Trump is calling the entire senate to the white house for briefing on north korea

[Moonbeam]

Sanders got hit with virtually nothing during the course of his primary run. The few things which may have come out were not at all well covered.

And the GOP hadn't even started its broadside on his ideology. They would have painted him as communist and un-American. And there's every chance it would have worked on independents and moderate dems.

Head to head polling conducted during he primary season is notoriously non-predictive of general election outcomes.

I don't understand how you can claim that a candidate as untested as Sanders would definitely have won. Sure, he might have won. Or he might have lost worse than Clinton.

Can we try a 'Sanders type' next time instead of a 'Clinton'. You'd almost think you're feeling guilty for voting for her. At least you didn't vote for Trump. Cheer up.

 

[woolfe9998]

Can we try a 'Sanders type' next time instead of a 'Clinton'. You'd almost think you're feeling guilty for voting for her. At least you didn't vote for Trump. Cheer up.

No, we've had this conversation before. I don't feel guilty for voting for her. You're making convenient assumptions about what goes on in another person's head. You know less about other people's motives than you think.

So far as whether we can have a Sanders type in 2020, if you're asking how I would vote, it's going to depend on the particulars of each candidate. If you want to know which "type" I think is electable, it will also depend on how well Trump is doing at the time. IMO if Trump is doing badly, the country isn't going to be in the mood for another anti-establishment type, and with Trump's popularity in the crapper, it will be the dems election to lose, meaning a safer candidate will be a better bet. If OTOH Trump is doing better by 2020, then yes, I think running a left anti-establishment firebrand may well be the better alternative.

In my view the first priority is removing Trump and the GOP from office and reversing the damage he's already done.

 

[Moonbeam]

Out of curiosity, are you talking about a violent struggle here or some kind of purely political "revolution?" How do you envision this revolution you so desire?

Stage one, identify the problem, that democracy is dead and can't be fixed by the currently entrenched powers that be because they are owned by special interests. Make this known to all who will hear. Make it the progressive message. Create a force that will force change or by threat of removal from power. Demand that politicians listen to the average American rather than the wealthy or out they go. March on Washington to demand change. Take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. Be rather than surrender to outrageous fortune and damn the consequences because the alternative is surely Trump and the worship of authoritarianism. Project a real message via understanding the situation for what it is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this badly misses the dominant force in American politics over the last 20 years. Look at the changes here:

The percentage of each party viewing the other 'very unfavorably' has more than doubled since the 1990's and more than a third of Republicans and nearly a quarter of Democrats view the opposing party as a threat to the well being of the nation. That's animosity that transcends any particular politician. I mean again, Obama was about as inoffensive a Democratic president as the Republicans are likely to see again and their response was apoplectic rage.

This is not a case of one nominee or a type of nominee, this is long term polarization.

Long term? Of course, and with the status quo being the self fulfilling prophecy. We are where we are and so we might as well look at charts and graphs and run in circles, scream and shout.

The thing is that we are not unique and doomed. Countries rise and fall. Leaders come and go but everything, everything, changes. Leadership, that is proper leadership may not complete anything however it can be a beginning. So we're divided, that's the nature of things, but it does not have to be that way unless we resign ourselves to the status quo. If we can't do that we ought to change our country's name to the Divided States of Sheep.

 

[dank69]

lol Who in the GOP? A lot in the GOP think idiotically they should go further right. Who is the most popular politician right now? Bernie. Who has policies that have high approval in the polls? Bernie. Go look at the graphs I posted of the general election match-ups given by HuffPost. It's not even close to a high probability he would have lost 10+ digits just from that oppo research. Some of that was already out, btw. I saw many make fun of Bernie's employment history, for example.

Yup, and Hillary spiked back to 60% approval rating when Obama won the nomination.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, we've had this conversation before. I don't feel guilty for voting for her. You're making convenient assumptions about what goes on in another person's head. You know less about other people's motives than you think.

So far as whether we can have a Sanders type in 2020, if you're asking how I would vote, it's going to depend on the particulars of each candidate. If you want to know which "type" I think is electable, it will also depend on how well Trump is doing at the time. IMO if Trump is doing badly, the country isn't going to be in the mood for another anti-establishment type, and with Trump's popularity in the crapper, it will be the dems election to lose, meaning a safer candidate will be a better bet. If OTOH Trump is doing better by 2020, then yes, I think running a left anti-establishment firebrand may well be the better alternative.

In my view the first priority is removing Trump and the GOP from office and reversing the damage he's already done.

I either know less than I think or more than you do making what I know invisible to you. It's not an argument that I have any real need to win. I am content with my view of it and don't need for you to agree. Suffice it to say that if you do not know what you really feel, a claim I often make, you will not know if you feel guilty or not, so your self reporting doesn't persuade me any more than my doubt does you.

I fully support your aim to remove Trump, the only problem is with what message, more gradualism by peripheral progressive change? I believe you can't replace Trump with a traditionalist democratic message. That is exactly what just failed and you want to try harder. There is a definition of insanity that fits that approach. I disagree that the real issue, that democracy is dead, needs to be altered by Trumps success or failure. There is nothing fire-brand about addressing the actual issues. Calling it that is projected fear, in my opinion.

 

[woolfe9998]

I either know less than I think or more than you do making what I know invisible to you. It's not an argument that I have any real need to win. I am content with my view of it and don't need for you to agree. Suffice it to say that if you do not know what you really feel, a claim I often make, you will not know if you feel guilty or not, so your self reporting doesn't persuade me any more than my doubt does you.

I fully support your aim to remove Trump, the only problem is with what message, more gradualism by peripheral progressive change? I believe you can't replace Trump with a traditionalist democratic message. That is exactly what just failed and you want to try harder. There is a definition of insanity that fits that approach. I disagree that the real issue, that democracy is dead, needs to be altered by Trumps success or failure. There is nothing fire-brand about addressing the actual issues. Calling it that is projected fear, in my opinion.

What you call gradualism is in fact how most progressive change has historically occurred in this country. We had the progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where we got child labor laws, anti-trust, and unionization. We got social security in the 30's. Medicare and medicaid in the 60's. Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in the 70's. It's all incremental and done over a long period of time. The truth is that if we didn't have the right slowing us down, we'd probably rush head long into things which are untested and prove to be ineffective if not damaging. The problem is when the right becomes as entrenched as it is now, we may end up going in the opposite direction, which is happening under Trump right now. He is doing great damage right now, and in my view, his election was partly a fluke - he lost the popular vote by 3 million and the result would likely have been different had any one of 10 variables been different.

I don't disagree with you that messaging should address first and foremost the undue influence of monied interests on the government. I think Sanders' emphasis on that was correct. On this point, I agreed with Sanders' approach, but that is not the only factor to consider in choosing a candidate. I voted for the one who I thought would be more effective in office. Sanders' policy proposals were not realistic. We don't have anywhere near the money to send everyone to college for free and have a national healthcare system, even if we substantially increase taxes on the wealthy, which is something I support.

 

[woolfe9998]

Stage one, identify the problem, that democracy is dead and can't be fixed by the currently entrenched powers that be because they are owned by special interests. Make this known to all who will hear. Make it the progressive message. Create a force that will force change or by threat of removal from power. Demand that politicians listen to the average American rather than the wealthy or out they go. March on Washington to demand change. Take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. Be rather than surrender to outrageous fortune and damn the consequences because the alternative is surely Trump and the worship of authoritarianism. Project a real message via understanding the situation for what it is.

You're talking about activism, which I'm pretty sure is what's going on right now. And it's a good thing. I think you mentioned before we have a "sleeping population" which in practical terms refers to traditional low turnouts among liberal voters. Hopefully this activism wakes these low propensity voters up.

With regard to your claim of democracy being dead, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to that question. It depends on how one defines a functioning democracy. Certainly our democracy is ailing right now. It might be better to frame it that way, because telling people democracy is dead doesn't encourage the kind of engagement that you discussing above. It only discourages it.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're talking about activism, which I'm pretty sure is what's going on right now. And it's a good thing. I think you mentioned before we have a "sleeping population" which in practical terms refers to traditional low turnouts among liberal voters. Hopefully this activism wakes these low propensity voters up.

With regard to your claim of democracy being dead, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to that question. It depends on how one defines a functioning democracy. Certainly our democracy is ailing right now. It might be better to frame it that way, because telling people democracy is dead doesn't encourage the kind of engagement that you discussing above. It only discourages it.

New organs of perception form out of need. Hope for our democracy is a way of postponing the realization of need. A third way understanding can't happen when there is hope for the system that is. The situation is hopeless. Where do we go from here. Why is the system hopeless, because money owns the party. No hope if that isn't fixed. There is no hope now but at least we can say and see what needs to happen before hope can be again. Hope, you see, comes out of hopelessness, not irrational hope. We have to face the real issue. We have to speak to the real issue. People can only awaken one by one, but a real noisy environment helps, and I don't mean by noise, frustrated rage, I mean the presence of message. Pronounce war on money in politics or nothing will change. It takes money to win elections and the winners have it so they aren't going to willingly give up their advantage. They will preserve the system as is or fix it to further their advantage. The only thing that has democracy today is the dollar.

 

[woolfe9998]

New organs of perception form out of need. Hope for our democracy is a way of postponing the realization of need. A third way understanding can't happen when there is hope for the system that is. The situation is hopeless. Where do we go from here. Why is the system hopeless, because money owns the party. No hope if that isn't fixed. There is no hope now but at least we can say and see what needs to happen before hope can be again. Hope, you see, comes out of hopelessness, not irrational hope. We have to face the real issue. We have to speak to the real issue. People can only awaken one by one, but a real noisy environment helps, and I don't mean by noise, frustrated rage, I mean the presence of message. Pronounce war on money in politics or nothing will change. It takes money to win elections and the winners have it so they aren't going to willingly give up their advantage. They will preserve the system as is or fix it to further their advantage. The only thing that has democracy today is the dollar.

This doesn't this make sense. You're saying the situation is hopeless but that "hope can be again" meaning literally that there is hope that we can have hope again. You also said that there is "no hope if that isn't fixed" meaning that there is hope that it can be fixed.

You've basically just said that there's hope we can turn this around but only if we first realize there is no hope. That's a self-contradiction.

By definition, if there is no hope, we are doomed and there is no point in trying to change anything. Telling people there is no hope and democracy is dead will discourage the kind of activist "revolution" you support. The only things it will encourage are either mass apathy or else violent revolution.

Activism by definition is predicated on hope.

 

[Moonbeam]

This doesn't this make sense. You're saying the situation is hopeless but that "hope can be again" meaning literally that there is hope that we can have hope again. You also said that there is "no hope if that isn't fixed" meaning that there is hope that it can be fixed.

You've basically just said that there's hope we can turn this around but only if we first realize there is no hope. That's a self-contradiction. By definition, if there is no hope, we are doomed and there is no point in trying to change anything. Telling people there is no hope and democracy is dead will discourage the kind of activist "revolution" you support. The only things it will encourage are either mass apathy or else violent revolution.

Activism by definition is predicated on hope.

Truth isn't something that makes sense. It is a state of conscious awareness not an idea or a thing. It appears as insight or inspiration, a jump from one state of mind to an unsuspected other that collapses duality into oneness. In order for such a change in perception to occur thought must end. Thought is fear and thought creates time, thought is based on memory of the past,, the manipulations of concepts as if they were real. It is all based on past experience and the acquisition of unexamined assumptions. Hope has to die because hope and hopelessness depend on each other to exist. What happens when hope dies is that hopelessness dies with it. That experience leads to a different state of consciousness where everything you ever hoped for is present in an unsuspected way. It is simply the case that the fragmented self can recover unity. To hope for unity is the wish of a fragment to be the whole and that can't be. The fragment must surrender and die for the whole to appear. Hopelessness is a means by which the ego comes to the end of it's rope and an altered state can appear by grace.

 

[woolfe9998]

Truth isn't something that makes sense. It is a state of conscious awareness not an idea or a thing. It appears as insight or inspiration, a jump from one state of mind to an unsuspected other that collapses duality into oneness. In order for such a change in perception to occur thought must end.

This is precisely where we disagree, and it's why I said you're part of the problem. "Truth" is not subjective. It isn't a state of consciousness. Reality exists outside our skulls. The fact that you don't see that and so many others don't is a serious problem. It's why, foe example, we have almost half the country denying global warming.

Thought is fear and thought creates time, thought is based on memory of the past,, the manipulations of concepts as if they were real. It is all based on past experience and the acquisition of unexamined assumptions. Hope has to die because hope and hopelessness depend on each other to exist. What happens when hope dies is that hopelessness dies with it. That experience leads to a different state of consciousness where everything you ever hoped for is present in an unsuspected way. It is simply the case that the fragmented self can recover unity. To hope for unity is the wish of a fragment to be the whole and that can't be. The fragment must surrender and die for the whole to appear. Hopelessness is a means by which the ego comes to the end of it's rope and an altered state can appear by grace.

I don't know about the virtue of this Zen notion of obliterating thought to achieve enlightenment, in theory. What I do know, in actual practice, is that when you tell people democracy is dead and that there is no hope, they aren't likely to experience the shifting consciousness you describe. They're more likely to either act out violently or else retreat into themselves, becoming complacent.

 

[Triloby]

....

What does Bernie Sanders have to do with North Korea?

 

[agent00f]

Both are, as I said above. We the people held the wedge nice and straight, so that the politicians and the media could drive it between us. A democratic vote can only be obtained through an educated electorate. They can only vote on what they know. What they know is limited by two sources, a) what they choose to learn, which is borne out of 1) their own ignorance of what they do not know/don't care to know, and 2) the belief that they DO know plenty, as delivered to them by the media/politicians/other authority figures, and b) what is delivered to them by said media/politicians/authority figures, which as I'm sure we can all agree are about as twisted as a Sherpa trail.

People engaged in mutually beneficial exchange of interests know what they're doing, in this case votes for social status. Just as liberals like to think degenerates are too mentally handicapped to be personally responsible for their behavior, and degenerates oblige.

 

[agent00f]

Since you can't/won't see it in yourself, just look at this guy who's all about concocting magical theories of why it's really degenerates' parents or whatever to blame.

Truth isn't something that makes sense. It is a state of conscious awareness not an idea or a thing. It appears as insight or inspiration, a jump from one state of mind to an unsuspected other that collapses duality into oneness. In order for such a change in perception to occur thought must end. Thought is fear and thought creates time, thought is based on memory of the past,, the manipulations of concepts as if they were real. It is all based on past experience and the acquisition of unexamined assumptions. Hope has to die because hope and hopelessness depend on each other to exist. What happens when hope dies is that hopelessness dies with it. That experience leads to a different state of consciousness where everything you ever hoped for is present in an unsuspected way. It is simply the case that the fragmented self can recover unity. To hope for unity is the wish of a fragment to be the whole and that can't be. The fragment must surrender and die for the whole to appear. Hopelessness is a means by which the ego comes to the end of it's rope and an altered state can appear by grace.

Or this guy who blames it on the democrats / non-degenerates / sheeple.

Long term? Of course, and with the status quo being the self fulfilling prophecy. We are where we are and so we might as well look at charts and graphs and run in circles, scream and shout.

The thing is that we are not unique and doomed. Countries rise and fall. Leaders come and go but everything, everything, changes. Leadership, that is proper leadership may not complete anything however it can be a beginning. So we're divided, that's the nature of things, but it does not have to be that way unless we resign ourselves to the status quo. If we can't do that we ought to change our country's name to the Divided States of Sheep.

 

[Jhhnn]

....

What does Bernie Sanders have to do with North Korea?

Had he won the nomination, Repubs would have painted him as Kim's Comrade in Arms at the head of a fifth column of evil Soshulists & Commies who'll destroy the American Dream of getting rich some day, somehow...

Not that many of us really will but we like to think so.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is precisely where we disagree, and it's why I said you're part of the problem. "Truth" is not subjective. It isn't a state of consciousness. Reality exists outside our skulls. The fact that you don't see that and so many others don't is a serious problem. It's why, foe example, we have almost half the country denying global warming.

I don't know about the virtue of this Zen notion of obliterating thought to achieve enlightenment, in theory. What I do know, in actual practice, is that when you tell people democracy is dead and that there is no hope, they aren't likely to experience the shifting consciousness you describe. They're more likely to either act out violently or else retreat into themselves, becoming complacent.

Look, I understand your doubts and I can address them forever, but I am talking about something that can't be transmitted by words. I can only point at the moon, you need to look at the moon and not my fingers. So this will be another useless attempt:

You say that I am saying truth is subjective, but that's exactly what you are saying and not me. You are saying that what I am saying is Zen, but Zen is just one of a multitude of fingers pointing to the one and only truth, that truth isn't a maxim but a conscious state, awareness of the now. To be in the present is to ride the wave of the Now on the surfboard of being, It is the surfboard of oneness that collapsed duality. In the perception of oneness there is only perfection, no need for hope or doubt, the perfection of harmonious flow. You are holding on the notion that good and evil exist. What you call reality is the notion that your assumptions of good and evil are real and it is those and those alone that are subjective. There is only perfection, the joy of being. Perfection requires nor will admit any hope. Delusion evaporates and reality appears, and it's not the one you think it is because thought is fear, questing, need, etc.

It isn't telling people the truth that their world view is a trap from which there is no escape for the ego, That isn't what will cause violence or complacency. What causes those are the frustrations of hope, the hopelessness of hoping. It is the ego that hopes for the good, the desire for what is an illusion, the hope that truth is someplace other than where you are and have always been.

 

[Jaskalas]

....

What does Bernie Sanders have to do with North Korea?

We're stuck on the election aftermath in the midst of nightmare ideas of Trump calling the Senate in to announce nuclear war.


America's future direction is an all encompassing political topic that is bleeding over into _everything_.
As such... we find posts delving into 2016... and then we respond... and it gets lost from there.

 

[Younigue]

Look, I understand your doubts and I can address them forever, but I am talking about something that can't be transmitted by words. I can only point at the moon, you need to look at the moon and not my fingers. So this will be another useless attempt:

You say that I am saying truth is subjective, but that's exactly what you are saying and not me. You are saying that what I am saying is Zen, but Zen is just one of a multitude of fingers pointing to the one and only truth, that truth isn't a maxim but a conscious state, awareness of the now. To be in the present is to ride the wave of the Now on the surfboard of being, It is the surfboard of oneness that collapsed duality. In the perception of oneness there is only perfection, no need for hope or doubt, the perfection of harmonious flow. You are holding on the notion that good and evil exist. What you call reality is the notion that your assumptions of good and evil are real and it is those and those alone that are subjective. There is only perfection, the joy of being. Perfection requires nor will admit any hope. Delusion evaporates and reality appears, and it's not the one you think it is because thought is fear, questing, need, etc.

It isn't telling people the truth that their world view is a trap from which there is no escape for the ego, That isn't what will cause violence or complacency. What causes those are the frustrations of hope, the hopelessness of hoping. It is the ego that hopes for the good, the desire for what is an illusion, the hope that truth is someplace other than where you are and have always been.

But how is it possible you have not separated in to individual particles and rejoined energy in its purest form? What are you doing wrong?

 

[Moonbeam]

But how is it possible you have not separated in to individual particles and rejoined energy in its purest form? What are you doing wrong?

I bathe once a day in sticky glue.

 

[Younigue]

I bathe once a day in sticky glue.

What I said there is a joke between my uncle-in-law and myself. He has been working for years on being able to pass his hand through sold objects. As far as I know he has yet to succeed but he fully believes he will one day or die before he manages to. It's all the same to him.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I said there is a joke between my uncle-in-law and myself. He has been working for years on being able to pass his hand through sold objects. As far as I know he has yet to succeed but he fully believes he will one day or die before he manages to. It's all the same to him.

He's got the right idea but the wrong technique as illustrated by this story: Two monks walking through the forest were discussing the nature of reality. The wise monk explained to the novice that the world is an illusion. (Passing your hand through an illusion should pose no problems right?) A water buffalo appeared on the trail and charged the two monks, with wise monk climbing a tree, and novice monk deep in thought about the illusions he was seeing. Rather battered and smashed and prone on the ground our novice looked up in the tree and said, I thought you said the world is an illusion. Yes, said the wise monk, my running up the tree was an illusion too.

So tell your uncle for me that it's just an illusion he's having that his hand won't pass through the table.

 

[alien42]

and the day before the briefing...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-thaad-idUSKBN17R2VA

 

[Younigue]

He's got the right idea but the wrong technique as illustrated by this story: Two monks walking through the forest were discussing the nature of reality. The wise monk explained to the novice that the world is an illusion. (Passing your hand through an illusion should pose no problems right?) A water buffalo appeared on the trail and charged the two monks, with wise monk climbing a tree, and novice monk deep in thought about the illusions he was seeing. Rather battered and smashed and prone on the ground our novice looked up in the tree and said, I thought you said the world is an illusion. Yes, said the wise monk, my running up the tree was an illusion too.

So tell your uncle for me that it's just an illusion he's having that his hand won't pass through the table.

Oh he gets that but that won't stop him from trying. He still wants to experience it visually and physically.

 

[Pens1566]

Heard this morning that there is a similar briefing to the House as well. That has to be done at the Capitol as you can't possibly fit them in anywhere at the WH. Now the interesting question, what does it cost to convert the auditorium at the EEOB to a SCIF for one meeting? How can that possibly be a better idea than trucking Mattis/Rexxon to the Capitol like a normal, functioning admin would do?