Page 667 of 1037 FirstFirst ... 167567617657663664665666667668669670671677717767 ... LastLast
Results 9,991 to 10,005 of 15554
  1. #9991
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zauriel View Post
    Several moderate democrats including John Delaney oppose Bernie Sanders' bid for presidency. On Twitter, he called Sanders' plans unworkable.

    https://twitter.com/JohnDelaney/stat...61942417428488


    That is not good, if Sanders wins the nomination and cannot win the support of the moderates.
    He will. The thing about Democrats, is that they are cowards mostly. When it come to maintaining their power, they'll do what he says.
    The thing is Bernie will ignore much of the Democratic moderates for the first year, and use Executive Orders, then-campaign hard for Progressives.
    He will use the bully pulpit the way it should be. We in the progressive movement realize that Bernie winning is just the beginning of the fight.
    This is long term change, not come by night.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    It is when it comes to governing when he's president. If this is what moderates are doing, what's Sanders going to do about a conservative like Manchin?
    We won't give a flyin flip about him. We'll move to get in more progressives. Look at Canada, Germany, and the UK. When it comes to moving moderates, after you make something the people want. Threaten their jobs.
    I know it sounds mean. But hell these Democrats are not what the majority want. If they did, Bernie wouldn't be doing so well.

    Also, who gives a shit about what John Delaney, a Healthcare shill thinks. He literally ran on "We can't do that!"

  2. #9992
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    He will. The thing about Democrats, is that they are cowards mostly. When it come to maintaining their power, they'll do what he says...
    Heck, most politicians of any stripe are cowards in my experience.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  3. #9993
    Astonishing Member Lord Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    I believe people have natural rights you don't, so be it.

    Cultural Relativism can easily be embraced as an excuse to say certain societies can abuse their populations because it isn't our business due to no universal standard existing. Such a stance is a very dangerous one. Universal Human Rights is the best standard to embrace in our modern world, by far.
    I find doing away with the fiction enables people to be less myopic about judgment, and more realistic about what it takes to influence people. I was quite supportive of Obama intervening militarily in Libya, and feel him under-committing there was an understandable but ultimately costly mistake that cost the U.S. a relatively organized and highly supportive ally instead of the mess we have there today.

    It's why I'm generally fine with the idea of cultural imperialism. Exporting culture can be a great way for powerful and successful countries to influence others to incorporate its values.

  4. #9994
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zauriel View Post
    Manchin is a DINO, and also anti-environment, because he knows a pro-environment policy would hurt the coal industry and might negatively affect the livelihoods of the coal mine workers who are his constituents. The last thing Manchin wants to do is alienate his constituents. It doesn't matter what Manchin believes. It matters what his constituents believe. So Manchin won't support Sanders plans if they are too pro-environment.
    The constituents love Manchin. He's going to continue to be a crucial vote for any bill Sanders wants. That is if they gets passed the moderates, which Sanders has a very strained relationship with. As president he needs all of the people to get along with his agenda or his agenda stalls. How are Sanders voters going to react to that failure? Manchin isn't up for another election until '24. This isn't just about what's going on locally, it's about congress itself.

    By the way, Bernie won the West Virginia primary in 2016.
    And? Manchin won in '18, with 50% of the vote, he's very popular there.

  5. #9995
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Falcon View Post
    I find doing away with the fiction enables people to be less myopic about judgment, and more realistic about what it takes to influence people. I was quite supportive of Obama intervening militarily in Libya, and feel him under-committing there was an understandable but ultimately costly mistake that cost the U.S. a relatively organized and highly supportive ally instead of the mess we have there today.

    It's why I'm generally fine with the idea of cultural imperialism. Exporting culture can be a great way for powerful and successful countries to influence others to incorporate its values.
    See I don't believe Natural Law is a fiction I believe it is fact, for the reasons I've already outlined in previous posts (by virtue of being human we are free beings with core human rights). And no I'm not religious, far from it. So, as I stated in my last post, we'll have to agree to disagree.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  6. #9996
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    He will. The thing about Democrats, is that they are cowards mostly. When it come to maintaining their power, they'll do what he says.
    The thing is Bernie will ignore much of the Democratic moderates for the first year, and use Executive Orders, then-campaign hard for Progressives.
    He will use the bully pulpit the way it should be. We in the progressive movement realize that Bernie winning is just the beginning of the fight.
    Then he loses, and whatever momentum the left has dries up. Giving up on congress is surrendering, I thought Sanders was a fighter?

    This is long term change, not come by night.
    Long terms change requires progress. You're not going to get it by being the next Jimmy Carter.


    We won't give a flyin flip about him. We'll move to get in more progressives. Look at Canada, Germany, and the UK. When it comes to moving moderates, after you make something the people want. Threaten their jobs.
    I know it sounds mean. But hell these Democrats are not what the majority want. If they did, Bernie wouldn't be doing so well.
    Progressives, or should I say socialists because you're not sure not wanting more candidates like Warren over someone like Sanders, getting elected only matters in elections, and they lose mostly. You've tried all this, it failed.

    What happens when the elections are over? What about governing, the whole point in running for office. You're not enthused about fighting in congress for those beliefs. Cant change anything by doing nothing.

    That's false, we've had numerous elections and the majority don't want socialists. Look at '18, the first wide spread socialist political wave in years and they got annihilated 33 to 7.

    Also, who gives a shit about what John Delaney, a Healthcare shill thinks. He literally ran on "We can't do that!"
    He's running for president, and his concerns will be echoed by other moderates.

  7. #9997
    Incredible Member Superbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    607

    Default

    The differences here between Sanders and Warren on the violence against Muslims in India speak volumes.

    Sanders names the anti-muslim violence and declares it a human rights violation. Warren links to an article about the death of a policeman (they have been complicit in the slaughter and brutality against Muslims) and discusses diplomatic relations.

    As a Muslim I am part of an ummah and I am once again saying this is just another example of how Warren falls short in comparison to Sanders when compared. Many still refuse to hear us.

    https://twitter.com/nashwakay/status...75519479369734
    Bernie2020
    Not Me. Us

  8. #9998
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    See I don't believe Natural Law is a fiction I believe it is fact, for the reasons I've already outlined in previous posts (by virtue of being human we are free beings with core human rights). And no I'm not religious, far from it. So, as I stated in my last post, we'll have to agree to disagree.
    Oh boy. 'Natural law'. natural law is a typically, thinly veiled excuse to deny rights for others, no matter how much its proponents declare it a key and core part of liberty.

  9. #9999
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Oh boy. 'Natural law'. natural law is a typically, thinly veiled excuse to deny rights for others, no matter how much its proponents declare it a key and core part of liberty.
    It might well be a mistaken belief (in that there does not appear to be any such “natural law” in majority of societies)...but I honestly can’t see how it can be used to deny rights to others.

    Can you give an example of how it’s been used that way?

  10. #10000
    Spectacular Member Zauriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazirai View Post
    He will. The thing about Democrats, is that they are cowards mostly. When it come to maintaining their power, they'll do what he says.
    The thing is Bernie will ignore much of the Democratic moderates for the first year, and use Executive Orders, then-campaign hard for Progressives.
    He will use the bully pulpit the way it should be. We in the progressive movement realize that Bernie winning is just the beginning of the fight.
    This is long term change, not come by night.


    "
    I see. And if the nominee is not Bernie, would you still vote for the Democratic nominee?

  11. #10001
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superbat View Post
    The differences here between Sanders and Warren on the violence against Muslims in India speak volumes.

    Sanders names the anti-muslim violence and declares it a human rights violation. Warren links to an article about the death of a policeman (they have been complicit in the slaughter and brutality against Muslims) and discusses diplomatic relations.

    As a Muslim I am part of an ummah and I am once again saying this is just another example of how Warren falls short in comparison to Sanders when compared. Many still refuse to hear us.

    https://twitter.com/nashwakay/status...75519479369734
    The bad tidings in India continue, frighteningly so. The Hindutva movement is a lot more terrible than most are willing to recognize.

  12. #10002
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    It might well be a mistaken belief (in that there does not appear to be any such “natural law” in majority of societies)...but I honestly can’t see how it can be used to deny rights to others.

    Can you give an example of how it’s been used that way?
    Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention. The development of natural law is a long and very complicated story, but a reasonable place to begin is with the dialogues of Plato, for this is where some of the central ideas are first articulated, and, significantly enough, are immediately applied to the sexual domain. For the Sophists, the human world is a realm of convention and change, rather than of unchanging moral truth. Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/h...uality/#NatLaw

    Took all of a very short google.

  13. #10003
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Thanks. That makes sense.

    But it looks like Celgress has a completely different view and definition of “natural law” than the view expounded in this Wiki article.

    Celgress explained his view clearly I think..that for him “natural law” means human rights to things such as liberty are natural, inalienable.

    Can you explain how that belief can be used to deny other people rights? On the surface such a belief is more likely to lead to people fighting against repressive societies.
    Last edited by JackDaw; 02-27-2020 at 12:29 AM.

  14. #10004
    Astonishing Member jetengine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,444

    Default

    "I belive in anti gay stuff so I'll use Plato to back it up"
    "During Platos era you could freely be gay and no one cared, at one point it was more popular/social to be gay then straight"
    "Whaaa!"

  15. #10005
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    Thanks. That makes sense.

    But it looks like Celgress has a completely different view and definition of “natural law” than the view expounded in this Wiki article.

    Celgress explained his view clearly I think..that for him “natural law” means human rights to things such as liberty are natural, inalienable.

    Can you explain how that belief can be used to deny other people rights? On the surface such a belief is more likely to lead to people fighting against repressive societies.
    And yet, that isn't what happens. Over and over and over and over. Natural law was also used to defend American chattel slavery. 'Natural law' is neither as fundamental or unchanging as its proponents would have you believe.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 02-27-2020 at 01:48 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •