dagblog - Comments for "The Moral Dilemma Discussed"

Time constraints aside, I try

HSG — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:37:42 +0000

In reply to Well, you have sidestepped my

Time constraints aside, I try very hard to respond to every legitimate question people - even those playing gotcha - pose here since I have such great confidence in my arguments that I believe a greater investigation into them will only strengthen their power. Then there's always the possibility I omitted an important factor into my analysis or got something very wrong. Since I'd rather admit error than argue a weak position, I also think it's appropriate to use others' doubts to challenge myself.

That said, I thought I did answer your question Oxy which, as I read it, asked me what will happen when "President" Sanders disappoints his legions of young idealists. In that question, I see an assumption that Sanders will disappoint his supporters because he concededly will not be able to accomplish many of the goals he has set in this campaign. I reject the assumption because I don't think a failure to accomplish universal single-payer healthcare or free education at state colleges will cause great disappointment in Sanders as long as he is perceived as trying his hardest to get these passed.

In fact, I believe Sanders would use setbacks as fodder for his constant refrain that "we need a political revolution."

But let me respond to your question as you actually framed it. What happens if Sanders disappoints his legions because he doesn't fight hard enough? What if he makes deals with Republicans and corporadems that set the progressive cause back? What about those who believe they'll get a free pony if he's elected even though Sanders never promised anybody a free pony?

Disappointed people will react as disappointed people. Some will react with learned helplessness. They will drop out of the political system altogether believing it can only work for the rich and powerful. Others will be further radicalized. Still others may decide "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" as some 60s radicals became conservative over time. Hopefully, the majority will go back to the old drawing board and try to find a better torch carrier in 2020 or 24.

Does that answer your question?

Ha! Hal made a funny!

CVille Dem — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:30:55 +0000

In reply to Right the Republican Congress

Ha! Hal made a funny!

Right the Republican Congress

HSG — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:23:39 +0000

In reply to The fed didn't "step in" for

Right the Republican Congress has done everything it can to stymie our President. That's why we need a political revolution. That's why I criticize Obama for not trying to build on the wave that swept him into office. I think your arguments make the case for Sanders.

The fed didn't "step in" for

CVille Dem — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:20:00 +0000

In reply to That's right. As Politifact

The fed didn't "step in" for Medicaid expansion in those states, in and the Supreme Court backed them up. You are being very selective in overlooking that part of my comment. For what you and Bernie are calling for requires a full-on vote for Universal Health Care, with all the required tax hikes associated with it. How completely unrealistic can you be?

When you say that "the people" have to rise up and make Congress accountable, let me point out to you that Congress did its best to delegitimize the President who won the popular vote and had "Hope and Change" at the heart of his campaign, and who had a hugely hopeful country behind him. They even vote against things they LIKE just to give him a black eye whenever possible. The country wants gun regulation. Congress says no. The country believes they should vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee. No is the answer. And did they suffer for any of this? No. In fact they ran on repealing the "socialist" Obamacare and won!

Wake up!

That's right. As Politifact

HSG — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:03:00 +0000

In reply to You see, Hal...this is what

That's right. As Politifact points out, if governors reject SandersCare, the Feds step in just as they have stepped in when Republican states have refused to set up online exchanges. Your broader point that current Republican executives and legislators will not agree is precisely why Bernie always says he can't do it alone. We need, he says correctly, a "political revolution."

Of course, none of us can get

HSG — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:00:41 +0000

In reply to Let's face it, Hall, anyone

Of course, none of us can get our way all the time. The question is who will be a better President and what compromises are appropriate and which are not. "Neither extreme can completely get their way, or a huge chunk of the rest of the population gets screwed over. " Wouldn't you agree that the 1% has gotten its way over the past 35 years regardless of which party is in power far more than the 99%? Isn't it time we change that dynamic? Which candidate do you trust to try?

Let's face it, Hall, anyone

stillidealistic — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:35:54 +0000

In reply to Ridiculous argument. If he

Let's face it, Hal, anyone who disagrees with you is making a ridiculous argument. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, so I'm not sure why we keep trying.

You are bound and determined to "get your way." There is no room for compromise.

And that is the very thing that is destroying the Republican Party, and the country as a whole. Neither extreme can completely get their way, or a huge chunk of the rest of the population gets screwed over.

The interesting thing is that the founding fathers knew this, and set the government up so that people HAD to compromise to make it work. The far right thwarted this by refusing to compromise unless absolutely forced to, and we have gridlock. Now the far left is following suit. Tea party vs. the "Bernie or bust" folks. Both cannot win, but apparently there is no room for middle ground.

But, unlike the Civil War, there are no geographic lines that match the called for "revolution." We can't split the country up between north and south or east and west. Somehow, we have to be able to live with each other, and that can't be done on either end. It has to occur in the middle.

Well, you have sidestepped my

Oxy Mora — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 04:29:14 +0000

In reply to Nice goal post shift. You

Well, you have sidestepped my question about the downside of a Sanders administration which fails to fulfill rising expectations---but I no longer care.

BTW, you any idea how silly it sounds to ask someone if their actions stem from their subconscious?

And are you unaware that

CVille Dem — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 00:58:31 +0000

In reply to Nice goal post shift. You

And are you unaware that Bernie is joke? Do you really. Or does he really think this is going to work?

Nice goal post shift. You

HSG — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 00:09:17 +0000

In reply to So with Bernie we'd go down

Nice goal post shift. You ignored my demonstration that the problem we have with Obama isn't that he didn't accomplish all we wanted but that he often didn't try and also more than occasionally went in the wrong direction - drones, Libya, "grand betrayal", no bank fraud prosecutions, no investigation into 9/11 and the run up to War on Iraq, a failure to march with working people, etc. Next you assume, absent any evidence, that a concerted effort on Obama's part to keep the populace truly engaged in progressive politics would have failed. Do you realize you did this or was it subconscious?