Progressives (Liberals)

Regardless of how I am perceived on this board, I am dedicated to an overall truth, that both political parties have got to be rescued from the criminals now populating most of the ranks. I want my country to live up to the promise of Jefferson, Paine, MLK and such. Some of the people I oppose sometimes perform good acts. Sometimes is not good enough. These people are elected to represent the entire country all of the time.

How do you square statements like this in your mind with the fact that if AOC chose to represent the 40% of her district who disagrees with you you’d be pissed.

Or if Bernie becomes president and he decides to represent the 48% of the country who would’ve voted Republican.


“The entire country” includes roughly 45% of people who vehemently disagree with you and another probably 35% who are to the right of you and the left of center.


How do you square that?

If they begin out of the gate not accepting bribes to enact policy that continues to benefit the 1% of this country, that would be a great start.

99% or 1%?

You do the math.

By waving around pixie dust of course.

This quote is helpful I think

Without community, there is no liberation...but community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.”
― Audre Lorde

My strong impression is that there has long been a lot more disagreement than agreement on these political threads. I believe this is simply a result of the evident fact that, for the most part, what we see written here represents the opinion of the writer about a complex subject usually involving numerous unstated assumptions, values and often some prejudices. These opinions, assumptions, values and prejudices are manifest both in the choice of facts and information provided by the writer (what is left out is often of greater importance than what is addressed), and sometimes directly in argument being made.

None of us are exempt from this. The simple fact is that the question of what is "good" or "bad" for a country or political movement is exceedingly complex, and the values, preoccupations and beliefs of the author inevitably play a strong role in his/her selection and organization of the information available in stating his case or judgment.

History offers ample evidence of peoples, governments, and leaders making what were later evident as wrong choices made often for the wrong reasons, but usually with what would be termed good intentions. The sad history of the British, French, German, Austrian & Russian governments in the two decade lead-in to WWI provides vivid illustrations of this on the parts of all involved. The war resolved nothing, but destroyed millions of lives and wealth accumulated over centuries for all: none of the participants achieved their war aims, and all were injured, even by things at the time thought favorable.

Edgar has very definite political beliefs about which he is usually very clear in acknowledging both what he sees as the relevant facts,and the assumptions and values guiding them. In this I believe he is a good deal more candid and direct than are most of us here.

I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but he usually makes the subjective elements leading to them very clear, leaving me to consider the equally subjective elements leading to my disagreement. In most of these cases there are facts supporting both views, and it is the selection of them that makes the difference - something that usually is indicative of what each party considers most important.

The great majority of what we read and write here is opinion: opinion involving exceedingly complex subjects - issues that in various forms have preoccupied mankind throughout its history - and so far without resolution. I believe we all could benefit by adopting more of the candor Edgar shows in acknowledging the values, beliefs and prejudices that lay behind his stated opinions..

Very good. We will not agree on lots of things, but keeping both parties constructively honest would at least get things moving again.

I am unstirred by these remarks from Brock. It seems to me there is no question that Sanders' moves to differentiate himself from Clinton and to forward negative memes about her (and these came almost totally from right wing media and GOP operatives) did damage to Clinton's campaign.

As to the claimed attacks on Beto, I haven't seen this but I'm not attending to the world of Sanders-supporting media.

And so damned stupid.

Detailed in that it has a fair bit of text but that text provides no evidence that claims made are true.
I think you're referring to the Daily Caller piece (and I pasted the relevant passages) and I consider that the reported Podesta moves to reign in such behavior is relevant and properly paints that aspect of those pro-Hillary supporters as wrong. But so far as I can see given the provided links, that's all there is to it.

Interesting commentary. I have no argument with most of the facts reported, and even find some of the conclusions offered regarding the existing divisions within the opposition to Maduro's government in Venezuela and the remaining "pink" or left wing governments in Latin America, reasonable and likely accurate.

However, entirely absent from the conversation was any reference to the ongoing collapse of the Venezuelan economy at the hands of the Bolivarian socialist governments that have been in power now for almost a decade. For example, several commentators noted the previously large investments in the Venezuelan economy of foreign corporations, and the understandable (as they saw it) desire of some Venezuelans for national control of these assets. True enough but there was no mention of the unlawful seizure of private assets and mess the very corrupt and authoritarian Chavez/Maduro government has made of nearly all Venezuelan commercial activity. The unlawful seizures of private and foreign assets was followed by gross mismanagement at the hands of a corrupt, authoritarian government.


The result has been the collapse of Venezuelan petroleum infrastructure, the drop of production to less than half of its pre Chavista levels, and the elimination of the export revenue that formerly sustained the country. Domestic economic production has also suffered drastic declines. leaving the citizens of Venezuela in an impoverished state in which the essentials of life are in short supply.

None of this was the work of the United States. Despite this most of the reporting focused on the supposed nefarious things we were doing.

Indeed the obvious irony of the torturous efforts on the part of a program entitled "Democracy Now" to so focus on the survival of the most undemocratic government in the Hemisphere (exempting only Cuba and Nicaragua), one which has nullified the actions of its elected legislature and, which has destroyed the nation's economy and corrupted all levels of government, was for me the most striking feature of this strange commentary.

The obvious fact is the Maduro government is collapsing along with the country's economy which it has so badly mismanaged. The possibility of a bloody revolution or civil war cannot be ignored. The opposition of the United States had little to do with that.

I don't think the US is responsible when governments screw up on their own. What I object to is the opportunism that always emerges in every situation. Our own government has a precarious hold on human rights or even being a functioning entity, yet is quick to condemn and control other countries.

So, he just doesn’t read what he doesn’t like.

THAT explains a hell of a lot.

I don't see any satisfaction or opportunism on the part of our government for the situation in Venezuela. It appears to me that our main concerns are for a human catastrophe involving the complete breakdown of public order and possible widespread violence. Nor have we been unduly quick to condemn them - they have been working on the destruction of the economy and freedom of the Venezuelan people for a decade now.

The situation in Venezuela, either in terms of the economy or basic civil rights is not at all comparable to that in the United States. Moreover I note there is no mass movements of people from Central America towards the socialist paradise in Venezuela.

I'm not defending Maduro. You can't just install the other guy unless Maduro gets out of the way. If he is going to do that I can't complain.

George, Edgar,

The US is staging a coup because like Saddam before him, a corrupt government has something we desperately want/need.

Maduro despises is for wrecking their economy with sanctions etc. and he is stripping us of the petrodollar. Looks like he’ll be awarding that most favored nation perk to China.

I’m sure you gentlemen know that our economy only floats at a trillion dollar deficit because we hold on to petrodollar status like charlton Heston hangs on to his gun.

We are throwing everything including the kitchen sink at this situation because we will surely, soon after losing our economic crutch, we will sink into a Wild
West scenario—the old lion, picked at by the hyenas we terrorized in our better days.

*Putin has also been invited to put bases in Venezuela...

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
·
3h
Real and fundamental change never comes from the top on down. It’s never given to anybody. It always comes from the bottom on up, from grassroots activism, from millions of people standing up and fighting for justice.