Bernie Sanders' Supporters Vindicated - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14860142
On Page 4 Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Now you seem to agree that identity politics actually is about these characteristics. And of course they shape outcomes and treatment today. How could they not when progressives elevate them to be the defining qualities?

Do you consider the people who argued that those with black skin aren't really people and so can be enslaved to be progressive? Or those who defined Aboriginal Australians as flora and fauna and had their mixed race children kidnapped so they could be denied access to their language, culture and heritage? Because that's the type of historical and cultural baggage that minorities have.

I agree that modern feminism is about bourgeois privilege.
#14860233
AFAIK wrote:Do you consider the people who argued that those with black skin aren't really people and so can be enslaved to be progressive? Or those who defined Aboriginal Australians as flora and fauna and had their mixed race children kidnapped so they could be denied access to their language, culture and heritage? Because that's the type of historical and cultural baggage that minorities have.

I agree that modern feminism is about bourgeois privilege.

Should people today, be punished for things they didn't do, just because of their skin colour?
#14860488
Ter wrote:Another person who put Trump in the White House was the third party candidate Jill Stein. I think I saw the figures somewhere that her votes clinched it.

I myself voted for Jill Stein . The Libertarian , Gary Johnson , got three times as much . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/third-party-candidate-gary-johnson-jill-stein-clinton-loss So if the Libertarian party is closer to the Republicans , then he spoiled the vote for Trump much more than Stein voters such as myself supposedly spoiled things for Clinton , as if either major party candidate is automatically entitled to anyone's vote in the first place .
MikeMa wrote: (as an aside, you have a very odd way of formatting your posts. It might be a little clearer to separate you words from the links with spacing rather than the <> just a suggestion.)
It's how I was taught to do it , in my paralegal studies , to off set cited references , in order for them to stand out so as to be more easily spotted in the text , and as not to detract from the rest of the paragraph . But what ever . Everyone has their own preferred manner of annotation anyway.
#14860497
I am never going to vote for some liberal corrupt establishment person. Never. I am not a liberal. Why should I vote for one? For me voting should be very simple. You vote for the politician that is not corrupt, isn't bought and paid for by special interests---who most resembles your own political philosophy and who has an established, predictable track record of coping with many important issues with success. You examine their opinions and their policies on a wide range of issues. If you are satisfied on most of the issues and the formulas for remedying the problems? You got a person or candidate you can vote for.

I wanted Bernie. But the Democrats did not want a progressive for the lead candidate for the presidency. They wanted a corporate, establishment politician like Clinton who admired Kissinger and who's father was a staunch Republican that backed Goldwater. She is hawkish and she is corrupt as hell. Could not in good conscience vote for her. For me? The USA needs to spank and punish and jail a bunch of corrupt bankers, corporate CEO's and international capitalistic oligarchs and corrupt billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc. and the liberals in the Democratic party are not going to accomplish that. They curry favor the same as the Republicans do in that scene.

Jill Stein was the alternative and she is a medical doctor with excellent plans for change in DC. So? She is for me. Socialist. Green. Scientific. Decent and trustworthy. Won't win? true. But, I don't vote because a politician might win or not. I vote for who can reflect my political philosophy and implement needed change the way I see it. For me only policies that favor working class and middle class people and help people get child care, health care, decent wages, free educations, and affordable lives are worth the effort. Everything else is not.

I also find stupid appeals to support a 'woman' just sheer nonsense. I don't vote for a politician because they have a vagina and breasts or because they have a penis and testicles. I vote for them because of what kind of political philosophy they have and why they have it. Jill Stein is a woman I would vote for. Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, Nikki Hailey etc NEVER.

If the USA falls into some corrupt two party system that wants to sacrifice the good of the entire country to favor very wealthy people and never deal with real issues of critical import? Then it needs to go down. It even says that is how one should react if the politicians and corruption penetrate into the government. It says so in the constitution. The people have the right to overthrow a corrupt government. So? No mercy for corrupt politicians with absolutely no ethics because they are paid for and don't give a damn about average people anymore. To hell with the entire system if it no longer works. Those are the rules anyway.

I also don't like people who vote for someone because they are Black. or Latino or Chinese, or x or y or gay or straight. For me all that stuff is for people who are one issue and one thing voters with no brains.
"Oh, she is African American. Oh, he is gay. Got to vote for him." What the hell? Ben Carson is a black man I would not vote for in a million years. Neither was Herman Cain. I am not a liberal so I never voted for Obama. He is a liberal. A moderate one and wishy washy. I am very strong left. Not liberal moderate. I don't care he is African American he is a liberal moderate negotiating within the system and he is not a radical and not a socialist. I am not going to vote for him. For me? Be honest about politics. Don't vote for superficial crap reasons of someone is Black or gay or not, those are social issues and frankly in my opinion how critical is a person's skin color or what they do sexually in the privacy of their own home? Is it going to affect the day-to-day lives of massive amounts of citizens with policies that are impactful that either create mass misery or mass relief and improvement? Politics is an art but also a science. It is both. If you stick with the issues that are not about invading people's bedrooms or figuring out if they are of European ancestry or not...and that is your END ALL criteria for some very important political formulations? Then you are a fool that doesn't know much about politics.

You either deal with political philosophies with some intelligence---that means doing your damn homework. You don't know what capitalism as an economic system's history is about? What the premise was for it emerging to solve economic issues? Then don't be an idiot. STUDY the THING. Go read Adam Smith, Lloyd's of London, the East India Company, Dutch merchants and bankers, and the entire history of the capitalist economy til you do understand it. Same for socialism and for every other political philosophy. I really despise people who hate something they don't even understand. If you are going to hate something? Be an expert on your object of hate. Don't be an ignorant who knows not a damn thing about it but you propose to abolish and hate it because someone told you some rumor about it or because it is what your family thought for generations and no one bothered to find out why they were against it in the first place. That is for DUMMIES.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 07 Nov 2017 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14860504
During the election, Jill Stein opinioned that Donald Trump was much better than Hillary(in a lesser of two evils manner).... This was in relation to the content of the Julian Assange Podesta Wikileaks dumps and Hillary's email scandal.

Did you agree?
#14860508
Who are you asking about? Me?

Frankly, Trump is bringing all the pig dirtball politics to the forefront. Hillary is far more intelligent. She would have been able to keep the dirt fairly contained....for how long? Who knows. But she doesn't represent big change and getting Citizens United money and lobbyists out of politics. She took hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches and she is a bought for politician. She is a very very intelligent woman. But she is a corrupt liberal. I don't like those Colliric.

Trump is going to drag down and beat up this nation and bring into stark relief how low and dirty and disgusting this has gotten for both parties. So that is a point in his favor. Let the Trump narcissist freak bring all the low life values to the public in a circus of the best kind. He needs to be the man in charge so that American dumbells and their shills can finally realize just how bad the system has gotten.

Hillary is a very very intelligent woman. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not objective. But she is not Ms. Integrity, she is not Ms. Clean and Fair, and she is not a radical. She is an establishment politician and a master manipulator. I don't think one should lie to oneself about the qualities other politicians have as individuals. That is not being wise or intelligent. I like wise and intelligent candidates. Not naive and dull minded ones.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 07 Nov 2017 23:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14860510
Did you agree?


Yes. Clinton was a part of and fully backed by the neocons, was ready to go to war with Russia and threatened to bomb Iran, and sucked Israel's schlong like nobody's business at the AIPAC conference in DC in the months before the election, and Libya happened and Syria was happening and she was involved in tons of other awful shit and...yeah, she was terrifying.
#14860513
You said it Skinster. That is exactly who she is. A neo-con type who is some kind of banker lover too. Anyone who schmoozes with bankers that are corrupt and love that stuff? They are not the clean and the honest now are they? :D

Let me put in Cornel West....and his opinion about Hillary and why he didn't like her? Hee hee....

oops don't have the means. But just go to youtube.com and put in search Cornel West and Hillary Clinton and his opinion is clear. She is not Ms. Integrity. Hee hee.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 08 Nov 2017 00:16, edited 2 times in total.
#14860521
AFAIK wrote:Do you consider the people who argued that those with black skin aren't really people and so can be enslaved to be progressive? Or those who defined Aboriginal Australians as flora and fauna and had their mixed race children kidnapped so they could be denied access to their language, culture and heritage? Because that's the type of historical and cultural baggage that minorities have.

I agree that modern feminism is about bourgeois privilege.

I don't understand why you would even ask those questions. Progressives obviously use the same tools as racists and sexists did, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.

I'm not sure I buy into the narrative that policies that lie in the past have such a strong, pervasive and - to me - obscure negative influence on people today. Women are a case in point. When they first entered professions that were previously closed to them, they soon went into those that interested them in force and were seemingly not held back by any historical baggage that might have been there or for that matter by sexism and a hostile atmosphere, despite the fact that the latter two must have surely been much worse than anything found in education and the workplace today. Women just went ahead and seized the benefits of equal opportunity. I think there is a prevalent illusion today that people and especially certain groups of people are very fragile and concepts such as historical and cultural baggage are for the most part motivated reasoning to explain discrepancy in outcomes for the purpose of continuing affirmative action policies.

I don't really understand the term bourgeois privilege.
#14860527
Cornel West debated Bill Maher about Hillary Clinton and why he did not support her when it was her and Trump. He did the same thing I did. You don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That is never a solution.

Cornel West is a very intelligent professor at Harvard University and he is an African American Christian socialist revolutionary. That is how he labels himself. His opinions on Hillary are classic. I agree with Dr. Cornel West fully on Hillary Clinton Skinster. ;)
#14860549
@Kaiserschmarrn
I don't see how the female experience is equivalent to the black experience. Women don't live in impoverished communities with shitty schools, shitty housing and shitty transport and don't face all sorts of bias and prejudice as a community.
#14860629
Savid, yes she does. Her daughter married a banker and Chelsea was given a job straight out of Stanford University crunching numbers for a very powerful bank. For the Clintons having money to control and to stockpile to consolidate their power is very important. They probably justify it as the way the system is and that any other way is ineffective. People like the Clintons are people who learned to play hardball long ago and don't change at all with time. That is what they do. I don't respect people who are always saying, "we want to improve the lives of the poor and the black and the etc. and they would not live lives of poverty for their ideological persuasions or their ideals or political beliefs. For them? They fight for staying in power. No matter the cost. Those are not people of principle. They never will be. People compromise in politics. But they better make a choice about what is worth compromising and what is not.

Clinton should have gotten a hint that she was in trouble with her image when she lost to Barack Obama long ago. Democrats preferred a fairly less seasoned Obama than a very experienced Hillary. She should have allowed new blood in the party candidate process. She did not. Brazile now stated that she bought the nomination. She paid for it. No denying it now. Donna Brazile has spilled the beans on Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
The importance of out-breeding

Of course, the absolute and survival-enabling impo[…]

Bring on the nuclear war.

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]