I'll take Pragmatism over Ideologues any day

[BootinUp]

Why BootinUp, we need change NOW!?

Because Ideologues don't adjust their plans to fit with reality.

I am so turned off by politicians that create their own reality. I don't care if its an ideologue on the right or the left, its bad for our country and bad for our future.

When the Sanders camp creates it's own reality, it reveals the ideological roots of its movement.

No thanks, I prefer my own reality, not one that is transmitted, or hammered into my brain with a bunch of angry rhetoric. The ideologues only tell us what they want us to know. They don't answer questions. Think about it.

[highprincipleswork]

1. The Clintons and the Democratic Party haven't adjusted their view of reality since the 1990's.

And if they don't change that, they will lose in November up and down the board, just as they have in so many races for so long now.

[baldguy]

2. Ideologues get people killed.

They may not intend to, but that's often the way it ends up.

[Vattel]

5. Idiots that support violent regime change in places like Iraq and Libya get people killed.

[baldguy]

7. And the Republicans who created those policies were ideologues.

When it blew up in their face, they started a campaign to blame the Democrats.

Some poor fools believed them.

[KittyWampus]

9. Idiots who blame the Koch Bros for everything rather than investigate….

and find out what's going wrong with the Veterans Health Administration end up exacerbating problems like American Veterans dying while waiting for care.

[TCJ70]

3. If you change your plans to fit reality, have you changed reality?

Or just accepted it as the only option? This gets the heart of the question: Do you actually want anything to change? It's been said over and over again by Clinton supporters that we supposedly agree on everything, but if you aren't willing to even see those things as a potential reality (free public education, single-payer, etc) then what's the point? Would Sanders get us everything we're looking for? Doubtful. But it doesn't hurt to have a solid advocate at the top.

[Broward]

4. You're for status quo, right-wing policies. We get it.

[KittyWampus]

10. No, just doing the hard work necessary and not pretending some cheap politician like Sanders

has a magic wand and can chant some slogans to fix things.

That's the difference. Pragmatists know it takes hard work and patience.

Ideologues prefer to sit on the side and pontificate.

[panader0]

6. If you set your sights low enough, they're easier to achieve.....

[KittyWampus]

11. Ah, the "All or Nothing" crowd. Would have objected to Social Security

when it started because it didn't cover every one.

[HumanityExperiment]

8. shorter...

Let me help clean your post up for ya

'I prefer my own reality'...

'nuff said

[KittyWampus]

12. Yes, the shared reality. Not the bogus one where Sanders only loses because of cheating.

[HumanityExperiment]

13. shorter...

'some cheap politician like Sanders' in 'bogus reality' can't be stopped by 'shared reality' of HRC and her supporters

gonna love the remaining contests and all those voters that didn't get your 'shared reality' memo

[JCanete]

14. So instead you help to entrench the current reality. The Clintons

have never shown any movement towards the left, so if you're saying you prefer slow incremental change right to a groundswell of public opinion forcing congress and the Presidency to move left, then I'd say you're probably going to get the change your hoping for.

I don't understand what you think we're going to get by compromising with the powers that be. They have no incentive to compromise. They own the politicians. They own the media. So either Clinton is doing their bidding, or she's not getting anything done either, because the status quo is just fine for the establishment. They don't need to give a little to get a little. Everything is working in their favor now.

Its funny because you seem to think we're the ones who don't see the world as it is. What rose colored glasses are you looking at it through?

[BootinUp]

15. There is plenty of evidence that we have made progress since 1990, 1970, 1900

The battle is being won, albeit slower than we would like.

[JCanete]

18. progress on what since 1990? People have more debt and less buying power.

Minorities are particularly harmed by the continuing state of our declining middle class. Poverty for blacks has apparently gone back to 1990 levels.

The only areas I know of that have improved are gay rights, which in my opinion could have been achieved earlier if we had dealt with money in politics and the subsequent siphoning of money from the middle class(people who are afraid for their livelihood get reactionary and aren't at their most generous or thoughtfu).

And then there's health care, which frankly is in an awkward place as far as whether or not it is actually better. It would be, if we had single payer, or a public option, or even just regulated the price, but we don't do any of these things. So, yes, thankfully people with preexisting conditions aren't barred from insurance any more, and that is incredibly significant. But this is still just a huge giveaway to insurance companies, and it had to be, or it wouldn't have gotten passed by working within the system.

I hope I'm missing something, because in 26 years, that's not much.

[BootinUp]

20. How about the end of the cold war? nt

[hedda_foil]

21. That happened on GHWBush watch, not Clinton's.

[BootinUp]

22. It was a result of bi-partisan foreign policy over decades. nt

[Ron Green]

23. The Cold War itself was the result of bi-partisan foreign policy

over decades. Did you forget about that?

[BootinUp]

24. Not sure how to respond, its a strange construction you put forth.

By any measure I can think of it worked out pretty well, since we avoided WW3. And while doing so, we helped rebuild Western Europe. Are you suggesting we need to go back and discuss pre WW2 events?

[Ron Green]

30. From 1945 for four decades the Dulles brothers and the MIC

ran the Cold War and built Consumer America to occlude the fact. That's really the legacy of our bi-partisan system, and 2016 is showing that its time is over.

[BootinUp]

35. Sorry, but you lost me. nt

[BootinUp]

38. The silly position would be to say we had nothing to do with it. nt

[BootinUp]

40. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

I am pretty sure most Americans have.

[BootinUp]

45. It set the stage for everything that followed. nt

[BootinUp]

47. You add so much to the conversation. Not. nt

[arendt]

16. You mean like HRC keeps wrecking countries because she doesn't adjust...

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Venezuela...

You mean pragmatic people who take tens of millions of dollars of money from Wall St. but are so pragmatic they have no problem vaguely giving lip service to the bottom 99%.

Pragmatic, as in having no principles at all, except winning for the sake of personal gratification and income?

Yea. We really need that kind of pragmatic --- not.

[BootinUp]

19. You are entitled to your reality

In my reality we have to make hard decisions. We can't be pacifists when there are real threats to the safety of non combatants.

We can't rely on conspiracy theories to form a plan for government. We can't let fear rule our brains.

Pragmatism in no way rules out guiding principles.

Stop buying into the bogus narratives. Put yourself into the shoes of those you attack and try to see the reality of the situation.

[cliffordu]

17. And this is your way of telling us

How privileged you are....?

[Armstead]

25. Excessive "realism" is an ideology when it leads to paralysis

And buying into corporate propaganda is ideologically lazy.

[griffi94]

26. I agree with you

You have to work with what you have.

Bernie spends too much effort talking about how
things should be as opposed to how things really are.

[BootinUp]

27. Yes. Good way to describe it. nt

[riderinthestorm]

32. Climate change can't wait for "pragmatic incrementalism"

Scientists estimate we have 5 years maybe till the leading edge of climate disasters snowball irreversibly.

A tepid climate change agenda dooms our planet. We need aggressive global leadership now.

You own that by voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. The status quo is an ideology. Saying we need a "manhattan project" to break encryption, trying to

nation-build in the middle east with trillions of taxpayer dollars- how are these not pie-in-the-sky unicorn fantasies?

[BootinUp]

44. I don't know why you want to pin the Dubya years on me. Stop it!

We would never have invaded Iraq if we had non-ideologues in charge.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Libya isn't nation building? And the manhattan project quote was HRC, last December.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml

[AgingAmerican]

42. This makes no sense

So you would rather bad deals with the Republicans, like sequestration, than fight for what is right? Wow!

Fighting for what is right is now just 'ideology' to the Hillary campaign? Anything that isn't right wing is 'purity'?

When did this happen to the Democratic party?

[ThePhilosopher04]

51. Pragmatism is another way of saying "bend over and keep taking it. Nothing will change."

Thank God ole Tommy, Georgie, Benjy and the boys didn't subscribe to to your point of view. There wouldn't be a Presidential race.