The End of Bernie, the Rise of the American Maggie "the Witch" Thatcher and an Oafish Mussolini
So, Hillary won everything today in the Democratic primaries. Essentially, the game is over for Bernie, even though numerically it is not, most people can pretty much say that he has next to no chance of winning. The same goes for the Republican side: Trump won a landslide again today, Cruz won nothing, and Kasich won only his home state of Ohio. Rubio, of course, dropped out.
Hillary Clinton is a reptilian shapeshifter, this much is not disputable. The proof is that if you look closely when she laughs, you can see her crocodile like features. Despite this, she also represents the American schizophrenic ideology: black people and older white people overwhelmingly support her. This is quite odd, for many reasons. First, she extended the cradle-to-prison pipeline. She's "tough on crime". She's sat on the board of corporations like Walmart, institutions which are no different from extended versions of slave plantations. And her opponent was Bernie Sanders, a guy who was actually part of the correct side of history since he was 16 years old: he was part of both the anti-war and anti-racism movements when he was younger, at union picket lines, at the anti-segregation protests, getting arrested multiple times. Keep in mind, Hillary likes to cite her involvement in organizing Yale, but at the same time she was giving Henry Kissinger a nice long blowjob. No one who actually cares about any sort of egalitarianism can logically believe Hillary is a symbol of equality.
I don't have to say much about Trump, except that he is probably one of the first true modern versions of a American Fascist. American fascism is this "I'm a winner" dick waving contest, it is push to bomb, bomb, bomb, round-them-up-and-deport racism, like a bunch of numbskull idiot degenerates with too much wealth and power.
I'd like to open up the floor for discussion now, as I go burn some plastic to help the world end faster.
Hillary Clinton is a reptilian shapeshifter, this much is not disputable. The proof is that if you look closely when she laughs, you can see her crocodile like features. Despite this, she also represents the American schizophrenic ideology: black people and older white people overwhelmingly support her. This is quite odd, for many reasons. First, she extended the cradle-to-prison pipeline. She's "tough on crime". She's sat on the board of corporations like Walmart, institutions which are no different from extended versions of slave plantations. And her opponent was Bernie Sanders, a guy who was actually part of the correct side of history since he was 16 years old: he was part of both the anti-war and anti-racism movements when he was younger, at union picket lines, at the anti-segregation protests, getting arrested multiple times. Keep in mind, Hillary likes to cite her involvement in organizing Yale, but at the same time she was giving Henry Kissinger a nice long blowjob. No one who actually cares about any sort of egalitarianism can logically believe Hillary is a symbol of equality.
I don't have to say much about Trump, except that he is probably one of the first true modern versions of a American Fascist. American fascism is this "I'm a winner" dick waving contest, it is push to bomb, bomb, bomb, round-them-up-and-deport racism, like a bunch of numbskull idiot degenerates with too much wealth and power.
I'd like to open up the floor for discussion now, as I go burn some plastic to help the world end faster.
Comments (86)
Trump is cleverly sampling the real angst of the dispossessed and excluded, but he doesn't speak for them, won't serve their interests, can't represent them, and will do them no good. Ditto for Clinton, Katich, Rubio, Cruz, et al. Nobody with a chance of getting to the apex of American power is going to waste time on the dispossessed and excluded. 60% - 80% of the population don't figure into the conduits of power except as electoral tools.
But... that's what oligarchy is all about: a very small class of extraordinary wealth and power ruling over a very large class of powerless, working people and the flat out broke.
Sanders is no Don Quixote. He's not tilting against windmills. He represents and speaks for a sizable minority of people who might be kind of marginal but aren't dispossessed and excluded -- yet, anyway. But he doesn't have a movement behind him -- he just has the the most liberal of Democrats behind him, and even the most liberal Democrats have way too much baggage to constitute any sort of radical movement.
Hillary Billary clearly can be classified as Crocodilian and will eat her supporters at her leisure.
Right, Bernie, you could have been a contender. But you don't have disciplined political machinery behind you.
Rubbish. Many Elizabeth Warren supporters hate Hillary as much as Bernie supporters do. And Hillary haters tend to hate Bill as much as they hate Hillary. Ideally I'd support Jill Stein rather than any Democrat and I've said this on these boards. So would many others. Last time I looked she was a woman. The worst thing about your comment though is the idea that because candidate X is from category A, they are beyond criticism. This is a very underhand way of trying to defend the indefensible by smearing its critics.
And haven't even mentioned @ArguingWAristotleTiff who will be surprised to learn she's a woman hater.
"She received 456,169 votes for 0.36% in the election,[45] making her the most successful female presidential candidate in U.S. history.[46] Stein received over 1% of the popular vote in three states: 1.3% in Maine, 1.1% in Oregon, and 1.0% in Alaska." Okay, let's not.
As for Tiff, she gets her marching orders from the NRA.
Even expecting the outcome I was bummed.
I am happy that Bernie gave Hillary some good, solid competition. But I doubt her campaign promises.
There are still local elections to look at.
This is equivalent to, "if you hate Hillary, then you're a misogynist". As if there can be no other reason for it. How quickly basic logic is forgotten once (identity) politics enters the discussion.
LOL. What makes a Clinton that much different than Obama? Please.
And Quoting photographer
Or maybe some people just don't like here as a presidential candidate. There's no such thing as pure and simple when it comes to human motives.
Incidentally, I had earlier flirted with the idea that Trump might be a better choice for president than other Republicans and also than Hillary. This is because a) He seemed to be for socialized medicine b) He said he wasn't going to touch social security c) He was willing to be sensible in his remarks on planned parenthood d) He called out Bush over the Iraq war and e) He expressed some level of neutrality over the Israel /Palestinian conflict. Considering his gradual descent into racism and fascism though, I would take that back in the case of Hillary and Kasich. As for Cruz, his homophobia is no better than Trump's fascism in my book.
I nearly fell into the same trap with Trump, but the Muslim ban was already sufficient for me. And the fact that he was seeking the Republican nomination.
The signs were indeed there.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Yay, schadenfreude! Got anything else?
I guess they have a point. And they will milk it.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-03/04/c_135156215.htm
Worth a gander if you're interested in the demographics of Trumpistas..
Of course, one should have a large block of salt to lick as one peruses the material.
As far as Bernie. He already met his goal. I personally don't think he even wants to win the presidency, that would actually be detrimental to his goal of creating a movement. He already has forced Clinton's hand to commit herself to more leftist policies. Clinton is no joke, though; but, is obviously a lesser evil than Trump.
It requires effort on the part of many. Not horribly strenuous effort, but you know, doing stuff. Like... voting; donating to campaigns (your labor or cash); studying the issues -- finding out what is true and what is bullshit; learning how to argue your case well; participating in process. Like Don Draper says, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT IS BEING SAID, CHANGE THE CONVERSATION."
Either communism or bust, that's the lesson. Communists, millions and millions of them, is what we need.
Who's saying that we should get rid of Walmart? I'd be quite content with a reformed Walmart that doesn't treat it's employees so poorly. But that wouldn't erase it's notorious track record and Hilary's involvement.
Sanders and Hillary both have no character, and cannot build a great nation. Hell, they can't even build a family... one of them having an illegitimate child, and the other can't even keep her husband in control. What a sham...
So thinking homosexuality is immoral is wrong? Why? Cruz accepts that there are homosexuals, and it is their right to be homosexuals, but nevertheless believes that people who make this choice are harming themselves first and foremost. Of course people should have the freedom to make mistakes, including moral mistakes, but that does not mean that we cannot have sensible moral discourse around those mistakes. That's one point. The other point is that if I am a priest, and I do not want to marry two homosexuals, then I should not be forced to. Marriage is a religious institution, and so long as homosexuals want to marry in a church, they have to obey the requirements of the church.
So your refusal to be friends with X person because you don't like their character is wrong because it discriminates against them? Do I discriminate against gay people when I refuse to date them?
The truth is, I didn't even ask you about discrimination. I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of homosexuality, which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I can easily believe that homosexuality is wrong, and someone who is a homosexual harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this. At the same time, I can also believe that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect, as all others human beings must be, and their choice, even if it is a mistake, must be respected.
This to me is the most important aspect. We must treat each other with respect, dignity and compassion, but thinking must remain free to judge what is right and wrong. We cannot say, as liberals do, that thinking about the morality of homosexuality is wrong, and this question is off limits, and must be answered a priori in the affirmative, that homosexuality is morally correct. This has led us as a society to become morally blind, and this is why so many people are angry in the US at the moment.
So thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong is not homophobia (and if you think that's homophobia then you're morally blind). Homophobia is doing violence to homosexuals and treating them as less than human beings; not recognising their right to make their choices and be who they want to be so long as they do not harm others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-no-major-gaps-with-washington-over-efforts-to-end-syria-conflict/2015/12/17/a178255e-a431-11e5-8318-bd8caed8c588_story.html
I know that a lot of people who are critical have misogynist tendencies. I think I can call myself exempt, since I'm probably going to vote for the same candidate I voted for last election -- Dr. Jill Stein. She is the only one left who seems interested in ending the war which is the *real* reason the US is being drawn into debt. Every war ever fought by the US drained the treasury, and this "war on terror" is the longest war the US has ever been involved in, (if you don't count the "Cold War").
As for Trump, well when he said he wanted to have a database of Muslims, a lot of us thought we should sign up. Maybe someday, we could get gun owner databases and police shooting databases built, (I even thought of writing the code for that database). When he said we should wear special symbols, most Muslims I know didn't mind that either. In a way, wearing a headscarf, or having a beard is already a symbol for that purpose. Then he wanted to stop immigration, even deport American-born Muslims. Well, I've left the country before, and I suppose if Trump were president, I would want to leave the country anyway before he sells all his supporters out. But then it gets surreal, with him praising someone who, (fictionally), shot Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood, or another time when he said he would kill the relatives of Muslims to send a signal -- and of course, the coward immediately backed down on all of that.
{ You didn't say what follows but it would be no better than saying }>>I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of being black, which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how blacks should be treated. I can easily believe that being black is wrong, and someone who is black harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this.
But the last sentence suggested you think the latter as in:
{ You may have meant } >>I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of homosexual sex which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I can easily believe that homosexual sex is wrong, and someone who engages in homosexual sex harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this.
I disagree with both, but I wouldn't feel I should be in a position to judge someone holding the latter view for religious reasons. So, if the following is what you meant:
Quoting Agustino
Then fine. And I would agree with the following:
Quoting Agustino
As it would boil down to a difference over what is considered a moral act. So, I agree with the liberal that we should be free to do what we want with our bodies as long as we are in consent. I disagree that others have to like it or that we all have to like each other.
Sorry, I kind forgot what thread we were on there for a while. If it goes on, I'll cut it out and put it somewhere else.
Many Republicans would rather see Bernie elected than Trump or Clinton so you can expect a lot of shuffling amongst people on who they want in office.
The latter. The former is impossible to agree to, because I can see someone having homosexual tendencies and not giving in to them, and I would think such a person has made the right moral choice, even though it is difficult.
Quoting Baden
Yes I did mean this.
Quoting Baden
I agree to this as well :)
They all have character, though some stand out amongst the others - sometimes for the wrong reasons. Character doesn't just mean being loud and obnoxious and arrogant and acting like a clown.
The term "illegitimate child" is outdated and offensive. That the child was born outside of marriage is not in itself morally wrong or even morally relevant, despite it seeming otherwise to people inside their little bubble of old-fashioned discrimination.
I am somewhat curious why you think that homosexual acts are harmful to those who engage in them, but I don't even want to know your answer.
Of course it doesn't, and in some of those points Donald Trump (though not Ted Cruz) is lacking.
Quoting Sapientia
Why? Do you think promiscuity is a virtue that should be encouraged? Is it good for our society for people to be promiscuous?
Quoting Sapientia
I simply think that ultimately homosexuality can't lead to flourishing and fulfillment, even though someone who feels homosexual urges may THINK otherwise. I believe someone's well-being is ultimately an objective matter, which does not depend on what one himself thinks. A miser is still miserable, even if he feels happy - the happier he feels in fact, the more miserable he is.
And for not wanting to know my answer. Do you mean that it is wrong to believe as I do? Do you think that I am any less worthy as a human being because I believe so? I think morality, and by that I mean traditional morality plays an essential role in the well-being of society. So many people are suffering today because they have forgotten what is most important: virtue. That's why there are so many people who are very angry in the US election. They have been decieved over and over, they have been promised the good life over and over, but it never got delivered to them. The more our culture has pushed for cultural relativism, the more unhappy our people have become. And moral knowledge has nothing to do with intolerance. I can believe that abortion is wrong, and a woman who decides to have an abortion has committed a grave moral mistake, and STILL hold that women should have the right to have abortions because the state has no right to enforce morality - because, afterall, there can be no moral excellence without the possibility of moral failure. In fact, what is wrong with people like Sanders isn't that they're fighting for freedom of choice - but rather that they are not upholding a moral stance on things while fighting for freedom of choice.
Having said all this, I think homosexuality is a relatively minor vice compared to promiscuity for example, which is both more rampant and a much more serious problem. I respect for example, the Ancient Greeks, who thought well of homosexuality. And I don't think homosexuality is anywhere near close to lust and promiscuity in endangering someone's own well-being.
I mean, if I saw two homosexuals who were married and have lived with each other faithfully their whole lives, I would see something to applaud - the virtues of loyalty, faithfulness and integrity are much more important than sexual orientation.
That's a non sequitur. Marriage isn't necessary to have non-promiscuous relationships. Imagine a married couple without the marriage. It isn't that difficult. But I don't see anything wrong with casual sex or sex outside of a relationship or sex outside of marriage, provided there's mutual consent. It's good for society not to discourage this sort of freedom, and it's good for people to have this freedom and not be or feel oppressed or judged by the narrow-minded.
Quoting Agustino
It is wrong to believe as you do if the belief is wrong. I suspected that it was wrong, and I still do, in both senses, as untrue and as morally damaging and repugnant; and it's the latter sense in particular which angers and offends me, which is why I said that I don't want to know. But that doesn't mean that I think that you should be arrested for a thought crime, so don't play the victim. You're no less human; you're all-too-human.
Quoting Agustino
What matters in that scenario is not the gender of those in the relationship, nor whether or not they're married, nor whether they live together, nor the legth of the relationship. What matters is whether or not the relationship has been virtuous, and whether those involved have been faithful and loyal for the right reasons. Neither of those qualities are virtuous in of themselves, but only in the right context. It's not just more important than whether or not the couple is gay, whether or not the couple is gay doesn't matter at all. That should not be your concern.
A committed relationship counts as marriage for me, in the spirit, if not in the letter. In fact, in ancient times, people were married quite often when their families declared them married :) . I don't see the need of a Church to institute marriage. Marriage is spiritual, first and foremost.
Quoting Sapientia
Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it's good for society not to discourage any kind of freedom. People should be free to make their choices simply because, as I said before, moral excellence cannot be achieved without the possibility of moral failure. This is ofcourse not to mean that people should not feel the weight of moral decisions. I cannot be an excellent husband if I am somehow forced by circumstance not to cheat. On the other hand, I am an excellent husband when the possibility of cheating exists, and I freely refuse it. Nevertheless, this does not preclude moral education and teaching others about the dangers of promiscuous sex.
Quoting Sapientia
Not to "feel" oppressed? There we have it. You're not worried about them BEING oppressed, you want them to not FEEL oppressed. So if I tell a man who enjoys promiscuity that he is harming his own mind, would that oppress him? Of course not. But he may FEEL oppressed. The only way to prevent him from feeling bad is to keep him under his moral blindness, and I, Sapientia, am not willing to do that. You may be willing, but I have a responsability towards my fellow human beings, to advise them to think carefully about their lives, and take care of their bodies and minds. You may not want people to think, because thinking may hurt, but I think the rewards of thinking outweigh the initial pain. As for you thinking that this is narrow minded - not at all. I accept that people can choose differently, but I will warn them that they do so at their own peril.
Quoting Sapientia
So it's morally wrong to believe that there's a lion in the adjacent room (when there really isn't one)? We were trying to discuss moral right and wrong there, so please don't equivocate :)
And if you were not equivocating, and you used them both in the sense of moral wrong, then please explain to me what is morally wrong about the belief I put above? What is morally wrong in thinking homosexual sex harms the participants, regardless of what they think?
Quoting Sapientia
Why is thinking morally repugnant to you?
Quoting Sapientia
Correct!
Quoting Agustino
I think this particular field was rather thoroughly plowed a while back here and elsewhere, nevertheless...
It is presumptuous for you to flatly claim that someone may think themselves fulfilled but actually not be fulfilled. "Feeling fulfilled" is a subjective experience. If I say I have fulfillment, you pretty much are obligated to accept the statement -- unless you have substantial evidence that I am self-deceived. Objectively, or at least less subjectively, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and not least--homosexuals themselves--think they achieve fulfillment in life and regularly perform various social roles with the same success as heterosexuals. NOTE: this formulation allows room for flat out failure, which a proportional percentage of people, both homosexual and heterosexual, achieve.
Honest self-examination reveals that I have experienced both success and fulfillment and flat-out failure in various aspects of life, at different times. That seems to be the case with most people. It is probably true for you too.
There does seem to be a belief among some heterosexuals that it is women's job to keep men under control. I don't recollect hearing that in traditional wedding ceremonies.
Whether Sanders has a child conceived while not married or not, and whether Bill behaved well or not, is scant evidence as to Sanders' and Hillary's qualifications to be president.
I think there is a moral issue in having children outside of marriage: "Will the child be adequately cared for by both partners for at least the first 18 years of life?" For women, I think it is poor morality to deliberately conceive children one doesn't have the means to support, and for men, it is poor morality to abandon children without adequate support. It tends to be difficult for a single woman to adequately care for children without a partner to contribute time, talent, and resources. Inadequate support can have quite negative consequences.
As far as I know, Sanders' child was not abandoned without support.
Except in the case of late stage syphilis--nothing to sneeze at--little sex or a lot of sex has no known effect on the mind. My guess is that plentiful sex (even among the boys) is probably as beneficial to mental health as a strong interest in morality is. Or, possibly, too much sex or too much interest in morality are equally unhealthy for the mind. If one spends ones days doing nothing but fucking OR doing nothing but contemplating morality, the results will be equally unfortunate. One of them will at least be more amusing.
The virtue of promiscuous sex, or the lack of it, is something I have spent decades thinking about.
Sexual activity, per se, is first a physical function without any moral implications. It gains moral reproach or approval as a result of additional considerations.
The morality of a given sexual act depends on the state of the participants, for one thing. Single people are not bound by a marriage contract, and single people can not gain practical experience in sexual behavior without having sex.
Is it good for morality to have experience in sexual behavior? That would depend on what you expect of the performers. It might be the case that married partners without prior sexual experience will find each other totally satisfactory because they have nothing to compare. In which case ignorance is bliss. Or, it might mean that people with sexual experience should be franker about what they want in a partner and what they, themselves, can deliver BEFORE they marry. Or it might mean that a virtuous relationship will require agreement to one or both partners having sex outside of the relationship (practically this probably won't work well).
Promiscuous sex makes sense for gay men (in most parts of the world) because there is absolutely no support for declared gay partnerships--because many people think gay sex is, per se, immoral. The same people are likely to doubt the goodness of homosexuality as a state of being, tolerable only if there is no expression of the state of being -- something that is definitely harmful to the mind.
Single heterosexuals who can't find a suitable mate have little choice but to be promiscuous. If morality views unmarried heterosexuality the same way it views homosexuality -- OK as a state of being, but if not, don't express heterosexuality behaviorally -- then "morality" just adds to the sum-total of misery in the world.
People, whether married or not, are entitled as human beings to satisfying self-expression, including physical sexual expression (of course, as long as it isn't deliberately destructive to the partner). If satisfying physical sexual expression can be obtained within marriage, great. If not, then it is appropriate to seek it outside of marriage.
"Marriage" should not be morally fetishized. Marriage is a social arrangement; it isn't divinely ordained (nothing is). Marriage does not guarantee virtue; it may not even facilitate virtue (when it fails). Singleness is not a moral failing. Sex among single people is not a moral failing.
Sex becomes a moral failing when it is abusive (rape), when it is cruel and exploitative (human trafficking for sexual purposes), when it is destructive (for example, adult/pre-pubertal child sexual relationships), deceitful ("Yes, I have always used a condom in all previous sexual encounters" when in fact one wouldn't even think of using a condom; "Yes, I am taking birth control pills and I can not get pregnant" when in fact one wasn't on birth control and one intended to get pregnant) and so on.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think fulfilment is only about a subjective experience. Again, this simply is not how we use the word in our daily language. We don't say that the drug addict is fulfilled, even though, according to his remarks he is. Neither do we say the psychopath is fulfilled, even though, according to his own remarks, he is. There are certain objective standards which have to be met, as well as accompanied by the subjective experience to call someone fulfilled. Among these standards are that the person should strive to learn more and develop their mind, develop their body to its full potential, form meaningful and lasting relationships with those around them, grow and cultivate character, do good for their community, form (or seek to form) a strong family and have children, help those in need, etc. - and someone who does not fulfil those standards is not fulfilled, regardless of how they feel about it. These standards come from the very nature of what it means to be human - what a human's potentials are. Someone fulfilled is someone who fulfills the potential of his nature. So a homosexual according to this will satisfy his desire for pleasure by having homosexual sex but at the cost of neglecting his potential to have a family with a woman, have a child which is his own, and possibly at developing the kind of deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think it's their job, but it's certainly shameful if their men cheat on them, and they don't do anything about it, especially when it happens repeatedly like in Hillary's case. She should have divorced Bill long ago. Any sensible woman would have. You have to be a self-serving snitch, looking only for personal interest and money not to.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Plentiful sex in a committed relationship is very beneficial, and people should not avoid having it. Rather than search for promiscuous sex, why not search for a meaningful relationship and do your own self a favor? Why would you hurt your own mind? This is not about eliminating what is good, but rather eliminating what is bad and keeping what is good.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, as all other socialists, you seem to think that the state, or a single parent, can provide adequate care for the child. I will say that it is possible for a single parent to (not for the state), but very difficult. Someone who, after having a child, does not marry that person, therefore commits himself to a very risky position, and thus threatens the well-being of the child.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Both of them are equally harmful. The navel gazer is just as pitiful as the promiscuous man.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Intercourse is never a physical function, it is, first and foremost, a psychological one.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yeah, that's why single people would do well and get in a committed relationship so that they can learn, together with their partner, and grow together through their sexual exploration, as well as through other means.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Committed relationships are not business transactions. You're interested in a person as they are, not in getting "what you want". What you want should be to know another person deeply to begin with.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed, and this is unfortunate.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is false. They do have a choice, which is to look for a suitable mate. To develop relationships with others, and to focus their single time on developing themselves and becoming virtuous people, so that when the right person comes along, they will be at their best. Alternatively there is masturbation for relieving sexual tension that cannot be otherwise controlled, which is less harmful than promiscuous sex.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I disagree. Marriage is a psychological (or spiritual) arrangement between two people first, and only secondly a social arrangement.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It is, because they train their minds with the wrong habit, to associate sex with mere pleasure as opposed to intimacy and growing together with another person. Thus they make themselves blind to the potential that sex has, and in so doing ruin their lives. I have known many people, especially women, who are having trouble having any sort of meaningful relationship because of their past promiscuity. They only realise that now - long after. But it just follows to show that virtue is its own reward, and vice is its own punishment. These matters are serious matters BC. It's got nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with well-being. Ancient peoples were firmly against promiscuous sex, even those that were not religious (Epicurus one simple example). Why? Not only because you could have an unwanted child, but because of the effect it would have on your mind. Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus repeatedly reproach it. We need to organise society in a way that takes these matters into account. Not by letting everyone free without any instruction, that's what the West has done for the last 100 years, and look where we are! We're more miserable than ever. Not by encouraging them to have as much sex as possible with random people to gain "experience". That's what got us where we are. We must provide our young people with good instruction and ideals to aspire to, we must teach them about virtue and morality, and we must be compassionate towards their failings, as they will inevitably fail at first.
If we do this, we will be less likely to have people completely broken down in their early 30s, alone, with no one to care for them, and totally confused, with nothing to look forward to. It's not acceptable that so many are suffering because of this. And it's a simple matter - all it takes is a little moral education. In the Western world people recieve 0 moral education nowadays. That's not right. It's got to change if we are to have a society at all.
We've created Tinder and all sorts of insanities, would it not be better if we focused the same brains that created Tinder on creating ways for people to get together in committed relationships? That way people would have as much sex as possible (which by the way is good), and also fulfil the other needs of their nature.
There's only 3 important topics which can make or break your life but not many in the West find it "polite" to discuss them. Sex, Politics and Spirituality. People who do wrong in these 3 fields hate being criticised or shown that they are wrong. Of course this only causes them to go to their own destruction...
Being born homosexual (and later electing what to do with it) frequently carries with it the cost of not passing on one's genes. Of course, with technology or by a willing suspension of disbelief, a gay man can father children. Lots of gay men have--though probably many of them were actually bisexual. I've thought about that. It isn't necessary that everyone pass on their genes. With 7+ billion genetic donors, we will somehow have to survive without mine. Would I have made a good father? Now--with maturity and the settled mind of early old age, yes. But I was in way too much turmoil not related to sexuality at all when I was of the usual breeding age. Everyone was better off by me dealing with my own mishegas and not getting married. I didn't set up a happy gay home with Bob until I was 36, and that lasted for just about 30 happy years (cancer ended it).
I haven't been fulfilled a good share of my life -- I didn't fulfill the potential of my nature -- not my sexual nature (that got fulfilled in spades) -- which I think was to be a somewhat contemplative change agent who early on gravitated toward leftist politics. I didn't fulfill this feature because, putting it succinctly, I didn't know how. Now I know how, but am running out of steam. That's life, again.
There wasn't much missing my long term relationship. It was strictly voluntary (no marriage vows holding it together), it had the "deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers" per your description. I also had along the way quite a few short relationships which I would not want to have missed -- I would not want to have missed your dreaded promiscuous sex, either -- it was just great more often than not.
It should be obvious to you, but the thing that keeps most gay men from marrying women and having children is a near total lack of interest in the female body. Gay men having sex with often just doesn't work well.
You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. That isn't a crime, it's not a disgrace, it's not a social faux pas, it's not even politically incorrect. it's who you are, Agustino. You are a traditional Christian moralist committed to marriage, family, deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful [heterosexual] lovers, and that is all fine by me. Stock with it. I have no complaints about your essential nature.
You, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best.
We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. I think there is a proper, moral way to practice promiscuity: respectful, responsible (don't transmit diseases which you can avoid transmitting), generous -- give and receive both, non-predatory (leave partnered couples alone), practice with mutual consent.
How much promiscuity? Moderation in all things, of course. If one is obsessed with having sex, something has gone haywire in one's personality, and it should be dealt with promptly. One should not risk jail for sex -- therefore, don't decide to perform blowjobs on the capitol steps. It won't turn out well. (Far fetched example -- don't know anybody who did it.
Along with promiscuity, one should engage in politics in the gay community. The gay sexual community proceeded the gay political community (gay sex created both). If you you like being gay, then engage politically to protect yourself and your brothers from predatory legislators who have nothing better to do with their time in office but to harass homosexuals.
And don't forget to militate against the right wing preachers who think it is Christlike to specialize in denouncing gay sexual toothpick sins (which they presumably are not involved in) while ignoring the barked logs of corporate and individual sins -- greed, hypocrisy, predatory lending, environmental devastation, war, et al.
That's what they said about masturbation. They lied.
Oh come now! People talk about sex, politics, and religion all the time. What circles are you traveling in where all this isn't talked about?
coincidentally, that's what a lot of people think Hillary is.
I din't say anything about the state raising the child. I think it is the parents' job (emphasis on the plural there) to raise their child(ren). I think the state should encourage procreation among married partners, because that objectively seems like the best setting for successful childrearing. It can do this by such things as mandating maternity leave, paternity leave, prenatal care, tax rebates, and the like. I'm not interested in having the state open up baby farms.
Well, don't know about you, but intercourse has always been a physical function for me and my partners. Of course there is a critical psychological piece too.
Well BC, thanks for sharing your story, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your partner. There's elements of good in every life, and I am sure you have developed a lot of good traits going through what you have gone through, and in the end character is what matters. However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children - but I would wagger that now you would have felt more fulfilled than you currently say you feel. Alas, I am not in a position to judge you or your life - first of all I am younger than you, and I generally hold older people in respect, and second of all you have a right as all people do to make your own choices and bear their benefits and/or consequences that they bring.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think this is untruthful. I have said numerous times that people should have the freedom to decide what to do in sexual matters for themselves. This of course does not mean that all decisions are equally good, and it does not mean that everyone will make the right decision. However, it is precisely for this reason, and we can both agree that sexuality plays a very important role for well-being, that sexual morality must be one of the most important topics of discussion.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think the ultimate in human existence doesn't exist or is unachievable (Socrates, by and large, is an example of achieving that). But I do agree that I haven't achieved it yet.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Which is a pity, because those who do violence to homosexuals literarily force homosexuals to become even more homosexual in their desires. What should instead happen is that a moral argument is put forth, and people allowed to decide for themselves.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I do tell these people when I meet them that it does no good either to them or to homosexuals to denounce them - certainly it doesn't convince homosexuals to change their ways. No violence can, only reasonable argument and loving discussion can do that.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Masturbation does blind you as well to a certain extent... not as much as other forms of vice though.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes but not serious talk. The make fun of sex, politics and religion very often. The favorite subjects of comedians unfortunately. But serious talk about either three is very rare, because it makes people uncomfortable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It's good to see you think this way :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure we don't. I cannot agree with it after the number of people I have seen being destroyed by it, the number of people who just did it because they didn't know any better - they didn't recieve a good education about it, because society doesn't discuss it anymore.... Also my whole study of human history reveals that promiscuity has always been socially dangerous and ultimately goes against man and woman's own nature and best interest. This includes atheistic, non-religious philosophers such as Epicurus and Spinoza, and includes absolutely all of the world's religions. I think it's quite safe that the vast majority of people, whether religious or not, have historically agreed to this. Not to mention that the investigation of my own soul allows me to understand how promiscuity can initially seem tempting to some, upon thorough investigation one can see that it is a poison for the soul.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think that when intercourse becomes a physical function we have lost what is most important in it.
It is certainly the case that the West (and much of the world) has been undergoing a large shift in the norms of social, sexual, marital, behavior and fulfillment. We know what we are shifting from (19th century ideas and earlier) and the old values have been breaking up and then crumbling. A new regime will eventually come into existence -- don't know when or what, sorry. One is either fortunate or unfortunate to live during periods of social upheaval. It is exciting, alarming, depressing, joyful, etc. The thing to remember is that promiscuity, gay liberation, high rates of single motherhood, unplanned pregnancies, all that and more are a consequence of upheaval, not the cause.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
It need not be the prelude to the apocalypse. More likely it is only the prelude to the next rapprochement among competing views, interests, preferences, demands, concerns, commitments, and so on. A new morality will emerge, there will be new sinners, new saints, and so on. I have no idea how the chips will fall -- and nobody else, either, knows.
Keep breathing -- no telling how long this will take.
Heterosexual marriage was not a psychological possibility. It was out of the question from the get go, and some things one just has to accept, and that was one of them.
I think this isn't so true about the rest of the world. If you look at countries like Brasil, China, Russia, etc. you're seeing a shift back towards traditional values nowadays. It's only Europe and parts of the US which are different. Again, I don't think this is anything more than a blip in history. In fact the US I think is slowly going to turn back to traditional values. I don't think either Hillary or Bernie are going to win in the US. What's happening at the moment is that the media and Hollywood is largely controlled by "liberals" (I put it in quotation marks, because liberal never used to mean "leftist"; rather it was a word applied to conservatives like John Locke) who are extremely vocal. In fact, this has always been the weapon of socialists, and social reformers - a lot of screaming, which makes a small minority appear as the majority. There's a large majority of people that is not represented by these people and is at the moment being unheard and ignored.
Then you should have been clearer. If you had have simply said "committed relationship" rather than "marriage", then you would've avoided foreseeable misunderstanding.
Quoting Agustino
Of course it does. That's the difference between cheating and not cheating. Cheating is what makes it wrong. Without the cheating aspect, we're just left with your subjective waffle about it being a vice. Needless to say, I reject your assertions about it being a vice, so you're just wasting time with your tirade against vice from your presumed moral high ground. Once you've established that it's a vice, then I suspect I'll find your argument more compelling, but I won't be holding my breath regarding the former.
Quoting Agustino
You really should take more care in reading the quotes that you reply to. If you had have done so, then perhaps you wouldn't have made such an easily avoidable mistake in understanding. I did clearly state that it's not good for people to BE (or feel) oppressed. I said so because neither are good, and to emphasise that even if you don't advocate oppression by force, the mental oppression caused by judgementalism is still concerning, especially if unwarranted, as it is in this case.
Quoting Agustino
Your false analogy about a lion isn't helpful. It's wrong because it's harmful misinformation. With a sensitive issue such as this, given it's historical, cultural and societal context, and, in particular, that homophobia is no thing of the past, people - yourself included - have a great responsibility to ensure that the views or information that they espouse or share is credible. You've given me no reason to accept that what you've claimed is true.
Quoting Agustino
Why do you think that twisting my words is productive?
Quoting Agustino
Odd. So you don't think that whether or not they're married is important? Or are you now equivocating? Are you implying that whether or not they're married isn't important, but that whether or not they're "married" (i.e in a committed relationship) is important? I also find it odd that you so readily agree that the respective genders of the couple aren't important. That implies that you don't think that gender effects whether or not the relationship is virtuous. Otherwise you'd surely claim instead that it's important in at least that respect. If you don't think that gender is important, then how, in your view, would a same-sex relationship be virtuous? Must they refrain from any sexual activity with each other? That would indeed be oppressive, not to mention utterly wrongheaded.
No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid. So really, if consent is the only matter that you think is important for sexual morality, then in truth you are arguing for NO sexual morality whatsoever, and merely masking this.
As for sexual morality. Sex has two purposes; one physical (reproduction) and the other psychological (intimacy). Failure to meet at least one of those purposes is wrong, end of story. Promiscuous sex does not facilitate intimacy, and a growing together in love, and is therefore a failure to actualise the potential that exists in sex. Because one who engages in this 1. fails to fulfill the potential of sex, and 2. damages their mind by training it to become blind to the real potential of sex and 3. harms the other partner in the same way s/he harms himself, and 4. harms their own future committed partner and/or the future committed partner of the other person. Fact remains, that no rational person would sacrifice intimacy + pleasure for pleasure. Only an irrational, or at least a rational but ignorant person would do so.
Take a small child, and watch his development, to the age when he learns about sex. You will see, that a child finds it morally horrendous to think about having sex with someone if they don't love them, and are committed to them. Why? Because this is natural for human beings. The one who is seeking to impose extremist values on others is not me, but you. You should be aware that literarily 80%+ of thinkers, including atheists, have thought as I say about sex. Check out Epicurus for example. They don't make atheists like that anymore, do they? The man realised that consent isn't the only important matter when it comes to sex. The effect it has on your mind is more important - that's why Epicurus encouraged non-sexual relationships between people, because he understood the dangers of non-commitment.
Edit: I might add the Kantian argument here which is also valid:
1. It is wrong to use another person solely as a means for personal satisfaction - this objectifies them, and treats them as an object and not a person.
2. Promiscuous sex involves using another person for personal satisfaction, treating them effectively as a temporary object to help one gain something (pleasure) for themselves.
THUS: promiscuous sex is wrong, as it objectifies the other person, and does not lead to the spiritual/psychological betterment of the other, as sex in a committed relationship would.
The facile objection that having sex involves giving the other person pleasure as well won't cut it. Why? Because the intention is to use the other to get pleasure for yourself, the fact that the other may also enjoy it is only of secondary concern to you, and ultimately accidental if it happens. Committed sex on the other hand treats the person not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself - through having sex you seek unity with that person.
Quoting Sapientia
I have a freedom to express my thoughts about any subject, including the morality or immorality of homosexuality and/or anything else, and you have no right to tell me that I should hold my thoughts to myself - neither do you have a right to tell me you feel judged, because I have not judged you or anyone else. I have just made a statement. If the statement makes you feel bad, perhaps your conscience is telling you something...
Quoting Sapientia
In your opinion it's misinformation, that is one, and secondly, does it encourage violence towards anyone? No, it encourages respect towards everyone including homosexuals, but takes a moral stand on homosexual sex, thereby teaching people morality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact there would be something wrong if we did not teach other fellow men morality.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes.
Quoting Sapientia
Gender is important, but not as important. That's why I've said that I consider homosexual sex to be a relatively small vice, compared to the danger of a vice like promiscuity.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think this, but I fail to see how it would be oppressive if I thought so. You think two people who are attracted to each other cannot be attracted to each other without having sex?? They cannot have a satisfying relationship without sex?
No, what I was talking about was sexual morality. I was talking about the morality of certain sexual acts. Weren't you paying attention? I said that provided there's mutual consent, there's nothing wrong about, for example, sex outside of a relationship. That is, if a couple agree to have sex with other people, then there's nothing in itself wrong about that. What matters are the reasons behind that agreement and the foreseeable consequences, and they're not necessarily detrimental.
I reject your excessively narrow psychological interpretation of sex. It need not be about intimacy and growing together in love. If that's the way that you see it, then that's fine. But that's your personal view, and shouldn't effect those for whom it doesn't concern. If you expect that of a sexual partner, then by all means, make that clear to them before having sex with them. But otherwise, your view may be unwelcome for good reason.
Quoting Agustino
You might not like what my conscience is telling me.
I haven't denied that you have such a right, nor have I said that you should keep your thoughts to yourself - although there's a time and a place. (It's appropriate on a philosophy forum of all places). But you're wrong that I have no right to tell you if I feel judged. Talk about double standards! And you have clearly judged a group of people of which I might or might not be a part, so why deny it?
Quoting Agustino
If you verify your information with credible sources, then I'll concede that it's not misinformation. But I doubt whether you can do so. And just because it doesn't encourage violence, at least explicitly, that doesn't mean that it isn't harmful. There are plenty of non-violent views and questionable or false information which is nonetheless harmful, and which would be seriously detrimental if widespread. This is the stuff that influences how we think and act and how we judge and treat people. It's important that we get it right, I'm sure you'll agree. Subjective opinion alone and prejudice are not good enough. Can you do better? You did mention objectivity, but I've yet to see any sign of it.
Quoting Agustino
Of course not. Don't be silly. I meant that it would be oppressive if people were to refrain from engaging in such sexual activity against their will and desire and good judgement. (Of course, you might not agree that it's good judgement). If they were to adopt such a moral standard, then they would be obliged to do so in order to be "virtuous".
I've explained what is wrong with it, have you not read my previous post? Do you disagree with any of the points there? If so, why?
Quoting Sapientia
It's not excessively narrow - I have taken into account both physical and psychological purposes of sex (excessively narrow would be saying sex is just for reproduction). And the purpose of sex is an objective statement by the way. This is the purpose not only for me, but for all people (whether they realise it or not), because it simply is the complete fulfilment of sexual potential, including the physical aspect (reproduction) and the mental one (intimacy). When you consider what sex is, you will inevitably come to this conclusion. So you are free to reject my view, but that is not an argument. Just a denial.
And by the way, my so called "narrow" interpretation of sex is the interpretation of most human beings who have ever lived. The fact that you and your progressive friends think differently about sex doesn't matter. You (progressives) are a blip in history, an accident. Millions before have thought just like me, and I can guarantee you that millions after me will think just like this, with this so called "narrow" interpretation. Of course you must be very arrogant to think that literarily everyone else's perspective is narrow, and only yours is "wide" and correct...
Quoting Sapientia
I expressed myself wrongly, my apologies. I meant that you feeling judged by my statement is just a feeling. It's not objectively valid to say that I have judged you personally, and so it's ridiculous to make that accusation from a rational point of view.
Quoting Sapientia
Let me give you objectivity. Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity all believe homosexual sex is immoral. This means that 90%+ of people who have ever lived historically have believed so. You must be very arrogant to believe, without any argument, that these people were all idiots, and you are the smart one. People from all corners of the Earth, independently of each other, have arrived at EXACTLY the same belief. People from different cultures, people of different races and ethnicities, people of all sorts of different backgrounds. You have to explain to me how people came to believe this falsehood in such large numbers, all independently from each other, from different corners of the world? Why don't people believe many other possible falsehoods? Then you have to tell me how some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, for example Schopenhauer, came to believe similar things as well, if such things are false. I'm going to enjoy seeing you try to disprove all of history, including some of the smartest people who have ever lived - it's certainly going to be fun to watch (and before you say it, I am aware of the Ancient Greek position on the issue, just to make that clear - nevertheless, this position remains a very very tiny minority, that nevertheless I respect - the Greeks at least had good arguments, which is why I consider homosexuality alone and of itself to be a minor vice compared to promiscuity for ex.)
As for promiscuity being bad. I won't even bother to prove the objectivity of this. Literarily all thinkers in history have believed this - believers and non-believers alike. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, etc. etc. literarily everyone, the smartest minds that have ever existed, the greatest people in history. It's such a joke that you say the opposite without bothering to provide any sort of argument.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, but will anyone force them to adopt it? No. But I will tell them the truth. If they want to refuse the truth, they can do so, but they do it at their own peril. If someone wants to hurt himself, in the end there is nothing that others can do to stop him if he is determined to do it - and he is free to do it. That is the thing with freedom - you suffer the consequences of the choices you make! :)
All I can say for sure is that I am so happy to have left the USA some 23 years ago.
Seeing now just how much hatred, racism, violence/justifications for violence, misogynistic & homophobic stupidity the general public has within itself, I feel that I really never wish to return to that place ever again. Austria is certainly not perfect, but there are simply far too many screwed up people in the USA with too many weapons and far too little common sense or understanding of reason or logic or patience.
Sorry to sound this way, but I have really become not only disappointed in the people of the USA, but I have really found myself very embarrassed by their current actions.
Indeed this is simply my opinion and it is not really expressed in terms of philosophy, but to be fair there has really been next to nothing regarding this issue of election that has had much to do with philosophical thinking.
I'll now go back into hiding.
Meow!
GREG
In fact, as ideological production centers, the general failure of K-12 schools in the US means that many live outside of the cognitive regulatory reach of the state apparatus. Incredulous to grand narratives, distrusting of representatives of authority. Who cares if you got the badge and blue uniform Mr. Pig Man, who cares if you're legally 'right', that the assertion of your authority through violence in all of its felt, raw irrationality of the immediacy has behind it an abstract apparatus and sign, an endless codex written in non-human language, stored away in digital libraries and off-limits spaces, inflexible to circumstance and the little imperfections of the ebb and flow of bare life. Reference to a by-law does not justify legal authority except through circular reasoning. I am here. I speak myself, I live these streets and know who you really represent. It is the talk and murmur of my fellow prisoners. Your flag is a jolly-roger, gun-slinging pinkertons sanctioned by statesmen who speak between two fasces, of 'law and order', to protect the highest bidder and the general state of things.
Of course it also means a general deterioration of the social body, the capacity to readily identify as a part of a larger whole. Every individual is a private corporation, taking risks and making investments; I have no ethical responsibility in my actions so long as it's legal, it's up to the big other, the government, to step in and regulate it. Responsibility and moral agency deferred, children under the loving and watchful care of big daddy. Literature used to be our great secular transcendence, and the chorus of the rooted community joined in common interest and political song, the totalizing narratives of the early 20th Century (in its wonderful as well as horrific forms). In its place, we turn toward the spectacle, toward the news and its constant mood of some fresh new catastrophe. Political theatre has turned into show business. And Trump knows show business.
All of this is a global process, and I don't see Americans as being uniquely effected by it.
However, there might be hope of a contested convention, in the event that a portion of superdelegates are all that decide the nomination. I find this situation more hopeful, as it will help generate a narrative and national recognition of the Democratic Party as inherently undemocratic, as it exists in any case. It could help lead to masses of people (finally) breaking away from the Dems and carving out genuine left alternatives, no longer under the same illusions that the party is there to motivate their interests in the halls of power. One can hope. Electing one president won't produce the changes that are needed anyway. There will be no deus ex machina.
___________________________________
From a friend who specializes in media communications and public opinion:
I'm in between the optimistic and pessimistic views. What the pessimistic view misses out on is the trend in knowledge and opinions: against Clinton, for Sanders. Nothing's to say the trend couldn't peter out or reverse, but to take it seriously requires being less pessimistic, or "right-now-realistic", than this critic..
Are the criticisms about the math behind his campaign accurate? Accurate right now, sure, but that's a standard that has continuously failed at predicting the future in this campaign.
People talking about Sanders' "momentum" I wouldn't call it "momentum"...It's about the spread of ideas. We've already seen a massive spread over the past half year - question is where is the saturation point, or where the speed of spread slows down. Most ideas diffuse according to an S shaped curve: slow at first, then rapid growth, then slow again. If the political information which has animated so many people to support a politician attractive only for his ideas is still in the middle of the curve, we can expect Sanders to outperform at remaining primaries. If not, if we're at the top of the curve, then the required information isn't spreading widely and quickly enough, and he'll lose. I can't think of a way to measure this; all we know is that the vast majority of USians know jack shit about politics.. but likely primary voters are probably the most informed of the majority. But "likely" primary voters aren't the only ones: there are all the formerly-unlikely voters who come out to support Sanders. So anyway, my conclusion is optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect.
___________________________________
From Robert Mcchesney, pretty much the leading researcher in the political economy of the media:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4c5h0y/now_we_know_why_the_corporate_media_npr_the_dnc/
Now We Know Why the Corporate Media, NPR, the DNC and Hillary were Desperate to Kill Off Bernie's Campaign by March 15
Because they all know Hillary is holding a weak hand. She is not popular with voters. I have been doing extensive canvassing with prospective voters in Wisconsin and it confirms what the polls say--Hillary has little enthusiastic support, especially among people under 50. People do not trust her. The more they see her the less likely they are to like her.
Even her hardcore supporters are either people getting paid off by her or expecting jobs for themselves or their friends in her administration. If you go to Hillary's reddit page to see what motivates the handful of people there to be passionate about Hillary, there are almost no issues to speak of. It seems to be mostly angry bitter people who believe it is Hillary's turn, like we live in a monarchy and anyone who challenges her right to the crown is a usurper.
That is not a very powerful selling point to a majority of Democrats, let alone Americans.
Not so with Bernie. When people get to know him, they respect him and support him. Even Republicans tend to like him more than Hillary, by a wide margin. And independents adore him. he has all the momentum and enthusiasm in the race. Hillary is reduced to the absurd position that she relies upon low voter turnout to win primaries and caucuses. That says everything you need to know about how weak she is. Because Democrats win general elections when there is high turnout, the kind Bernie routinely generates.
That is why the establishment had to run him out of the race before these truths became widely known.
They tried. They failed.
Five consecutive wins now where Bernie gets at least 70 percent of the vote. Wow.
Bernie was in single-digits or low double digits in the polls for these five states 9 months ago. Just like everywhere else except Vermont. Now he is winning total blowout victories against the biggest brand name in the Democratic Party if not the nation..
If we had a credible news media, for the next week the discussion would be whether Hillary should withdraw from the race so as to not undermine Bernie's chances in November. The establishment media would obsess with how Hillary, one of the best known politicians in the world, could be demolished in five states in which she she did better in most of them in 2008. Why is she--the putative nominee according to all the "experts"-- going so sharply in the wrong direction?
Alas, we do not have a credible media. But we have survived their offensive and they are running out of ammunition.
All hands on deck for Wisconsin. We win there and it is two weeks of intensive campaigning in New York. Hillary's home state. Bernie won his home state with 86 percent of the vote. Let's see Hillary match that.
If Bernie wins Wisconsin and makes a ballgame of it in New York, he is the leader. If he wins Wisconsin and New York, Hillary is through. Game over.
Any way you slice it, she is on life support from the corporate media right now.
The next 23 days could shape the course of history. Now or never.
___________________________
If you want to follow the campaign though, just scroll down this, they post literally all the types of news that pops up
https://www.facebook.com/groups/berniesandersactivists/?fref=nf
Here are the articles:
http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/phoenix-election-chief-blames-voters-and-laws-super-long-lines-tuesday
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-inspires-mass-protest-against-voter-suppression-arizona
http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-hearing-chaos/
Requiring more identification documentation really is a barrier, and not just to undocumented aliens who are maliciously crossing the border in order to screw up the electoral system. I'm a WASP with unimpeachable American standing, but I don't drive and don't have a driver's license. I was in my 60's before I finally went to the trouble to get a non-driver state ID--equivalent to the license. (I used to need a registered voter with a legitimate ID in my precinct to vouch for my legitimacy.) Getting an ID wasn't a terribly difficult procedure--i already had a birth certificate and could leave work for a couple of hours to go to the courthouse. Birth certificates aren't technically hard to get, but there is a small cost, some bureaucratic procedures, and often a substantial time delay.
Bureaucratic rigamarole is often a sufficient barrier preventing people from getting something they want. It is easy for conservative legislators to contrive targeted voter disenfranchisement plans. Poorer people, and certain minorities, tend to vote for liberal candidates. Putting one or two barriers in the road on the way to the polls can shift the vote enough to help conservatives win.
It went quite severe in Arizona this time though.
Which is that people registered as Democrats and had proof of that, but when they went to the polls were told they were not registered as Democrats but as Independents or PND (Party Not Designated). People even went back to get their registration cards and confirmation emails. The Electronic Pollbooks had their registrations messed up and so they were turned away and/or given provisional ballots which didn't count because their registrations were not Democrat in the [E-BOOKS]. This "error" heavily disenfranchised Sanders supporters, who switched to Democrat so they could vote for him, and even many who were Democrats for DECADES found their registrations SWITCHED.
Yes, the vote should be held again--this time with accurate lists--and more polling stations.
Agustino, do you believe that a homosexual lifestyle affects the well-being of the general public?
Depends what you mean by homosexual lifestyle. If it's a homosexual couple living non-promiscuous lives, then clearly no. If we're talking about a homosexual person who goes and tries to encourage other non-homosexuals to engage in sex with him, then probably it does affect the well-being of the general public. So it depends on the people involved.
True, but this is not exclusive to homosexuals.