• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Surges Nationally in Primary

The so-called "normal" process is not normal in CO. In 95 it was changed to a straight primary. Then in 2004 they went back to a weird modified caucus. Then they changed the caucus model again to where this one included no straw polling. It's a stoner's dream.

I think there were a bunch of stoner delegates in attendance.
 
Trump will Never sit in the oval office as President of the United States of America, too many Americans know what he is.

I was saying that at first but I'm starting to worry about that fascination with celebrity that gets athletes and entertainers and pro wrestlers elected.
 
Agreed. This is going to be ugly, and at this point... good. It's been well-earned. It appears America gets to lose again.



Well, briefly, I am quite fond of Chomsky. I'm a mixture of a libertarian socialist and a democratic socialist. I consider Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Martin Luther King, and Noam Chomsky to be the fathers of modern libertarian/democratic socialism. I have critiques of specific views that Noam Chomsky has, but on the whole I think he articulates what most libertarian socialists think and feel.
Yes, I assumed Bertrand Russell was on your reading list!

I took the Chomsky nick on a quick lark as I was signing-up here. I happened to be re-acquainting myself with him, by working my way through one of his compendiums focused on his foundation work in the area of power structures: Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky.

Unfortunately the nick is occasionally polarizing, so I catch noise from both sides: Those that believe I'm taking one of Chomsky's positions when I am not, and those that believe I should be more true to Chomsky when I'm not! I often wanted to change it and even donated to DP for that privilege, but with many posts and much time here I hate to lose my history & rep, whatever that may be. If I did it over, I would've picked something more anonymously neutral.

But as to Noam himself, I find him an exciting read! The diametric opposite of his public speaking. I haven't found many more monotonically boring in their verbal dissertations, than he; but in print, his ideas jump-off the paper! A lot of his stuff is so out of mainstream thought that I initially find it incredulous; but it is often mind-expanding, unique, and novel, and if I free my mind I can sometimes agree or see the possibilities. Of course, there's a lot he puts out there that I never do agree with, but I still walk-away feeling better for the read because he causes me to think, and think hard, and contemplate ideas and thought out of my comfort-zone. He challenges my very foundation thought and premises, and causes me to re-analyze them - and that's always a good thing!

I think he's best approached with a sixtie's mindset. Having a soft-spot for little revolution or anarchy in your heart, doesn't hurt either. I say this last with trepidation, because these terms are often associated with violence, which is not what I'm about. But I'm not above having a desire to topple a few corrupted institutions, that's for sure! So Chomsky resonates well with me.

He's also held in contempt by many, and believed to be un-American, perceived to go too far in his America bashing. But I have no problem brushing these complaints off, since he is a man of ideas and theories, not nationalistic patriotism; and his calling is to critique & expose, and to coldly & harshly analyze. In all fairness, he beats-up on all governments, and America is no exception. And his critique isn't with governments per se, but rather with power structures! And that I think is a critically important insight he continually stresses: Government and it's actions are the result of power; we need to understand these avenues of power, if we are to understand government and/or effect change. Great stuff!

TL;DR Chomsky's not for everybody, but can challenge one's foundations
 
I was saying that at first but I'm starting to worry about that fascination with celebrity that gets athletes and entertainers and pro wrestlers elected.

Won't happen this time around the two Parties have a say and not just voters, Trump is as good a dead as we speak.
 
Primaries are not elections. Nobody gets elected at a primary. They are primaries. And we have no national primary for President. Primaries, in fact, are a relative newcomer on the election scene. Who selects the nominee of a political party is up to the political party. They may set whatever rules they choose on a state by state basis, as long as they are consistent within that state. Your argument that Independents ought to be able to vote in a party primary makes no more sense than allowing non-members of the Elks Club to decide who their President will be. Many states don't even register by political party so you have no way of knowing who a Democrat, Republican, or Independent is in those states. Are you suggesting that anybody - including people who self identify as members of the other party - should be allowed to vote in any party's primary?

Sorry, but you are simply wrong in all of this.
There's no denying you are right in legal & constitutional terms.

But the issue being brought out is: A two party system has the partyies acting as the gatekeepers to the White House. Some see this as usurping the democratic process. Even as early as our first president, it became apparent this was becoming problematic; George Washington spent a decent chunk of his farewell address condemning the rise of political parties.

My favorite Chomsky position is that it was the allies, and not Hitler, who were responsible for world War II. Since he loathes every action ever taken by the United States, he can hardly make an exception about WWII, can he?
I'm not familiar with Chomsky's position on this, and am not challenging you in this regard.

But it is widely held political theory that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles contributed greatly to the rise of Nazism, which subsequently festered into WWII. Chomsky (if, as you claim) would be far from alone in this thought! It's there to some degree in just about any history book!
 
Actually you are wrong again. Nobody gets 'nominated' at a Presidential Primary. Delegates get selected to state conventions at Presidential Primaries. In all seriousness, I'd recommend a course at your local Junior College on Political Science, since you obviously don't have a clue as to how Presidential Primaries work.

This response is a whole new level of absurdity. You're so ideologically committed to naysaying me that you are willfully, intentionally, and flagrantly disregarding the principle of charity to an extreme. Assuming that your opponent is a completely obtuse imbecile doesn't reflect well of your ability to have a debate, and it makes your lack of intellectual honesty very transparent. I'm not going to deign myself to give this a rebuttal.

The fact that you are disappointed as to how the system currently operates is understandable, but largely irrelevant to the current discussion. Sanders has milked the system through the caucus process so any complaints by him about 'the system' are suspect.

Again, your biases are so strong you can't even attempt to hide them. My complaints aren't directed at the Sanders-vs-Clinton primary because Sanders is losing. Yes, this highlights lots of the problems, but to cast it in this form firstly isn't what I did and secondly, it misses the crucial points. This primary shows us how utterly and deeply flawed the whole system is, and it's been exposed openly on the Democratic and Republican sides. You didn't even pick the interesting example with Sanders doing well in caucuses. The far more interesting example is that Hillary's delegates didn't do the right bureaucratic procedures in many states (particularly Nevada), and so they didn't get counted. Because of this, Hillary lost about 30 delegates, and retroactively, Sanders actually won Nevada because of this stupid, arcane part of the system. It points out the obvious fact of the whole system is antiquated. And it's one of a list that's grown so long, it's difficult to remember all of it, which combined with other facts, it shows how in many respects the system is rigged. That's why what happened this primary matters.

Again, my main example was Cruz in Colorado, where the Republican party voters didn't even get to cast a ballot, it was wholly determined by elected party officials. That's literally out of the Communist Maoist playbook. For all of your bloviation about how Independents shouldn't get a vote in Democratic primaries, you never did explain exactly why it should be okay for Republican voters to be deprived from voting in their own primary elections. Although the only nice thing is that it does lift the veil of democracy and openly announces itself to be oligarchy. Then we have the garbage political machine that Hillary Clinton has built up that allowed her to win, and how the political machine corrupts the democratic process. We have all of the games that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz played (limiting the number of debates when it disfavored Hillary, trying to hold back Sanders voter registries, etc). Then we see the role that media plays in this, and the fact that parties, corporate media, and corporations play when they tried to dictate the terms of discussion and debate, and failed miserably. Then we have the entire RNC using their political machine (and failed) to stop Trump. I despise Trump, and anyone who is both sane and moral should, too, but one would be deceitfully reticent, gullible, or a complete ideologue to say that the RNC didn't use every dirty, anti-democratic rule in the play book to attempt stop Donald Trump, despite what Republican voters wanted. And I suspect that Trump won't make it on the first ballot, which means that he won't make it at all. That'd be the coup de grâce of exposing how the rules have been written to take power away from voters and hand them to party officials.

And anyone who says otherwise or who says none of this matters clearly hasn't been paying attention.
 
Yes, I assumed Bertrand Russell was on your reading list!

I took the Chomsky nick on a quick lark as I was signing-up here. I happened to be re-acquainting myself with him, by working my way through one of his compendiums focused on his foundation work in the area of power structures: Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky.

Unfortunately the nick is occasionally polarizing, so I catch noise from both sides: Those that believe I'm taking one of Chomsky's positions when I am not, and those that believe I should be more true to Chomsky when I'm not! I often wanted to change it and even donated to DP for that privilege, but with many posts and much time here I hate to lose my history & rep, whatever that may be. If I did it over, I would've picked something more anonymously neutral.

But as to Noam himself, I find him an exciting read! The diametric opposite of his public speaking. I haven't found many more monotonically boring in their verbal dissertations, than he; but in print, his ideas jump-off the paper! A lot of his stuff is so out of mainstream thought that I initially find it incredulous; but it is often mind-expanding, unique, and novel, and if I free my mind I can sometimes agree or see the possibilities. Of course, there's a lot he puts out there that I never do agree with, but I still walk-away feeling better for the read because he causes me to think, and think hard, and contemplate ideas and thought out of my comfort-zone. He challenges my very foundation thought and premises, and causes me to re-analyze them - and that's always a good thing!

Personally, I rarely read people and, although people may not suspect this, I tend to find reading tedious and a chore. I almost never read something over 200 words unless it's a dictionary, a technical paper, or an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is my favorite for all of the obvious reasons). That's my preference, anyways. I much prefer watching people talk, and I find Chomsky to entertaining while talking; if you're paying attention, his level of subtle vitriol is always amusing and his insights are often hard to beat. Anyways, that's not to say that I don't disagree with him on some crucial issues, but he's an important figure in Libertarian Socialism for a reason and it's well-earned.

I say this last with trepidation, because these terms are often associated with violence, which is not what I'm about. But I'm not above having a desire to topple a few corrupted institutions, that's for sure! So Chomsky resonates well with me.

I'm not a "revolutionary socialist," either, and this is one area where I would consider myself partially a (original, not mid 20th century usage) social democrat. I don't think violent revolutions are a wise idea, it tends to promote the most violent, authoritarian, sociopathic leaders into movements. But, I think you need real, palpable change, too. It's one reason that I'm unwilling to rubber stamp Hillary Clinton and neoliberal democrats. I'll compromise on Social Democrats. But if you're a Neoliberal? Eat ****.

He's also held in contempt by many, and believed to be un-American, perceived to go too far in his America bashing. But I have no problem brushing these complaints off, since he is a man of ideas and theories, not nationalistic patriotism; and his calling is to critique & expose, and to coldly & harshly analyze. In all fairness, he beats-up on all governments, and America is no exception. And his critique isn't with governments per se, but rather with power structures! And that I think is a critically important insight he continually stresses: Government and it's actions are the result of power; we need to understand these avenues of power, if we are to understand government and/or effect change.

Well, anytime someone uses the term "un-American" or "unpatriotic," we've almost certainly met someone who is trying to screw over and dupe the American public. Albert Einstein was correct when he said that nationalism is the measles of mankind. I got called unpatriotic on this forum when I had the audacity to say that exploiting slaves were an essential part of how America came about and that this meant that Americans have an obligation to at least acknowledge this. So the other side of it is that I often find that patriotism and loyalism are generally ruses to cover up (e.g. white privilege).

But yes, Noam Chomsky's work largely surrounds the topic of power relations and it's role in political structures. That's pretty unsurprising given the fact that he's a Libertarian Socialist, but yes, he's certainly made many of the arguments that concretely debunk the mythologies and folkloer that prop up the affluent and powerful in America and abroad.
 
My favorite Chomsky position is that it was the allies, and not Hitler, who were responsible for world War II. Since he loathes every action ever taken by the United States, he can hardly make an exception about WWII, can he?

*sigh* Why should I expect you to deign yourself to actually google your own claims and fact-check them yourself, or bother to put them in context...

"On War and Activist", an interview of Noam Chomsky:

Interviewer: "WWII is where I want to start. Howard Zinn wrote that “Perhaps the worst consequence of WWII is that it kept alive the idea that war could be just.” You’ve talked about that you are not a pacifist, and you believe that WWII was a necessary thing to beat back the spread of fascism."

Chomsky: "I mean I think WWII could have been prevented. But once it wasn’t prevented, the failure to prevent it, lead to a situation where you either have to allow the triumph of fascism or resist it. So after the failure to prevent it, yes, I thought it was a necessary war. On the other hand, Germany could have been stopped in 1938. They were not ready for war. Hitler wasn’t stopped, mainly because Britain and the United States weren’t that much opposed to him. In fact, they were rather, more or less supported him in many ways.

"As far as Japanese fascism is concerned, there is a complicated background. I mean Japan was monstrous aggressors right through the Thirties, but the US was not opposing it, all they wanted was that Japan grant US privileged access to China, and that went on just about two weeks before Pearl Harbor. Japan’s position, which is, from their point of view not irrational, is that they were doing just what the US and Britain has done. I mean, US for 130 years have had the Monroe Doctrine, they are going to take control of the Western Hemisphere, and hadn’t been able to implement it yet, completely, but have done it to a large extent, in (our own case) it depends, to carve out a new order of nations. In fact the US support for that, I mean the US did support it, because its going to be out of US control, but after the Second World War, the US reconstructed it, and openly.

"Could that have been prevented, yeah it could have. But once the war took place, my own feeling, I don’t know if my friend Howard Zinn would agree, is that it was a necessary war, once the war started."​

It's always funny how when you actually read Chomsky, the trite, facile character assassinations of him fall apart and are exposed as partisan hackery. There's legitimate areas to disagree with most public intellectuals, but you should make an attempt to actually characterize their views.
 
Personally, I rarely read people and, although people may not suspect this, I tend to find reading tedious and a chore. I almost never read something over 200 words unless it's a dictionary, a technical paper, or an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is my favorite for all of the obvious reasons). That's my preference, anyways. I much prefer watching people talk, and I find Chomsky to entertaining while talking; if you're paying attention, his level of subtle vitriol is always amusing and his insights are often hard to beat. Anyways, that's not to say that I don't disagree with him on some crucial issues, but he's an important figure in Libertarian Socialism for a reason and it's well-earned.



I'm not a "revolutionary socialist," either, and this is one area where I would consider myself partially a (original, not mid 20th century usage) social democrat. I don't think violent revolutions are a wise idea, it tends to promote the most violent, authoritarian, sociopathic leaders into movements. But, I think you need real, palpable change, too. It's one reason that I'm unwilling to rubber stamp Hillary Clinton and neoliberal democrats. I'll compromise on Social Democrats. But if you're a Neoliberal? Eat ****.



Well, anytime someone uses the term "un-American" or "unpatriotic," we've almost certainly met someone who is trying to screw over and dupe the American public. Albert Einstein was correct when he said that nationalism is the measles of mankind. I got called unpatriotic on this forum when I had the audacity to say that exploiting slaves were an essential part of how America came about and that this meant that Americans have an obligation to at least acknowledge this. So the other side of it is that I often find that patriotism and loyalism are generally ruses to cover up (e.g. white privilege).

But yes, Noam Chomsky's work largely surrounds the topic of power relations and it's role in political structures. That's pretty unsurprising given the fact that he's a Libertarian Socialist, but yes, he's certainly made many of the arguments that concretely debunk the mythologies and folkloer that prop up the affluent and powerful in America and abroad.
Excellent understanding.

I'm reminded again why I earlier extended a friend request.
 
Trump will Never sit in the oval office as President of the United States of America, too many Americans know what he is.

And the democrat pick would be exempt from this line of thought because ? Perhaps because "they don't"
 
And the democrat pick would be exempt from this line of thought because ? Perhaps because "they don't"

Nope it is because no matter how unacceptable they may seem when compared to some past Presidents they are still far more acceptable than some Narcissistic Big Mouth POS that is not even remotely what he claims to be, i.e. a Conservative.
 
Back
Top Bottom