Takei To Bernie Supporters: End This Family Squabble. Unite Behind Clinton

[Whispering 18,865]

37 minutes ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

 

Maybe Bernie has eclipsed Hillary's actual positions so much that people are forgetting she has been fighting for progress and change in many different sectors of society all of her life and will continue to do so. That being said, voting for Jill stein or not voting at all WILL lead to a Bush-like situation in terms of voting outcome. We can't say definitively that Trump will try to carry out all of the terrible things hes promised to do (especially since some of them are illogical and unconstitutional as well as highly impractical AND ineffective ) or even succeed, but the potential for relatively fast change in a negative manner that harms the economy, the environment, and social standings of groups of people all over the world is more than enough to outweigh trying to make a political statement in my mind. I don't see how other people can't see that (well, I mean I can, I just think this is the wrong time to do it  )

To the argument that bad or outrageous shifts in the political sphere or zeitgeist in general will inform more general citizens, that is surely possible, though it's also important to bring up that changing attitudes over time can occur when more progressive change occurs. Look at the Obama administration. We didn't need Romney or McCain to become president and outlaw Gay Marriage and set back LGBT rights and ignoring everything relating to Global Warming and Climate Change for people to realize that people deserve rights and that Science is a real thing  Changing people's minds, opening them to new ideas and making people have more empathy for each other, etc... these things are happening more rapidly because America is becoming a society where those in power respect those things. That's why it was such a big deal when Obama said he was for gay marriage. I'm merely talking about social issues atm because its easiest off the top of my head, but liberal, progressive ideas and policies in general can gain more traction when people with high authority give them credence; this seems self evident, its literally the reason why people run on party platforms and agendas in the first place.

 

Exactly! Hillary may not be as progressive as Bernie, but they have way more in common than they have policies that differ from one another.

The anti-establishment group is just that...and there isn't much you can do about them. They will either always be that way or they will grow out of it as they become more pragmatic as they age and as they see what can happen when we elect people who set us back, instead of forward. 

Outside of the anti-establishment group, you have millions of liberals who want their country to continue to move in the right direction, even if they aren't getting exactly what they want at this time. They have an opportunity to get involved and make their voice heard in a different way now. They can push the party on the issues that are important to them. 

[Luiz 4,253]

it seems like the foreigners are the ones who get so heated on here about our political races

 

 once trump wins well i bet the country finally gets the kick in its ass to actually pay attention to this **** and prevent electing morons from here on out.

all these democrats i see out here who never vote will definitely vote now. all the unregistered kids who would be democrats will now register and participate and realize that this stuff is actually important. 4 years of crazy asshole and some conservative justices to boot. deal with it. "oh on my rights!" yup you should have cared huh dipshit?  

laugh now cry later

[Whispering 18,865]

16 minutes ago, Didymus said:

And yet you haven't brought a good argument for that statement (which was already off-topic and in no way a reply to what I was saying before). But I'm the one who isn't treating the subject with the consideration it deserves Right.

And oh, now I'm silenced for not living in the U.S. Lovely atmosphere here. Lemme stay away from the political threads in the future. Just writing your simple opinion gets you nothing but off-topic, backhanded slandering apparently.

You aren't silenced, but you don't have options, not to vote. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

You didn't ask me to give examples that were applicable to the situation. And you specifically asked me for "terrible changes" so I gave them. I don't advocate bloodbaths, in fact I stated the French Revolution was a hideous failure people idiotically glorify.

And your revised statement is a mess. "Real progress"? What the ****'s that? I don't even believe in progress, let alone a real one. I believe in change and a new set of factors to respond to. If people call that progress, that's fine for me, I just call it an improvement upon what I identified as a terrible situation.

And by the way, your questions about this are already rooted in the expectation that Trump is going to do something terrible. In all my previous posts the change I was referring to that Trump could bring was a public outrage due to his victory alone. So you pushing this whole thing off-topic and linking it to "terrible changes" in human history just so you can reply to me inevitably replying with something you could "own me with" (if you think I don't see through that strategy, think again) is just lame and desperate.

You started by calling me out for believing that Trump's victory could make a beneficial political shift occur (specifically due to the eruption of political outrage and awareness ànd initiative among ordinary citizens), and now we're debating history and civil war and how awful it is and how that's apparently a good reason to vote for Hillary? Why? Looks like you were better off just accepting my opinion and moving on.

lmao now I understand why we don't agree.

If you consider that progress, then I get why you're voting for Hillary. I disagree completely with that statement. I don't think civilization is the bane of mankind, but I certainly don't think it brought anything good with it either. How can a socially constructed myth even have an impact on something real You might wanna check figurational sociological analyses of where the concept of "civilization" even comes from in the first place and how it has been used for centuries to systematically exploit third world countries in the name of "progress".

Never did that. Nor did I imply that Bernie would solve all my problems. I get that you're projecting delusional Bernie stan logic on me, but trust me, I don't identify with them any more than I identify with your voter's ideology.

K let's cool it before heads roll.

You're right. I wasn't specific. It would be delusional to make the claim that nothing good has ever come from bad. Silver linings and all that.

The issue is that we're not speaking academically here. You needed to provide context that is relevant to the situation. Wars have brought good change, but they always came at an incredible cost that I find unfathomable to justify in modern times. I amended that to include the avoidance of war, but it seems you still take issue with the word "Progress".

First of all you need to make the distinction between "progressiveness" and "progress". How can you possibly no be behind the latter. It makes no sense. You are arguing for progress by claiming that you want change. That's what progress is. I think you're confusing it for liberalism or something.

The next point I want to make is that you are having this mentality of needing a fresh slate as if that can happen without a great deal of instability. To use one example, you can't just tear down banks. You can't just tell people they don't have to pay for anything. You can't possibly work to serve one subset of people while ignoring the livelihoods of millions of others. A simple example is that "breaking up big banks" would essentially drive millions of Americans into unemployment. Do they deserve that?

The best way to deal with the stances is as Hillary says we should, through patience and compromise. You can totally be against the current system while still working with it to get your way. Bernie understood that. He wanted change so he joined politics. He wanted influence so he joined the Democratic party. Why can't his supporters do that too?

Stop demonizing everyone or everything that does not agree with you. This is a glaring issue I see.

Also your condescending statement makes no sense. What's the difference between voting for Hillary or Trump if people are going to be outraged? At least in the former, she doesn't plan to **** over everyone who doesn't agree with her like Trump is. Ironically, you're making the assumption that Hillary is some big evil while telling me I shouldn't assume that Trump isn't. I don't get it.

The reason I brought history into this is because you're telling me that huge change is needed when Trump himself represents the worst that humanity has to offer. I'm not even exaggerating. Have you not seen his policies? Have you not witnessed his demeanour.

It's like you're choosing to be part of a fascist society in order to potentially liberate yourself down the line.

Why not just work with the current system and change it from within without putting everyone through that? Are you really arguing that it is more difficult to inspire change through progress?

I get you're an anarchist, but it doesn't mean you make much sense either.

Your statement regarding civilization is misdirected. Nobody is referring to the nomenclatures of civilization nor nationalistic civilization. Also, your grand generalization about civilization having done nothing good is as fallacious as it can get.

Do you argue that civilized society has not brought with it the benefits of rights, equality, liberty, freedom, justice, among other things? How could you make that claim rationally?

Regarding your final statement, one wonders if you even know what you're arguing about to begin with then. If you so dislike democracy in general, then why are you injecting your opinion in a thread that is purely about democratic politics in America? Your logic is wholly inapplicable. As I said, it's like me trying to insert my opinions regarding confessionalist republic Lebanon unto the USA.

Just come out and admit you're only saying these things to inject some anarchy into this thread. @Luiz does it too. He's actually funny though.

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

5 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Exactly! Hillary may not be as progressive as Bernie, but they have way more in common than they have policies that differ from one another.

The anti-establishment group is just that...and there isn't much you can do about them. They will either always be that way or they will grow out of it as they become more pragmatic as they age and as they see what can happen when we elect people who set us back, instead of forward. 

Outside of the anti-establishment group, you have millions of liberals who want their country to continue to move in the right direction, even if they aren't getting exactly what they want at this time. They have an opportunity to get involved and make their voice heard in a different way now. They can push the party on the issues that are important to them. 

This! 

Those millions of liberals include Bernie supporters who are upset that Bernie will probably not win the nomination shouldn't take that frustration out on the entire country, they should push the democratic party to shoot for higher goals, reach farther, and make more change instead of accepting what is handed to them. Hillary needs to show them that she can be the candidate who will do that.

As someone said, I think it was Bebe in another thread, its not going to be popular to be anti-establishment politically any time soon if ever. Changing "the establishment" for the better is another way of getting the same thing done.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

1. World War II brought Europe together, secured international relations with the U.S. and kept even the possibility of war among its members to a 0.00% risk.

2. The invasion of European countries by Muslim armies brought Greek philosophical scriptures to Western Europe for the first time since antiquity, as well as Arabic scientific thought, which had a massive impact on the progression of Western European mathematics, science, and medicine. Some historians would argue that this shift in cultural interests made secularism possible in the first place.

3. The Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War bankrupted the French government, which resulted in the French Revolution, which was an absolute bloodbath, but is still hailed as a victory for the common people.

4. Terrorism in the last few decades has had an enormous impact on safety regulations, and thousands of terrorist attacks have been prevented by these instances that would never have been given the resources if it weren't for events like 9/11.

Sure, these will never be "good events" but that doesn't mean they don't have any positive outcomes. It's an old saying that something really ****ing bad has to happen before something finally changes, and it never has to go as terribly as the examples I posted above to make a political shift occur in the U.S. during/in response to Trump's presidency. If Trump wins, half the U.S. and all of Europe will be on its head before he can even make his first decision.

I for one would be curious to see what would happen. What I would hope would happen is that people are shocked awake and finally realize they have to start taking politics in their own hands (which is the ideal Bernie personified) instead of letting the system run its course and ruin everything. I would be happy with such a counterreaction and I don't think that's bizarre at all.

Give me one good example in human history where real progress occurred by "stability" and "reason" Look, I agree with you that change is often ugly and revolutions always fail (as did the French Revolution which everyone idolizes like a ****ing idiot), but the point is that some people like me are tired of letting politics run its course while the people are left to sit still, obey, and swallow the terrible decisions that are made by the people who claim to represent them.

Representative democracy is an absolute poison, a disastrous outgrowth of monarchy that is taking its toll on enough levels to ring the alarm. There is no level of "reasonable stability" that is going to make it crumble, since that's exactly the ideology politicians use to defend the systematic exploitation of the ordinary citizen. Some people are sick of it and are fine with suffering the consequences by letting it all explode. Some people prefer that over falling back into the familiar "oh well, there's nothing I can do about it" weakness. I know I do and I'm not demanding anyone to join me. But I am not gonna let some stranger outline my ideology for me.

I don't get that. I was responding to the idea Takei presented about the Democratic party being a united family (apparently led by the matriarch Hillary). I do believe that is a ridiculous idea that has nothing to do with solidarity, in fact, I think it has more to do with the opposite of solidarity.

Eh, whatever. I just said I'd consider it.

Every example you gave was war. How many thousands of people died in all the examples you gave. That is radicalization at its finest. It's ok for the US to be thrown into its "darkest days" under a Trump presidency because it will envoke change. What about all the people that will suffer. Of course who cares about people suffering as long as the ideology of a small group of people is carried out. The same small group who can't even win a primary with the popular vote. It's absurdity. 

Most important:

War or terrorism should not be used as a positive example of anything. The end does not justify the means. 

[Didymus 34,380]

45 minutes ago, just4fun said:

Every example you gave was war. How many thousands of people died in all the examples you gave. That is radicalization at its finest. It's ok for the US to be thrown into its "darkest days" under a Trump presidency because it will envoke change. What about all the people that will suffer. Of course who cares about people suffering as long as the ideology of a small group of people is carried out. The same small group who can't even win a primary with the popular vote. It's absurdity. 

Most important:

War or terrorism should not be used as a positive example of anything. The end does not justify the means. 

Dude, I was asked to give examples of terrible changes in human history. And no, I never implied that Trump winning this election would necessarily have to mean civil or international war to satisfy my need for change, not at all. I would never have brought up the idea of terrible events having positive outcome if it wasn't for LebaneseDude's claiming that I was inventing the possibility of good outcomes happening from changes that aren't desirable at first hand and that those things never happened.

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The next point I want to make is that you are having this mentality of needing a fresh slate as if that can happen without a great deal of instability. To use one example, you can't just tear down banks. You can't just tell people they don't have to pay for anything. You can't possibly work to serve one subset of people while ignoring the livelihoods of millions of others. A simple example is that "breaking up big banks" would essentially drive millions of Americans into unemployment. Do they deserve that?

The best way to deal with the stances is as Hillary says we should, through patience and compromise. You can totally be against the current system while still working with it to get your way. Bernie understood that. He wanted change so he joined politics. He wanted influence so he joined the Democratic party. Why can't his supporters do that too?

Again: you're reading things into my posts that aren't even there, not even implicitly. In fact, I stated explicitly that I don't believe in the idea of an instant "progress" with a simple election, I explicitly distanced myself from the usual delusional Bernie standom.

Not gonna go into the arguments against Bernie because, frankly, they are 100% off-topic and I think it's pretty ****ing whack to debate the "nobody can pay for Bernie's plans" argument AGAIN at THIS point of the ****ing election.

Nor am I impressed with you simply lecturing me into what the best way to "progress" should be. I don't give one jot for patience and compromise when a situation has run out of hand (if a situation has run out of hand is of course entirely up to interpretation). The wound of the quick and precise sword heals faster than long and misguided hacking. On the other hand, though, I do agree that it's perfectly possible to work with the system in order for change to occur - hell, that's the reason I liked Bernie. But now he's not a viable option anymore and I simply don't believe Hillary is going to make enough efforts to make satisfying change happen, that is all.

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also your condescending statement makes no sense. What's the difference between voting for Hillary or Trump if people are going to be outraged? At least in the former, she doesn't plan to **** over everyone who doesn't agree with her like Trump is. Ironically, you're making the assumption that Hillary is some big evil while telling me I shouldn't assume that Trump isn't. I don't get it.

I agree that there's a possibility that the political debate won't end and that outrage will occur when Hillary wins, which is why I said that if I were living in the U.S. I would seriously consider the gains of voting for Trump in comparison to that, and I'm not even the only one who's defending that state of mind. Susan Sarandon, who has been my hero of common sense when talking about the election, said the exact same thing: a choice has to be made, and it's far less obvious than many of you make it out to be. And that choice has to be respected imo instead of talking down to Bernie supporters for not doing what they think is obvious

And oh dear, when I have slammed Hillary in this thread? I have only said she is not an alternative to Bernie to me. Why do you keep making **** up? Like, honest question. I feel like my posts just get exploded in your head. I literally called Trump an idiot who is incapable of running the country in this thread. Show me where I have told you you should assume that Hillary is evil and Trump isn't. Just respond to the issue at hand, what's your problem?

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The reason I brought history into this is because you're telling me that huge change is needed when Trump himself represents the worst that humanity has to offer. I'm not even exaggerating. Have you not seen his policies? Have you not witnessed his demeanour.

It's like you're choosing to be part of a fascist society in order to potentially liberate yourself down the line.

Why not just work with the current system and change it from within without putting everyone through that? Are you really arguing that it is more difficult to inspire change through progress?

Again: not what I said. I said Trump will bring change undoubtedly, a "grotesque of the change Bernie presented" like I said. I have explained time and time again that what I care about most is people's political awareness and initiative being lit up. I don't believe that will happen when Hillary wins, so if I lived in the U.S. I would seriously think of the options that I had, and like it or not, voting for Trump strategically is one of the options. Never did I say that I would make that choice, never did I say that was the right choice, never did I say that I was convinced it was the right choice, so can we please end this unbearable conversation?

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Your statement regarding civilization is misdirected. Nobody is referring to the nomenclatures of civilization nor nationalistic civilization. Also, your grand generalization about civilization having done nothing good is as fallacious as it can get.

Do you argue that civilized society has not brought with it the benefits of rights, equality, liberty, freedom, justice, among other things? How could you make that claim rationally?

Again: never said that. I said that the process of "civilizing" was just a neutral progression of events like any other, not good or bad (or better said: the good and the bad outbalancing each other) and I don't believe in its value as a term referring to more than that. I think it's very strange that people refer to it to include rights and equality movements etc. because in my opinion that obscures the actual historical processes that initiated those movements and made them succeed. To just let "civilization" take the crown feels like a betrayal to me, since those movements have always been in response to the status quo. "Civilization" in the West since the late Middle Ages meant homophobia, misogyny and a never-ending expansion of warfare technology. One of the outcomes of "civilization" was World War I & II. Do you consider that part of it too or doesn't that count? I just don't find the term appealing for those reasons and I think that's a very valid argument against it actually

Also, to imply that rights, equality, liberty, freedom, justice etc. had no means to exist before "civilization" in the usual meaning of the word (which I'm not even sure is yours because you're not defining it) is ludicrous. You're giving into the narrative of civilization being some superhuman made structure raised on top of barbaric sentimentality that has no authority to exist, which is exactly the narrative I was referring to when I said that the cultural myth of "civilization" has been used time and time again to subordinate cultures that didn't fit the model of that so-called "civilization". I can believe in the concepts you listed perfectly without encapsulating them into the "civilization" model we live in, the model that pushes millions of its citizens into depression, malnutrition and other health-related atrocities, suicide, and outdated instances of "justice" that refuse to adapt to the facts that science has brought us for over a century now.

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Regarding your final statement, one wonders if you even know what you're arguing about to begin with then. If you so dislike democracy in general, then why are you injecting your opinion in a thread that is purely about democratic politics in America? Your logic is wholly inapplicable. As I said, it's like me trying to insert my opinions regarding confessionalist republic Lebanon unto the USA.

Again, where did I say I disliked democracy? I did raise issues against representational democracy (I think many would agree with me that it is a system that only benefits the wealthy and powerful) but that doesn't mean I think democracy as a whole is a failure.

I don't get why I'm being silenced again, to be honest. The only reason I'm debating democracy is because you couldn't skip past my very simple opinion without slamming unrelated topics and unnecessary weights on it. I live in a democratic country and I know it is impossible as of yet to propose another model practically and I am far too lazy and uninspired to try that, so I settle for the model we have and hope for the best. If you read anything else in my posts then you had already made up your mind about me before you tried to understand where I came from. Just like Takei

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Again: you're reading things into my posts that aren't even there, not even implicitly. In fact, I stated explicitly that I don't believe in the idea of an instant "progress" with a simple election, I explicitly distanced myself from the usual delusional Bernie standom.

Not gonna go into the arguments against Bernie because, frankly, they are 100% off-topic and I think it's pretty ****ing whack to debate the "nobody can pay for Bernie's plans" argument AGAIN at THIS point of the ****ing election.

They are not off-topic when this topic is about trying to appeal to those refusing to support anyone but Bernie.

I'm glad that you don't follow the same rhetoric. How about you apply it?

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Nor am I impressed with you simply lecturing me into what the best way to "progress" should be. I don't give one jot for patience and compromise when a situation has run out of hand (if a situation has run out of hand is of course entirely up to interpretation). The wound of the quick and precise sword heals faster than long and misguided hacking. On the other hand, though, I do agree that it's perfectly possible to work with the system in order for change to occur - hell, that's the reason I liked Bernie. But now he's not a viable option anymore and I simply don't believe Hillary is going to make enough efforts to make satisfying change happen, that is all.

 

The situation has not run out of hand. You're making the implication that the USA is in some unique mess. It's always been a mess, and not due to politics.

Well there you go. You don't "believe" she will make an effort, despite her not having proven otherwise. Feel free to browse her catalogue to see how she puts more effort into everything than many of you claim. The mere fact that she's the first SoS to visit over a hundred nations during her tenure says a lot about her commitment for cooperation and dialogue. Her efforts to secure Obama's presidency says a ****-ton about her commitment to the values she holds dear above her own personal pride and ego.

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

And oh dear, when I have slammed Hillary in this thread? I have only said she is not an alternative to Bernie to me. Why do you keep making **** up? Like, honest question. I feel like my posts just get exploded in your head. I literally called Trump an idiot who is incapable of running the country in this thread. Show me where I have told you you should assume that Hillary is evil and Trump isn't. Just respond to the issue at hand, what's your problem?

Again: not what I said. I said Trump will bring change undoubtedly, a "grotesque of the change Bernie presented" like I said. I have explained time and time again that what I care about most is people's political awareness and initiative being lit up. I don't believe that will happen when Hillary wins, so if I lived in the U.S. I would seriously think of the options that I had, and like it or not, voting for Trump strategically is one of the options. Never did I say that I would make that choice, never did I say that was the right choice, never did I say that I was convinced it was the right choice, so can we please end this unbearable conversation?

 

You literally came out and said that she represents stasis when her entire platform is about change. You're essentially slamming her current position.

Then there's the mere fact that you are claiming she is not an alternative constitutes slamming. When she shares virtually the same platform except for her methodologies, making the grand gesture that she is not an acceptable alternative speaks of your own viewpoints on her capacity for change. You are essentially doubting her capabilities. You don't have to literally call her out to slam her. That's the entire point of mature discussions.

I'll cease talking about this particular issue if you're inclined then. Just be aware that people's lack of political awareness is the very reason Hillary is seen as she is by many of Bernie's supporters. Just look at examples in this very thread for how ignorant some people are, intentionally or not, about her.

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Again: never said that. I said that the process of "civilizing" was just a neutral progression of events like any other, not good or bad (or better said: the good and the bad outbalancing each other) and I don't believe in its value as a term referring to more than that. I think it's very strange that people refer to it to include rights and equality movements etc. because in my opinion that obscures the actual historical processes that initiated those movements and made them succeed. To just let "civilization" take the crown feels like a betrayal to me, since those movements have always been in response to the status quo. "Civilization" in the West since the late Middle Ages meant homophobia, misogyny and a never-ending expansion of warfare technology. One of the outcomes of "civilization" was World War I & II. Do you consider that part of it too or doesn't that count? I just don't find the term appealing for those reasons and I think that's a very valid argument against it actually

Also, to imply that rights, equality, liberty, freedom, justice etc. had no means to exist before "civilization" in the usual meaning of the word (which I'm not even sure is yours because you're not defining it) is ludicrous. You're giving into the narrative of civilization being some superhuman made structure raised on top of barbaric sentimentality that has no authority to exist, which is exactly the narrative I was referring to when I said that the cultural myth of "civilization" has been used time and time again to subordinate cultures that didn't fit the model of that so-called "civilization". I can believe in the concepts you listed perfectly without encapsulating them into the "civilization" model we live in, the model that pushes millions of its citizens into depression, malnutrition and other health-related atrocities, suicide, and outdated instances of "justice" that refuse to adapt to the facts that science has brought us for over a century now.

Too much rationalization. Who do you think you are talking to?

Civilization at its most basic level is humans banding together in a massive scale under a common banner rather than resort to tribal or individual identities.Do you have a different meaning?

Civilization is a human construct and it evolves based on its people. Even still, it is the framework that allows humans to achieve their greatest potential.

Do you believe otherwise? Tell me how humans can reach their potential outside of civilization? 

Also the notions probably existed, but they were often limited to the echelons of higher society. Even today in the Middle East, those concepts differ from Western ones. Uneducated women in Lebanon for example tend to view themselves as lacking liberty and often righteously so. Do you believe it is civilized for women to have less rights in our current framework of civilization?

I find it odd that you so readily dismiss civilization's positive impact while then listing the negative ones as if they remotely outweigh them. 

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Again, where did I say I disliked democracy? I did raise issues against representational democracy (I think many would agree with me that it is a system that only benefits the wealthy and powerful) but that doesn't mean I think democracy as a whole is a failure.

I don't get why I'm being silenced again, to be honest. The only reason I'm debating democracy is because you couldn't skip past my very simple opinion without slamming unrelated topics and unnecessary weights on it. I live in a democratic country and I know it is impossible as of yet to propose another model practically and I am far too lazy and uninspired to try that, so I settle for the model we have and hope for the best. If you read anything else in my posts then you had already made up your mind about me before you tried to understand where I came from. Just like Takei

....There are only two types of democracy. Representative and direct (true).

You tell me you have issues with representational democracy. That means you want true democracy while ignoring all the glaring problems it has in a heterogeneous society like the USA. Direct representation may work elsewhere such as in Europe, but not in the USA.

So what's the point of injecting your opinion on the failures of American democracy then? Use the proper context. It's the people not the ideology. Your anarchist leanings won't solve them.

-----

I'm not silencing you. I don't have nor do I want that power. We're having a conversation and we're exchanging our thoughts. Quit playing the victim. 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'm glad that you don't follow the same rhetoric. How about you apply it?

Does that mean vote for Hillary?

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The situation has not run out of hand. You're making the implication that the USA is in some unique mess. It's always been a mess, and not due to politics.

I said it was up to interpretation. I'm not talking about the U.S. specifically even, I just look to the U.S. political landscape to make an impact on how things go in the rest of the world. The issues Bernie supporters are passionate about are relevant for a lot of European countries, hence the massive support he gained here. Many people, esp. many teenagers, are fed up with the way the governing system is organized, and there are many people who are willing to actively be engaged in making change happen in a way that our political system right now doesn't allow. Many see Bernie as a first step to that kind of progress, and many sadly see it as the last step too, but not me.

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well there you go. You don't "believe" she will make an effort, despite her not having proven otherwise. Feel free to browse her catalogue to see how she puts more effort into everything than many of you claim. The mere fact that she's the first SoS to visit over a hundred nations during her tenure says a lot about her commitment for cooperation and dialogue. Her efforts to secure Obama's presidency says a ****-ton about her commitment to the values she holds dear above her own personal pride and ego.

I'm not doubting her work ethic, I just don't think for a second her allegiance lies with the people. She is a woman hungry for power (as are all presidential candidates, I'm not deluding myself) and I respect that and even admire that, especially given the sacrifices she's made in her life, incl. her personal life, to keep travelling to the top, but I don't need to vote for someone to prove I respect her in that way. I want the political landscape to evolve a certain way and no, based on what I'm seeing (esp. the genuinely, imo, shocking amount of blatant lies and contradictions she's displayed) I don't think she would make that happen in a way that I'd find most satisfying. I don't trust Bernie 100% either, but I did believe he would, by the very symbolic power of his victory alone, usher political awareness among citizens all over the world into a new vibe.

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Tell me how humans can reach their potential outside of civilization? 

I don't claim to know that, nor have I.

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also the notions probably existed, but they were often limited to the echelons of higher society. Even today in the Middle East, those concepts differ from Western ones. Lesser education women in Lebanon for example tend to view themselves as lacking liberty and often righteously so. Do you believe it is civilized for women to have less rights in the modern world?

I find it odd that you so readily dismiss civilization's positive impact while then listing the negative ones as if they remotely outweigh them. 

I believe that previous phases in "civilization" have systematically endorsed the idea of women having less rights than men. Which is why I said I don't like to use the term for movements that go against the status quo, that just doesn't make sense to me because that term clouds the very distinction between the two critical phases: the status quo that oppressed certain social groups and the updated status quo assimilating their protests. I'm more comfortable referring to specific movements and their outcome than referring to "civilization". I never use that word in daily language and to be fair, I don't think I ever heard it in that context, except when people try to talk about how good we actually have it here compared to some remote past or area. I think that's see-through and misleading.

I don't dismiss the freedoms we are able to indulge in in my own society, but I find babbling about victories a waste of my time when there are still enough troubles to warrant attention and action. And there are. And that's enough for me to direct my attention to them and think them over, and I don't consider that pessimism.

14 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'm not silencing you. We're having a conversation and we're exchanging our thoughts. Quit playing the victim. 

Let's revisit some of your posts then.

"one wonders if you even know what you're arguing about to begin with then"

"why are you injecting your opinion in [this] thread"

"Your logic is wholly inapplicable"

"Just come out and admit you're only saying these things to inject some anarchy into this thread"

"You're making things up to rationalize your stance."

+ about a 1000 remarks about things I didn't say and assumptions about opinions I haven't expressed and don't possess (for example, a "Grass is Greener" syndrome, an endorsement of bloodbaths, a love for fascist regimes, an opposition against democracy proper, demonizing of Hillary and glorification of Trump,...)

I don't mind defending my opinions, but I do hope you're aware that this conversation is only happening and continuing because you settle for calling my opinions illogical, flat out wrong, morally reprehensible, unnecessary and ignorant without giving any good counterarguments (which I don't need btw because I'm not claiming to know any sort of truth you can counter - I'm just explaining my own stance on the issue of Bernie supporters having to feel obliged to vote for another Democrat by default).

So no, we are not exchanging thoughts. You are demanding me to lay my thoughts out on the table to bash and misrepresent them. The connecting thread between your posts is that you think I have unacceptable views on just about every subject connected to social organization. And as you have noticed, I'm fine with disagreeing. But I'm not fine with you trying to damage me by inventing stuff I said just to feel like you're somehow in control of the conversation.

My stance in the first post hasn't changed. If I lived in the U.S. I would seriously consider other options (than voting for Hillary) based on my own worldviews and thoughts about the political landscape and where I'd like it to go. The fact that you take such offense with that (or, I should say, all my opinions about quite unrelated topics, at least in the context of my first post) is a compliment, I guess, since I don't think what I'm saying is very interesting or whatever, it's just my personal opinion and I never presented it as more than that.

So I can carry on, but honestly, what's the point anymore. You're gonna disagree and I'm gonna have to defend myself against my own words which I didn't say to clarify my original opinion I already stated many pages ago. Yawn.

[Gia 39]

The same two people keep posting Anti-Bernie, and vote for Hillary Clinton or else Trump will win blah blah blah rhetoric. Hillary & Trump are like two peas in a pod ..Both are shitty results from our poor voting system, and not enough people being educated on what's going on in our country.

Hillary has continued to brag on her Hawkish behavior on wanting us to have a No Fly Zone, Which both Obama & Bernie think is a bad idea. Do you honestly think a no fly zone would be good? Because that's how you start a war with Russia. 

She also stated that she would use more muscle with Iran & Israel.. She was for the Iraq war, and she was also a major part of the U.S intervention with constant regime change in Libya and Syria. Those regime changes have resulted in helping terrorist cell groups like ISIS. She proudly totes taking advice from Harry Kissinger!

Hillary Clinton doesn't care about helping the middle class, regulating the banks. She doesn't care about Black, or LGBT rights. The only thing she cares about is her career as a neo-liberalist politician that has aided in the destruction of the middle class.

If you don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump. Then please vote third party, and help them get public funding!

Jill Stein 2016 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

4 hours ago, Whispering said:

This does have a great deal to do with this thinking...age. That's why you see an uptick in support starting at age 25 and up. The brain is completely developed by age 25 and people begin thinking more globally and less impulsively. If you jump to those who are 30-35 and above, you have people who actually lived through the Bush years as adults and saw the results of those years. They have seen the progress we have had with a Democratic President, despite a Republican controlled congress. They know that a Republican President with a Republican controlled congress is a frightening scenario and one that is likely to set us back and reverse any progress we have made. 

ME!!!!!!  *waving hand fervently*   I am 31 going on 32 later this year & BELIEVEEEEEE me when I say I lived *consciously* and was definitely politically aware through the Bush years & I most say they were TRULY god damn awful!!!  Living through that utterly disastrous administration really did open my eyes, and shape the views & outlook I have upon the world until this very day...  I also agree with the statement you made about the brain reaching its development at a particular age.  Which would explain a lot of the people(like I aforementioned) on this forum.  Not saying that the people on here are immature(some are), or that they do not understand politics(some don't), or that they are dumb, or politically unaware...  But from what I can see & my personal vantage point, they DO lack from seeing things overarchingly and as a whole...  They also seem to fail to know history very well in some cases or put things into necessary context.  Maybe this comes with age & experience as well...  But being able to see & understand everything in the Grand Scheme of things...  they do not!     I also refuse to let some people who are new to voting, or new to politics in general try and convince me that Hillary Clinton is an evil demon of some sort from the pits of Hell...  Smh   Especially since I grew up with her in the 90's & know very differently...