|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2017 03:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 02:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Said it before, if you want political change, you either vote, or you stage a revolution and roll the dice with the aftermath.
The whole cut off the nose to spite the face approach just leads to a whole lot of nothing. If you want political change you need to work hard all year round to slowly gather a movement around your goals. Voting only comes in halfway through. Then you need to actually work for years to enact the changes.
I was speaking mostly on part of an average citizen, not as a politician. Sure, you could go all-in and join the political rat race yourself, but that can't apply to 350 million people.
|
On November 24 2017 03:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 03:04 a_flayer wrote:On November 24 2017 02:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Said it before, if you want political change, you either vote, or you stage a revolution and roll the dice with the aftermath.
The whole cut off the nose to spite the face approach just leads to a whole lot of nothing. If you want political change you need to work hard all year round to slowly gather a movement around your goals. Voting only comes in halfway through. Then you need to actually work for years to enact the changes. I was speaking mostly on part of an average citizen, not as a politician. Sure, you could go all-in and join the political rat race yourself, but that can't apply to 350 million people.
Well, replace "gather a movement around your goals" with "support a movement that shares your goals" and "work for years to enact the changes" with "support the people enacting the changes".
You can't expect a politician to brush aside the millions of cynical cunts all on their own, after all.
|
On November 24 2017 03:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 03:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2017 03:04 a_flayer wrote:On November 24 2017 02:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Said it before, if you want political change, you either vote, or you stage a revolution and roll the dice with the aftermath.
The whole cut off the nose to spite the face approach just leads to a whole lot of nothing. If you want political change you need to work hard all year round to slowly gather a movement around your goals. Voting only comes in halfway through. Then you need to actually work for years to enact the changes. I was speaking mostly on part of an average citizen, not as a politician. Sure, you could go all-in and join the political rat race yourself, but that can't apply to 350 million people. Well, replace "gather a movement around your goals" with "support a movement that shares your goals" and "work for years to enact the changes" with "support the people enacting the changes". You can't expect a politician to brush aside the millions of cynical cunts all on their own, after all.
Well, yes, but really supporting a movement means voting (alongside millions of other people) those people into power, and supporting them when they make changes means voting them in again 4 years later.
|
On November 24 2017 02:21 Nevuk wrote:
Nope, Trump's Don King tweet was 100% innocent. This guy, after all, is a liberal using the word racism.
|
|
|
"You know, in a fight, like I watch in the movies,"
this manchild is in charge of our military.
|
I think Trump might just think the military finally adapted Invisibility Cloak technology from the wizarding world.
(who am I kidding, that man hasn't read a chapter book in more than two decades)
|
Word on the street is that Flynn's lawyers have cut off their cooperation with Trump's lawyers.
|
I think the only thing that exceeds Trump's ignorance is his ego. He's a confident idiot, which is super fucking dangerous when millions of people will take his word as gospel.
|
On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that.
The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes
|
On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes
i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say?
|
On November 24 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say?
Well, you're saying that power will corrupt, but what if you destroy existing power centers? Then things should be much better for awhile until the rot sets in again.
|
On November 24 2017 06:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say? Well, you're saying that power will corrupt, but what if you destroy existing power centers? Then things should be much better for awhile until the rot sets in again.
unless the rot infests the new system from the ground up, which it's perfectly capable of doing, and has happened many times in the past. there's little reason to believe hte new system would be clean, rather than being just as corrupt as the old one. And destroying existing power centers can cause an awful lot of damage if done improperly and imprudently, as my venezuela example demonstrates; and there's ample evidence to show that the stuff gh is pushing for is not based heavily on thoughtful prudence.
|
|
|
Guess this might explain why Trump's been off the handle going after D-tier celebrity LaVar Ball.
|
On November 24 2017 06:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say? Well, you're saying that power will corrupt, but what if you destroy existing power centers? Then things should be much better for awhile until the rot sets in again.
"Existing power centres" exists far beyond politics.
Revolutions are lead by people, and the kind of people that lead revolutions are usually the kind of people that you don't want leading a country. With some exceptions.
|
|
|
On November 24 2017 07:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 06:48 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say? Well, you're saying that power will corrupt, but what if you destroy existing power centers? Then things should be much better for awhile until the rot sets in again. "Existing power centres" exists far beyond politics. Revolutions are lead by people, and the kind of people that lead revolutions are usually the kind of people that you don't want leading a country. With some exceptions.
But as far as I know people don't want a revolution, they just want a third party movement to take over the Democratic party and enact far-reaching reforms to structurally address inequality and the power of capital. I think leftwing movements in the USA have a lot of respect for grass-roots organizing and having democratic accountability and so on. If Sanders had become president he wouldn't have instituted himself as dictator for life. Whenever Sanders voters talk about revolution they are clearly not talking about a violent uprising, just about organizing with the goal to radically shift policy.
|
Considering the timing, I can only assume that they were referencing the Steele dossier. Either that, or the US intelligence agencies found information of their own accord that Trump was compromised.
|
On November 24 2017 07:36 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2017 07:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2017 06:48 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. The national government has the potential to break up existing power centers, e.g. nationalizing health care, pursuing anti-trust legislation, institutionalizing labor unions, by seizing money in tax shelters, higher taxes i'm aware of that, it doesn't change my point at all. so i'm not sure what you're quoting me for. what are you trying to say? Well, you're saying that power will corrupt, but what if you destroy existing power centers? Then things should be much better for awhile until the rot sets in again. "Existing power centres" exists far beyond politics. Revolutions are lead by people, and the kind of people that lead revolutions are usually the kind of people that you don't want leading a country. With some exceptions. But as far as I know people don't want a revolution, they just want a third party movement to take over the Democratic party and enact far-reaching reforms to structurally address inequality and the power of capital. I think leftwing movements in the USA have a lot of respect for grass-roots organizing and having democratic accountability and so on. If Sanders had become president he wouldn't have instituted himself as dictator for life. Whenever Sanders voters talk about revolution they are clearly not talking about a violent uprising, just about organizing with the goal to radically shift policy.
Okay, well, confused when you said "destroy existing power centers" then, because a 3rd party is still working within the existing framework. Which still means lobbying and pitches, still means year long hundred-billion dollar campaigns, and ultimately still working with representatives of 50 states to come to a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
