"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Well, look at the overwhelming amount of mainstream media information supporting the status quo and how it's slanted.

We are constantly told that this country or that one is 'a threat' to our national security, in spite of obviously contradictory facts such as their presence on the other side of the planet and clear military and economic inferiority. Then, the narrative goes, we 'must' intervene as 'the world's police' and of course that means we need more military hardware and soldiers and bases around the world... and nevermind the cost to taxpayers or the corporations who benefit.

Being anti military is a political third rail, as any candidate who comes out against them is immediately smeared as unpatriotic as campaign funding pours into their opponent's coffers.

How to break through? How to tell our citizens that endlessly picking fights with the rest of the planet is unsustainable? It's not hard to convince many who have family in the military- but they are a small minority, and of course they don't want to be ostracised as unpatriotic either.

As we've seen here in the politics section, there are many who have drunk the kool-aid and enthusiastically support America's adventurism, in part because they see no downside.

Here's an article that may or may not provide some insight into the difficulties involved in trying to rein in a military industrial complex that effectively runs our 'democracy';

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/anti-war-political-purity-tests-not-sound-political-strategy.html

Please tell me what you think? I'm not suggesting this article is anywhere near correct, but it does provide an alternative if extreme viewpoint.
Click to expand...
It sustain s the top 2 so it doesn't matter that it it is unsustainable. I believe is the logic. That's the propaganda you are picking up on.. that's what i was asking i will read article later
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I heard about this last week. If it's allowed to go forward, exactly how will it be accountable to the people? And if it isn't, how is it a legitimate police force?

And will this 'right' be extended to mosques in Alabama, who arguably need a police force of their own far more than Presbyterians might?
Click to expand...
Probably like school s that have there own police. Or like metro police or privet security.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The Establishment Democratic Party knows they are vulnerable from the left- it's the position they abandoned when they shifted right to chase campaign finance dollars from mega corps and their billionaire donor class owners.

Therefore, discrediting the Left is in their best (financial) interest, disenfranchised and suffering citizens be damned.
Click to expand...
Libertarians of the Libertarian party sort are far from being liberal left. To them it's a naive belief in the "market forces" that would solve all problems if only gubmint got out of the way. Of course, "market forces" are the financial transactions of the wealthy and so, those whose religion consists of a belief in those forces are a tool of the wealthy.

Your paranoia about the Establishment Democratic Party who is discrediting the left is imagined.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Libertarians of the Libertarian party sort are far from being liberal left. To them it's a naive belief in the "market forces" that would solve all problems if only gubmint got out of the way. Of course, "market forces" are the financial transactions of the wealthy and so, those whose religion consists of a belief in those forces are a tool of the wealthy.

Your paranoia about the Establishment Democratic Party who is discrediting the left is imagined.
Click to expand...
I'm not libertarian.

The Democrats have long beckoned to those to their left, subsumed them and swallowed them whole, never to be heard from again.

So it isn't paranoia, it's history.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I'm not libertarian.

The Democrats have long beckoned to those to their left, subsumed them and swallowed them whole, never to be heard from again.

So it isn't paranoia, it's history.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Your belief isn't the same as fact.

Just exactly who are these Democrats who are entirely corrupted? The ones from my state aren't. They support just about everything you and I want.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Nope.

Your belief isn't the same as fact.

Just exactly who are these Democrats who are entirely corrupted? The ones from my state aren't. They support just about everything you and I want.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, why don't they make more progress when they have majorities?

I just disagree with your conclusions.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Maybe I want too much. I'm well aware I'm further to the left than many.
Click to expand...
It's not that you're further left than most, you're just far far less realistic (or just overly optimistic to the point of naivety).

This is why you can't win; most of us agree with you but roll our eyes at your misguided methodology and arrogance at wanting to split the progressive vote.

Sanders was the best Republican plant ever, period.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
It's not that you're further left than most, you're just far far less realistic (or just overly optimistic to the point of naivety).

This is why you can't win; most of us agree with you but roll our eyes at your misguided methodology and arrogance at wanting to split the progressive vote.

Sanders was the best Republican plant ever, period.
Click to expand...
Yes but where will following your logic get you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top