rigorousintuition.ca

Remember when America sleepwalked into the Bush Presidency? Where was all the freedom rhetoric? I guess it was just talk. Go gently.

Bernie Sanders Upsets Clinton in Indiana Primary

Independents can make a difference.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-update ... primaries/

Go Bernie!

Sanders will challenge the convention and if I am right, which I never am, he will mop the floor with trump in any debate. The day that won't come soon enough when any of us have to see a trump or clinton again.

Yes go Bernie go! He knows his chops and is the only "popular" candidate there is.

Thank god cruz bailed. I never want to see that face again. Bernie, I immediately perk up. I'd roll with Stein but I tried that almost two decades ago. The green party is unfortunately going nowhere. But with a contested convention could go a long ways.

The Green Party just needs a lot of money, to buy some organization and some media savvy.

Nordic » Tue May 03, 2016 11:41 pm wrote:The Green Party just needs a lot of money, to buy some organization and some media savvy.

They also need to change their name. "Green" is no longer in - it's tied to hippy/hipster bourgeois recycling bins. Save the Earth is so 1990's. Environmental activism is trumped (hah) by economics and, to a lesser degree, fear over terrorism, crime, Russians, Chinese, etc. I'm not saying this is good, but that's the way I see it.

There needs to be a new third-party, one that captures the fever of today's attention deficit public without all the baggage of the previous generation.

Serious question: can a corporation BE a political party? Vote for Coke! Facebook 2016! Go Far with Mars!

Sanders has his chance not to squander, as the other thread says. Getting past Clinton is very unlikely. I will understand if he endorses to keep his word of honor and as the lesser evil against Trump. If he doesn't remain in the field for a couple of years as a standard bearer for the opposition against the inevitable neoliberalism and new-war imperialism, and if he doesn't keep running around the country rallying people and raising money for the new third party starting the day after the election, then I will indeed regret my contributions to him.

One possible name for a big new third party in the U.S. is way older and stodgier than Green, but will look wildly innovative here. The Social Democrats. Which is what he is. Ridiculously obsolete in Europe, it will seem and be radical in the U.S. Long as it is not just revived FDR New Deal for the people, which is what the "democratic socialist" has offered so far, but also antiwar. That becomes a non-negotiable bedrock for me and I'm sure most of his "movement" once the dream of playing the game within the rules of what it takes to win the Democratic nomination is done.

Social Democrats?

The political hack commentator inside me immediately dismissed that. Social is too close to Socialist (duh), which still polls badly and put a big anchor around Bernie's neck from the start of this campaign.

But then I thought about the younger people, who are already supporting him. What does the word Social mean to them? We hear that word over and over again in the media now in a new context: social networks. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc. In that light, Social Democrat feels modern, connected, and responsive to the populace.

Intriguing.

People would not be able to differentiate between Democrats and Social Democrats.

The very name "Democrat" has to go into the dustbin of history. Along with everyone in that fucking corrupt organization.

I agree Social Democrat is a terrible name as far as appealing to Americans, even if defines what might be this new party.

And I disagree about the Green Party being passé, maybe because I live in California my perspective isn't the same as everywhere, but here at least, the under-25 crowd is extremely serious about environmental concerns and couldn't give much of a shit about Grandpa's fears of terrorism.

It's a big deal to them. As it should be. In fact the young people I know, and I know a surprising number of them, actually give me some hope for the future. They don't believe anything they see on tv "news" and they know the corporate world is completely full of shit.

Maybe ANDP? Take after the only Canadian party in which I align with.

American National Democratic Party. Or why not completely be the same party Canada and America combined. Get rid of the borders in North America completely. We'd start from there. In truth there really are no borders.

82_28 » Thu May 05, 2016 1:32 am wrote:Maybe ANDP? Take after the only Canadian party in which I align with.

American National Democratic Party. Or why not completely be the same party Canada and America combined. Get rid of the borders in North America completely. We'd start from there. In truth there really are no borders.

Or just use the Canadian name 'New Democratic Party'. And I think I'd like to keep the borders, thanks. Do you really think Canadians or Mexicans would like to live under FULL-spectrum American dominance?

Does socialist still poll badly? Being in even an imperfect socialist organization, I've noticed a massive change in public opinion in almost exactly one year. "Change" probably underscores it, the way the general public speaks to us is almost a complete reversal.

I do want a catchy new party name though. I'm part of a team made up of folks from a bunch of different organizations that is planning, what I suppose will be, a massive general assembly outside the DNC to see about quickly founding a new unified left party. In the information age, I think things can happen very quickly.

Unity Party? New Progressive Party? Solidarity Party? Intersectional Party? Justice Party? Turnip Party? Pirate Party?

state of play vey er.....opaque. Do i take it Bernie IS beaten, Clinton just talking as if Bernie is beaten, or the media just
printing as if Bernie is beaten in order to make it de facto ?

NPR aired an interview with Sanders this morning.

I just re-watched this interview w/him about his 1972 essay.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfNZjSxt2qc

I was surprised he didn't roll his eyes when asked. His combative defense, re-spinning of the essay's 'essence' and aggressive body language strike me as unapologetic, contentious and angry responses. Maybe he's just tired of defending himself, (hey he signed on to this kind of scrutiny) but he'd appear more sympathetic and less callous if he explained that the early 1970's may have been confusing times for a young man facing the changing gender roles. And if he apologized for the outrageously offensive opening two paragraphs, with no excuses for time passed and his age (even though he was 30 and running for governor). Or if he said he'd just dropped acid when he wrote the essay. Bet he's relieved the story faded (because it was so very badly written ).