What will happen at the Democratic Convention?

[acbytesla]

I do searches by topic. I just explained the very example in question.

oh boy, another label! Loonosphere. And the thing to be ashamed of is "following" whatever sources you give that label too.

I read Mein Kampf. So that makes me a Nazi, right? I read Lenin's What is to be Done. So I am a communist too.

This is some kind of proud ignorance I guess, where you are proud of yourself for never having read something by the censored author list.

Actually, no - it is important not to have a censored author list.

Your argument for Hillary Clinton is to censor information. The more opposed to Clinton, the more important the censorship. It is a good thing you will never be in charge of the Ministry of Information. All you have on a discussion forum is emotion-based attacking. Shaming/guilt-tripping, ridicule, making faces, etc.

What interests me about it is what it means culture-wide and consequently the election. It is helping Trump. The nastier you get, the longer the incessant harping on silly emotional labels, with nothing else in your tank - the better Trump looks.

Your arguments are nonsensical strawman after strawman and feigned outrage. Your orange haired friend is going to get smashed.

 

[grunion]

It's easy to stand outside and throw fire bombs. Actually governing and balancing principles with the in office realities is very different. It's DAMN HARD WORK where no one is satisfied.



It's easy to speak of high principles when actual results are never accomplished and responsibility is a dirty word. These liberals who have NEVER accomplished anything criticizing those who actually get things done makes me want to puke.



They are spoiled dilettantes looking down their noses at the plumber who does a dirty job. Actual governing is beneath them.

And would we have abolition of slavery, votes for women, the 40 hour work week, the right to form unions, the end of child labor, the EPA, Food Stamps, or countless other rights that we cherish were it not for the activists that demanded it? Spoiled dilettantes? There are people working 2 and 3 jobs that can't pay the rent or feed their kids. Getting out to protest the injustice we see is DAMN HARD WORK. Perhaps it is beneath you. But it must be done.

 

[Childlike Empress]

What interests me about it is what it means culture-wide and consequently the election. It is helping Trump. The nastier you get, the longer the incessant harping on silly emotional labels, with nothing else in your tank - the better Trump looks.

Do you think he's paid by Putin?

 

[Tony Stark]

Nvm

 

[Foolmewunz]

I do searches by topic. I just explained the very example in question.

oh boy, another label! Loonosphere. And the thing to be ashamed of is "following" whatever sources you give that label too.

I read Mein Kampf. So that makes me a Nazi, right? I read Lenin's What is to be Done. So I am a communist too.

This is some kind of proud ignorance I guess, where you are proud of yourself for never having read something by the censored author list.

Actually, no - it is important not to have a censored author list.

Your argument for Hillary Clinton is to censor information. The more opposed to Clinton, the more important the censorship. It is a good thing you will never be in charge of the Ministry of Information. All you have on a discussion forum is emotion-based attacking. Shaming/guilt-tripping, ridicule, making faces, etc.

What interests me about it is what it means culture-wide and consequently the election. It is helping Trump. The nastier you get, the longer the incessant harping on silly emotional labels, with nothing else in your tank - the better Trump looks.

Again.... tone-policing. It's not working. If you don't like my choice of words and euphemisms I suggest you put me on ignore.

And you're assuming facts not in evidence. I follow what I referred to as the loonosphere. Fringe theories and their promoters are interesting to me. I follow, as much as I can stomach the constant repetition, the left and the right and their latest causes.

I am familiar with Jones and familiar with Tarpley. I share a common fondness for FDR with Tarpley and am interested to see what his new book is like. I'm just not sure that he can write it without delving into his own [mostly Larouche's] weird variations on NWO/Illuminati/PNC conspiracy theories. Because that's what he's become, a conspiracy theorist.

 

[acbytesla]

And would we have abolition of slavery, votes for women, the 40 hour work week, the right to form unions, the end of child labor, the EPA, Food Stamps, or countless other rights that we cherish were it not for the activists that demanded it? Spoiled dilettantes? There are people working 2 and 3 jobs that can't pay the rent or feed their kids. Getting out to protest the injustice we see is DAMN HARD WORK. Perhaps it is beneath you. But it must be done.

I'm not talking activism. I'm talking about uncompromising foolishness.. Moving the needle a little is better than none at all. I'm talking about not just criticizing what is wrong but actually stepping up to make it right.

Obama alluded to Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech. Take the time read it

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

 

[Tony Stark]

I love how people who endlessly complain about political correctness have a problem with people accurately describing Trump and his crazy moron bigot followers.

 

[Mumbles]

He's started laying the groundwork for not doing them. The dates for the debates were set over a year ago.

I seem to recall McCain attempting to cancel a debate way back in 2008. Obama's response was basically "Okay, I'll show up, it'll be a townhall."

McCain showed up anyway. Which was for the best, since he wasn't doing anything significant outside of that anyway.

I'm sure that Trump would try his own anti-debate to raise money for...oh, let's say, crippled puppies. And then he wouldn't donate the money, which would be fine by me.

(Hm. Maybe Zach Snyder would donate and get run out of the DC movies entirely...oh, just thinking of something...)

 

[Travis]

But you didn't support Bernie. You apparently supported the group of people you thought were cool, and when they became uncool you got embarrassed.

I'm curious: what else do you choose based on the behavior of others? Do you like chocolate, but only if dorky people aren't eating it? Are you deeply religious because Richard Dawkins is a jerk so he ruined atheism? Do you like bands only until they become popular? Do you support ISIS because Trump says they're bad and you want to be different than Trump?

Maybe you should select your political positions and candidates for themselves, and not for how fashionable or irritating the other supporters are. Embarrassment is a stupid thing that certainly shouldn't sway your judgment on matters you consider important.

By all means, vote for Hillary. Unless some other Hillary-voting person says or does something that embarrasses you, in which case I guess you'll vote for Stein or write in "Kanye West" because he's cool enough for you to be associated with.

An interesting proposition. I do care about the issues. That is the reason I was angry because by making a scene they were helping the other side and if they win the issues I care about suffer.

Once it was clear Hillary was going to win I went all in with her because that simply was the logical thing to do. Those that continue to assail her are only helping the enemy of their causes.

QFT. It is precisely the willingness to be uncomfortable, to be a conscientious objector, to "speak truth to power" if you'll pardon the expression that made me and so many others feel the Bern. Yes, Bernie fell on his sword at the prospect of a Trump presidency, but that doesn't equate to packing up the Revolution and going home. Those angry kids WERE marginalized and bullied by what the Democratic Party has become under Debbie Wasserman Schultz . Bernie was right in calling Hillary unqualified, with her neoliberal patronage of the 1 percent and her general lack of integrity. Yeah, I will vote for her but don't tell me I have to do it quietly.

No. No they were not. And that they continue to entertain such fantasies is part of why no one can take them seriously.

And would we have abolition of slavery, votes for women, the 40 hour work week, the right to form unions, the end of child labor, the EPA, Food Stamps, or countless other rights that we cherish were it not for the activists that demanded it? Spoiled dilettantes? There are people working 2 and 3 jobs that can't pay the rent or feed their kids. Getting out to protest the injustice we see is DAMN HARD WORK. Perhaps it is beneath you. But it must be done.

Note that all those things happened because people worked with those in power and through the system.

Time and time again I've seen many in the progressive movement take the path that is less likely to invoke change and I've never understood it. Back in college I laid out what I thought was a very solid plan to combat climate change that involved working with energy companies to get them on the side of environmentalists by making it worth their while to do so. They assailed my plan because it involved working with those companies and that greatly disillusioned me for many years. They were more interesting in fighting some designated enemies than actually getting anything done.

 

[acbytesla]

I love how people who endlessly complain about political correctness have a problem with people accurately describing Trump and his crazy moron bigot followers.

The two faced irony is something to behold isn't it? It's like they haven't heard the steady stream of degrading insults and offensive remarks from the leader of their cult.

But somehow we are wrong for pointing out that the remarks are offensive.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not talking activism. I'm talking about uncompromising foolishness.. Moving the needle a little is better than none at all. I'm talking about not just criticizing what is wrong but actually stepping up to make it right.

Obama alluded to Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech. Take the time read it

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

This conversation was initiated by a poster who was clutching his pearls because of the unseemly behavior of some of those activists. By definition, activists are "active". I don't think I could find myself on a convention floor and not shout out... well, something. It's just in my make-up.

It should be noted that in '64 and '65, all we were were a bunch of crazies with modified Ban the Bomb logos talking about some typical American over-reach in Southeast Asia. Shutting up and taking it through channels didn't get the coverage of the war and the anti-war movement that getting out in the streets, causing commotions, getting our heads busted and getting arrested created. Ditto de-segregation. There were fist fights at conventions in the fifties and sixties over the make-up of state delegations.

Yeah, I like Booker. I would've preferred he wasn't interrupted. I'm a proponent of free trade and would prefer a more nuanced discussion of the TPP, but I can't fault those who believe heartily in their ideas and causes from a moment or two of dissonance. How less disturbing that a faction of the Dems visibly argue with other factions than Governor Doughboy whipping up a lynch mob. "Hey, there's a party in agreement. I think I'll vote for the Republican candidate because I won't have to listen to disruptions."

 

[grunion]

I'm not talking activism. I'm talking about uncompromising foolishness.. Moving the needle a little is better than none at all. I'm talking about not just criticizing what is wrong but actually stepping up to make it right.

Obama alluded to Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech. Take the time read it

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

The point you are missing is that protest is an essential part of stepping up to make it right. I don't fault you if you want to wait until election day to have your impact. Maybe you don't care enough/ Maybe you don't have the energy. We are all busy. Some aren't as patient as you appear to be.

Obama also made it clear that he could not accomplish any progressive agenda item unless progressives forced him to. That does not mean by voting. It means by making him uncomfortable.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Wow! A thin skin and disingenuous post.

Not arguments, are they now. Labels. A liar and a pussy.

This is why Hillary is the best candidate? Because I am a liar and a pussy?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I wonder which would make him look worse. Refusing to debate like a little bitch. Or getting destroyed in them.

Chickening out.

 

[grunion]

Note that all those things happened because people worked with those in power and through the system.

I seriously question your knowledge of American History if you think significant change comes from people behaving themselves.

 

[acbytesla]

The Man in the Arena

A small excerpt from a great speech about citizenship.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

 

[grunion]

It's alright. At least you're not latching on to Stein in lieu of Bernie for "ideological/vote your conscience" nonsense.

You think voting your conscience is "nonsense?" How sad for you.

 

[acbytesla]

I seriously question your knowledge of American History if you think significant change comes from people behaving themselves.

Hey, I fought those battles too. Sometimes misbehaving is counterproductive. In fact, most of the time it is. Making it so Hillary loses and Trump wins ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING In fact it sets their priorities back.

Sorry, that is taking activism too far. All it is, is petulance.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I love how people who endlessly complain about political correctness have a problem with people accurately describing Trump and his crazy moron bigot followers.

The two faced irony is something to behold isn't it? It's like they haven't heard the steady stream of degrading insults and offensive remarks from the leader of their cult.

But somehow we are wrong for pointing out that the remarks are offensive.

It's a tactic, very popular on the right at present. If Jihad Jane was attending politics discussions any longer, I credit her with being one of the first here to point it out and remind people of it.

To wit, if you can control the vocabulary, the language, and the tone of the debate, then you have taken control of the debate.

And actually, the exact opposite of ABP's position is taking hold, this is NOT helping Trump. He's trying to equate it to situations like when brain-dead morons caledl the POTUS a Mooslim Kenyan. Yes, that helped Obama because it was so patently full of ****. Smart conservatives were giving good advice when they tried to silence those idiots or distance themselves from them. It hurt the accusers and their associates far more than it hurt Obama, as we all know.

That is quite different from the down and dirty attacks on Trump. They're working. When the chorus of discussion on Trump is led by politicians getting in zingers, comedy writers building twenty minute monologues and skits on his latest buffoonery and the general public, including meek posters on an obscure internet forum, asking every second line, "Who is this *********** lunatic and what has the GOP come to that they could fall for this?"

Why would I, who actually find him to be a dangerous demagogue, tone it down? Treating him with any respect just elevates him from his position of guttersnipe. Why would we want him lifted to "respected opponent", e.g. say Adlai Stevenson meriting better treatment by the Kennedy brothers? Trump hasn't earned anyone's respect, and were I not a borderline pacifist, I'd actually say he merits someone punching him in his smirking visage but being that borderline pacifist, I'll settle for ripping him to shreds figuratively.

 

[acbytesla]

You think voting your conscience is "nonsense?" How sad for you.

Yep, setting your priorities back to keep your conscience clean and pure is NONSENSE.

Voting for Ralph Nader when your vote puts AL Gore in the White House instead of George W. Bush is NONSENSE.

Voting for Jill Stein when your vote puts Hillary Clinton in the White House instead of Donald Trump is NONSENSE.

It's about NOT sacrificing the greater good in exchange for the mirage of unattainable perfection.