Pays to be cautious so keep being suspicious. Not enough to take it seriously though.
POAC thinks it is just normal growth and this is quite likely. But I will stay suspicious.
I'm glad to see you have an understanding of the 2 party system.
Gained the hard way, unfortunately. I got suckered in and consider myself lucky to have gotten out with a few brain cells left intact, the major damage having been to my wallet and my pride.
Funny, that anarchy doesn't mean society without rules, but does mean society without rulers(greek translation). Our two party system is designed to divide us and anarchy is designed to build community....
I've been learning about anarchy also. A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," is anarchy. And corporate rule appears to be the reason it perished here, just as Abraham Lincoln had feared it would.
You are an expression of the frustration of existence and our unwillingness to bend to accomodate others views. It can't be helped- it has been designed that way to keep us divided and at odds with each other. Makes us easier to control and manipulate when we can't get together and agree on issues.
That seems like a good analysis to me. Funny, whenever this guy posts his own views, I tend to agree with him. The problem only occurs when I post anything critical of the Democrats, or when he posts something from or about the Democratic Party and I respond. Then he's all over me. I'm supposed to either say something nice about the Dems or say nothing at all, and that's not very productive from my point of view.
Accept the fear of change and move on to a trust of each other, would be a first step. Then get rid of the contentious leaders we have and put power back where it belongs- in the community of people.
I agree with you completely. And I do trust this guy when he isn't posting stuff from the Dems or spouting Dem talking points. His own personal opinions seem sound and valid to me. But he seems to think it his mission in life to promote and defend the Democratic Party. If that's what I wanted, I'd post at DU.
Whether sabotage or accident, the message is clear. We need compromise- red and blue when mixed becomes purple. A royal decision would be to blend and mix our differences into a common colour. People could do it if they only could talk to each other.
He says that a lot also. That we should be purple.
Don't expect answers to come from our political structure- they never have before. Reps. and Dems. won't change unless we force them to. Status quo is too strong.
Exactly. And he thinks that the way we should get the Dems to change is by supporting them and electing them. No matter how many times I point out that doing so only reinforces the status quo, he won't budge an inch.
Dialogue and not debate is called the way to discussion. We need a new dialogue in this country if we want peace and understanding.
I agree. But is is difficult to have a dialogue with this guy. When I state my opinion, he states the Democratic Party's position. He claims, and apparently believes, that he is
the Democratic Party (along with millions of people like him). So he thinks their talking points are
his opinion, the same way people from the other arm of the ruling corporate party do. Every time I refute a talking point or ask a question that refutes the talking point, he changes the subject, attacks me, and returns to the same talking points. It takes two to dialogue. I'm not talking to another person here, I'm talking to a corporate party sound machine. It is probably good for lurkers to read, so it can be useful, the same way that it is sometimes useful to take the time to refute trolls before banning them, but it is indeed frustrating. And it does make me suspicious.
An example is Camp Casey. He supports Camp Casey. But he doesn't see it as a viable alternative. He believes that only a strong political machine like the Democratic Party can be effective. When I point out that Camp Casey has achieved more American unity in 2 weeks than the Democrats have in 5 years, he becomes irate. To him, Camp Casey is good, but irrelevant to politics. To me Camp Casey is an example of the type of self-rule this country was founded on and sorely needs. If our leaders won't do anything, we have to do it ourselves. So I take the opposite view: that Camp Casey is effective and the Democratic Party, by failing, as a party, to oppose the war and support Camp Casey, is irrelevant. I support every Democrat who opposes the war and supports Camp Casey, but I also support every Green, Republican, Libertarian, anarchist, or otherwise affiliated or unaffiliated individual who opposes the war and supports Camp Casey. He supports Camp Casey, he supports the Democrats who also support Camp Casey, but he thinks that anyone who supports Camp Casey but doesn't support the Democratic Party is misguided, if not treacherous. He has gone so far as to say that he would vote for a pro-war Democrat so that the Democrats could win, and worry about the war later, perhaps at a subsequent election. I don't see how anyone who supports Camp Casey could vote for a pro-war candidate. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The problem with the win at all costs strategy is that it is the same strategy the Republicans have. I'd rather stand on principle and lose, than violate my principles in order to win. But when someone has made it clear that their sole goal is winning, it is a good time to watch out for them to attack by any means, fair or foul. That's why I'm still paranoid.