[Beren]

@Red_Army,

Democrats could be the real enemy only if Republicans were beaten yet. They're going the right direction nonetheless, I wouldn't say it's a revolution though. I don't know about you, but I'd like the US to become a social democracy, and that's what most Americans seem to want as well. Whether you like it or not it could be achieved with the Democrats only and pushing them down won't make anything better either short term or long term.

[Red_Army]

The DNC is the reason that the Democratic Party is not currently a social democratic party.

[skinster]

[Sivad]

Democrats could be the real enemy only if Republicans were beaten yet.

The Republicans are only politically viable because the Democrats have co-opted the left and diverted it into identity politics and use bullshit wedge issues like gun control to divide the working class. The Democrats are controlled opposition forwarded by the corporate establishment. The libertarian left would demolish both the liberals and the conservatives in a fair and open system.

They're going the right direction

Militarism, neoliberalism, and identity tribalism is not the right direction.

I'd like the US to become a social democracy

The Democrats are doing everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

and that's what most Americans seem to want as well.

The Democratic Party is extremely anti-democratic.

Whether you like it or not it could be achieved with the Democrats only and pushing them down won't make anything better either short term or long term.

Social democracy will be achieved despite the Democrats best efforts to thwart it. And the left will have to make strategic sacrifices to get the Democrats out of the way, you can't win a war if you're not willing to take any losses.

[Sivad]

@66:33 idiot liberal claims social democracy is racist

[Sivad]

[Steve_American]

The problems with the current nomination and election laws are one of my main reasons why I keep saying that the only way to change America [at this point] is out in the streets.

Non-violent mass demonstrations are NECESSARY. {Maybe even a nation wide general strike at some point, like just before the 2020 nomination process starts.}

Whether you aim to reform the Dem Party or you intend to start a new party, mass demonstrations are the only way to get anything done. Sitting at home will not cut it.

To start a 3rd party or co-opt the Greens [and go on to win enough elections], you must convince the majority of the American people that your party has a huge block of voters behind it.
To force the leaders and elected officials of the Dem Party to change it or leave it, you must again convince the leaders that your wing of the party has a huge block of voters behind it.

Look at other nations that had successful non-violent revolutions*. All of them had a mass of people in the streets. Part of the reason is to show each other that we/they are not part of a small group. If there no mass demonstrations in the streets, it equals failure.

Yes, I know, it would take real commitment extended over a long time. From now to the election be out there once a week. After the election, once a month for 1.75 years and once a week for the last 3 months. Something like that. However, this is better than sitting out 2 or 3 elections [voting for Dems at the state & local level]. It gets the "shock treatment" over with quicker with less damage to the fabric of the Republic.
It requires less commitment than the Union soldiers showed in the Civil War, so it can be done.


* . A list of those nations --- Poland, East Germany, Philippines, Arab Spring, etc.

[Rugoz]

The libertarian left would demolish both the liberals and the conservatives in a fair and open system.

Why? Because that happens to coincide with your own political views?

[Sivad]

Why? Because that happens to coincide with your own political views?

No, because we know it works, because most people are already in favor of it, because the neoliberal status quo is collapsing, and because there are no serious alternatives to challenge it. The establishment has always known it can't fuck with left populism on a level playing field, all it can do is rig the system to deny it access to mass platforms.

[Libertarian353]

There are lots of dead women and minorities because of the Democratic party's warmongering bullshit, or is it only Americans that you give a shit about @Libertarian353? Not a single Democrat voted against Trump's massive military budget expansion. The Democrats aren't doing shit to help anyone and your fear tactics are the only reason they remain as the only alternative to Republican vampirism.

And how has voting republican made things any better? You think voting Democrat is a choice. You forget there are no third options, don't think for one second the majority of people would vote for Greens or God forbid the Libertarian party if it had any shot.

What you done was made republicans more hostile,more reckless and ruined the environment for all we know fatally. What's the point of caring about third worlders if more of them die under a republican cause you couldn't bother to vote for less deaths? Hell what's the point of Yemenis lives if global warming is going to make their land uninhabitable?

Don't forget people were in favor of Hilary and the neo-shitlibs establishment hacks like Chuck and Nancy. Who do you think put them in power? Are you now against democracy cause it doesn't go your way? Are you like Boris Yeltsin when the people wanted the preserved the union and the fat lardass said nyet?

If you want to win this game, you leave morals at the door. It's about what hurts less for all of us.

If you don't like Nancy vote her out cause at the end of the day, we wanted this. We wanted neo-liberalism, even during 06 mid terms I was against those clintionites establishments. Heck I a libertarian, voted for the more progressive candidates over those fucks. I knew they were never going to get rid Bush.

What people like @Sivad don't get is that their carelessness ruined more lives both third and first world and probably did more damage to the environment in two years than probably Obama have done in eight.

So thanks for your "protest" vote, I'm sure it really help those Yemeni families who are now childless due to trump stupidity.

[Red_Army]

There is not much logic behind any of your points. The main one: that meeting the Republicans half way (or as I call it negotiating from a position of weakness) is the way to make them less bloodthirsty is ridiculous. The Democrats have done just that since Obama, including when they had a super majority and all that happened is Republicans became crazier and crazier until we got this current set of rabid dipshits.

You can call me an idiot all you want even though I more than likely vote exactly how you'd want me to. I'm not going to suck their dicks while I'm at it The Democratic Party establishment needs to be pushed out of power to make room for people with a social democratic platform that can actually get people to the polls. Then the people who elected these progressive candidates need to hold them responsible to the ideals that got them elected: i.e.: social democracy and dismantling the military industrial complex. You can blame Republicans for supporting the war in Yemen (even though this began during Obama's presidency) all you want, but it doesn't convince anyone. The current swath of center-right Democrats have no interest in ending the War on Terror or even slowing down its momentum.

I have no idea what the rest of your angry rant is about so I will ignore it.

[Libertarian353]

he Democrats have done just that since Obama, including when they had a super majority and all that happened is Republicans became crazier and crazier until we got this current set of rabid dipshits.

Again, which was why I voted for the non-establish democrats during 06. I knew they weren't going to impeach Bush, hell that alone should kick Nancy Pelosi and her cronies out. Back to the main point at the beginning:

The main one: that meeting the Republicans half way (or as I call it negotiating from a position of weakness) is the way to make them less bloodthirsty is ridiculous.

It some lame position of democrats being "fair" and "bipartisan" Democrats are shit people, but they're not republicans.

You can call me an idiot all you want even though I more than likely vote exactly how you'd want me to.

I didn't mean it as jab at you personally.I said it as general statement to those who thought both sides were the same when it's clearly evident they're not even if it's a slight difference. Then they gets shocked when the republicans are doing what literally ever fear mongering liberal media been saying for decades. I knew back in the 80s under Reagan administration and I was called a commie in high school for criticizing the war on minorities vie war on drugs.

I'm not going to suck their dicks while I'm at it

Why you implying I do? I hate them probably more, the difference is I know the game. In politics you leave ideology at the door in order to get things done.

The Democratic Party establishment needs to be pushed out of power to make room for people with a social democratic platform that can actually get people to the polls.

The difference is if the people rather have Cuomo than Nixon you get what you vote for. This is what people didn't understand, you didn't have to vote those people in.

When trump wants to go to war with Iran/Syria/North Korea/ Russia/China; that's when both sides aren't the same.

[Sivad]

[Libertarian353]

Yes, she was and Joe Rogan opinion doesn't make it any less valid. Like I don't know what you were trying to convince. You better off just giving a Alex Jones video.

[Deutschmania]

I think that she did reasonably well in answering his questions , which I feel embody the chief concerns of naysayers regarding the efficacy of socialism , as a practical matter . The only thing that I would add , pertaining to how a socialist economy would function in practice , would be that it remains uncharted , to cite a popular song .

So just like with anything in life , starting out their probably will be trial and error , before we are able to learn from experience .
As Thomas Edison put it . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6QT2-88DCZ8

[Drlee]

The republican party took a huge hit today. Huge. The Kavanaugh hearings are good for the republican male base. They peeled off about 10% of republican female voters though and that could be devastating in November.

Anecdotal. I live in a red state. Bright red. On my way home from the clinic this AM I saw a few hundred men and women protesting Kavanaugh's nomination based upon the accusations against him. This does not bode well for the Republican Party. These people listened to the lady's testimony and took to the street.

[Sivad]

Yes, she was

Clinton was not the lesser evil. If she had won they'd have already bombed the shit out of Syria and probably a few other countries by now, tensions with Russia would be dramatically escalated, the TPP would be in full effect bringing us significantly closer to full global corporatocracy, and Goldman Sachs would be running the economy. What do you think would've been so much better if Hilary had won?

[Sivad]

chief concerns of naysayers regarding the efficacy of socialism , as a practical matter . The only thing that I would add , pertaining to how a socialist economy would function in practice , would be that it remains uncharted So just like with anything in life , starting out their probably will be trial and error , before we are able to learn from experience .

I agree with that but the starting point is social democracy. SD isn't theoretical, it's well tested and proven the world over so we don't have to worry about implementing that incrementally. Once we're at SD then we can work piecemeal incremental reforms towards a fuller realization of left populism.

[Libertarian353]

Clinton was not the lesser evil.

She clearly was, besides not voting doesn't help those people in third world you cared so much about apparently.

If she had won they'd have already bombed the shit out of Syria and probably a few other countries by now, tensions with Russia would be dramatically escalated, the TPP would be in full effect bringing us significantly closer to full global corporatocracy, and Goldman Sachs would be running the economy.

Syria is already bombed by trump and in much case worse than what little force Hilary would accomplish so the point is mute now. Heck Trump wanted to nuke them, Hilary who's already unpopular wouldn't even attempt to go to war since it's might impeach her.

tensions with Russia would be dramatically escalated

If a foreign country interfere in a country, no matter how little that's grounds for escalation.

the TPP would be in full effect bringing us significantly closer to full global corporatocracy

Again trump planning on a another globalist deal so point mute.

Goldman Sachs would be running the economy.

The economy is already control by corporate so point mute again.

What do you think would've been so much better if Hilary had won?

Trump and his cronies in jail, most likely an F.B.I investigation of republican collusion which would jail Mitch and his toadies. Right wing would be dishearten and not commit terror or hate crimes much. Some form of police reform,a Marshal plan for the South/Rust Belt. Not threaten war with North Korea , Iran etc...

[skinster]

She clearly was, besides not voting doesn't help those people in third world you cared so much about apparently.

And she was not the lesser evil, for one, because Trump never had any political power prior to his election and because of that, didn't vote to bomb entire countries or support the same without there even being a vote on it.

Syria is already bombed by trump and in much case worse than what little force Hilary would accomplish so the point is mute now. Heck Trump wanted to nuke them, Hilary who's already unpopular wouldn't even attempt to go to war since it's might impeach her.

Trump's sales pitch was opposing war with Syria. Hillary's was starting WW3 with Russia via Syria. In what world must one live in to think that Hillary Clinton was less of a psychopath on Syria than Trump, during the election campaign? She also threatened to bomb Iran. She was also a big player in the horrific war on Libya, which brought back slavery to the country which is now mainly over-run by the same Islamists Clinton's team were supporting and aiding.

If a foreign country interfere in a country, no matter how little that's grounds for escalation.

There is no evidence Russia interfered with the American election, still. And the US not only interferes with other countries but installs dictators and bombs them, under Liberal Democrats too, as has been the case for the last 8 years pre-Trump.

Also, the point isn't mute, it's moot.