EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
To be honest, I tend to agree with the opposition to an organized revolution which by virtue must employ violence to keep itself relevant. One need only look to the guillotine and that whole Bolshevik revolution event as examples of what can go wrong in revolution. However, I would not consider anything right wing to be revolution since it can never truly threaten private power structures. Just look at Italy, the wealthiest families have been the same since the days of the Medicis. They had their Machiavelli and much later their il duce, yet the wealth has stayed in certain bloodlines.

Regarding the final statement, I disagree. When some fight for equality, the option of violence remains valid.
Click to expand...
I like that comment regarding right wing violence as not being revolutionary. Good point.

The threat of violence and the occasional act of sabotage to keep a movement relevant if applied with discipline and intelligence isn't what I'm referring to as unacceptable. From my point of view the anti Trump rallies are a good example of intelligent use of the threat and occasional use of opposing force. I am also not saying that people in a movement should be willing to martyr themselves. Self defense and the threat of self defense is necessary when confronting establishment goons. This is appropriate so long as the threat of force is truly self defense and not something done in support of an unjustified illegal act, such as the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Medgar Evers driving about with a revolver on the seat of his car and a rifle in the trunk, for example, was an appropriate self defense measure.

Violent revolution as in the Russian or Chinese revolutions that installed communism didn't end all that well for far too many if not most. So, I reject wholesale civil war as an answer. But I read from your recent post that's not what you refer to when you talk of violent revolution.

I still don't know what you advocate. You probably have said it already. Sorry but I haven't gotten it yet.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I like that comment regarding right wing violence as not being revolutionary. Good point.

The threat of violence and the occasional act of sabotage to keep a movement relevant if applied with discipline and intelligence isn't what I'm referring to as unacceptable. From my point of view the anti Trump rallies are a good example of intelligent use of the threat and occasional use of opposing force. I am also not saying that people in a movement should be willing to martyr themselves. Self defense and the threat of self defense is necessary when confronting establishment goons. This is appropriate so long as the threat of force is truly self defense and not something done in support of an unjustified illegal act, such as the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Medgar Evers driving about with a revolver on the seat of his car and a rifle in the trunk, for example, was an appropriate self defense measure.

Violent revolution as in the Russian or Chinese revolutions that installed communism didn't end all that well for far too many if not most. So, I reject wholesale civil war as an answer. But I read from your recent post that's not what you refer to when you talk of violent revolution.

I still don't know what you advocate. You probably have said it already. Sorry but I haven't gotten it yet.
Click to expand...
I'm criticizing. I'm usually quite carful not to advocate, but to keep my commentary confined to criticism. That is not to say I don't think about what I post, to the contrary, I'm just not pushing views. I have been heavily influenced by Chomsky in that regard.

The nexus of this and my views on revolution can be summed in the following maxim: Just because I wamw don't mean I'm looking for trouble.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
OK, ty, sky, AC, I get it now, I think. Just as I don't know or can't or won't express my actions for what I'd do if I were somehow in charge (heavens forbid), I see that you too are in the same boat. What I've been taking as criticism and carping is just your criticism at the situation and maybe a shot at me too. I'll take your criticism like I would from family. You want me to do better. I'll criticize back if you don't mind. But I'm not looking for a fight either.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
Founding Fathers knew the people would become complacent and allow the leaders to abuse their power. Not sure if you meant the mistake was made in favor of the people, or government. People need to stand up to their leaders, because over time power is always abused.

There is too much money in politics. Fire fighters are public servants and get paid dick compared to what they do for a living, among many other public servant positions. Why does being a senator for 2 fucking years entitle you to a lifetime of more than triple the pay of your average american? Bullshit, they should get the national average as far as salary goes, and locked in a cage if caught taking any amount of money for any reason during their services to avoid being bought. When your service is up, so are your benefits.
Click to expand...
Should've voted Sanders.

I believe he has a position about money in politics.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
Hillary is a hawk, things are going to get amped up big time...plus, she's a woman, she is going to be an even bigger hardass to ensure no Americans think her weak.
Click to expand...
I don't know what's going to happen. I don't disagree that Hillary is more hawkish than Obama. At least her record says so. A lot depends on who is in Congress and public sentiment. Today's congress and public sentiment, by the way, is totally batshit shoot'em up and ask questions later in attitude towards interventionist acts. Makes me not want to read the news.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
OK, ty, sky, AC, I get it now, I think. Just as I don't know or can't or won't express my actions for what I'd do if I were somehow in charge (heavens forbid), I see that you too are in the same boat. What I've been taking as criticism and carping is just your criticism at the situation and maybe a shot at me too. I'll take your criticism like I would from family. You want me to do better. I'll criticize back if you don't mind. But I'm not looking for a fight either.
Click to expand...
No shots at you, just an occasional mirror.

We're more or less on the same side; we both think government has overreached is acceptable bounds, that corruption is rampant, that our rights have been eroded or eliminated.

My musings have centered around defining the scope of the situation and brainstorming solutions.

schuylaar said:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria..have I forgotten anyone?
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
So, how did that go? Let's not do that, shall we?
Click to expand...
This is the alternative if we as a nation don't come up with something.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're using conservative arguments because they suit your narrative because you support Clinton

That's worse than being a conservative imo
Click to expand...
:roll:
londonfog said:
yes I did assume you were talking about the meme. You do realize she was assigned to this case right. She did not ask for it. She actually asked to be relieved. The judge refused. Once assigned she did her job. Can't hate her for that. I do blame our fucked up legal system that botched the case.
Click to expand...
Thats not what she said in her interview. Also if she did not want to defend a pedo rapist then she would not have attacked the character of a 12 yr old with slut accusations.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
If she had a conscience she would have failed to defend the guy. Simple as that. She gets my enduring disdain, not the people who are genuinely afraid of Trump. She deserves it. The system is oppressive and she IS THAT SYSTEM.

The problem with choosing the lesser evil in this case is that no matter who wins, the Trump supporters will still be there. They will be there because of a status quo, not because of Trump. They're there because of her just as much as they are because of him because they're both really just status quo. voting for the lesser evil is status quo. Your opinion is status quo. I don't blame you.

So why vote for status quo? That may sound like a vague appeal but what I mean is, I am genuinely opposed to the democratic party and I'm sick of seeing the populace shunted into them by fear of the GOP. It's time to oppose this shit, no matter how scared we are of the other bad guy.

You say that she will be president and that it is unavoidable, does that mean embrace it? Defend it? Like it? Stop voicing genuine opposition to it? Delay the revolution against it because of the minority of bigots who threaten to have a voice? My guess is that this election will have record low voter turnout.
Click to expand...
Some will vote for trump to stop hillary from taking office though. She is out for money and power. Everything I have read about her and the interviews I have watched prove she is a liar and has no sense of right or wrong.

If bernie had been nominanee. I would be like, gee what a swell guy. He has social issues and national security in mind. I feel he would comprimise and work well with the republican congress.

Is he getting behind hillary? That would make me completely distrust him.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I'm criticizing. I'm usually quite carful not to advocate, but to keep my commentary confined to criticism. That is not to say I don't think about what I post, to the contrary, I'm just not pushing views. I have been heavily influenced by Chomsky in that regard.

The nexus of this and my views on revolution can be summed in the following maxim: Just because I wamw don't mean I'm looking for trouble.
Click to expand...
I'm a criticizer also. Where you turned to Chomsky, I find him overrated and too boring to read or really listen to. I've tried to read him and i just can't keep going. I try listening and i don't get what the fuss is about. He seems to avoid taking a stand on anything at all costs, except blaming others.

For someone who lived in a time when someone like Hitchens was alive and publishing, turning to Chomsky is for sheep.

I lump Chompsky in with a man named Chris Hedges. He makes similar arguments. Hedges is a liberation tgeologist.

I've never seen someone so thoroughly trounced in a debate as Hedges was by Hitchens. And as far as i know Chomsky wouldn't ever agree to get on a stage with Hitchens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top