Sanders will run

[Moonbeam]

John Romano with the Tampa Bay Times wrote a good opinion piece today. He's left leaning and talks mostly about dems but it holds true for repubs.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politi...-Florida-s-all-or-nothing-Democrats_168432176

Wouldn't a good opinion piece be one that you already agree with? I realize that it is an opinion piece published as such but it reads like it was a statement of fact, in my opinion, and that bothers me. I associate such certainty of opinion with radical extremes, the kind of thing he is protesting. The problem I have with centrists is that they believe truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe that. I believe that truth is a completely, off the spectrum third way, understanding that resolves opposites rather than find some compromise between them. People become extreme, in my opinion, because of uncritical thinking.

Searching for a solution to gun violence isn't to be solved by defending or weakening the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, it can't be solved until we eliminate the notion of competition from society generally. It seems to me it will be centuries if ever before people figure that out on a scale large enough to effect real change. Why? Because the answer is extremely off the left right line of extremist thinking. Imagine if there is an extreme reality that produces two kinds of extreme denial, left and right, and a spectrum of the two. This means in the world that we live in, anybody with understanding is extreme. For this reason I challenge a so called balanced approach that is not an integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding. I would call that understanding extreme, particularly in its rarity.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wouldn't a good opinion piece be one that you already agree with? I realize that it is an opinion piece published as such but it reads like it was a statement of fact, in my opinion, and that bothers me. I associate such certainty of opinion with radical extremes, the kind of thing he is protesting. The problem I have with centrists is that they believe truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe that. I believe that truth is a completely, off the spectrum third way, understanding that resolves opposites rather than find some compromise between them. People become extreme, in my opinion, because of uncritical thinking.

Searching for a solution to gun violence isn't to be solved by defending or weakening the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, it can't be solved until we eliminate the notion of competition from society generally. It seems to me it will be centuries if ever before people figure that out on a scale large enough to effect real change. Why? Because the answer is extremely off the left right line of extremist thinking. Imagine if there is an extreme reality that produces two kinds of extreme denial, left and right, and a spectrum of the two. This means in the world that we live in, anybody with understanding is extreme. For this reason I challenge a so called balanced approach that is not an integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding. I would call that understanding extreme, particularly in its rarity.

I agree with much of this, but I don't see how any of it applies to the linked article. The author of that article is not endorsing centrist positions at all. In fact, he's not endorsing any particular positions. He's only arguing that candidates should follow their own convictions instead of slavishly adhering to a party line. I don't see anything objectionable in that argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with much of this, but I don't see how any of it applies to the linked article. The author of that article is not endorsing centrist positions at all. In fact, he's not endorsing any particular positions. He's only arguing that candidates should follow their own convictions instead of slavishly adhering to a party line. I don't see anything objectionable in that argument.

He begins his piece like this:

"In the world of partisan politics, how is being an independent thinker a bad thing?"

I have no objections to this in principle. My problem is with his idea of what it is to be an independent thinker. In all of his suggestions what I saw was a very sensible balance between extremes, all of which is fine by me, but none of which represents what independent thinking looks like to me. I can support sensible gun laws. They may help keep guns from some nuts but they will not fix the underlying insanity that creates violence. Out search for answers to our problems look to me like running from and putting off real solutions. Real answers, in my opinion are way way way beyond what people think of as extreme. They are profoundly radical. They require facing inner darkness, a mythical hero's journey into the underworld of the dead. You can live a long time and never hear that as an opinion so there it is.

 

[sportage]

We need Sanders to expose and keep us up to date on all the shit going on.
"THAT" more than justifies and earns him a place at the table.
If not for Bernie Sanders, how would we know our taxes will drastically go up in 2019, our healthcare is under attack, and that this Trump administration is in fact conducting an ongoing overthrow of the US government i.e. better known as a full blown government COUP.
I mean, who the hell would tell us any of this if not for Bernie? Fox News???

 

[woolfe9998]

He begins his piece like this:

"In the world of partisan politics, how is being an independent thinker a bad thing?"

I have no objections to this in principle. My problem is with his idea of what it is to be an independent thinker. In all of his suggestions what I saw was a very sensible balance between extremes, all of which is fine by me, but none of which represents what independent thinking looks like to me. I can support sensible gun laws. They may help keep guns from some nuts but they will not fix the underlying insanity that creates violence. Out search for answers to our problems look to me like running from and putting off real solutions. Real answers, in my opinion are way way way beyond what people think of as extreme. They are profoundly radical. They require facing inner darkness, a mythical hero's journey into the underworld of the dead. You can live a long time and never hear that as an opinion so there it is.

Being an "independent thinker" is not the same thing as being a "centrist." Not at all. It seems to me that you're equating the two. The only policy positions he really discusses are examples he uses to illustrate his point, such as believing in raising the minimum wage but not to $15. That may be a centrist position, but it's unclear if the author agrees with it or not. He's just using it as an example of breaking with the party line.

If you're correct that the real solutions are way outside the box of conventional thinking, then I think one would first have to agree with his basic premise that party line thinking is not something people should be bound by. The rigidity of the party line is partly what keeps us in that box. It doesn't exclude only centrist positions. It excludes everything not in compliance with a party platform or ideology.

 

[woolfe9998]

So far as Sanders goes, I think it's fine that he's seeking re-election to the Senate. He calls attention to important issues like the need for reform of the political system. I also wouldn't have a problem with him running in 2020 in the dem primary, though I doubt I'd vote for him.

What I don't want to see is him running some kind of populist protest campaign as an independent, complaining about the party "establishment" and handing Trump the keys to another 4 years of wrecking the country. If he does that, he'll join Ralph Nader in the discarded dustbin of dangerous idiots.

 

[Lanyap]

Wouldn't a good opinion piece be one that you already agree with? I realize that it is an opinion piece published as such but it reads like it was a statement of fact, in my opinion, and that bothers me. I associate such certainty of opinion with radical extremes, the kind of thing he is protesting. The problem I have with centrists is that they believe truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe that. I believe that truth is a completely, off the spectrum third way, understanding that resolves opposites rather than find some compromise between them. People become extreme, in my opinion, because of uncritical thinking.

Searching for a solution to gun violence isn't to be solved by defending or weakening the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, it can't be solved until we eliminate the notion of competition from society generally. It seems to me it will be centuries if ever before people figure that out on a scale large enough to effect real change. Why? Because the answer is extremely off the left right line of extremist thinking. Imagine if there is an extreme reality that produces two kinds of extreme denial, left and right, and a spectrum of the two. This means in the world that we live in, anybody with understanding is extreme. For this reason I challenge a so called balanced approach that is not an integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding. I would call that understanding extreme, particularly in its rarity.

Isn't the latter normal for the human race a this point in time? It has taken a long time to get where we are today and it's not close to perfect by any means. Most people I think understand that. We are taking baby steps. The higher understanding you are speaking of are only known by very few and will probably come to the some of the masses when we are brains in a jar.

We are still a relatively young country with a young culture of freedom and independence still finding our way in the dark and still scared of being dominated and controlled by another country. In some ways we are still the wild west pooping in our diapers until we reach some higher level of understanding and knowledge.

On an unrelated but related note. I happened to be watching youtube videos the other day of gamers being swatted while they were streaming in their online games. Most were in the US and the police came storming in with with assault rifles and all yelling at the same time to get on the ground, hands up, etc. One gamer was in the UK, the police knocked on his door and asked him what was going on. He offered them a seat on his couch and snacks while he played his game and explained what happened and about game swatting.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need Sanders to expose and keep us up to date on all the shit going on.
"THAT" more than justifies and earns him a place at the table.
If not for Bernie Sanders, how would we know our taxes will drastically go up in 2019, our healthcare is under attack, and that this Trump administration is in fact conducting an ongoing overthrow of the US government i.e. better known as a full blown government COUP.
I mean, who the hell would tell us any of this if not for Bernie? Fox News???

No disrespect to you or to Sanders, but the 'who' that tells me all that is my own eyes which is why I pushed for him in the election. We are experiencing a coup because democracy is dead. Tagging Sanders for free shit and impractical economic spending is just a non issue even as factual because he also called for revolution and only a revolution will save us, in my opinion. I'll tell you want socialism is, it the end of the rule by the 1%. Hillary Clinton was the rational choice, the thoughtful choice, the pragmatic choice, logical choice, the reasonable choice, the moderate choice and she was also the wrong choice. Democracy is dead and had she won it would have stayed dead.

What did the Clintons sell the democratic party, that they needed money to win elections. In a socialist system you get to run for free. And a slime ball huckster shows up promising power to the people and he wins on a shoestring budget. Democracy is dead. Why vote for anybody but a revolutionary dedicated to getting money our of politics and making it respond to the will of the people, not the one percent.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you're correct that the real solutions are way outside the box of conventional thinking, then I think one would first have to agree with his basic premise that party line thinking is not something people should be bound by. The rigidity of the party line is partly what keeps us in that box. It doesn't exclude only centrist positions. It excludes everything not in compliance with a party platform or ideology.

I think it's more out of the box than that. Rigidity is the unconscious assumption of some inculcated truth that by its unconscious acceptance precludes examination. It is out of consciousness. In this way one can become rigidly opposed to rigidity. One assumes one has a handle of rigidity and that the handle one has is correct. You can't become less rigid by being lectured on how bad rigidity is or nobody would be rigid. All I can say is that I see the issue in completely different terms. I agree with everything that you say and I also think it's useless, basically. I think change requires need which is why I mentioned my opinion that democracy is dead. I am saying that as far as I am concerned, extremists and common sense people make up the house, senate, executive and the courts and they are engaged in little more than rearranging the flowers on our graves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Isn't the latter normal for the human race a this point in time? It has taken a long time to get where we are today and it's not close to perfect by any means. Most people I think understand that. We are taking baby steps. The higher understanding you are speaking of are only known by very few and will probably come to the some of the masses when we are brains in a jar.

We are still a relatively young country with a young culture of freedom and independence still finding our way in the dark and still scared of being dominated and controlled by another country. In some ways we are still the wild west pooping in our diapers until we reach some higher level of understanding and knowledge.

On an unrelated but related note. I happened to be watching youtube videos the other day of gamers being swatted while they were streaming in their online games. Most were in the US and the police came storming in with with assault rifles and all yelling at the same time to get on the ground, hands up, etc. One gamer was in the UK, the police knocked on his door and asked him what was going on. He offered them a seat on his couch and snacks while he played his game and explained what happened and about game swatting.

I think I just wanted to put my two bits in for progress. I don't understand the game thing, sadly.

 

[ivwshane]

No disrespect to you or to Sanders, but the 'who' that tells me all that is my own eyes which is why I pushed for him in the election. We are experiencing a coup because democracy is dead. Tagging Sanders for free shit and impractical economic spending is just a non issue even as factual because he also called for revolution and only a revolution will save us, in my opinion. I'll tell you want socialism is, it the end of the rule by the 1%. Hillary Clinton was the rational choice, the thoughtful choice, the pragmatic choice, logical choice, the reasonable choice, the moderate choice and she was also the wrong choice. Democracy is dead and had she won it would have stayed dead.

What did the Clintons sell the democratic party, that they needed money to win elections. In a socialist system you get to run for free. And a slime ball huckster shows up promising power to the people and he wins on a shoestring budget. Democracy is dead. Why vote for anybody but a revolutionary dedicated to getting money our of politics and making it respond to the will of the people, not the one percent.

Because dedication doesn't guarantee results. 25+ years and money is still apart of politics. But hey, you'll go to your death bed feeling good about yourself knowing you supported someone who was dedicated. They didn't achieve anything and the change that you know we so desperately needed never materialized but hey, he was dedicated at least, right?

What I'm saying is that sometimes you vote for the person you need and not the person you want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because dedication doesn't guarantee results. 25+ years and money is still apart of politics. But hey, you'll go to your death bed feeling good about yourself knowing you supported someone who was dedicated. They didn't achieve anything and the change that you know we so desperately needed never materialized but hey, he was dedicated at least, right?

What I'm saying is that sometimes you vote for the person you need and not the person you want.

Great advise. Now if I only really knew the difference between what I need and I want, well, I bet I would have voted for Sanders. I am trying to say I don't make the unconscious assumptions that you do. I don't know anything and you know all kinds of stuff, none of which is true. Why would somebody want Sanders but need Clinton? You can argue that democracy isn't dead, but I don't see how you can argue that if democracy is dead we don't need a revolution, or that if democracy is actually dead what good is rearranging the flowers. And what's up with me going to my death bed feeling good. Isn't it you that's avoiding the fact that you don't want to die knowing you voted to keep democracy dead? It just might be you that is projecting here. Don't worry about it. You can't do what's right in your sleep. And you don't have to be mad about being asleep. We had to be to survive.

 

[ivwshane]

Great advise. Now if I only really knew the difference between what I need and I want, well, I bet I would have voted for Sanders. I am trying to say I don't make the unconscious assumptions that you do. I don't know anything and you know all kinds of stuff, none of which is true. Why would somebody want Sanders but need Clinton? You can argue that democracy isn't dead, but I don't see how you can argue that if democracy is dead we don't need a revolution, or that if democracy is actually dead what good is rearranging the flowers. And what's up with me going to my death bed feeling good. Isn't it you that's avoiding the fact that you don't want to die knowing you voted to keep democracy dead? It just might be you that is projecting here. Don't worry about it. You can't do what's right in your sleep. And you don't have to be mad about being asleep. We had to be to survive.

Its funny how you guys keep bringing up Clinton when she's not even in the picture.

I have no idea what you are trying to say though, perhaps you can dumb it down for me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Its funny how you guys keep bringing up Clinton when she's not even in the picture.

I have no idea what you are trying to say though, perhaps you can dumb it down for me.

Maybe I can but I should first make sure the reason you are confused is that I wasn't understanding what you said so what I said would in that case properly not make sense:

I said why vote for anybody but a revolutionary and you said, "Because dedication doesn't guarantee results."

How does that make any sense? Democracy is dead because of money in politics. What does a non guarantee that you can get it out of politics have to do with anything. There is only the option and that is to to try if democracy is dead. That means you vote for the person who has made that the issue and nobody else. There is never any guarantee because people are blind to the real issues, as I see them anyway.

"25+ years and money is still apart of politics." What does that mean?

"But hey, you'll go to your death bed feeling good about yourself knowing you supported someone who was dedicated." I don't really believe you didn't get my point about projecting.

"They didn't achieve anything and the change that you know we so desperately needed never materialized but hey, he was dedicated at least, right?"

I just covered now nonsensical that idea is.

"What I'm saying is that sometimes you vote for the person you need and not the person you want."

What I was saying is that this is only good advise if you know the difference between need and want. I think you imagine you do but actually don't. What we need is a revolutionary if democracy is dead and that is what I want. The issue of dedication is a non issue. The issue of success is a non issue. You will not face the real issue because you don't believe democracy is dead or you can't comprehend the implications of that. Is the political system controlled by the 1 % or not? If it is democracy sure seems like it's dead to me. If it is there is only one thing to do and that is to get it back. That will require a voter revolution and when you had a chance you didn't join. The only way to save democracy is to get it back and that will require a revolutionary to lead the way. The system as it is must be destroyed. We will need people to run who will destroy the advantages they have that put them there. The only politician that would do that is somebody who cares more about the country than holding office. People with real moral values will have to volunteer and be voted in simply for making the promise that will be the first order of business. Wake up, we're dead.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe I can but I should first make sure the reason you are confused is that I wasn't understanding what you said so what I said would in that case properly not make sense:

I said why vote for anybody but a revolutionary and you said, "Because dedication doesn't guarantee results."

How does that make any sense? Democracy is dead because of money in politics. What does a non guarantee that you can get it out of politics have to do with anything. There is only the option and that is to to try if democracy is dead. That means you vote for the person who has made that the issue and nobody else. There is never any guarantee because people are blind to the real issues, as I see them anyway.

"25+ years and money is still apart of politics." What does that mean?

"But hey, you'll go to your death bed feeling good about yourself knowing you supported someone who was dedicated." I don't really believe you didn't get my point about projecting.

"They didn't achieve anything and the change that you know we so desperately needed never materialized but hey, he was dedicated at least, right?"

I just covered now nonsensical that idea is.

"What I'm saying is that sometimes you vote for the person you need and not the person you want."

What I was saying is that this is only good advise if you know the difference between need and want. I think you imagine you do but actually don't. What we need is a revolutionary if democracy is dead and that is what I want. The issue of dedication is a non issue. The issue of success is a non issue. You will not face the real issue because you don't believe democracy is dead or you can't comprehend the implications of that. Is the political system controlled by the 1 % or not? If it is democracy sure seems like it's dead to me. If it is there is only one thing to do and that is to get it back. That will require a voter revolution and when you had a chance you didn't join. The only way to save democracy is to get it back and that will require a revolutionary to lead the way. The system as it is must be destroyed. We will need people to run who will destroy the advantages they have that put them there. The only politician that would do that is somebody who cares more about the country than holding office. People with real moral values will have to volunteer and be voted in simply for making the promise that will be the first order of business. Wake up, we're dead.

You aren't much of a revolutionary it you've been their for 25+ years and haven't changed a single thing. You can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results but we know that's just craziness.

Bernie isn't going to save democracy, he didn't save it before it died so I don't understand why you think he'll save it now.

Do you really not see a single other candidate to put your faith in? If you want a revolution shouldn't you be picking someone who can deliver one?

 

[hal2kilo]

Because dedication doesn't guarantee results. 25+ years and money is still apart of politics. But hey, you'll go to your death bed feeling good about yourself knowing you supported someone who was dedicated. They didn't achieve anything and the change that you know we so desperately needed never materialized but hey, he was dedicated at least, right?

What I'm saying is that sometimes you vote for the person you need and not the person you want.

That's the way it always is. Remember we live in a republic and not a pure democracy. Unfortunately, very few politicians have come from a ground swell of the people, but are picked by the people with the levers of power. And for the benefit of the Bothsides movement, yes, this occurs in both parties.

 

[jhbball]

"Everything should be free."

Pretty much sums up his platform.

You fucking moron, jfc.

 

[Moonbeam]

You fucking moron, jfc.

You won't win any arguments like that, not that you could win them with him any other way either, but you should at least understand the box he is in. There are sound moral principles behind what he is saying, It is not healthy or possible to have everything for free. It's a bad attitude to have and a resource impossibility. People also do not value what they don't have to work for. He has no idea how and when to apply these real moral values, but his intentions are good, not bad. Any solution to the problem of poverty that does not incorporate his moral values, or the real moral values they are a distortion of, will prove to be dysfunctional.

 

[Moonbeam]

You aren't much of a revolutionary it you've been their for 25+ years and haven't changed a single thing. You can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results but we know that's just craziness.

Bernie isn't going to save democracy, he didn't save it before it died so I don't understand why you think he'll save it now.

Do you really not see a single other candidate to put your faith in? If you want a revolution shouldn't you be picking someone who can deliver one?

My dear friend, What can I say. I see the world in a completely different way than you do. There is only one revolution and it is to defeat the ego self, the I we have created to protect ourselves from pain, our sense of permanence and self persistence, our thousand tons of cabbage, the illusionary world we have created to make us feel safe. Believing as I do that I came to a realization along those lines that that was the result of having lost all faith in all I had held sacred, I am here to share some of what I see with you. The fool on the hill is standing there still, watching the world spin around doing as it does the same thing over and over again. In this way the revolution never begins. "We need a leader, somebody who has effect." No you don't need anything but to die to the ego. The revolution can never begin when you start with a full cup of tea. The revolution will begin and be over the moment you really feel the need all the way down to your toes.

The revolution can happen only right now and there was a moment in time when voting for Sanders what the best external expression of it. My revolution right now expressed externally is planting seeds.