greetings from the south

Hello all. I've been looking for a place to engage in more serious political discussion, and hopefully I've found it. Most discussion of politics on the Internet is just memes and trolling, there's very little substance. Sadly, I do see that there seems to be quite a bit of that here, as well. I guess it's unavoidable to some extent.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what I'd call myself, politically speaking. I can tell you that I'm somewhere near Bernie Sanders, but maybe left on some issues, and a tad right on a couple others. I would definitely NOT describe myself as a socialist in any strict sense, just as Bernie is also not a socialist.

Hopefully there's some good discussions to have and lots to learn here. :mrgreen:

Welcome aboard.

Welcome... I hope you like it here and make it your home.

.

Welcome aboard nekrodev eace

nekrodev said:

I would definitely NOT describe myself as a socialist in any strict sense, just as Bernie is also not a socialist.

Click to expand...

Last place I expected to ever run across this.
HA! I was thinking I might be the only other person who doesn't think Sanders is socialist but apparently the truth is I need to get out more.

Yeah, I think Bernie is just doing a modern day FDR ticket for the most part.
But in a world where today some folks are even saying they're not big fans of democracy, it stands to reason some folks think Bernie and Obama are both socialists.

But I have a theory as to why Bernie still says he's a socialist, despite not being one since he first set foot on Capitol Hill.
He's in love with the romanticized story of his youth, the almost-Arthurian 1960's counterculture legend and terrible carpenter who lived in a house with a dirt floor in Vermont in the winter, and didn't seem to mind.
THAT WAS BERNIE when he was SOCIALIST.

And that's enough out of me, don't want to trash up the Say Hi Thread with this when it can be picked up in the poli-forums.

Cheers, mate.

I've already seen you around, and this thread is a few weeks old, but hello, nonetheless.

Before Facebook, memes weren't really a thing . . . I think. I never saw any of that when I was posting on gaming forums years ago, but then again, those weren't geared towards politics.

Memes are what people post when they only understand simple, one-line rhetoric, and don't have the capacity to make a substantive arguement all by their lonesome. They probably think that a picture with a sarcastic caption is a 'mic-drop', but it's really just a signal to everyone else that they simply aren't terribly bright.

As for whatever you call yourself . . . nobody really agrees with everyone, so of course you're going to have a few issue stances that veer off into the woods. Even if we generally support most of the same policies, or similar policies, that doesn't meant the the underlying philosphy is exactly the same.

DH Kirkwood said:

I've already seen you around, and this thread is a few weeks old, but hello, nonetheless.

Before Facebook, memes weren't really a thing . . . I think. I never saw any of that when I was posting on gaming forums years ago, but then again, those weren't geared towards politics.

Memes are what people post when they only understand simple, one-line rhetoric, and don't have the capacity to make a substantive arguement all by their lonesome. They probably think that a picture with a sarcastic caption is a 'mic-drop', but it's really just a signal to everyone else that they simply aren't terribly bright.

As for whatever you call yourself . . . nobody really agrees with everyone, so of course you're going to have a few issue stances that veer off into the woods. Even if we generally support most of the same policies, or similar policies, that doesn't meant the the underlying philosphy is exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you want to eat Bill Maher's face. That's a textual meme, isn't it? :lamo
Hee hee.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Yeah but you want to eat Bill Maher's face. That's a textual meme, isn't it? :lamo
Hee hee.

Click to expand...

I've been meaning to change that. At first, I found it amusing that some people would look at that and think, "What the hell?", but it no longer amuses me, and I'm bored of it. I used to regularly watch Real Time clips via YouTube, but I became disgusted with Bill after the primary, when he completely flipped on Berniecrats. It wouldn't have bothered me so much if that was the position he started with, but he actually seemed to contradict much of what he said in the past--he was for a crazy left until he was against it, and he wanted to explain democratic-socialism before he started talking down to young progressives. The signature was basically a response to a segment he did where he declared that the left should stop 'eating each other'. I'm not even remotely done holding the establishment's feet to the fire.

DH Kirkwood said:

I've been meaning to change that. At first, I found it amusing that some people would look at that and think, "What the hell?", but it no longer amuses me, and I'm bored of it. I used to regularly watch Real Time clips via YouTube, but I became disgusted with Bill after the primary, when he completely flipped on Berniecrats. It wouldn't have bothered me so much if that was the position he started with, but he actually seemed to contradict much of what he said in the past--he was for a crazy left until he was against it, and he wanted to explain democratic-socialism before he started talking down to young progressives. The signature was basically a response to a segment he did where he declared that the left should stop 'eating each other'. I'm not even remotely done holding the establishment's feet to the fire.

Click to expand...

I'm not done either but what's good for the goose is good for the gander and frankly, some parts of the "WOKE" segment of the Left are starting to irritate me too. They seem obsessed with finding things to be offended about, even to the point where they are more offended than the people who should be offended. The Left ARE eating each other. He has a point.

And Bernie? I still love Bernie but come on, does he really need to die on the hill called "Imprisoned Violent Felons Must Vote"?

Talk about not choosing battles carefully, the biggest reason it was dumb for him to double down on that is that it IS A STATE ISSUE.
It has always been a state issue, the Constitution itself DEFINES it as a state issue. The Federal Government does not get to have a say in it and never has. That's part of the Tenth Amendment fer chrissakes.
Bernie should have known enough to simply say that it's a state issue and that although he feels prisoners deserve the vote, it is ultimately decided by the states unless a constitutional amendment changes it...THE END.
But no, he's going to chew on this the way a dog chews on a bone while everyone else is focused on issues that WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT.
And that's just one example.

Sorry, but it's just silly, and compared to Bernie's appearance on Fox, or his town hall in Kentucky with the coal miners, it is dragging HIM down, and he's HELPING.

You want to hold the establishment's feet to the fire? I'll gladly help you.
And if Bernie awakes from his reverie over violent felons being denied the vote and remembers that there are thousands of other more important issues to think about, I'll have his back again. I could vote for Bernie....IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY.
And right now, it's about winning the primary.

And why can't Bill Maher change his mind anyway? Is that a crime that he has changed his position on something? I don't understand.
I don't think Bill's positions on social democracy and democratic socialism have changed, I think he's just looking at the situation in a practical manner.

DH Kirkwood said:

I've already seen you around, and this thread is a few weeks old, but hello, nonetheless.

Before Facebook, memes weren't really a thing . . . I think. I never saw any of that when I was posting on gaming forums years ago, but then again, those weren't geared towards politics.

Memes are what people post when they only understand simple, one-line rhetoric, and don't have the capacity to make a substantive arguement all by their lonesome. They probably think that a picture with a sarcastic caption is a 'mic-drop', but it's really just a signal to everyone else that they simply aren't terribly bright.

As for whatever you call yourself . . . nobody really agrees with everyone, so of course you're going to have a few issue stances that veer off into the woods. Even if we generally support most of the same policies, or similar policies, that doesn't meant the the underlying philosphy is exactly the same.

Click to expand...

ty ^_^

meme's have definitely been around longer than facebook or twitter, but they've definitely changed due to the evolution of social media. we had memes on every message board i was ever a part of. back then, we would've probably called them inside jokes, or something, since it was a smaller community, generally, but it was the same premise - a picture w/ captions, or an image that was always on standby to toss as a reply or reaction to another post.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I'm not done either but what's good for the goose is good for the gander and frankly, some parts of the "WOKE" segment of the Left are starting to irritate me too. They seem obsessed with finding things to be offended about, even to the point where they are more offended than the people who should be offended. The Left ARE eating each other. He has a point.

Click to expand...

What's good for the goose is maybe "not bad" for the gander, but not necessarily good. Centrist and center-right, establishment Dems might not really be bad, they're still for civil rights and stuff, which is cool, but they're not going to actually fix the things that need fixing, because they're in on the gag. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done anything to hold Wall Street accountable for what they do. Joe Biden isn't going to do much to push for any major green energy solutions. Obama was never going to push for a single payer healthcare system, and most of the Dems are still in those same boats.

As for the "woke" people, that's a tiny minority and no one should pay them any attention. The right already hurts themselves by portraying them as the face of the Democratic party and leftists.

If any people on "the left" are eating the others, it's the corporate, establishment Dems doing the eating. They're constantly firing at Bernie and trying to placate Republicans, even though we all know the Republicans don't give a single **** about compromising with them.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

And Bernie? I still love Bernie but come on, does he really need to die on the hill called "Imprisoned Violent Felons Must Vote"?

Talk about not choosing battles carefully, the biggest reason it was dumb for him to double down on that is that it IS A STATE ISSUE.
It has always been a state issue, the Constitution itself DEFINES it as a state issue. The Federal Government does not get to have a say in it and never has. That's part of the Tenth Amendment fer chrissakes.
Bernie should have known enough to simply say that it's a state issue and that although he feels prisoners deserve the vote, it is ultimately decided by the states unless a constitutional amendment changes it...THE END.
But no, he's going to chew on this the way a dog chews on a bone while everyone else is focused on issues that WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT.
And that's just one example.

Sorry, but it's just silly, and compared to Bernie's appearance on Fox, or his town hall in Kentucky with the coal miners, it is dragging HIM down, and he's HELPING.

You want to hold the establishment's feet to the fire? I'll gladly help you.
And if Bernie awakes from his reverie over violent felons being denied the vote and remembers that there are thousands of other more important issues to think about, I'll have his back again. I could vote for Bernie....IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY.
And right now, it's about winning the primary.

Click to expand...

ugh, this is just a mess. his "Imprisoned Violent Felons Must Vote" hill, as you put it, was an answer in response to a question. It's not like it's a giant bullet point on his agenda just below Medicare-for-All. it's probably not even in the top 10. I really wish people would stop latching on to **** like this. It makes you look like Fox News. And speaking of Fox News, that appearance was recent, and he's still going all over the country holding town halls and meeting with people. He was just in my town the other week and had a really good event with local minority leaders and community organizers. But, no major media outlets covered that, of course. "Bernie comes together with people of color in the South" doesn't sound as good as "Bernie wants rapists to vote", eh?

If Bernie doesn't win the primary, you may as well get your pitchforks and torches together, because our democracy is finished. It won't be because he didn't deserve it, or didn't have the support of the people, it will be because of big money interests and corruption in our political system.

I've been meaning to respond to Checkerboard on this subject, but I think that you've already touched upon anything that I might say.

At the end of the day, however, we all have slight differences in opinion on how the progressive wing of the Democratic party should move forward, and we should draw those lines in the sand, while a primary is still going on, while we're still deciding amongst ourselves who is better to face President Orangutan. I hope that we all remember that we're actually on the same side in that.

DH Kirkwood said:

I've been meaning to respond to Checkerboard on this subject, but I think that you've already touched upon anything that I might say.

At the end of the day, however, we all have slight differences in opinion on how the progressive wing of the Democratic party should move forward, and we should draw those lines in the sand, while a primary is still going on, while we're still deciding amongst ourselves who is better to face President Orangutan. I hope that we all remember that we're actually on the same side in that.

Click to expand...

If Bernie wins the primary, color me a Bernie supporter, and he has my vote and full confidence, okay?
If Uncle Fester wins, same thing.

That said, I only mentioned the Imprisoned Felons Can Vote issue because he doubled down on it and the fact is, it's an incorrect response for one simple reason: The President can't influence that policy directly. It is a state matter as prescribed in the Constitution, and Bernie should have shot it down when the reporter first asked, and he should have shot it down the second and third time, too.

He can state whatever his views are on the matter till the cows come home but the fact is, short of a Constitutional amendment, he can't do anything about it unless he can twist the arms of all fifty governors and their state legislatures at the same time.

It was a dumb question and an inaccurate one, and he is smart enough to know that, or at least I would think he is.
So it's bad optics, and I don't sound like Fox News, I sound like Admiral Ackbar.

I suppose that it's not something that's concerned me as much, because I actually have, and expect to disagree with Sander's views and decisions from time to time. I don't like his silence on Assange's arrest, but I think that about half the left-leaners on this board would disagree with me on that one. That said, I don't think I actually disagree with him on this stance, though you're probably right about him grabbing the idiot ball. I'll pretty much always support any move towards becoming more Democratic, extending voting rights, that sort of thing. I would even encourage Trump supporters to vote, if not drive them to the polls, myself. I support extending voting rights to the absolute worst people in the U.S., not out of any sort of compassion for these people, but because I'm wary of any scenario where we end up with an excuse to exclude votes.

I realize that a lot of people would be appalled by my perspective, and I hope this doesn't harm in the primary, but if it does, then so be it. The way Bernie will end up losing my support, if he ever does, is if and when he turns his back on his convictions. There are certain policy stances that are either deal-makers or deal-breakers for me, and PAC money is chief among them. I'll still vote for any nominees that are beholden to corporate donors, give less-than-perfect answers on the medicare-for-all issue, and who do not support raising the minimum wage to fifteen bucks an hour, but I won't like it, and I'm not going to support them in the primary.

Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren are perfectly fine candidates in my book. It wouldn't leave a sour taste in my mouth to vote for either of these women, as it would if I were forced to vote for Harris, Booker, Biden, or Butigeig. Warren's appearance on TYT was disapointing, but not enough so to get me to stop thinking of her as one of, by far, the best candidates in the race. If she were to win, I'd breath a sigh of relief that it happened to be one of the three candidates that I consider to be truly progressive. Aside from a few missteps, another reason I'm not giving her top billing in my support is simply because I beleive Sanders still has quite a lot of momentum built up from the last election. I suspect that there's a good chance that he might pass during his first term, but I don't really care so long as his running mate is similar enough in their policy stances.

I think this conversation sprouted out of my criticism of Maher. To be clear, I wasn't simply mad at him for critisizing Sanders. I would like to think that I'm not quite that petty. What first got me hot under the collar was actually Maher's criticism of Sander's supporters, and that it seemed to happen on a dime. Back then, I was actually defending him from people who griped every time Maher didn't have Sanders on his show, but very soon after the primary was over, he did a segment where he chastised progressives as pining for Santa Clause. It was one of those occasions where I couldn't tell whether or not he was being a comedian, or being serious.

And yes, the left is eating itself. I don't mean to contest that at all. I do, however, challenge the notion that it shouldn't be happening. After losing a billion and eleventy-four seats under Obama, after watching the Democrats chase after the Republicans as they run straight off a cliff, after watching Hillary Clinton lose the EC to Trump--something that shouldn't have been possible even without the support of some die-hard progressives, I feel that conservative branch of the Democratic party is holding us back

Welcome to DP, we are more or less neighbors.

DH Kirkwood said:

Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren are perfectly fine candidates in my book.

Click to expand...

Gabbard is far too conservative on many issues. She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she is soft on Vladimir Putin (a female Rand Paul), and has a history of anti-LGBT rhetoric.

Rogue Valley said:

Gabbard is far too conservative on many issues. She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she is soft on Vladimir Putin (a female Rand Paul), and has a history of anti-LGBT rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Weak.

She's long-since renounced her former LGBT views, I don't think we should be going to war with Assad any more than she does, and I'm very, very, very lukewarm on Russiagate.

Anybody who wants to participate in regime change or saber-rattle against a rival super-power just because it's suddently politically convienant to do so, is too god damned neocon in my book.

Yeah, Tulsi has some baggage, but she's always voted in the right direction, despite her beliefs (or former beliefs), and we could really use more of her foreign policy vision in our government.

Rogue Valley said:

Gabbard is far too conservative on many issues. She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she is soft on Vladimir Putin (a female Rand Paul), and has a history of anti-LGBT rhetoric.

Click to expand...

The anti-LGBT rhetoric was quite some time ago, and since then, her views have changed. her voting record about that subject is much more inline with modern thinking these days. On that subject, she has 'evolved', like many others.