waterfield wrote:

“Now, name a ‘pragmatist’ since the 40s who has made fundamental progress stemming the tide of Corporate-Power.”

Its interesting-and telling-that you discount some of the greatest achievements this country has ever accomplished by pragmatic leaders simply because they occurred before you were born. Particularly when you stated flatly that pragmatic leaders cannot make changes. Maybe you meant today? Well here’s a brief list of those “changes” made by a recent leader that were all opposed by the corporate controlled republican party:

Under the Affordable Care Act this country now has -for the first time ever-less than 10% of its population uninsured. More than 17.6 million people now have coverage that did not before. (of course you will say a “real” change would be universal single payer system-but that does not discount the comparative data)

The Iran Nuclear Deal-opposed by all corporate interests

The establishment of US Cuba relations-opposed by some but not all corporate interests

The trade deal with 12 Pacific Rim Countries.

Same Sex Marriage.

When you argue that I will say corporations do good-yes-I believe there is a symbiotic relationship between corporate greed and societal progress. Its been that way and will always be that way as long as the system of capitalism is in place-which it will be. Hitler was defeated in large part because of our own corporate greed. So was the defeat of Polio. The Koch brothers contribute mightily to MD Anderson the leading cancer research hospital in the US> We both love and enjoy our Rams-owned by one of the largest corporate conglomerates in the world. I believe you are a court appointed attorney supported by tax dollars from people likely employed by large corporations. There is always a thread. Its symbiotic.

Citizens United ? Lets look at the Michigan irony. Sanders wins because of the tremendous support from UAW. Yet labor unions benefited every much as corporations from that decision in terms of their ability to provide financial support to the candidate of their choice. So while Sanders-and to be honest Clinton too-rail against Citizens United he carries the UAW vote to victory.

At bottom for me is that-as you agreed-we have made considerable progress on social issues in this country due to the work of pragmatist leaders -but we have also suffered from corporate greed. But until we no longer are under a capitalistic system the good guys and the bad guys will do battle and out of it will be victories and losses. And I can assure you the victories will be on the shoulders of the pragmatist-and not on political anarchy.

Maybe you and I should stick to discussing surfing.

——————————–

Well, we just have fundamental disagreements on economics and corporate-power.

You mentioned obama-care, and that is a long complicated discussion. Lots of pros and cons and unknowns. Was it an improvement over what we had before? Yes. Is it anywhere near as good as a single-payer system? No. Did the ‘pragmatists’ prevent us from getting the better system, ie, single-payer? I would say, yes, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I like Bernies approach to health care — not the ‘pragmatist’ ,Clinton.

As far as same sex marriage — again thats Identity Poltix. The system doesnt oppose progress on those fronts. Both the Sanders-types and Clinton-types have the same policies on Identity-politix.

Opening relations with Cuba? Corporations are always looking for new markets.
I’m not sure how else to interpret that.

Pacific Rim agreement? Nafta? You call that progress brought about by ‘pragmatists’. I call it a hideous example of inequality and corporate-power.
I agree with Bernie on the Pacific Rim issue:

“….The Senate granted Obama approval to fast-track the measure and present the agreement to Congress for a yes-or-no vote with no amendments allowed. During Senate hearings in April, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders fought fast track, warning that the American people need time to understand the TPP. He issued a statement Monday saying, “I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs. Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multi-national corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense.” Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, joins us to discuss TPP….”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33146-nafta-on-steroids-consumer-groups-slam-the-tpp-as-12-nations-agree-to-trade-accord

Basically we just have fundamental disagreements
on Corporate-Capitalism, Waterfield. Like i said, i think its destroyed meaningful democracy, created unethical inequality, and is on a trajectory to destroy the biosphere. Its a bad thing. Unlike Surfing 🙂

So you see slow pragmatic progress in Corporate-Cabitalism,
and i see Unconscionable Unnecessary Inequality, Environmental Genocide,
and Kronky. 🙂

I can imagine a world
without mega-corporate money in politics. I will vote for politicians
who share that view. Like Sanders, like Jill Stein. In the past I’ve held my nose and voted for the ‘less-evil of two pragmatists’ but I’m done with that 🙂

w
v

waterfield wrote:

When you argue that “pragmatists” can’t get anything done I believe your wrong on that too. One of the greatest advancements in our country was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished by back door negotiations of one of the greatest pragmatic presidents of our time. WW 2 was brought to a conclusion by another pragmatist after our entry into the war by still another pragmatist saved Europe-and who also engineered us out of a depression and into the New Deal. Earl Warren, a republican-but a pragmatist-ushered into law Roe v Wade. These were not men on the far right or the far left.

————————————–
Well, you had to go back to the 1940s to name a ‘pragmatist’ who
made a fundamental ECONOMIC change. The 40s.

I rest my case 🙂

I didnt say, btw, that “pragmatists” never accomplish ‘anything’.
There has been and always will be progress on Race, feminism and gender issues in this country. Identity politics doesn’t threaten corporate power and so, the ‘system’ is not preventing progress in those areas.

Now, name a ‘pragmatist’ since the 40s who has made fundamental progress stemming the tide of Corporate-Power.

…and now you will say, you like corporations
and they give us good things, and only ‘extremists’
would be anti-corporation… Right? 🙂

As to what has brought the country to this divisive/strident
state where ‘pragmatists’ are being drowned out by Trump/Sanders supporters?

Good question. What do you think some of the reasons are?
I’m not exactly sure, myself. I’m still amazed Bernie is doing as well as he is. Something seems to be happening…but I’m not sure what. Somethin unknown is do’in i dunno-what.

w
v
“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what—that is what our theory amounts to.”
[Expressing the quantum theory description of an electron has no familiar conception of a real form.] — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
The Nature Of The Physical World (1928), 291.

Agamemnon wrote:

6 million

I was thinking more like what he actually got.

After Quinn and Donald, i was thinking he was
the next most valuable defender.

They’ve lost four starters. Is the D in trouble?
yes? No? Maybe?

w
v

waterfield wrote:

Looking at yesterday’s election results I’m struck by how much both the far left and the far right have in common. Seems to me that we are becoming a country of angry “statement” makers. The Trump supporters are angry and want to make a statement. The Sanders supporters are angry and need to make a statement. Neither give much consideration as to how to get actual “stuff” done. So why are we so angry ? And how can the far right be angry and the far left be angry at the same time? Seems to me that the Republicans are moving further and further and further to the right and the Democrats are moving further and further and further to the left.

At some point in time we need to stop making “statements” and get stuff done. And that’s called pragmatism.

I need a drink.

================================
You always say that, W. Not that there’s anything wrong with that 🙂

Those of us who simply believe in Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
dont see supporting him/her as “making statements.”

Its real simple — we think Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
are better for the poor, and the biosphere, than
the Pro-Corporate Candidates.

Anger is a different subject. Are a lot of the Sanders and Stein and Trump folks “angry” ? Sure. A lot are fed up with all kinds of things.

I think you make a mistake conflating the Trump supporters and the Sanders/Stein supporters simply because you see a lot of ‘anger’
in both sides. They seem to be angry about much different
policies and issues, when I talk to both groups…

Personally, just speaking for me, I’m very angry
about three things in a nutshell:
1) Inequality (Ie, poverty and all the myriad ways the poor
are degraded, dehumanized, and destroyed, by corporate power)
2) The destruction of the Biosphere (corporate power)
3) The destruction of meaningful democracy by corporate power. (Citizens United, corporate personhood, media owned by the rich, etc, etc)

The ‘pragmatic’ candidates wont work to change
those three things, in my view.

So, ya know, i respectfully disagree. …there was a time
i would have ‘gone off’ on you, btw, as you know.

I’ve mellowed 🙂

I just ‘sigh’ now.

w
v

• This reply was modified 10 years, 7 months ago by wv.

Well, Elway seems to know what he’s doing,
and he seems to know about QBs, so,
I would guess, Kaepernik would rebound
nicely with the Broncos.

w
v

Agamemnon wrote:

Wow, nice payday.

What would you have predicted the contract
would look like?

w
v

I think he will be missed, and i think
JJ is probly gonna be a pro-bowl player,
but i think they’ll be ok…if…..Quinn recovers 🙂

w
v

waterfield wrote:

In terms of competence Clinton was a top notch state senator and actually won me over on her performance as Secretary of State. Between her and Trump I won’t be holding my nose.

Its a strange situation. Clinton is the mainstream-Dem,
and its the wacky-Trump who is for
National Health Care. At least thats what the site
i read today, said.

Did you know this? (i didnt)
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supports-national-health-care-2011-4

w
v

• This reply was modified 10 years, 7 months ago by wv.

Let us hope it wakes him up.

Thats all i got.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

Clinton/Trump would be the ugliest campaign in my lifetime, and there will be a lot of holding of noses at the ballot boxes.

===========================
Yeah, i suppose it would be the worst
Dem-Rep combo in my lifetime.

The Corporate-Billionaire-egomaniac
vs. the Corporate-puppet-egomaniac.

They will split 95 percent of the
Amerikan citizens’ votes, as per usual.
Amerikans will flock to the polls
and continue to vote for Dems and Reps.
Like its a law of nature or something.

Meanwhile independent candidates,
like Jill Stein will split the
remaining 5 percent of the votes.

What does that say
about Amerika?

w
v

TSRF wrote:

Pretty clear to me a Red Hat started the altercation. Watching this crap, I can’t stop my brain from connecting the dots from Red Hat to Brown Shirt.

If anybody sees it differently, please try and explain it to me.

I could be wrong, but i ‘think’ this is the kind
of thing that would cost Trump in any
general election.

Even though there is a long long long
history of much worse going on
in the land of the free
and the home of the brave.
I mean in the 19-teens they just
threw ya in jail if you protested
against war. If you were lucky,
and didnt get maimed or lynched.

w
v

bnw wrote:

He wrote online he pushed her. Pushed. His future DI would have had worse in store for him and his fellow recruits.

I dunno the law in that state,
but pushing in WV is indeed a crime: It’s battery.

w
v