[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Hahahaaaaaaaaaa

[tw2113]

In the bern unit at the hospital?

[Drjohnrock]

They probably went to the same place that 1980 third party candidate John Anderson's "new movement" that he said he was inaugurating went--The Land Of Permanent Obscurity. The same thing will happen to Sanders' "revolution" after the election--if not before. Sanders--long time Senator, certainly no outsider--is a lot like Trump: pie in the sky positions, attacking anyone and everyone who isn't him, complaining about how the Democratic Party's election procedures are "rigged" when everything doesn't go exactly his way. If Sanders--a non-Democrat just like Trump is a non-Republican--was so concerned about how "rigged" things were, why wasn't he doing anything about them in the many years before he ran? Sanders supporters, it was never about you or your concerns. It was all about "the Bern" and his ego-driven campaign near the end of a long career as a mostly unknown senator who accomplished little. Good riddance.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

They probably went to the same place that 1980 third party candidate John Anderson's "new movement" that he said he was inaugurating went--The Land Of Permanent Obscurity. The same thing will happen to Sanders' "revolution" after the election--if not before. Sanders--long time Senator, certainly no outsider--is a lot like Trump: pie in the sky positions, attacking anyone and everyone who isn't him, complaining about how the Democratic Party's election procedures are "rigged" when everything doesn't go exactly his way. If Sanders--a non-Democrat just like Trump is a non-Republican--was so concerned about how "rigged" things were, why wasn't he doing anything about them in the many years before he ran? Sanders supporters, it was never about you or your concerns. It was all about "the Bern" and his ego-driven campaign near the end of a long career as a mostly unknown senator who accomplished little. Good riddance.

maybe, but you can't ignore the fact that both bernie from the left and drumpf from the right address popular concerns that "centrist" corporatocrats either a) pretend aren't there, b) promise to cure with remedies that haven't worked (e.g. supply-side economics or identity politics).

sure, the destruction of the american middle class is mainly the product of technology and globalization, and there is little that politicians in the pocket of big business are going to do about it-- but just because those are pie in the sky promises under the current system it doesn't mean that the popular concerns addressed by these promises aren't legitimate.

fdr's new deal wasn't just a response to the great depression-- it was also a way to lure the masses away from the utopian promises of bolshevism. hillary is no fdr and offers only remedial gradualism. Which may be all that is possible. So the enthusiasm for her candidacy comes mostly from a fear of trump, i think.

and trump may be crazy egomaniac fucker who offers scapegoating and grandiosity as a solution, but he knows where people are hurting, calls bullshit on the current political program of both parties, and connects with his audience. hillary's wonkiness is going to get creamed by that. with luck, trump self-destructs first, and fear of him elects hillary.

[evollove]

Bernie is difficult to look at, he is so ugly. He is charmless and has virtually no sense of humor. He is a boring speaker. He is repetitious.

But was he ever wrong?

[tesla69]

Gosh, its been 24 hours, do you think they're doing what the corporate media wants them to?

Bernie won 2 of the 6 primaries, 2 of the other primaries were 51/49 splits.

Only in NJ did she have a very clear win.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

Bernie is difficult to look at, he is so ugly. He is charmless and has virtually no sense of humor. He is a boring speaker. He is repetitious.

But was he ever wrong?

I was looking at him the other day and thought he could have won it all if only he had the ability to keep a straight neck. You know--chin above the shoulders, that sort of thing

As it is however he doesn't look like he'd make it far past the inauguration.

Socrates was also ugly and drank hemlock, but his ideas lived on. Time for Bernie to gather his disciples and make sure his ideas live on as well. Unlike Nader

[ilduclo]

I just hated how he waggled his finger all the time when he talked, but I did vote for him in the primary

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by tesla69

Gosh, its been 24 hours, do you think they're doing what the corporate media wants them to?

Bernie won 2 of the 6 primaries, 2 of the other primaries were 51/49 splits.

Only in NJ did she have a very clear win.

Sounds like sour grapes to me yo

[greenlight]

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by greenlight

 

haa haaa haaa! wanted to rep but couldn't.

chavismo isn't the only alternative to our current situation though

http://www.commondreams.org/further/...al-democracies

[dead_battery]

i am somewhat skeptical about the supposed "lesson" of venezeula.

the poors took power and started redistributing wealth from the oil profits.

the oil profits shrank and now they have chaos.

well, ok, you think if they had done what - let that money stay in the hands of the tiny upper stratum who hated them and tried to kill chavez - that the country wouldn't be collapsing now because they'd have - uh - more private industry or something?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

i am somewhat skeptical about the supposed "lesson" of venezeula.

the poors took power and started redistributing wealth from the oil profits.

the oil profits shrank and now they have chaos.

well, ok, you think if they had done what - let that money stay in the hands of the tiny upper stratum who hated them and tried to kill chavez - that the country wouldn't be collapsing now because they'd have - uh - more private industry or something?

the problem is that "wealth" doesn't work that way. it's not a finite quantity and needs constant creation.

what chavez redistributed instead was... poverty. they basically annihilated every wealth-creating concern in venezuela. seized, mismanaged, and pushed to exile property and systems and talent.

free market and free enterprise are a really good way to create wealth. really. we have ample empirical proof of this. it's actually the wealth-producing societies that can afford the social safety nets. the worker's paradise didn't come to russia but to germany.

the problem is when oligarchies develop and hijack their societies while foregoing their civic responsibilities. this is what's happening in the USA now. it's lunacy.

[dead_battery]

i agree with all of that.

but what you mean by civic responsibilities is... tax - redistribution of wealth to the poor. which is what socialism tries to do.

so in capitalism the rich hijack everything and stop paying tax and investing and you get the same shitty situation

businesses cant exist because money cant be invested. infastructure collapses, white working class lifespan is shrinking, drug and booze are blossoming.

same shit different vampires

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the problem is that "wealth" doesn't work that way. it's not a finite quantity and needs constant creation.

what chavez redistributed instead was... poverty. they basically annihilated every wealth-creating concern in venezuela. seized, mismanaged, and pushed to exile property and systems and talent.

free market and free enterprise are a really good way to create wealth. really. we have ample empirical proof of this. it's actually the wealth-producing societies that can afford the social safety nets. the worker's paradise didn't come to russia but to germany.

the problem is when oligarchies develop and hijack their societies while foregoing their civic responsibilities. this is what's happening in the USA now. it's lunacy.

Yes and no because in almost every instance of supposed "free market success" we see an underlying Keynesianism. Personally i don't buy into any of the myths of free market capitaliam.

What happened to the Soviet Union is the same thing that happened to most Leninist failed economies. It doesn't work for largely underdeveloped agrarian societies. In other words Marxism in principle is fine, its about being properly applied and executed in the right circumstances

And interestingly by most metrics and by most public opinion Russia was better under "Communism"