I'm afraid you're probably right.

@skado Movements are able to affect change if it doesn't cost the rich or corporate America anything, look at all the corporate support and news ads backing BLM. But it's a whole other thing to get the government to change policy on war, taxes, climate change, healthcare, or economic inequality because both parties are bought and funded by the same people and corporations, who do not want change on these issues. You can protest all you want in the streets, but until you can elect enough people in DC who are not bought by these donors, or have enough of a threat to get them elected, nothing will fundamentally change on the issues that actually cost something or affect the rich and corporations.

And I don't see much hope as long as the vast majority of Americans who are eligible to vote either don't vote or else throw away their vote by continuing to vote only for the two major parties in the duopoly. If tens of millions began voting for third party candidates in federal elections, things would begin to change very quickly, not incrementally...

@TomMcGiverin
That's all true, but a pretty big "if". The question is how to get all those people to begin voting that way. I don't think of street protests as the highest form of political activism though. Getting people to become involved on a local level, writing letters, campaigning, organizing, teaching, etc., etc. is more the kind of "movement" I think Bernie is talking about. I don't have a lot of faith in protesting.

And I think you're exactly right about the difficulty of getting the rich to let go of the reins. It won't happen without a fight at some level. I hope it's not in the streets. And it may be a problem that is never solved - just an endless maintenance effort.

@skado I don't see how a fight in the streets is avoidable with the attitude of the rich and as it stands now the cops and military would easily mow down any rebellion from the masses, unless they somehow decided to side with the people, like what happened in Russia at the end of the Soviet system. I think the endless maintenance effort is all I have to look forward to witnessing before I die. How depressing...

@TomMcGiverin
Yeah, things really don't look good.

If a third party were to actually manage to win, that would mean that there was massive discontent with the two party duopoly and the running of the country generally.

That win would occur in Congress as well. It would be a wave of new representatives from outside the establishment and sweeping reform would be the result.

@RoboGraham The reforms would be still be incremental change over time because that's how change occurs. To imagine that everything would be perfect immediately is pure fantasy. Society is a work in progress

@LovinLarge

I agree that everything suddenly becoming perfect is a fantasy.

However, change does not necessary need to be incremental. There are periods of rapid change that we can point to in history. For instance, after the election of Roosevelt in 32, sweeping reform occurred because his party won not only the presidency but the Congress as well, big time. So, soon after his win, Roosevelt and his coalition began passing radical legislation as part of the New Deal.

A similar situation occurred just after the civil war ended when the radical republicans gave us two new amendments to the Constitution, the 13th, and 14th.

It is true that change is usually incremental but not always. During times of extreme circumstances, radical change is a possibility.

@Fred_Snerd Even if that were true, no one anywhere in the country will be safe from from the lifetime appointment of the fascist dictatorial regime that Trump is building. I think Americans have become so complacent that they fail to recognize that our way of life is crumbling before our eyes.

@RoboGraham Those changes were still incremental in that they didn't happen overnight and that they lay the groundwork for further change. Incremental change occurs in various degrees and provides for the perspective of moving from one condition to another over time, although not necessary long periods of time. Short of revolution, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, realistically change is incremental.

@LovinLarge

Okay, sure. If you choose to label everything as incremental, even change which occurs in a relatively short span of time compared to how things usualy progress, then of course you are right.

At least we agree that revolution is not incremental.

@Fred_Snerd And I favor it. But most Americans don't and this is a democracy.

@Fred_Snerd

"Socialism is a revolution we're legally allowed to have."

I don't think the government will see it that way.

It's a revolution we should have, but i highly doubt it can be done through legal channels.

@RoboGraham And I favor a peaceful Democratic Socialist revolution and I wish more Americans did. This is why I speak out.

I want you to know how much I appreciate your civility during our discussions. I know it may not always be easy.

@LovinLarge

Same here. I think we are on the same page about most things.

Where we differ is that I don't view the establishment dems as all that much less dangerous than the MAGA. Those two groups are taking the country in the same direction, it's just that one is doing it blatantly and aggressively while the other is doing it slyly and incrementally.

Civility is essential. Unless someone provokes me, I will be civil. Almost unbelievably, I've managed to keep up civil correspondence with a few right wingers and we have even found some common ground. There is nothing more satisfying than a person who you consider to be an ideological enemy admitting that you've changed their thinking on an important issue.

@Fred_Snerd

That's wonderful. If it can be done, it will be accomplished in that way.

We need to combine the best parts of the two ideologies. Personal responsibility and independence from reliance on big daddy government from the right wing, plus collective labor and egalitarian living from the socialists.

I have an eco village communist co-op type place near me in Virginia. It's pretty cool. I went and visited a few years back and even considered joining up. They seem to work together in relative harmony and share most things and because they live frugally and share so much, they don't need much money, so they don't have to work all that much. No wage slavery there. They do what needs doing and enjoy the rest of their time with their homies in the village. Playing music, games and activities, drinking around the bon fire... I think that's how humans are meant to live.

@RoboGraham The Trump regime has already taken many steps to undermine democracy and the rule of law that if continued will change the fundamental ways this country functions.

While I agree that money influences Democrats in a way that it shouldn't, they have never taken any steps or given any indication that they disfavor democracy and the rule of law as the underpinnings of the functioning of America.

That is the critical difference at this particular time.

@LovinLarge

Trump and the republicans have accelerated it but the dems engage in it too.

The dems have been militarizing police forces, they voted to extend the patriot act once again while they were simultaneously impeaching the president for his abuse of power, and worst of all, they have undermined democracy in their own primary elections to ensure the results that they prefer.

@RoboGraham None of those things threaten democracy and the rule of law the way Trump has and increasingly does. His fascism threatens our very way of life and that is what is at stake in this election.

@LovinLarge

I don't know about that. The shift toward a militaristic surveillance state with rigged elections seems like a pretty big threat to democracy.

I do agree that Trump is worse but I don't know why you consider him to be so much worse. Would go into a little detail about that?

@RoboGraham Perhaps another day. The more time I spend here the less work I get done. I am going to have to place a limit on it, sorry.

@LovinLarge

Totally understandable. I'm working too but I'm fortunate in that I'm able to chat while working

Bernie didn't run as a third party candidate. He ran within the existing system, and he ran a helluva good campaign... twice. He had more than enough support from the citizens. But he couldn't get in for one reason - because the ostensible "two party system" is really a one party system and Bernie ain't in it. That tells me right there that anybody who is in it isn't going to do much, other than symbolically, for anybody who isn't rich enough to purchase favor.

@skado Your false equivalency argument has already been debunked ad nauseum so I won't bother to do it again here. Even Bernie himself would disagree with you.

You weren't looking for feedback, you were looking for opportunities to bolster your own position. I won't fall for your bait and switch a second time.

@LovinLarge
I think Bernie agrees with me, and I think you are making assumptions about me that aren't true. Sorry if I offended you.

@skado Perhaps I read in something that wasn't there. Text is such a limited form of communication. Absent tone of voice, there are some comments I don't even understand so I just pass them over. Please forgive me.

No one loves Bernie as a politician more than I. The US really shot itself in the foot missing out on him as a leader, and Ralph Nader before him. These are truly great, honest men who dedicated their lives to the public interest and I am heartbroken that they were relegated to the sidelines.

Your video identifies movements as influential to progress and I think the undercurrent was that at least for now, this is an important role for third parties. There are only two realistic choices for president right now and Bernie wouldn't be working with Joe, supporting Joe and asking us to support Joe if he didn't believe Joe would act in the best interest of most Americans at least most of the time.

Good input, thanks.

Blue No Matter Who

@skado

Oh duh, thanks

@skado

I felt the same way. His idea that we are voting for the guy who we want to be fighting with over the next four years makes sense. Which is why I do hope Biden wins if it has to come down to the two of them.

Still, no way I'll ever vote for him.

@RoboGraham Do you honestly not think that realistically it is already down to the two of them?

@skado Oh... but I was guessing it might be Biden No Matter What.

@bingst
Could be that as well now. In either case, I think it’s a dangerously flawed default.

@skado Is there a viable alternative?

@bingst
Maybe not, in this case - the house is on fire. Still a horrible default.

"Relevant" feedback, please. Bernie isn't running.

More Bernie bashing from St. Sleazy.

Maybe try to let it go, all the hatred is not good for a person's health.

@RoboGraham
Everything I have been saying about Bernie has come true:

1. Bernie is not an electable candidate
2. Bernie cannot get nomination, he has already failed miserably once and been whining ever since
3. America will never elect not just Bernie but anybody like Bernie
4. Bernie's a fear monger. He keeps ranting about punishing the rich, taxing the rich but does not talk much about why he needs 4 homes and is among Millionaires and Billionaires.
5. Bernie is not a uniter. He is huge polarizer. He has polarized Democrats across the nation that he intended to lead.
6. Bernie has been miserably trying to hijack another party platform that he was not a member of for the last 50 years. Bernie is symbol of selfishness.
7. Bernie has been in Congress for 32 years but voters cannot remember one singer bill he has done that made any difference
8. Bernie could not get support from his party that he is seeking the nomination from. Imagine what Trump and his voters would do to him in November
9. Bernie was calling for a revolution. We do not have the ingredients for a revolution. A revolution needs a desperate and an angry society. We are not.
10. A revolution needs an inspiring leader who can give a rallying cry to make people rise to their feet. Bernie is not that leader.
11. Bernie was a communist and praised Castro and his regime. He is delusional that American voters would elect a communist leaning anybody
12. Bernie was promising a pie in the sky. Taxing the rich for giving everything free is not selling. It will never sell unless you have a revolution like the Maoist Communist revolution. You just don't tax the rich but you destroy them.
13. Bernie promised everything under the sky but could not help get a simple infrastructure bill passed in Congress for 11 years. What could he do as president? McConnell would castrate him in the first 30 days
14. Bernie is a not leader with necessary attributes that nation will elect president any time soon. We will not elect a Jewish candidate, a very old candidate, a hunchback, a personality like an absent minded professor from Back to the Future movie. He does not even get a damn hair cut before a TV interview.
15. Democratic voters will not allow a guy like Bernie who has never been a Democrat to hijack the Democratic platform to seek the highest office of the land. We have plenty of good Democrat candidates who can do better than him.
16. Bernie has done serious damage to the party's image by painting it as an extreme left socialist party. The opponents have successfully labeled the Democratic party as socialist and extreme left wing. When Democrats will lose in November to unpopular Trump, it is going to solely Bernie's fault
17. Voters told him once loud and clear to get out but apparently he has not listened. He failed again.
18. It is clear that Democratic voters do not like Bernie

@RoboGraham, @skado
You posted a video with Bernie talking. When he talks, he is relevant. When he injects himself into something where he has failed, he cannot be taken seriously. How is Bernie not relevant when Bernie is talking?

@St-Sinner

Your views on him are very biased, emotional, and often just flat out false.

Your feedback was irrelevant because the topic of discussion was whether or not the argument being made to challenge the anti-VBNW is any good. You took that as solicitation to go on, once again, about how much you hate Bernie. Irrelevant.

@RoboGraham
My views are factual. Your views are biased. You see all of Bernie's non-sense as gold. I was telling you Bernie would fail. You kept arguing and the rest is history. There must be some time for you to wake up and understand what the reality is. Do you want Bernie to come asking again ..."And I need Your Support Again." and fail again?

No matter what topic. I was referring to Bernie's words. Who speaks matters to the whole issue, no matter what the issue is. If Obama talked, people would listen carefully. When Bernie talks, people dismiss him again and again and again (except for some far left fanatics). When Bernie talks, it is non sense. That makes him very relevant. Quote someone else and I will pay attention.

@St-Sinner You claim your views are factual but the ones I read before deciding that the rest were not worth bothering with were unverifiable predictions and the rest didn't reference any supporting evidence. Predictions are not factual and factual claims require evidence. Of all places, this should be a place where people understand what constitutes fact.