I think we should try to avoid “left” or “right” as descriptors. I think the country is going more left (socialist & liberal-left social issues). You think “right” (harder war, capitalist, conservative right social issues). This debate is within the 40 yard lines (which I know you are outside of).
Our war is establishment vs anti-establishment. Bush is more establishment, as is Biden. Will Vivek be establishment? Prolly. How about Newsom? For sure. Trump? No. Kennedy? Hope not, he’s getting radicalized.
I know, don’t vote: it only encourages the. Haven’t since 2004. But I no longer disregard journalist who are “left” as long as they are, like YOU, anti-establishment.
Left vs right is just political marketing - its the pepsi challenge where regardless of which sugar water you choose you still end up with sugar water.
If my word choice isn’t great, ignore it. But deciding to leave the DEMs, he’s experiencing the disenchantment with the system that may protect him from ever looking back.
Most of us (at times me too) keep returning to thinking good thoughts (or having hope) for the United States and salvation through it ... like a dog returning to its vomit ...
I don't know that he's being radicalized, per se, but surely he can figure out that Team D has no intention of ever letting him have a voice, much less a seat at the table.
Trump is absolutely establishment he just has poor manners. Another sociopawho cares nothing but for himself. So very much more like the other oligarchs then different. He is in the club. We are not
Trump is a life long salesman and its obvious when he speaks, everything is a grift, everything is sales lingo, promises he can't keep about things he doesnt even understand.
Like a dog, I seem to have returned to my own vomit. There’s some radical impulse in me which I must root out that gives anyone who receives a federal paycheck any political grace whatsoever.
Currently serving? Geez, hard question. Maybe Rand Paul. Joe Mansion. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Matt Geatz. I understand some of these people turn our collective stomachs ... mine too ... but there are not guaranteed establishment votes.
I'm curious to hear that, too. I think Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders are to some extent, but they lack either the resources (time to deeply research issues) or the courage to have much in the way of independent thought about geopolitics.
Or the backing. The DNC will leg anybody who goes against the Hillary agenda. And yes, she and Nancy Baloney and Wasserman Shultz (Achtung) are very much in control of the DNC. Still.
Warren and Bernie are part of the establishment, they are the people selling the opposition message, giving hope to those who want to be anti-establishment that it can be accomplished via the establishment.
The terms "left" and "right" in the current American meanings, only really make sense in the specific context of contemporary USA-ian politics.
Hence the interminable debate over "was Hitler a leftist or a rightist". Well, it depends, depending on which parts of the Nazi program that you wish to cherry-pick.
Bad guys rise regardless of whether the good guys vote or not because the options available for the good guys are both the same. Both bad.
Exampled by......
Clinton, initial 'H', Cluster bomb Biden, Bush #1, Killer Obama and on. A little while ago, Bush #2 should be in jail sharing a cell with Cheney and likely others such as Blinken (soon to be a likely Israel nominee), Pompeo, Bolton. Nuland, (the disgraceful trio) all the "Neocon consultants", deserving of public condemnation and investigation under the banner of "Un-American Activities” and even death…. if real justice was the measure.
But real justice is not the measure in the USA today. If it was, no President would be alive today. Not one.
If a criminal can be disposed of for killing one man, how does a President like Bush survive after killing 2 million
In my book, with some experience, none represent the America and the Americans I know and have known over forty five years.
And there's the rub. It is not America and sadly, never will be again. Too much damage done. Recovery to the 1960 values?
Ah if it were just.that.simple (putting responsibility of America’s good/bad global actions/reputation onto individual US voters themselves but no, never the infrastructure/system itself nor the appointed admins/elected leadership) but then too it would also prove to be:
good guys rise when bad guys don’t vote.
Sorry, but I had to reply...it’s just a case of catchy phrases that make you go: hmmm, wait what?
Actually, it’s just a case of yes, each person is responsible for their actions and their responsibilities to their governance. It’s the basis of all democracies. It’s when the citizens become so lazy and spoiled—like PNAC wanted them to become—that bad guys move into the vacuum. The Greeks, the 1st Democracy, called people who didn’t vote “idiota”. And with good reason.
So you’re saying it’s: “pay NO attention to the man FUNDING behind the curtain” because democracy/Greece/voting is equal everywhere so basic problems within a nation’s leadership/government is due to its non voting citizens?
Really?... Because no matter which state nor global time period, or who’s nominated, or any existing differences in whichever “democracy”, a la Citizens United et al or not, it’s really only your citizen voter who determines their democracy’s outcomes and they are the smart ones exactly because they vote. But their bff who’s a non voting but educated and dependable neighbor of theirs is a loser because they didn’t prioritize similarly?
Hmm, this dynamic kinda reminds me of the highly unsuccessful labeling of those dang deplorables, ugh. Candidates and their supportive parties and organizations have become hugely monied powers period (and whether it’s PNAC or MOVEON or whatever NGO, corporation or politically dependent donor/org), so like many I’ve evolved as big disbeliever in the let’s punch down and blame the voter racket.
the elected people in our so called democracies are rich entitled people who have ignored climate change and who foment wars. there aren't any others to vote for.
So go to the precincts and take back the party in your state. If a bunch of dirty hippies could do it in ‘68, surly a few yuppies could break away from their latte’s to do it. Instead, the voting age yuppies whined that “you can’t fight city hall” and ran off to get the goods, working for corporations and buying sweatshop-made Nikes to jog to Starbucks. Totally abdicated their civic duties and now want to blame others for not “giving” them anyone to vote for. Puke.
The problem is that the wealthy have sophisticated, effective propaganda, as well as the funds to blast it everywhere, massively influence the thinking of most of the population, and the normal people who know what's going on don't have the resources to combat that and to get more honorable, well-informed people elected and others writing good policies which will be implemented by the elected.
Bad guys rise when good guys can't figure out how to overcome that obstacle.
Back in 68 lots of people THOUGHT real changes were coming. But mostly they did not. I don't live in a state, I live in a province, but still, there is no real democracy. Still dominated by money and quests for power. The economy take first place. People, the climate, the earth, the creatures who live on the earth.......all subject to the state of the economy. All subject to the whims of a few rich people who value the economy above all else. Corporate media has given in too, mostly reporting in a "safe" manner so as not to lose their funding.
I think we should try to avoid “left” or “right” as descriptors. I think the country is going more left (socialist & liberal-left social issues). You think “right” (harder war, capitalist, conservative right social issues). This debate is within the 40 yard lines (which I know you are outside of).
Our war is establishment vs anti-establishment. Bush is more establishment, as is Biden. Will Vivek be establishment? Prolly. How about Newsom? For sure. Trump? No. Kennedy? Hope not, he’s getting radicalized.
I know, don’t vote: it only encourages the. Haven’t since 2004. But I no longer disregard journalist who are “left” as long as they are, like YOU, anti-establishment.
The Left vs Right is over - there's only us vs them.
Left vs right is just political marketing - its the pepsi challenge where regardless of which sugar water you choose you still end up with sugar water.
How is Kennedy getting radicalized?
Its only radicalization to a partisan, those outside the partisan herds see it as liberation.
If my word choice isn’t great, ignore it. But deciding to leave the DEMs, he’s experiencing the disenchantment with the system that may protect him from ever looking back.
Most of us (at times me too) keep returning to thinking good thoughts (or having hope) for the United States and salvation through it ... like a dog returning to its vomit ...
I don't know that he's being radicalized, per se, but surely he can figure out that Team D has no intention of ever letting him have a voice, much less a seat at the table.
Trump is absolutely establishment he just has poor manners. Another sociopawho cares nothing but for himself. So very much more like the other oligarchs then different. He is in the club. We are not
Trump is a life long salesman and its obvious when he speaks, everything is a grift, everything is sales lingo, promises he can't keep about things he doesnt even understand.
Oh yes! For sure. For us it’s “us v them.” For Trump, it’s “Trump against the world.”
Would luv to know who in “our war” equates as the “anti-establishment” side, currently serving as US’s elected officials? Thanks.
If they are in congress or government in any way they cannot be anti-establishment, they are de facto part of the establishment.
Like a dog, I seem to have returned to my own vomit. There’s some radical impulse in me which I must root out that gives anyone who receives a federal paycheck any political grace whatsoever.
Currently serving? Geez, hard question. Maybe Rand Paul. Joe Mansion. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Matt Geatz. I understand some of these people turn our collective stomachs ... mine too ... but there are not guaranteed establishment votes.
Regardless of how offensive you may find those people they do actually speak the truth on rare occasions.
I'm curious to hear that, too. I think Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders are to some extent, but they lack either the resources (time to deeply research issues) or the courage to have much in the way of independent thought about geopolitics.
Or the backing. The DNC will leg anybody who goes against the Hillary agenda. And yes, she and Nancy Baloney and Wasserman Shultz (Achtung) are very much in control of the DNC. Still.
Sanders in particular is all-in for more more war in Ukraine.
The man has less backbone than a whipped dog.
Warren and Bernie are part of the establishment, they are the people selling the opposition message, giving hope to those who want to be anti-establishment that it can be accomplished via the establishment.
Yes, authoritarians versus non authoritarians.
The terms "left" and "right" in the current American meanings, only really make sense in the specific context of contemporary USA-ian politics.
Hence the interminable debate over "was Hitler a leftist or a rightist". Well, it depends, depending on which parts of the Nazi program that you wish to cherry-pick.
Agreed
Bad guys rise when good guys don’t vote.
Bad guys rise when we all buy into the idea that being rich is good and being poor means you were too lazy to get to work.
If bone hard work and dedication were truly the keys to success, African market women would be the richest people on the planet.
Jeano,
Bad guys rise regardless of whether the good guys vote or not because the options available for the good guys are both the same. Both bad.
Exampled by......
Clinton, initial 'H', Cluster bomb Biden, Bush #1, Killer Obama and on. A little while ago, Bush #2 should be in jail sharing a cell with Cheney and likely others such as Blinken (soon to be a likely Israel nominee), Pompeo, Bolton. Nuland, (the disgraceful trio) all the "Neocon consultants", deserving of public condemnation and investigation under the banner of "Un-American Activities” and even death…. if real justice was the measure.
But real justice is not the measure in the USA today. If it was, no President would be alive today. Not one.
If a criminal can be disposed of for killing one man, how does a President like Bush survive after killing 2 million
In my book, with some experience, none represent the America and the Americans I know and have known over forty five years.
And there's the rub. It is not America and sadly, never will be again. Too much damage done. Recovery to the 1960 values?
Too late.
Ah if it were just.that.simple (putting responsibility of America’s good/bad global actions/reputation onto individual US voters themselves but no, never the infrastructure/system itself nor the appointed admins/elected leadership) but then too it would also prove to be:
good guys rise when bad guys don’t vote.
Sorry, but I had to reply...it’s just a case of catchy phrases that make you go: hmmm, wait what?
Actually, it’s just a case of yes, each person is responsible for their actions and their responsibilities to their governance. It’s the basis of all democracies. It’s when the citizens become so lazy and spoiled—like PNAC wanted them to become—that bad guys move into the vacuum. The Greeks, the 1st Democracy, called people who didn’t vote “idiota”. And with good reason.
So you’re saying it’s: “pay NO attention to the man FUNDING behind the curtain” because democracy/Greece/voting is equal everywhere so basic problems within a nation’s leadership/government is due to its non voting citizens?
Really?... Because no matter which state nor global time period, or who’s nominated, or any existing differences in whichever “democracy”, a la Citizens United et al or not, it’s really only your citizen voter who determines their democracy’s outcomes and they are the smart ones exactly because they vote. But their bff who’s a non voting but educated and dependable neighbor of theirs is a loser because they didn’t prioritize similarly?
Hmm, this dynamic kinda reminds me of the highly unsuccessful labeling of those dang deplorables, ugh. Candidates and their supportive parties and organizations have become hugely monied powers period (and whether it’s PNAC or MOVEON or whatever NGO, corporation or politically dependent donor/org), so like many I’ve evolved as big disbeliever in the let’s punch down and blame the voter racket.
the elected people in our so called democracies are rich entitled people who have ignored climate change and who foment wars. there aren't any others to vote for.
So go to the precincts and take back the party in your state. If a bunch of dirty hippies could do it in ‘68, surly a few yuppies could break away from their latte’s to do it. Instead, the voting age yuppies whined that “you can’t fight city hall” and ran off to get the goods, working for corporations and buying sweatshop-made Nikes to jog to Starbucks. Totally abdicated their civic duties and now want to blame others for not “giving” them anyone to vote for. Puke.
The problem is that the wealthy have sophisticated, effective propaganda, as well as the funds to blast it everywhere, massively influence the thinking of most of the population, and the normal people who know what's going on don't have the resources to combat that and to get more honorable, well-informed people elected and others writing good policies which will be implemented by the elected.
Bad guys rise when good guys can't figure out how to overcome that obstacle.
Back in 68 lots of people THOUGHT real changes were coming. But mostly they did not. I don't live in a state, I live in a province, but still, there is no real democracy. Still dominated by money and quests for power. The economy take first place. People, the climate, the earth, the creatures who live on the earth.......all subject to the state of the economy. All subject to the whims of a few rich people who value the economy above all else. Corporate media has given in too, mostly reporting in a "safe" manner so as not to lose their funding.