RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 12:29 am
@Lash,
And you jumped Ionus about calling people names. Pot meet kettle.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 04:39 am
@maxdancona,
If the person cannot win, Max...if the person will be a calamity for the party and the agenda you espouse...

...to call that person "an excellent candidate"...is insane.

An excellent candidate...is one who can win.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 04:41 am
@Lash,
It is absolute tripe, Lash...

...and is the makings for a debacle for a progressive agenda.

The folk on the extremes of the right and left may mean well...and be convinced of their "principles"...

...but they just don't get it.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 04:42 am
Lash...Max...

...do you both think Barry Goldwater was an "excellent candidate" back when he headed the Republican ticket?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 06:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yes, I do think Barry Goldwater was an "excellent candidate". He lost the election, but he influenced the culture and politics of the US for decades after that. I would gladly chose a liberal "Barry Goldwater" over another Clinton who says whatever she needs to say with the sole goal of winning and in the process hurts progressive causes with lukewarm policies.

blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 06:51 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I cannot see how it is possible for anybody in that crazy GOP clown car to win.


Who thought it was possible for bush to win a second term? But he did.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 06:57 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Yes, I do think Barry Goldwater was an "excellent candidate".


I suspected you would answer that way, Max...and that's why I disagree with you so strongly on this.


Quote:

He lost the election, but he influenced the culture and politics of the US for decades after that. I would gladly chose a liberal "Barry Goldwater" over another Clinton who says whatever she needs to say with the sole goal of winning and in the process hurts progressive causes with lukewarm policies.


Yeah...I suspect you would.

That is another reason why I disagree with you so strongly on this, Max.

A "moral victory" is a disguised way of saying "a loss."
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 07:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
The problem here Frank, in your simplistic dichotomy of winning and losing, is that I don't see Hillary as winning. Winning to me means getting a progressive leader with integrity.

Electing a cynical politician who is focused solely on winning with no record of integrity or real courage is not "winning".

There is a difference between "winning" and "settling".
blueveinedthrobber
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 07:27 am
As long as all Dems and Independents support WHOEVER wins the democratic primary and doesn't stay home and pout. We CANNOT afford a GOP President putting more Scalia's on the bench.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 08:05 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The problem here Frank, in your simplistic dichotomy of winning and losing, is that I don't see Hillary as winning. Winning to me means getting a progressive leader with integrity.


Actually, Max, the problem is that you are so far in the hole in this discussion...you are reduced to trying to redefine "winning the next election" in order to save face.

If the Republican candidate prevails in 2016...that is a win for them. If the Dem candidate prevails...it is a win for the Dems.

Jeez!


Quote:
Electing a cynical politician who is focused solely on winning with no record of integrity or real courage is not "winning".


I am not suggesting anyone do that. I am hoping Hillary Clinton will be the Dem selection...and I will happily vote for her. (She is not the person you are describing.)

I expect there are others who, if selected, will also be a happy choice for me (Joe Biden, comes immediately to mind).

Sanders or Warren, in my opinion, would not only be huge losers if selected, they would set the progressive agenda back decades. I expect that most of the people desirous of a progressive agenda will see that incremental steps toward those goals is the reasonable, intelligent, cool-minded way to go...and I doubt Sanders or Warren, good people both, has a chance at the nomination.

I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned individuals can disagree with me on this.


Quote:
There is a difference between "winning" and "settling".


Indeed there is, Max. There is a MUCH GREATER difference between "winning" and "losing."

So what is your point?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 09:29 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:

As long as all Dems and Independents support WHOEVER wins the democratic primary and doesn't stay home and pout. We CANNOT afford a GOP President putting more Scalia's on the bench.


This is why we never elect good leaders.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her (although I will probably get nice and drunk before I go to the polls). But in the primary, my support and my money go to Bernie.

Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 09:42 am
@RABEL222,
Ionus has been on my ignore for years. I haven't seen or responded to anything that person has said. Read back.
0 Replies
 
foundednotlost
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 11:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

Sanders or Warren, in my opinion, would not only be huge losers if selected, they would set the progressive agenda back decades. I expect that most of the people desirous of a progressive agenda will see that incremental steps toward those goals is the reasonable, intelligent, cool-minded way to go...and I doubt Sanders or Warren, good people both, has a chance at the nomination.


Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are Socialists and that is not where the country is...the US is more moderate as opposed to Liberal. Sanders would like to expand entitlements, give medicare to all people, etc. In this capitalist society Sanders' brand of socialism simply will not work. Sanders and Warren's words are magnetic, reflecting what the average American wish were possible; however, his program for America is not realistic, at least not during the current political climate. It is quite possible Sanders might win the popular vote but the electoral vote is out of reach.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 11:44 am
@foundednotlost,
On the contrary, the loss of FDR's programs is the most destructive event our nation has experienced in decades, followed closely by the invasion of Iraq. We were a prosperous nation, and workers were paid for their work and time. We had a forty hour work week. It was not perfect, but throwing the baby out with the bath water was a sellout to the oligarchs and their bribery of our government officials.
foundednotlost
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 01:50 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

On the contrary, the loss of FDR's programs is the most destructive event our nation has experienced in decades, followed closely by the invasion of Iraq. We were a prosperous nation, and workers were paid for their work and time. We had a forty-hour work week. It was not perfect, but throwing the baby out with the bath water was a sellout to the oligarchs and their bribery of our government officials.


Hey, Edgar Blythe, you're responding to the converted. Each recent Republican administration has sought to dismantle the safety net. Paul Ryan's theme song is cut Social Security, and others Republicans are saying raise the retirement age. The Republicans have slashed Food stamps, and cut grants to Hospitals....there are pockets of hungry people all over America. When Ronald Reagan first became president of the US, the homeless began appearing on every corner of major metropolitan cities. Today's world is not like it used to be, the kind of climate FDR fostered when Unions assured workers of a fair wage, which in turn helped to create the Middle Class. Hell, today major businesses are reluctant to pay a decent wage to live on. Bernie Sanders speaks of creating such a time again, but the powerful forces of influence are against him, namely, big business, corporations, fewer and fewer Unions with the latter about to become obsolete.

The point I was making is today it is unrealistic to expect our government to transform itself and return to the bygone days that Sanders ascribes to. It just won't work in the current climate. Even if we get another Democratic president, chances are the Republicans will retain the House led by the Tea Party, making sure no progress back to the good ole days will materialize. Many good Congressmen/women in the House and the Senate have elected to not run again because the Congress is just too brutal. Remember the nutcase, Cruz, who shut down the government because of ObamaCare which was already the law of the land? Talking about an act in futility! Our government, until it gets rid of the Tea Party, will be like children in a schoolyard, incompetent and meaningless.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 02:17 pm
@foundednotlost,
On the other hand, many people who would agree with Sanders and Warren and others have been relatively quiet for a while, dealing with their own lives exigencies, and put off by changes over these last decades to the republican party, in a kind of horrified depression.

There was an old phrase, the silent majority, applied by Nixon and cohorts. I am thinking that whether people like Sanders, the non running Warren, Webb, O'Malley (who else am I forgetting?), some of the silent folk will be newly energized. Some who are already for Hillary Clinton, in particular, will be as well.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 02:25 pm
One reason it probably won't work is because people seem to prefer to lie down and let the bus run them over. Whatever happened to spine in this nation?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 02:31 pm
@foundednotlost,
It will work if you stop selling it down the river. Just say it will work and vote for it.

Edit: Just saw. Edgar said it better. It's the fault of the people who calculate rather than vote their conscience. You may never have this chance again.
0 Replies
 
foundednotlost
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 03:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

One reason it probably won't work is because people seem to prefer to lie down and let the bus run them over. Whatever happened to spine in this nation?


Well yes, if everyone agreed on a revolution! Don't think we've reached that level yet ... things would really have to get extremely critical for the majority of Americans before that can be brought about.... but I do understand where you're coming from and, for the most part, agree with you.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 03:09 pm
Well, I believe you have to try, if you so believe. I don't understand why so many people are trying so hard to keep him from the race. Let the voters decide whom to like.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bernie's In
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.65 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:18:32