2016's Populist Insurgency Will Be With Us for Years to Come

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
But I take it you're not familiar with how Twitter or Facebook work.

What, this is Twitter or FB? huh.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Bernie supporters are associated with a socialist economic plan.

Yes, we know. The one that runs on rainbow farts and pixie dust.

The SJWs and PC brigade are all Hillary's.

Uhh... no. Millenials are the snowflake brigade. Hillary has the feminists and other assorted legacy civil rights gestapos.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm a millennial and I'm hardly what you'd associate with a snowflake.

If you knew me that is.


Gestapo, heh, that's a good one.

This isn't the Mud Pit!!!!

Continued political trolling may result in further post removals....and posting bans.....You are responsible for your own posts.

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: projectvxn
This is all assuming Bernie wasn't part of the scam to begin with.

Yeah, he did roll over and sell out awful easily, didn't he? You have a good point there. This is political theatre and they are all just actors. It would be nice to know who the "directors" actually are, maybe this horrible play could come to an end?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Teikiatsu
I'm a millennial and I'm hardly what you'd associate with a snowflake.

If you knew me that is.

*shrug* I can't read your mind nor see into your heart.

But millenials are the main promoters of inane terms like white privilege, safe spaces, micro-aggression and -inequity, cultural appropriation, hetero-normative/cis-gender, rape culture, among others.

Gah I felt brain cells shrivel a little just typing that crap.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

We are the directors. Politicians play for us. Or, as they see us.

Populists, in particular.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Apart from the inequity part I'm with you.


I pay no attention to that other trash.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Isn't it obvious? Phage brought up a fairly good point:

We are the directors. At the end of the day we choose not to do anything about corruption because it may hurt our ability to win the fight. No matter what side you're on politically, if you're so invested, it is about throwing the first punch in order to ensure the fight has been won. It was never about who was right in the first place.


We do it to ourselves. The easy(and probably correct) explanation is that these people were always corrupt. They have no puppet masters and they are simply a product of our own(read We the People) inability or unwillingness to stamp them out as it would mean that the side we choose could very well lose the fight.

We aren't being very good to each other and we sure as hell aren't interested in voting for a future we can be proud to leave to our children.

Totally off subject but a thumbs up to Buzzy for this thread. I hope the Bernouts ( and I mean that endearingly )do keep fighting.I/We can only hope. But..... I truly haven't read something that made me laugh out loud so much in a long time.

Thank you to the crew for some wonderful replies,. You've made a rather shocking election cycle amusing for a change.

Bravo

Drunk posytng again so I refuse to fix all typos I missed the first time around.

If this thread would have been about the impact Trump has had on this election and the general dissatisfied mood in this nation, I would have agreed that change is in the works.

But instead, it's about Bernie Sanders. That's epic.

In five years the old semi-socialist dude will be the answer to a trivia question :" what presidential candidate inspire a social media 'revolution' and then betrayed his followers by fully turning and supporting the establishment?"

Sander's name is already fading from public perception, and most of his supporters are busy being 'insurgents' by playing Pokemon-go. He managed to capture a tiny bit of left over , unsettled Ron Paul-ish spirit real early on before the grown-ups( and the TRUE populist angst) defected to Trump.

Nope, Bernie isn't the spark you guys are looking for. The spark IS out there, but with the entire slobbering media driven world united against him. The ONLY hope for shaking up the status quo is Donald Trump---for better or worse.

Consider it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

We are the directors. Politicians play for us. Or, as they see us.

Populists, in particular.

That's actually pretty funny, I thought you would have known better. Most laws are to generate capital for the goverment, is that in our interests? Gmo's and pollution, is that in our interest? Fiat currency and banks producing nothing out of thin air and being paid for it, is that in our interests?

I know, the income divide, that's in our interest, right? No, very little is done in our interest and only to placate or give some target act to point at. There are directors for politicians and they sure as hell aren't the majority of the constituents.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
That's actually pretty funny, I thought you would have known better. Most laws are to generate capital for the goverment, is that in our interests?

It's in the taxpayers interest. Revenue generated from fines means they don't need to get that money out of taxes. If we did away with all the random revenue generating laws, taxes would increase significantly. If you're against higher taxes you are in essence saying you are for revenue generating fines.

Gmo's and pollution

GMO's are a bit of a sticky issue because of Monsanto lobbying, but if government wasn't involved in that area would there even be a debate? Nothing short of the federal government, and maybe not even them can stand up to Monsanto lawyers. What would happen if they weren't involved at all? And the EPA reduces pollution, that is in the public interest.

Fiat currency and banks producing nothing out of thin air and being paid for it, is that in our interests?

It is, though the fed should be federally controlled.

I know, the income divide, that's in our interest, right? No, very little is done in our interest and only to placate or give some target act to point at. There are directors for politicians and they sure as hell aren't the majority of the constituents.

Cheers - Dave

How would a lack of government involvement fix the income divide? We tried that before, as have other places around the world. It wasn't pretty.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

An awful lot of Bernies main detractors, forget that in terms of his voting record, he is the most consistent politician ever to have represented anyone. In fact, if you want an anti-war, anti-corporate power, pro-worker, little guy backing candidate, which SOOOOOO many on both sides of the political divide have been after for ages, then he would have been the man, simple as.

He saw through the war on terror like it was polished glass, refused to get on board with the agenda behind it. He strongly opposed for his entire career, agendas which sought to remove power from the people and allow the United States to become a two layered nation. He wanted the people involved with the political processes at work in the nation, wanted people pitching in with thoughts and opinions on how to best get things done for the benefit of all. The man, quite simply, was the only one running who genuinely believed what he was saying.

You can like what he said or not, but anyone who tells you that there was a more consistent, genuine, down to earth candidate than him on the table this go around, is either kidding themselves, or simply had their head in the sand.

The fact that he did not get the Democratic nomination is something I would equate to being in the middle of a gunfight, having no gun and wishing you had one, then being passed one and immediately throwing it away so as not to draw attention to yourself.

Basically, he was offering what a huge number of people wanted, and what many more SAID that they wanted. However, alongside the fact that there was a conspiracy against his campaign from the beginning, there were probably those, who upon realising that they had been given the keys to their shackles, that the gates were open, they loosed their bonds only long enough to close the door of the cage, put the shackles back on, and toss the key into a dark corner.

There are many fools abroad in the states at the moment.

You see, if he had of gotten the nomination, I very much doubt that people in America would be so appalled at the lack of real choice this time around. Both candidates are hideous monsters, dedicated to the destruction of the working classes, the destruction of freedom and liberty, and the absolute devastation of the fabric of, and meaning of what America is.

This may seem like a mad thing for a Briton to say, but I very much admire the people, the land, and the history of the creation of the United States. The founding fathers of that nation were not perfect men by any stretch, for no such thing exists on this earth. But they were reasonable men, passionate, staunch, bold and without the merest will to appease or capitulate. They knew what must be done, and they set about seeing it achieved.

Bernie strikes me as having more in common with any one of them, than the two candidates who have actually come out in the wash, and realistically speaking, the only way this election does not result in an absolute CLUSTERBANG of a government, is if both candidates are eaten by wolves, run over in an improbable duo of steam roller accidents, or simply plucked from the surface of earth by the holy spirit and suffocated, suspended just outside the atmosphere until they expire.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Most laws are to generate capital for the goverment, is that in our interests?

Citation, please.

Gmo's and pollution, is that in our interest?

Genetic modification? That covers a lot of ground.
Pollution? No, not in the interest of most and regulation has helped quite a lot in the past 5 or so decades.

There are directors for politicians and they sure as hell aren't the majority of the constituents.

Yeah, well, we don't for the most part go by majority rule. There are reasons for that. Reasons that make a lot of sense. Majorities, generally, don't seem to be too interested in anything but the majority's interests. A republic (which the US is) seems to work better in that sort of regard.

originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Trump bigots = people who want immigration law followed

DNC-"non bigots" = people who want immigration law based on skin color.

That's using your 1984 definition of bigot

If you use, say merriam-webster definition of "bigot"
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc

When Trump and his supporters say we need to follow immigration laws. Then the Hillary supporters either name calls or utilized threats of violence, are technically the bigots, since they won't listen to anyone else's ides or reasons.

This is where the disconnect between the Dems and Republicans lies in this issue...

As a liberal I will explain (without insulting or being condescending)

Republicans are viewing the immigration issue at face value. They are saying... Here are the rules.... theyre breaking the rules, plain and simple. We have rules for a reason. We as a country have to set standards on who we allow in and why, etc.

Democrats are operating on a different level. We arent arguing whether or not the rules are being broken. We are arguing the validity of the rules themselves. We are also arguing the fact that this nation was built on immigration. Did the Spanish and the English and the French have to pass tests and pay obscene amounts of money to the Native Americans to live on this land? No. so how dare we impose those restrictions on others.

America was created as a refuge, a refuge from religious persecution, and shortly thereafter a refuge and opportunity for people to start a new life and get opportunities they never had before.

originally posted by: introvert

Take solace in knowing that the ignorant Right Wing base is slowly dying off, not that people dying is a good thing per se, and the children of the misinformed Right Wing drones are growing up in a world where their exposure to things outside the echo chamber is immense.

Well...No...not really.

exposure to things outside the echo chamber

Jesus, are you serious? Liberals are nothing but an echo chamber. Everyone has to think alike, talk alike and no one should bring up an idea that may go against the group. Where do you think the idea for safe spaces came from?
I have 2 sons, 28 and 18 and a 16 year old daughter. None of them can stand the "group think" crap that's going on today. None of them see Bernie, Hillary or the Dems as an option.
"Moving forward" means everyone thinks alike, right? Everyone follows the party line and everyone does the same thing.
Nope.
Now, I'll admit they were all brought up in small towns, where common sense is still common and no one expects handouts for sitting on their ass. They were brought up to understand that your life is going to be what you make it, not following someone else's idea. Both my sons despise air headed women, who can only communicate 140 characters at a time, expect a free ride and honestly believe being a SJW is a good thing. And if you want to talk to my daughter, you damn well better bring your brain, because if you are interested in her and can't carry on an intelligent conversation, you'd best stay on Twitter where the airheads will be impressed with your selfies.

They take solace knowing the Liberal dumbasses are running over the cliff like all the other little lemmings.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Democrats are operating on a different level. We arent arguing whether or not the rules are being broken. We are arguing the validity of the rules themselves. We are also arguing the fact that this nation was built on immigration. Did the Spanish and the English and the French have to pass tests and pay obscene amounts of money to the Native Americans to live on this land? No. so how dare we impose those restrictions on others.

America was created as a refuge, a refuge from religious persecution, and shortly thereafter a refuge and opportunity for people to start a new life and get opportunities they never had before.

No, see, we get that, and you intentionally misunderstand.

We understand that you are making the emotional appeal. What you forget is that we have emotions and compassion too, but we also understand that people we bring into this country who are poor and uneducated or very poorly educated who are coming from other countries will necessarily need to be supported for a long time, perhaps for the length of their lives.

Realistically, we can only bring in a certain number of these every generation without risking adverse effects on our own population. Remember, we have our own poor whom we also support in a similar manner. Which group deserves our compassionate support more? Those who were born here or those who are coming here?

And, of course, none of us say the laws cannot or should not ever be changed. Far from it, but we do feel that you need to fully enforce the laws as they exist in order to see where they need to be changed. Currently, it has been decades to never when that has happened, so how can you say for any certainly what does work and what does not? Changing something in that enforcement climate could only make things worse.

*EDIT*

Of course, your point about the Native Americans would get my part-Native American husband to laughing. He often points out that immigration control and coherent border policy might have worked out much better for the Native Americans than where they are now - living on reservations in the N. American continent or bred mostly out of existence in Central and South America. But they practiced more or less open borders and did not try to fight until it was far too late.