Home | About | Donate

A Fresh Case for the Political Revolution

I love BAR.

But sorry if I harshed your mellow bro.

1 Like

What I’m looking for, first of all, in the democratic party nominee is someone whose platform embraces or unites all other candidates. That particular leadership quality is still up in the air, especially when some, if not most are vying to appear in some way more qualified than the others. Any democrat will be better than any republican. Trump must be stopped. He’s the devil. No I’m not Kathy Bates talking to “The Water Boy” Adam Sandler! (^:

I’d like to refer to access to higher education as “affordable” rather than “free”. Healthcare we’ll have to fund somehow, so that also rules out “free” as a good descriptor for healthcare reform. My professional field is in the issues of transportation system design, energy conservation, land-use and development. No Green New Deal proposal comes close to what I can support and call sensible and necessary. I’d call them all mostly counter-productive. The powers that be - Silicon Valley/Seattle high-tech nitwits - dream of having their cake and eating it too, to put it lightly. Self-driving car tech, hyperloop, single-bore highway tunnel ideas are nonsense. Bullet trains are prohibitively expensive. Tesla ‘S’ sport sedans are overrated. This sampling of my own priorities is a basic measurement of what I need to see in candidates position platforms. The less I hear about horrible mister T-rump and the more I hear about a health filled future the better.

“There is only one Democratic Party contender currently who has the historic record and exhibits the ideological commitment and movement-building practice necessary to win the election and the following fight for policy.”

1 Like

But for how long? I’m afraid if she doesn’t beat out Castro for spot 10 in the next debate (which I learned about on Hard Lens), she isn’t going to recover (technically you can miss qualifying for a debate and qualify for the next one).

I’m not even sure she’s my first choice anymore but I’ve already sent some money and she’s qualified there anyway so all I can do is start answering my land line and it I get asked I’ll say Tulsi Gabbard is my choice (Bernie doesn’t need my poll count).

I wish we had a system where we could literally vote early and change our minds whenever we want. Top 10 people get on the the debate.

I know your heart is in the right place but as I think Sanders would say these are Republican talking points. No one is confused on what free means in this context. If I tell a foreigner who doesn’t know that high school is free in the US, they aren’t thinking “really all those teachers don’t want a salary?”. Free public college tuition and free health care (adding at the point of delivery when necessary as Sanders does) is a perfectly clear way of explaining it. Funding schemes can also be explained clearly.

I can think of many ways as can Bernie who has argued (correctly I believe) that unrestricted immigration drives down wages of many in the working class. I’m for a lot of change - more US cooperation with the world and making up for our many past mistakes (which I’m fully aware fuels a lot of migration pressure). But I am not for open borders and I fear this is a topic where we are quite vulnerable to the Republicans - it is an absolute electoral loser and if we don’t turn this ship around things are just going to be that much worse for those south of the border.

Fair enough. My own community college year and a half was funded by the GI Bill. Able students taking on part time jobs to make it happen isn’t a bad idea. For those whose parents will foot the bill, they might expect more from their kids starting off on their own and could wisely keep busy and learn more about life in the real world. I was a ‘D’ student in high school and could (but didn’t) finish an associates degree in electronics service technology. That was when analog was being replaced with digital and I couldn’t honestly keep up.

1 Like

At this point your response tosses moral considerations, even a basic respect for truth, to the winds. Once the sole or principal criterion becomes “How will this play in the insane USAmerican electoral system?” there’s not much room for whole truth to clear a space.

I’m not surprised that Sanders lacks the moral clarity to recognize “Keep the hell out!” as a hostile expression. The question I asked was how a border could be conscientiously defended. On this issue, Sanders’ words indicate a deficit of conscience.

Dara, we now inhabit a different planet than the freaking founding fathers could have possibly dreamed up. A planet with perpetually unstable coastlines, and a broadening equatorial zone of wet-bulb heat deadly for humans. Those are all people out there, on lands my profligate consumption has helped to render uninhabitable. In this context, borders are flat-out genocidal.

That’s the context in which I ask just how, exactly, to select which fellow-humans to exclude into oblivion. This is not only serious, it’s the most serious question out there. Time to start raising it – at least, some of us keeping an eye on the 2019 Arctic meltdown might think so.

1 Like

I know you discount my electoral practicality - I push back on others who claim that we can’t have M4A because it is impractical so I can relate to the argument. But I basically think the M4A naysayers for pragmatic reasons are wrong - with a good plan and messaging, I think we can win on M4A. I just don’t think that for open borders. I think more people could be helped with financial assistance going towards the countries with the most current exodus and towards Mexico if they can give some of them a home (which is closer to the place many of them want to go back to if some of the political strife could be solved) than I think are helped by letting a certain percentage through now and then watcing the border seize up with 4 more years of Republican control. I am just as concerned about the people remaining in Guatemala as I am the people who chose to escape it.

I suppose a truly open border is more fair than a defacto one because at least people in non-neighboring countries that we’ve screwed just as much with foreign policy or excess CO2 get to come here. I don’t want to say anything as stupid as Hillary Clinton said about single payer health care (that it will never ever come to pass), but I think it is pretty unlikely. Maybe I’ll live to see the day where things turn as they did for gay marriage. I will try to be ahead of the curve, but I don’t think there is much of a curve at all right now.

Another advantage of people staying where they are (which many of them would prefer if they could) is that for quite a while I’m afraid, people who come here are going to grow their per capita CO2 output quite a bit.

Though I agree climate change has a big effect on the amount of migration currently, I think political problems (such as the mess in Guatemala we left and the terrible leaders we support even after we left) is more significant than climate change pressure. Not that climate won’t dominate completely later - I just don’t think it currently dominates.

You can have the last word, but I realize neither of us is likely to move much on this discussion. I appreciate the info though and of course appreciate your advocacy of paying attention to climate change.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I get the feeling we’re still talking past each other. I’m talking about an immediate requirement to compassionately respond to a Climate Catastrophe, over the next 2 or 3 years, of a scale sufficient to threaten the human species. Quite understandably, you’re not entirely taking my word for that. That’s where we are.

The big kahuna turns out to be Arctic Albedo – maybe the most boring subject in climate science. Between open water and smoke from Arctic fires, everything is much darker up there (absorbing more heat), from now on. The Arctic Albedo shift alone is enough to catapult the crisis 25 years ahead of schedule, in terms of warming. But that’s far from all: ocean heat transport, the northern ozone hole, freaking lightning at 85N… Earth rapidly becomes a very strange and unpredictable planet. Sometimes an image of icecap rubble near the Pole drives that point home like an icy blade: it hurts, a lot.

I can’t carry my emotional experience over to you, not really. I’m trying to think ahead. If Mama Earth continues descending into the breakdown I anticipate, many more will understand that the context of the question I pose is not something I just made up.

I’m just happy to see no mention of Warren in this comment thread. I’m wondering how strong Bernie’s ground game in Iowa is – Warren’s is very well organized – he’ll need a top three showing there.

Meanwhile, as for 'Third Way-approved" Warren:


I read that article as a recognition of Warren’s increasing strength, not that Third Way politicos necessarily like her. Parties change as voters change (look at Trump and the GOP). If Warren has a compelling message the majority of voters like and she looks like she’ll be the nominee, most of the party is going to bend her direction, including many Third Way types. She is a member of the party in good standing, after all. Her old senate seat could be the thing that gnaws on us more than anything.

In the context of this topic – advocacy for a sanders-led political revolution – both articles I linked to clearly state that Warren is “much more acceptable than democratic socialist Bernie Sanders” to “Third Way,” “moderates,” and “establishment players.” That’s why I linked to them.

And you’re right, if that’s what the majority of d-party voters want, so be it. But I wouldn’t worry about her old senate seat. Trump will crush Pocahontas – in the respect that she’s Pocahontas, he already has. Of course, I know you’re all about beating Trump: So who does better in a head-to-head match up with Trump, Bernie or Liz?

I got no clue who would do best in a head-to-head. The polls say Sanders now, but they also say Biden, who I think would be a terrible candidate, does best.

I read that article that @SkepticTank posted as Third Way types like Jim Kessler are a bunch of morons with no clear principles. So Warren was completely unacceptable before and now she is their savior? I don’t know why anybody pays any attention to these people.

She now seems to be getting herself away from the Bernie Sanders grouping.

Umm no, if anything, I’d say she is moving closer to Bernie and more explicit about fighting for Medicare for All (though I’ll believe it when I see it). These people either don’t even know what socialism means if they think Bernie is a socialist or they like to spew Republican talking points. I would be so happy to have Bernie win for a million reasons but one big one is for most of these idiots to be forced to get different jobs when the are proven wrong - preferably nothing that intersects with my world whatsoever.

Not sure what “wrong” means here and I think the article shows pretty clearly a lot of Third Way types are uncomfortable with her. Some do agree with her on financial regulation and taxes though, per the article. The reality is if McConnell runs the Senate after 2020, none of the candidates are going to be doing much with any of their big plans anyway. Then you’ve got the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1920s to wrestle with. It’s going to be small-bore (but potentially important) executive level stuff. In that respect, I don’t really see what amounts to fairly minor differences between them being super meaningful, no matter who does and doesn’t support them.

Just Bye-done our time for another four years? We don’t have that luxury any more. Oh yeah. We don’t have any of the luxury… even health care…