies? I mean apart from the token minorities standing behind Trump that are placed there for PR purposes. What do they look like? Do you think they are mostly multi-millionaire donors? Or do you think they are working class?

Chomsky says Republicans will become subtly anti-Semitic regarding Sanders — frank

Where can one find Chomsky's running commentary on current events? I'd like to read that.

Plus he says a win for Sanders will mean nothing without continued activism. — frank

This. I was thinking last night, on the topic of someone asking if I was a "Bernie or bust" person, that I'm not even that excited over the prospect of a Bernie presidency. It's not like "woohoo we won! The revolution is here and now all our problems will be solved!" The president alone doesn't have the power to do that, and shouldn't. A Bernie victory, even in the general, is more like "finally a baby step in the right direction" to me.

And that raises an interesting point, because a constant argument from the left is that the working class rural right often votes against its interests by supporting policies that favor the wealthy. The response is that they are not motivated by self-interest, but by ideology, which is as consistent as the very rich voting for socialism. The rural working class are motivated much more by American concepts of liberty than they are in receiving additional government social security measures, even if pragmatically, they'd be better off with a larger government. — Hanover

There's one important traditional divide in the working class or with blue-collar workers. And that is if the person an employee or an entrepreneur, a self-employed person. This has a big effect on just what issues one see important. The self-employed or family enterprise hasn't got the employer and capital (if any) is owned by the person. This divides basically from outward factors the group into two.

And yes, you are totally correct about the effect of the American ideology. But why the left has been out of the picture in the US has to do other historical reasons also. The labor movement hasn't had the same success as in other countries (and was infiltrated by organized crime). Population made out of immigrants hasn't had similar social and class structure than old European countries: modern USA hasn't been built on the remnants of feudalism, so no history of peasant revolts. Non-leftist parties have dominated US politics. And of course, US has prospered, which naturally has kept the people very content and hasn't driven them to the barricades. People are happy when things work.

People are happy when things work. — ssu

People weren’t happy. That’s why Trump.

However, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, Mike Bloomberg is my friend. — Noah Te Stroete

Check out this OP.

Meanwhile, sudden outbreak of sanity from an unexpected source:

In an extraordinary rebuke of President Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr said on Thursday that Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department had made it “impossible for me to do my job” and asserted that “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.”

Mr. Barr has been among the president’s most loyal allies and denigrated by Democrats as nothing more than his personal lawyer but publicly challenged Mr. Trump in a way that no other sitting cabinet member has.

https://nyti.ms/2tVh4jH]

Trump's meddling in the judiciary is yet another impeachable offense.

People weren’t happy. That’s why Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

Showing your unhappiness in the voting booth means that things are OK. That's just how Republics ought to work.

Totally another thing is to overthrow the whole system by violence and put your life on the line when doing it. Unhappiness comes in different levels.

Unhappiness comes in different levels. — ssu

If you ask me, Trump is definitely throwing a wrench in the system to say the least.

Meanwhile, sudden outbreak of sanity from an unexpected source:


In an extraordinary rebuke of President Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr said on Thursday that Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department had made it “impossible for me to do my job” and asserted that “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.”

Mr. Barr has been among the president’s most loyal allies and denigrated by Democrats as nothing more than his personal lawyer but publicly challenged Mr. Trump in a way that no other sitting cabinet member has.

https://nyti.ms/2tVh4jH]

Trump's meddling in the judiciary is yet another impeachable offense. — Wayfarer

I won’t hold my breath, but maybe I will be humble and say that Barr could surprise us. Everything it’s been reported he’s been doing including working with Guiliani speaks otherwise.

The scene in the oval office after the Barr interview:

:up:

I wish I could work for Trump for a day. I would make him cry.

Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. — NOS4A2

They most certainly do. It's the reason you're even making the argument you're making.

If you ask me, Trump is definitely throwing a wrench in the system to say the least. — Noah Te Stroete

Many of his voters love that. They don't care so much how otherwise Trump does, as long as the economy is going well, and are happy with the giving the middle finger to the establishment. Even that Trump basically has been part of the elite, but not very popular among them, doesn't matter. What works now days is portraying the politician to being the target of the establishment, the "deep state" etc.

Trump is populist and obviously doesn't have in mind to approach new voter segments. Populism of course divides people and causes juxtaposition in the political landscape. Basically the GOP strategy would be to portray the Democrat candidate as even worse than Trump. They know how historically low the approval ratings of the President are, so there are few other ways out of it. Hence my view that the fall election will be as bad as the 2016 election. Hard to see that Trump would change his antics.

I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years. — NOS4A2

Like Bernie?

So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?

The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all titled in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this. — Xtrix

You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference.

You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference. — Relativist

I have debates with friends of mine about exactly this. I certainly feel this way a lot, but the more rational part of me knows damn well that it's not just the people's fault. Many people can't locate the US on a world map or know that the Earth orbits the sun, etc. Terminology effects peoples opinions, too. In one poll, "Universal health coverage" and "medicare for all" had 63% "positive" reaction, while "single-payer health insurance" and "socialized medicine" had 49% and 46%, respectively.

The ignorance of our citizens is indeed astounding. But when millions are working multiple jobs with low wages, have families to take care of, feel completely (and justifiably) disenfranchised with the political process, with social supports weakening and the country becoming more afraid of one another and more polarized...how can you really blame them? Now add to this a very important piece: where they get their information. I don't expect Joe Sixpack to come home and read up on the latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or start a research project on income inequality. If he bothers with the news at all, it's probably local news (which is 95% garbage and 5% weather), or else one of the major information bubbles (like Fox News or Huffington Post, etc) or, unfortunately, social media and various Internet sites/blogs, etc. -- which is becoming more and more popular, as we all know. What do you expect to come out of all of this? An accurate and informed picture of the world?

In the introduction to "Manufacturing Consent," there's a quote from John Milton:

"Those who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."

I think that's absolutely true.

I think you already asked this earlier in the thread and I replied, — Pfhorrest

I must have missed it. I would have remembered your response. Believe it or not you and I are virtually identical in our political outlooks even though we take the opposite side. That is, I vote in California also and I use my presidential vote as a protest vote.

but in case not: I live in California so it's pretty much guaranteed that all our electoral votes are going to the Democrat no matter how I vote, so I use my vote as a way to signal to the Democrats how happy I am with their candidates. — Pfhorrest

Me too!

I normally vote third party, usually Green, despite participating in the Democratic primaries, to send the signal that I'd like them to be better. If my pick in the primaries ever gets the nomination, I'll vote for them to signal that I approve of their improvement. So if Bernie wins the nomination, I'll vote Democrat, and if not, probably Green. But that's only because I live in a safe state. If I lived in a swing state, I would vote for whoever got the Democratic nomination because that'd be the most effective use of my vote to influence things at least slightly in the direction I want them. — Pfhorrest

In 2008 I voted for Obama. In 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson as a protest against Obama's foreign policy, which was Bush's third term. In 2016 I voted for Trump as a protest against Hillary. But if I had lived in a swing state, I probably would have very reluctantly voted for Hillary. Trump was too much of a wildcard. But now that I've seen the Dems in delusion, denial, and outright sedition the last three years. I'm solidly for Trump. The post-2016 Dems have pushed me firmly out of their camp and into the corner of the only person who can oppose them.

Another thing I hate about California is this stupid jungle primary. By November it's Dem against Dem for every important office. Terrible system.

So, you think Bloomie can buy it? Ironic that the Dems have spent three years calling Trump an authoritarian racist; and now they may well nominate an actual authoritarian racist.

:ok:

Like Bernie?

So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?

The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.

Of course I notice this. But who is doing the favoring?

Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. People will attempt to entice politicians with money, of course. Even so, the final decision of any government legislation does not lie with the lobbyists; it lies with the government. That’s true power.