So what did you think? I'm particularly interested in anybody who's opinion/preference changed from before the debate.
If you missed the debate, like I did :(:, you can see it here. It's a playlist of the debate broken up into 17 short videos.
Printable View
So what did you think? I'm particularly interested in anybody who's opinion/preference changed from before the debate.
If you missed the debate, like I did :(:, you can see it here. It's a playlist of the debate broken up into 17 short videos.
Chafee and Webb paled. They should both drop out before the next debate. (Republicans actually liked Webb's performance!)
O'Malley did quite a bit better than I expected and now he actually seems interesting. Clinton might choose him as her running mate if she wins the nomination but there are plenty of others whom she could tap.
I feel that Sanders and Clinton did roughly equally well. But there is a special win for Sanders in this 1st debate. You see, Clinton merely held her own (as a matter of fact, she did slightly poorer than I expected her to). But she is a well-seasoned, experienced politician, very visible for decades, in the center and limelight of American politics, and she was supposed to do well in front of a nationwide audience while under pressure.
Sanders, on the other hand, demonstrated that he can perform well, that he is not a flash in the pan, but that he is indeed a substantive and competent candidate on the issues. Sanders' performance was somewhat better than Clinton's. One of the few weak spots that Sanders had in the debate last night was his having to defend his poor record on gun control. He tried to make excuses but they did not come off well and sounded wanting. But that's about it. Otherwise, Sanders was outstanding. In a strange way, Sanders' equal or only slightly better performance than Clinton's translates to a big win for him, which simultaneously puts Clinton on a little more defensive position when stacked up against Sanders.
Sanders is here for the long haul. He demonstrated that he is a threat to Clinton and things probably won't be resolved until Super Tuesday, the 1st of March next year, when a large number of primaries are going to be decided. Like in the 2008 campaign, Super Tuesday could very well decide not only the Democratic nomination but also who will be the next president of the United States.
One thing that continues to concern me is the question, asked during the debate, that if Sanders is nominated, will the American people be open-minded enough to elect a Socialist to the White House. I have serious doubts, I hate to admit.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
wacco member's note: This is by some misogynous "progressive" (except where his own privilege is concerned) man who insists on referring to "Sanders" and "Hillary." So I've substituted Clinton in each place where he's done so.
The most revealing moment of last night’s Democratic presidential debate came near the end, when CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates to “name the one thing—the one way that your administration would not be a third term of President Obama.” Bernie Sanders replied that, unlike Obama, he would “transform America…through a political revolution.” Hillary Clinton answered that, unlike Obama, she’s a woman.
The responses reminded me of a distinction Chris Hayes makes in his excellent book, Twilight of the Elites, between “institutionalists,” who want to make existing institutions function better and “insurrectionists,” who want to tear them down and start again.
Sanders is an insurrectionist. That’s why, asked about following the most transformational liberal president in a half-century, he didn’t say that America is moving in the right direction but has further to go. He said America needs a “political revolution.” He also said that, “America’s campaign finance system is corrupt.”
[Clinton] never talks that way. She acknowledges problems but she rarely indicts America’s core economic and political institutions. Consider the two candidates’ answers on financial regulation. Sanders said that, “Wall Street, where fraud is a business model, helped to destroy this economy and the lives of millions of people.” Thus, “we have got to break up” the banks. [Clinton], by contrast, said that “Dodd-Frank was a good start, and I think that we have to implement it…We have to save the Consumer Financial Protection board.” Sanders, in other words, attacked the system; [Clinton] explained how it could be improved.
On race and crime, it was much the same. Sanders called America’s criminal justice system “broken” and riddled with “institutional racism.” Hillary called for “following the recommendations of the commissioner that President Obama empanelled on policing. There is an agenda there that we need to be following up on.”
In explaining her vote for the Patriot Act, [Clinton] said the legislation created a valuable “process” but the Bush administration had begun “to chip away at that process” and thus, “the balance of civil liberties, privacy and security” needed to be restored. Sanders didn’t talk about balancing competing values or getting the process right. Anderson Cooper asked, “Would you shut down the NSA surveillance program?” and Sanders replied, “Absolutely. Of course.”
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Moon, this is obviously a hit piece against Sanders and clearly pro Clinton. That's fine; we all take sides.
The first observation I'd like to make is that around the beginning of your post, both candidates are defined with labels. Sanders is defined as an "insurrectionist" and then defiled as something pathetic for being someone who wants to tear everything down and start over, like an Anarchist, perhaps.
Clinton is defined as an "institutionalist" and therefore, the good gal because an institutionalist is something noble, respectable, and thus, electable.
Moon, I'm not buying it. And what is not 100% clear is where you stand on this and how much of your post was someone else's writing, such as this Chris Hayes, just to give one example of a "source."
If you have something to say then please just say it and own it. And be clear about what in the post you said and what it is in your post that someone else said. It's called citing your sources. It doesn't have to be anything fancy like following the Turabian Citation Guide. Just a very brief note of what is yours and what is someone else's.
An old style revolutionary or an Anarchist might actually "tear everything down and start over" but that is obviously not what Sanders plans on doing. He used the term "revolution" very loosely for effect but what Sanders is referring to is deep, extensive, and permanent institutional reform. But it is not truly "revolution," per se, but major reform, such as the abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery was not revolutionary but it was major reform.
Sanders has a message that more conventional, incrementalist, centrist, status quo politicians like Clinton do not like simply because it is too radical for their own taste.
Furthermore, Clinton is afraid of alienating centrist voters in the general election in November 2016 because they can easily decide if a Republican or a Democrat will occupy the White House for the following 4 years.
Additionally, with regards to Sanders, he is not as concerned about losing the "center" like Clinton is because she is the "designated" future nominee and she has been acting like it since before the announcement of her presidential run.
This provides Sanders with a distinct advantage because he is the underdog and has "less to lose" simply because he is not the favorite. Sanders can afford to gamble, Clinton cannot. As a matter of fact, Sanders must gamble if he expects to win or have some kind of an impact, which he's already accomplished by moving the Democratic dialogue and discussions to the left. (Thank you, Bernie.)
How does Sanders gamble? Simple: Sanders says what's on his mind and does not worry himself (like Clinton has to) in alienating the "middle ground." Sanders speaks his mind uninhibitedly. This helps make Sanders dangerous because in this way Clinton has her hands tied in what she can and cannot say. It is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back and that is the predicament that Clinton finds herself in when she confronts Sanders.
My main concern is not bent on demonizing Sanders but on sizing up the American soul's ability to elect a Socialist to the presidency. And quite honestly, I don't think the American people have it in them. Sure, they were able to elect the first African-American president and they are able to elect the first female president, but they are probably not ready to elect a Socialist.
If it was up to me to appoint the next president, I would pick Sanders. But I, of course, do not have that authority (and I'm glad I don't!)
One of the reasons why Sanders is so appealing to millions of Americans: he tells the truth and Clinton is mealy mouthed about many of those same issues. Sanders is right to attack the core system in the United States because that is what needs to be addressed. Clinton is in bed with Wall Street and the billionaires, Sanders is not.
America needs systemic change and Clinton is far less likely to do that than Sanders is. That is why Sanders has so much support. He is addressing the issues the way they need to be addressed, with many great systemic reforms. Sanders will take giant steps, Clinton will only take baby steps towards changing America.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
Perhaps on gun control He might think " if all the guns are controlled only the criminals would have guns? "Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
You can make a gun at home now, just choose your propellants wisely.
How nice it is to stop a bad one in their tracks when they try to kill you.
We have the rights to this much safety.
and perhaps in a continuing theme on drug control
Our Planet is in no need of more people and should some of them take themselves out for seriously bad ideas perhaps soon there would be fewer stupid people
1- If only the same old traditional Democrat voters are mostly who vote in Primary than Hillary Clinton will win the primary baring any new FBI discoveries of criminality of the “damned emails”; otherwise Joe Biden will take her place if there are any indictments barring Clinton from candidacy in the scenario, in which case Joe Biden will make a very thin majority win as long as the timing is not too late otherwise it could be O'Malley but not without a real close-call with Sanders; I give a 50-50 O'Malley vs Sanders in that scenario.
2- If the younger generation of registered democrat voters and also the not registered (yet) younger would-be registered democrat voters actually vote then Bernie Sanders has a real excellent chance of a win in the primary and I think he would by a reasonably substantial margin win as long as the delegates hold true which I have my doubts about because so many of them have their minds firmly set on pushing to the point of almost foisting onto us a Clinton nomination but that is another topic that may deserve further discussion on another thread at a later time.
3- The electability issue for the General election:
Clinton; female voters will be enthused and there would be a high female voter turnout and as a direct result which would be a formidable amount of voter turnouts for any republican to win against her particularly if Trump is the Republican running against her but Clinton's anti gun stance would loose critical rural votes which will really count in some states electorally speaking.
Bottom-line: Don't be lulled into comfort-zone, Clinton is not a shoe-in to win the general election.
Sanders; Without a new batch of younger voters in substantial numbers has little chance in either primary or general.
If he did win primary he would be swamped and hit hard with red-baiting anti-”communist” anti socialist propaganda campaign adds against him and would have to really Ace his actual talking points to counter that monster; plus he would also have to have to both maintain the young voters that will be necessary to win the primary in the first place and would also have to gain more young voters for the general; however unlike Clinton he will get some rural pro gun democrat leaning votes that nether O'Malley or Clinton would get.
Bottom-line, Sanders needs a very large young voter turnout to have any real chance to win in 2016 general election.
O'Malley; May have chance if Clinton gets bogged down with FBI email investigation and indictments and Biden keeps out of it but otherwise not enough momentum and his city-like anti gun stance would certainly be a no-go for many rural voters.
Bottom-line: He would loose the general election based on rural State electoral votes, lack of young voter turnout and lack of female enthusiasm.
Webb; Web is 100% a 'Reagan democrat'.
Bottom-line: It won't happen for Webb in 2016.
Chafee; other than the appearance that he looks like he had a recent stroke and may have (another) one before November 2016, his statements about Clinton's upcoming FBI hearing made Clinton voters and female voters go against him even if they were not against him before the debate they are now likely his newly sworn enemies in the democrat party.
Bottom-line: He has a the equivalent chance as a snowball being unchanged after coming into physical contact to the surface of the sun.
Oh; I have changed my mind about one thing, l will change my party from no party to Democrat so I can vote for Bernie Sanders.:wink:
Other than Bernie Sanders, I have not changed my mind as a California voter about me not voting for Clinton in general, nor any other Democrat for that matter, in the case if Sanders is not in 2016 General as a protest vote I would in all likelihood vote Green party, at least that for now is what I am thinking anyway.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
So I would like to offer my support for Bernie Sanders. How does one do that without following the normal route?
I can imagine strange salons, spread through the countryside, local wineries that have restaurants doing skits for life as if Bernie was god, I wonder what they could be?
Moon's piece was copied from The Atlantic, but it was only the first part of the article, and it is not a hit piece. The title (and link) is "Where Bernie and Hillary Really Disagree".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
It's well worth a read. Here's the key bit from later in the article:
Sanders’s insurrectionism is crucial to his political appeal. Progressives don’t just love him because his policy proposals are more left wing than Hillary’s. They love the fact that he calls America’s political and economic system corrupt, and that he refuses to play by that corrupt system’s rules: for instance, by raising money via a super PAC. That’s why being a “socialist” doesn’t hurt Sanders among many liberals. For many, “socialism” is just another way of saying you want to tear down the existing order and build something better in its place.
But if Sanders’s insurrectionism is key to his success, it may also put a ceiling on it. As angry as many liberals are about economic inequality, the Democratic Party is today in a far less insurrectionist mood than the GOP. Republican presidential candidates routinely bash John Boehner, to wild applause. If a Democratic candidate attacked Nancy Pelosi, liberals would think he or she were nuts. And Democrats still really like Barack Obama.
My sense is that Bernie is not going to win the Democratic nomination, because the Democratic base is more interested in reform then "insurrection". And that's certainly the case in the general election.
In the debate Bernie said he was viable because he'll drive greater turnout. It's true that the people who support Bernie are wildly passionate and he'll increase the turnout in that demographic (mostly white well educated liberals, like us :wink:) but the passion/turnout won't extend to the wider base, most notably non-whites and moderates.
On the other hand, I think Hillary did an excellent job of being very sharp, presidential and human (for a change). She has also moved considerably to the left since her last outing (2008), possibly thanks to Bernie. My biggest problem with what she had to say was a lack of support for Glass–Steagall
I am not sure what you mean by “the normal route”.
Certainly for Bernie the 'normal route' has been put off the table by Bernie himself (large corporation, super-pac's, millionaire, and billionaire donors).
Many of the younger voters are too young to go to bars and wine tasting rooms.
Politics in a music concert is dicey as to it's acceptability depending on the crowd but a free concert that is based on political awareness and has good high quality music and entertainment in parks is a thought; something like a political days on the green and such is intriguing and has potential for getting the word out but these days it takes permits, insurance, and $$ so the bang for the buck, IMO, would be on the lower end of the scale but I see where there may be a few of those anyway.
As I mentioned above, concerts in parks may help a little but I think the electronic media like Twitter and Face-Book will be where the most info and encouragement will ultimately end up accomplishing the maximum affect on getting the young and new voter turnout because it takes people in large numbers to share what they know, think and feel to get such a large changing movement going and then that would still have to be an ongoing continuous effort to further that into action, and then continue to formulate that momentum and focus those kinds of communications into actual informed voter turnout to actualize and make the huge political shift that Bernie Sanders and the “Warren Wing” are campaigning for.
All that being said even the Warren Wing's main points are baby-steps compared to what it will take to continue humanities (politicians included) and the environment's we depend on well being on this planet.
Small steps forward is better than slipping backwards to the point of no return to going forward.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
I think if you go to Sanders' website, you will find links to local support groups.
And his campaign can always use money.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
Re:That way of treatment from the fascistic democrats is exactly why I don't believe the Democratic party as a whole has been all that much different than the 'traditional' republican party in the long term over the last few decades; as far as capitalistic dogma is concerned they are two sides of the same coin, IMO.Quote:
If a Democratic candidate attacked Nancy Pelosi, liberals would think he or she were nuts....
The Democratic party as a whole did not want anything to do with so much as the idea of systemic change; it was so forbidden that there had to become a Green Party just to air the ideas from the real left, many of whom were former democrats in the formation of the Green Party;.
The Democratic Party, instead of listening to the so-called left side of their constituents in any serious way they just made some adjustments they would have made anyway to the good old boy's system of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours (so to speak) but still the same war mongering, profiteering, Wall Street, top 1% wealth holders, and Banking institutes who get the lion’s share of the benefits from the business as usual insider politics from both republican and democrat parties.... ...The Clinton family is no exception to that rule.
I realized that in 3D and surround sound so to speak when Pelosi as majority speaker of the house with a tone of vengeance threw even discussing universal health care in congress under the bus at the beginning of Obama Care being negotiated in congress, that happened when the democrats had a majority in congress!
That was a sign of weakness which emboldened the current far right republican 'neocons' and opened the door for fear mongering neocon like democrats to either immobilize or move the party even further to the right side of center in regards to domestic, economic, and trade policies in particular.
...BTW, when Pelosi made the decision that universal health care for all was 100% booted out of the discussion her wording was so damned patronizing to many of us; it was so condescending the way that Pelosi spoke at and snubbed us, it discussed me to the core and made me realize even deeper that the Democratic party had been compromised and as a whole and not only did they put up with Pelosi talking so patronizingly to left side of their party, and not just did they let her get away with it, many actually applauded to it!
Somehow in the name of "knowing how to get things done" we had just basically, in principal, been spat upon by the bully juggernauts in the party while the rest of them stood by and out of fear, I think; said little or nothing.
Well that was it for me, the democratic party did not listen and got snubbed in the following election cycle...
...And now Hillary Clinton is talking down to us again in the same kind of attitudinal tone Pelosi did, with very much the same meaning, and verbiage.
Maybe it's my political PTSD that has something to do with it, never the less, for me in all likelihood I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Re:I think it is as good of a time as any that the democratic and republican parties Wall Street, top 1% wealth holders, and Banking institute 'buddies' who have gotten away with steeling (banking bail-out fraud etc.) from the majority for so long and so much should get downside up and the $$$ that comes out of their thieving fraudtser pockets should get returned to the rightful owners, the American people in the form of taxing Wall Street trades, and taxing or fining the shit out of shell corporations and tax havens that use Financial intermediaries to obfuscate what would be in a normal situation for the majority of us that do pay taxes on virtually everything; taxed.Quote:
Bernie Sanders, like Donald Trump, can only win if a plurality of primary voters want to turn their country, and their party, upside down.
That should be considered taxable monies and or actual profits from such dealings should be taxed; in other words 'Level The Playing Field'!
I think that Clinton would have to actually prove her self proclaimed 'progressiveness' by doing something substantially different than what the current right leaning democratic parties tendencies have been for decades.
In other words I don't trust Hillary Clinton to do what really needs to be done the correct way like Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren say to do, no instead Clinton will talk the talk then turn her back on it much in the same way as Pelosi did with universal health care.
IMHO, Hillary Clinton is NOT a true progressive, she is being a manipulative politician with her declaration of being a 'progressive'.
Also Re:I disagree.Quote:
In the debate Bernie said he was viable because he'll drive greater turnout. It's true that the people who support Bernie are wildly passionate and he'll increase the turnout in that demographic (mostly white well educated liberals, like us :wink:) but the passion/turnout won't extend to the wider base, most notably non-whites and moderates.
I think because of Bernie Sander's opening to the Black Lives Matter group and the further communications he will inevitably get more young mixed racial votes than most people think just precisely because Hillary Clinton is perceived as being such an insider and her history being so buddy buddy with the Wall Street elitists = more young votes for Bernie Sanders.
I think that it will not only be "mostly white well educated liberals" who will ultimately vote for Sanders...
...Like what I have been emphasizing on this thread: for Bernie Sanders; Young Votes Matter!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
CNN Democratic Debate: The Young Turks Summary
The Young Turks, Published on Oct 13, 2015
Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, Ben Mankiewicz and Jimmy Dore of The Young Turks break down the CNN Democratic Debate on Oct. 13, 2015 held at the Winn Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. Tell us what you thought of the debate in the comment section below.
TYT coverage of the debates here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=P...&v=Z4I_MZM4zj4
Barry: Thank you for filling in the citation for me. I request a little indulgence from wacco subscribers; I've just reduced my hours at Camp Michela from 112/week to 84 and have been able to maintain only the barest from-home political activism.
Ed, did you really think I would be against an insurrectionist and in favor an institutionalist? This is Moon.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I apologize, Moon. I really should have known better.
Every time you have posted to the list your position has always been one of illuminated progressive politics and enduring wisdom, the kind that is an example for others to follow and emulate.
Your input has always been refreshing and insightful and has provided additional points of view and perspectives that I had not considered before. This is also true for everyone else who benefits from this list, precisely because of the many juicy tidbits offered by Waccovites just like you.
Thank you for sharing and enriching the Wacco experience.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
Disclaimer: I didn't watch or hear any of the content of the DNC debate - calling it "Democratic" or "democratic" is a questionable premise. Moreover, the debate took place on CNN? I'm sure that forum pushed the envelope!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Can any of you tell me what is going on here? Why are any of you devoting any time or attention to any candidate from either wing of the corporate-military party? How can anyone, with almost 250 years of American history and a lifetime of the charades of the American political scene, put any ounce of faith, hope, or charity behind the words of political charlatans?
Hillary Clinton should already be in prison for life. Her advocacy of interventionism in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine has killed tens of thousands. She is a liar, hypocrite, and corporate financial shill. Her capitulation to corporate healthcare is unforgivable.
Bernie Sanders, forgiving his facile foray into faux-progressive policy, is a militarist-imperialist and apologist for the genocidal, apartheid State of Israel. He says nothing about altering the trajectory of the capitalistic economic paradigm that is driving the living earth to an early demise, yet he's a champion for promoting economic equity? Would that be economic equity in the same capital system that's destroying all we need to live?
The standing Democrat-in-power also should be in prison for life - for war crimes and constitutional abrogations. That he's carried out the Bush-Cheney-Rove neocon agenda when he was granted a license for social and ecological progressive change is all that's needed to illustrate the idiocy of supporting Democrats.
Meanwhile, the Green Party has a candidate who's articulating a solid platform of ecological and economic justice, and yet the sheep continue to imitate the ostriches.
Excellent summary, you've obviously done your homework and I share your astonishment. It's like a la la pollyanna 1975 here pretending everything is just as it appears. I'll tell you what's going on.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
This 12,000 member forum has long ago dwindled to a miniscule tribe of 8 or so narrowminded, unquestioning and obstinate mainstream play-alongs like you noticed who are the only ones posting and way too much, thank each other a lot and set the tone. They have no idea what you're talking about, don't care or don't want to know. Like last election, they are going to spend the whole next year discussing candidates at their shallow face value (lying) like you found so appalling with no interest whatsoever in the deeper, underlying, ugly truths and the serious ramifications like you bulleted.
There's only a handful of truly open-minded informed people left who occasionally post something factual and poignant like you did on crucial issues or out of exasperation too, but also with the expectation of a dismissive, insulting response from a head-in-the-sand tribe member. That odor of stagnation you were so repelled by has long ago driven away the rest of the truly conscious from bothering to try anymore.
That said, please stay and stay true and help raise the bar.... and you're right, live in 2015 and apply what we should have learned by now. I'm with you.
Alex
Alex,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
thank you for listening, and your response is just about spot on in terms of my experience. I was a former "participant" in wacco several years ago, but dropped out after a while -- no sense continuing to pound my head against an unrelenting wall. We'll see this time around . . . I appreciate your encouragement. Perhaps we can plant a seed for change -- it all begins with facing the truth, and that appears to be too much for most to bear. Such is the nature of complicity in a nation rent and riven with ugly truths.
Here's a link to an article & comment I read just yesterday, just after my latest cantankerous rant - we are not alone, if few: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bernie...-also-no-dove/
Published on Jul 29, 2015
"We need to get outside the system" to fix our nation's politics, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein told Larry King. With a corporate controlled political system that can capture even rebel politicians like Bernie Sanders, it's time to look for alternatives, Stein says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Biy34skzkNo
I'm blown away by how wonderful you are. Obviously, you've got it all together and understand everything there is to be understood, and finally, know everything there is to be known about what is to be done.
The continuum from left to right is a circle. There is very little to choose between the attitudes and practices of the far, far left and those of the far, far right.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
Thank you ... I didn't even contribute to this thread because I'm so sickened by what I see in American politics
Could one of these candidates please mention that our military industrial complex is completely out of control and not only bankrupting our country, but also killing innocent people around the world using a variety of new technological weapons, the cost of which could feed the entire planet for many years?
Could one of these candidates please mention that our unconstitutional wars, based on misinformation, led to laws in this country which completely strip the population of their constitutional rights? ... Americans can now be detained and even killed without a trial? ... hello? ... anyone there?
And NASA just admitted that they are spraying lithium in our skies ( video upon request ) ... could someone address that please?
end of rant ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
I want to openmindedly include valid questions based in fact that reveal dangerous agendas underlying mainstream media propaganda in discussion forums without substanceless ridiculers intruding.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
Nope, didn't say it nice, nor do the substanceless fact ignoring ridiculers. But shooting the messenger while avoiding the points being made adds you to the list I'm calling out.
Which fact was incorrect?
1. That a miniscule number of 12,000+ members post the most in the discussions groups?
2. That these specific high-repeaters frequently cite and defend mainstream media sources, frequently shoot the non-mainstream messengers instead of addressing the points, and/or consistently won't take the facts into account that challenge their beliefs?
Here's today's example of the substanceless snarky fact ignoring ridiculing response I'm talking about: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...346#post196346
3. That this adds up to endless examples of wacco discussion groups being dominated by obstinately narrow minded over-posters who have driven away all the much more widely informed people who want to discuss factual exceptions to the mainstream news?
You don't have to play along with divisive Left or Right labeling tactics. I ignore labels and base opinion on facts.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
Bottom line, someone asked from being appalled "what is going on here' and made specific points and I'm the only one who answered.
Since you're so right instead, answer their question instead of shooting me. Can you do it without skirting revealing your opinion about the exact points the person who asked included?
And now back to substance after the messenger shooting detour....
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE LYING HISTORY LESSON
or.. "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results". -Einstein
I'd change insanity to buffoonery.
Regarding these 'debates'...Why isn't it buffoonery to ignore historical precedence again and take any candidate at face value when every election has proven promises to be just the performance of precisely crafted lies as soundbites orchestrated for mass programming by their billionaire handlers / mainstream media owners?
It's time to stop playing along with these deceitful charades as if there's any reliable merit worth discussing and look at the serious underlying agendas.
Think of all the damage done now to America and the fools made of everyone who took Obama's words at face value and made gigantic election efforts to push people to trust him. "Fool me once...:
#1 “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
#2 “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”
#3 “We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums…”
#4 “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be the president
of the United States of America.”
#5 “We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country that governors and mayors are pleading to fund. And the minute we can get those investments to the state level, jobs are going to be created.”
#6 “And we will pursue the housing plan I’m outlining today. And through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can afford—avoid foreclosure.”
#7 “I will sign a universal health-care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
#8 “We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”
#9 “For people with insurance, the only impact of the health-care law is that their insurance is stronger, better, and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”
#10 “We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.”
#11 “Allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.”
#12 “We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”
#13 “Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.”
#14 “We reject sweeping claims of ‘inherent’ presidential power.”
#15 “Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors — saving them an average of $1,400 a year– and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.”
#16 “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans.”
#17 “If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will end this war. You can take that to the bank.”
#18 “Will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
#19 “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
#20 “We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism…. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time….’”
#21 “We’ve got to spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we’re out of this recession, we’ve got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.”
#22 “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay – and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
#23 “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I don't consider these items "lies". People running for elected office say things they shouldn't say. They promise things over which they have little or no control. They don't know what conditions will obtain should they actually win the office for which they are running. But to say things like "I intend", or "I will work toward", or other, more realistic and accurate phrases will bring accusations of "wimpy", "wishiwashy", "unprepared", etc.
The American people are scared in many different ways; from threats of violence from abroad to the demographic changes we see all around us to the changes in the economy that provide few jobs that pay a living wage. The American people want certainty in their future leaders, so all of the candidates will say things in a very certain way. They will express certainty about plans and issues about which it is impossible to be certain.
It doesn't matter if the politician in question is President Obama, or Speaker Boehner, or Jill Stein. When dealing with the future, everything is uncertain, and expressing uncertainty as a candidate is the kiss of death.
I agree that most of the candidates are indebted to those people who provide a great deal of money to the campaigns. I also agree that such indebtedness almost always works out to the detriment of the vast majority of the American people. However, I'm concerned that the tone of your post leads me to believe that the only path forward you see is a violent one. If so, I need to say that the overwhelming results of such actions are failed states or totalitarian governments. If you have other options, I'd be happy to read about them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
Jill Stein of the Green Party debates Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.
Green versus Libertarian !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4HJBE62IzI
Well, it's not unreasonable to call them lies if you like. And I'm not as concerned about the revolutionary tone - despite their bluster, there never was much of a serious challenge to the jackbooted Jade Helm thugs.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
I have a more academic objection. Anyone missing the difference between a party, admittedly selling out to the powers that be, but making some progress toward things like better access to health care, and a party that is outwardly siding with those same powers that be as they focus on restricting public services for those less powerful, isn't able to see anything but the boldest colors. And to make it even more fun, that's the side that claims to have special insight about Truth and the underlying motives of all the players.
There's a spectrum from utopia to dystopia, and we're nowhere near either extreme. But it's apparently all-or-nothing for the true believers. Considering anything more nuanced is apparently equivalent to being a kool-aid drinking shill parroting the official lines.
Sempervirens, I spent a lot of time trying to respond to your post with specifics only to realize how much your questions are relevant and how deep they go to the core of the seemingly unsolvable problem.
Other than voting for a candidate from the Green Party do you have any other suggestions?
How can the "sheep", as you call (them) be turned into reasonably educated and empowered humans?.. ..I frustratingly have tried and pondered to figure that one out but have come to the point where I believe that everyone on this planet has to figure it out for themselves, individually, within their own means, in their own conscientious states of mind.
If I am wrong about that or have missed something, are there any reasonable solutions to 'solve' the 'problem' that anyone here is aware of?...
Even though it may actually be naive of me to think that voting can be part of the solution I will do it anyway even though it may be based on made-up hopes that there is a chance to have real progressive changes through politics.
If it is impossible to achieve the changes that would make life more sustainable than the path we are on now through politics, I don't think it would make enough difference if the ostrich-like "sheep" did get their heads out of the sand because the alternatives which are available are extremely bleak at best.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
Peacemaker,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
You must yourself be a politician, for you are quite adept at rationalizing the very behavior that has put this nation in such dire straits: a culture of violence and economic injustice, with social and economic inequity accelerating by the day, chronic, endless warfare, and abetting of violence and warfare around the planet, environmental destruction, the militarization of domestic law enforcement, the sanctioning of corporate rule by any and all means, etc., ad nauseum.
I wrote a few days ago that the future of this nation has been treacherously compromised by those who willfully violate the rule of law. The Constitution, for what it was once worth, and for whatever remains of its worth, is law. The Bill of Rights is law. U. S.-ratified and executively signed treaties are law. Laws do not exempt from compliance people in political office or managing corporations, military officers or lobbyists, or anyone else. The fact that the law, indeed, is violated with impunity, relentlessly, by people with public responsibilities and serving in the public trust, is itself a crime.
But you apparently have the answer -- it's all OK because they're politicians, and they can't possible foresee the future. What a completely contrived crock!
"People running for elected office say things they shouldn't say," you wrote. If you truly believe the "shouldn't," why wouldn't you then hold someone in public service, supposedly serving as a representative of the best interests of the country and its people, accountable for continually, habitually, deliberately making deceitful statements? Justifying deception, for any reason, but especially so when it is deliberate and choreographed, soon leads down the slippery slope of rationalizing and justifying the violation of the law, the betrayal of the public oath to defend the U. S. Constitution, and numerous other crimes that politicians, corporations, police, the military, and other authoritarians routinely commit. You seem far too willing to exonerate criminal behavior by politicians than you would be crimes by your own neighbor, I'd venture.
"They promise things over which they have little or no control. They don't know what conditions will obtain should they actually win the office for which they are running." These sentences further excuse and condone deceitful words and behavior. A political candidate who willfully runs for public office chooses to carry out an agenda to get elected. In the case of national office, candidates, as you note, don't get elected unless they promote and fulfill the agendas of their political benefactors, and presidential candidates only get elected by deliberately carrying out political campaigns of placation and supplication to the voters for the purpose of deception, in order to fulfill the capitalist-militarist-imperialist that is the status-quo, be-all-to-end-all justification for any actions to maintain that paradigm -- and to hell with people and other life forms. The war on terror (or substitute any currently in-vogue "threat to American security") is a prime example of dousing Americans with the fear of a false bogeyman for the purpose of carrying out an imperialist agenda. To say that politicians have no sense of the future, no control over the future, is less excusable than naive, it's deliberately complacent and complicit in the crimes committed in our names.
Questioning the routine distortions of the truth that serve the few at the expense of the many is apparently not the fashion in the new era of American fascism. Deception, distortions of the truth, fabrications, and all the tools of propaganda are just so easily dismissed as simply the way things are, and preferable because the alternative is violence and totalitarianism. Your logic -- well, I don't see any signs of logic in what you wrote. What I do see is evidence of the rot at the core of the American apple.
Deferentially, I don't think that supporting or voting for one presidential candidate or another makes any difference in the human march toward ecological demise, toward increasing injustice and violence carried out on behalf of the neoliberal globalist economic agenda. I think I get overwrought, beyond my actual ability to do anything other than harangue, simply because of the gross injustices perpetrated on people and our means for living -- if my ethics trouble you or anyone else here, I guess I really was born on the wrong planet. So, no, I don't have a plan to turn the politicians, bankers, corporatists, militarists, and their ilk into compassionate human beings, to be succinct. I reserve my right to continue to shriek and wail and condemn what has become socially acceptable rape, murder, and pillage.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
Nevertheless, I also cling to some vague, unsubstantiated notion that voting for Jill Stein or other Greens, or other candidates who articulate a truly progressive platform, and getting out and working for them in the community, and to take on other means to live more communally and ecologically, is one set of simple actions. Engaging wholeheartedly in dissenting from the neoliberal design for the planet is another -- dissent doesn't demand having "solutions." Calling out what doesn't work has value, if only to attempt to pop the balloons of denial and complacency.
About educating, empowering: I've posted links to several articles here recently -- the likes of which I read every day. Have you read any of these? Does anyone on this board take advantage of the plethora of diverse perspectives available on the internet, and also still in print? Or is it just so much easier to just let the talking heads tell us what to think and believe? I'm not about to apologize for anyone too lazy, smug, or self-satisfied who won't make an effort to be "conscientious" or responsible enough a citizen to stay informed. I've made some attempt to provide perspectives that differ from those offered through corporate media, but as you suggest, education is a personal choice. If a person's mind is dedicated to belief in a world that reality defies, I can't do anything more than continue to point out what I consider willful ignorance, denial, and self-defeating stupidity.
You'll need to explain more about what you refer to as the "problem." From my perspective as an ecologist, one major "problem" is capitalism, and from a humanist perspective, another is violence. From a sociological and psychological perspective, though, I think a huge problem, especially in the U. S., is the failure of citizens to inform themselves, to think critically, and to participate in creating a just and livable society for everyone -- we've all been led down the road of giving up our democratic selves in order to sustain capitalism, and I'll continue to point out how grievously poor a choice that has been for our collective future (sparing for now the thinking that we are simply destined to destroy ourselves).
Alas, I unfairly impugned the behavior of sheep: human capitulation -- contrived, rationalized, justified -- to socially and environmentally destructive decision-making strikes me as much more egregiously stupid than the bred-in behavior of easily manipulated livestock. I will never back down from asserting that we should know better, and pointing out what doesn't work, having an alternative solution at hand or not. The first problem is, as you suggest, finding a way to get a critical mass of humanity (perhaps starting modestly with just those who post on this board!) to acknowledge that we've dug ourselves one hell of a hole. Or not: dust to dust, etc. But what a tragic waste.
"There's a spectrum from utopia to dystopia, and we're nowhere near either extreme." I don't share your rosy perspective: when conditions for life on land and in the oceans are deteriorating, along with millions of people are dying due to starvation and violence, while species are disappearing at a greater rate than even during the last great period of extinction, when water is rapidly running out . . . just what do you consider dystopian? Will your version of dystopia manifest in a nuclear war? Perhaps a global bacterial pandemic? Your patronizing dismissal of the culpability of corporatists and politicians is insulting to anyone who's paying attention.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Incidentally, " better access to health care . . . " due to Democratic policies? What if we just ended America's participation in global militarization - sponsored every bit as much by Democrats as by Republicans -- do you think we might then afford universal access to health care, education, housing, clean water, and healthy food? Your reductionist view of the illusory differences between the two heads of the corporate duopoly is arcane and absurd.
I don't think you're denying my observation. If the differences are illusory to you I guess so's the distinction between being warm or cold; the only necessary distinction is between boiling and freezing. The recurrent theme of your and other related posts seems to be that since terrible things are possible, and since there clearly are powerful actors who are completely failing to contribute constructively to the good of the world but are instead are acting in ways detrimental and dangerous, that little else matters. Little things, like Gore vs. Bush, are ignored as arcane differences. I don't accept your premise that the world is fundamentally in the same position it would have been if Gore had prevailed fifteen years ago.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
You seem to think that these threats to the world and the wellbeing of its population are something new, rather than something that we and the world has always lived with. You mention nuclear war; well, it was a lot closer fifty years ago. It's a pretty plausible theory that agriculture, while allowing for increased population, generally reduced overall health. Somehow we're still here after thousands of years, still suffering from less-than-ideal food sources. The toxins in our food chain may be scary, but that's a pretty first-world problem, when compared with what mankind has dealt with all along.
That's pretty much why all this focus on, for example, the less-than-ideal state of our democracy, seems overwrought. Really, the Democrats aren't 'democrats' like Pericles understood the term? First off, how many women and minorities were part of that democracy? It's essentially an observation that water's wet. Not to dismiss the attempts to stay dry - it's admirable to care and spend energy trying to prevent drowning - but it's not helpful to anyone to look at water like we're all witches in Oz.
My response can hardly be said better than Semperviren's whole post to you, this level of rationalizing is terrifying to live around. I was going to call it the 'boys will be boys syndrome', which is totally unforgivable to me in light of it ultimately giving permission to psychopaths to bomb families having dinner, hospitals and infrastructure times a million like the 'collateral damage' was rationalized off in Iraq as. You're attitude says 'oh well'.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
Americans are scared of the perpetual parade of false bogeyman. The real bogeyman - the biggest law breakers, the biggest enemy to the American constitution, and the biggest world terrorist is the American government.... in perpetual empowerment by the American people's abdication of their constitutional duty to hold the government accountable. It's refusing to learn from history again - any amount of rope given to power will be taken.
This level of projecting absurd assumptions with zero basis in my actual words is also terrifying to know is probably happening a lot around me. The truth is that violence did not even cross my mind - because who would we even be violent towards to accomplish anything....city hall? No.... the police? No.... the white house lawn? No.... the military? hell No..... the big picture is way too big for any one 'target'.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
So lots of expose, but what are any answers? Possibly the only hope is continuing to wake up more complacent allowers and blind obeyers in denial first, then I expect the incredible human ingenuity will wake up and spawn unexpected, possible very creative and effective actions that cannot now be planned, predicted or gain any momentum with so many minds still snoring. I can only contribute to my small sphere, but the number of spheres is growing.
However, effective in the past have been strikes, movements of mass non-compliance in some large way, or possibly break-aways. The most important factor to me is that the 'powers' always need our compliance and cooperation in BIG ways to keep accomplishing their agendas, and there's a shitload more of us than them.
In the meantime, doing what you can includes stopping contributing to the problem wherever you can - like here. Don't continue to pretend there's any believable merit in these debates to discuss. Expose and dissect who they really are and what they really represent instead, stand up to the defenders of criminality in your spoken and written words and be willing to take the heat from those clinging to their false beliefs.
It's quite surprising to me that a small passage that was meant to be descriptive of an existing process is getting so much response. I don't think writing about how politicians and people relate to each other is the same as condoning it or supporting it. Nor does it address the desperation of our plight, which is becoming more desperate with each passing day. Alex, I regret that you found it terrifying. It was only meant to be a description of how I think things are and how a small part of our political process currently works. It was not about whether or not it is good or bad, just the way things are at the moment. What is sad to me is that both you and Semperviren believe that you can know another human being so well after reading a few short paragraphs. I'm afraid that your judgement of who I am, what I believe, and how I act in the world couldn't be more in error.
I have similar viewpoints as you have stated.
I also do at times at least attempt to mention alternatives to the 'status quo' environment of economics, social structure, resource use and distribution, police and military 'use' along with the 'politics' which (politics) is at the helm of.
I do (sometimes) mention to people (mostly my friends who I see all to often being sucked-in to the hypnotic mass media's trappings but that becomes very frustrating rather rapidly and I have a low and diminishing tolerance for trying to talk to someone who is hypnotized,
With me being unknowing of what the key to unlocking the hypnotized from the hypnosis, the education system, and mass media has so masterfully infused onto our society's mindset.
As to 'educating' myself; I don't own a TV so my TV watching is minimal, I listen to mostly (99% of the time) listener sponsored radio either over the airwaves or internet where there is no reception on airwaves when I do listen to the 'conventional' AM and FM broadcast radio bands; sometimes I listen to shortwave broadcasts too.
I listen to my area's local radio station KZYX (Mendocino County) and/or one of it's affiliate repeater stations; then there are also KPFZ (Lake County) and KPFA (Brekeley CA) on internet because there is no air-wave reception where I live for KPFA, I listen to it on the internet.
On KPFA every day there is Evening News, @ 6:00 PM; on Thursdays starting at 10:00 AM there is an excellent one hour 'show' devoted to economics called Economic Update hosted by Richard D. Wolff;
Some Richard Wolff info links:
https://www.rdwolff.com/
https://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/44661
https://www.facebook.com/Richard-Wol...2172/timeline/
________________________________________________________
----
On Many radio stations and a video version of Democracy Now! which is also on LINK TV (for me I download an mp3 audio recording of those 'shows' from the KPFA website when they become available to do so after the local broadcast of each); Democracy Now! And Evening News
That is just to name a few, there are many more like: music, international affairs and 'international' music, local issues etc.
Then there is one local news paper that has very excellently written articles which for such a small town compares surprisingly well to many large corporate papers but it is usually even far more in-depth because there are no corporate mandates to how long (short) the article has to be to 'fit' in the paper, and it has not been taken over by the monstrous mass media machine, so it has those very in-depth articles that tell truth to power so to speak; It is called Anderson Valley Advertiser It even has some on line archives!... ...like this one that may be of interest here on waccobb https://theava.com/archives/49071 .
P.S. The old saying (I think) applies here: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
I will also say about that in regards to human nature metaphorically speaking; once you get the horse to the watering hole and they see their own reflection in the water and freak-out and start bucking, kicking, fighting you and trying to kill you if necessary to get away, It is time to let go of the lead rope and survive: IMHO.
Thank you for the various links and references. I'm quite familiar with the AVA, and also don't watch TV, or listen much to any broadcast other than occasional streaming documentaries or interviews. I read extensively, including occasional forays into what the mainstream corporate media choose to promote. The gulf between what most people get from broadcast and print media and what's really happening -- because I don't think those who risk jobs, reputations, and lives to report and document what they know do so for anything other than conscience and desire to improve society -- is truly discouraging. Disinformation is official government, corporate, and military policy, and the proportion of Americans who suck it up is beyond depressing. I can only take so much of questioning and challenging others to think outside their existing boxes.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
And with that, I'm gone from this forum. I have more rewarding and worthwhile pursuits than attempting to water horses.
Oh... you mean like how expansively you declared you knew me after a few paragraphs?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
What hypocrisy!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
I AM frequently frustrated by how written words are far more open to MISinterpretation than face to face conversation, so I try to be precise. I defended myself against your projection that I advocated violence for which the words are absolutely not there, but what else is the statement "People running for elected office say things they shouldn't say. They promise things over which they have no control" but making excuses for liars and rationalizing them off?
Regardless if you want to deny that it's a reasonable interpretation, it was a big reminder that it's true that we are surrounded by many who share this very, very common excusing and ignoring and it is terrifying.
Yes, you are correct. My initial message to you was over the top and ill-deserved. I apologize for having written impulsively and erroneously. Obviously, no good can come of such unskilled communication.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
What else is simply a description of what they do. Neither condoning nor condemning. Certainly not "excusing and ignoring."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex;196411
but what else is the statement "[I:
WARNING: If you watch this video you will see things that might make you angry and frustrated regarding not just the debates but American democracy in general.
Watch at your own risk. (Some say that it is best not to know the whole truth.)
I don't particularly single out debates or democracy - I'm kind of angry and (well, not really angry, just..) frustrated that, as Barbie so impoliticly said, 'math is hard' for most people.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Any attempt at putting a system like this into place would elicit a totally visceral reaction in most people. They'd feel like it's an attempt at tricking them, not at empowering them. Almost no-one believes in math; otherwise they'd be scared driving to the airport, not while flying in the plane.
Excellent observation; 100% true.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
That's why history can move so slowly on many things. It takes time and education. Public outreach and education is a long process, not a quick one.
But things do change, just look at how astonishingly fast the gay rights movement achieved a string of victories since the California amendment to its constitution barring same-sex marriage in 2008. In seven years, gay marriage became the law of the land--all 50 states!
(However, if you carefully study history, you'll see that there were small struggles here and there to defend gay rights, as early as the 1920s. Almost no one alive back then lived long enough to see gay marriage legalized. From this historical perspective, gay marriage did take a very long time, at least a century. And this is overlooking the fact that there have been gays and lesbians since time immemorial, not just during the 1920s in the U.S.)
Anyway, we have seen an African-American become president. We will probably see the first woman president next year. We have put a man on the moon. We have abolished slavery (in its formal state). Women won the right to vote. We established a democracy (of sorts) in 1776. Computers kick ass, we have smartphones, Internet, automobiles, planes, cures for deadly diseases, we have evermore sophisticated robots, etc. And the list of once inconceivable achievements less than a century ago is much longer than this.
Guess what: I'm right to be optimistic. We will have electoral reform someday. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will come. (Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton did not live to see the constitutional amendment ratified giving women the right to vote in 1920). Heck, by the time we do achieve electoral reform, folks might just see that there is no point to artificially maintaining this thing we call the United States of America. Malcolm X once said, "After this country has been long gone, we will still be black!"
Is this the system that was used in the California election that brought Kamala Harris to office? Is it now in use in Berkeley, CA elections?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Ah yes, we humans are nothing if not irrational. What we could do, though, is put on the net interviews with people from places like Mendocino County, where--about a decade ago--the one of the three candidates only a small minority did not find objectionable was elected, because the two popular candidates split the progressive vote. The interviewees would surely be calmer by now, but I recall at least one person's being in tears after that election, and some of that feeling would still come through.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish: