The biggest reason I signed the Bernie or Bust pledge is I watched all the Pundits and political analyst running around and what they said to me when I got into a convo about how Bernie COULD win and how his polling was against republican candidates they looked at me and told me the GOP was Coke and Hillary was Pepsi but Bernie was buttermilk.
And I just sat there and thought How sad it was that they thought that Bernie had no sincere PRO-Bernie supporters and we were just in favor of him because we were mad at Hillary.
and I just sat there and realized if people like me don’t start voting our consciouses the Democratic party and it’s strategist are never going to realize how we really feel.
Truly. Deep down in side and our convictions. if We don’t cast an Expressive vote then they’ll never learn.
Oh sure, You’re going to call me Spoiled, and Privileged, and talk about how much privilege it takes to vote your conscious. I mean I’ve SEEN the post you write but In my defense Oregon has 7 electoral votes and is a Safe Blue state in the Presidential election.
In other words the consequences of my writing his name in aren’t going to be very intense.
Oh sure, Perhaps it will encourage more to do the same but that’s not why i’m up to it.
I realized that I’d rather attend Bernies Concession Speech than Hillary’s Victory Rally and that’s when I realized who I really was. Oh sure we may have been a long shot all along but I GENUINELY am Not doing this out of resentment for hillary. Honestly, if she wins it’s better than the THEOCRACY that will be enabled otherwise.
Yet the reality is that If we don’t start standing for our convictions in the base how can we ever expect our leaders to do so?
and I truly believe those of us who expect our leaders to play on a higher moral plane than the rest of us are asking to deceived.
Just like Santos said in that whole thing. So perhaps It’s a “naive” dream of mine to root for sanders but ...
You see I’m not Like many of the rest of you DailyKOS, Our Leader Markos? As I recall he is a Former Republican. Many of my Favorite Democrats are Former Republicans. But as for me before I even started to consider voting for you, long ago when I was 13 and I Was giving my HONEST impression of things as somebody too young to vote I was a Green.
I’ve realized Deep down inside even when I was reading Books in school that I am a Socialist. Noam Chomsky? Noam Speaks to me.
he hasn’t endorsed almost anyone at all in how long? IN HOW LONG? HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE NOAM ENDORSED ANYONE AT ALL?
I’m being honest at this point. I’m trying to come at you with my authentic voice rather than as the voice of a man that CANNOT be expresssive with my vote because I HAVE to care more about electability than truth.
How sad is it that most of the strategist respond to us as if this is just the voice of Anti-Clinton Sentiment. Rather than the truth
Sometimes I think the Democrats and our Elected officials are the reason we’re stuck with a FPTP voting system instead of
That’’s correct ’m just Paranoid enough to suspect the vested interest in the Two party duopoly don’t actually want to undo the FPTP voting system, because they BENEFIT From us being intimidated into negative partisanship against republicans and WANT the GAME to CONTINUE having to be played that way.
if I don’t speak my truth, If I don’t vote how I actually feel then When will they ever learn that this has nothing to do with Hillary and EVERYTHING to do with Bernie.
I mean you’re talking about a man that Buses people up to Canada to get their Prescription drugs filled cheaper.
observer.com/…
I won’t be Bitter if Hillary wins, you won’t see me Cry or be upset if she is our next president.
Because that will mean having prevented the catastrophe of the Republicans winning.
But I’ve left afraid if we don’t Vote our conscious how are the Democrats on Capital Hill ever going to know how we really feel?
I would have voted for Nader in 2000 if I Had been old enough. It was my Ex girlfriends doing. Annie? Nader was the only one who supported Gay marriage bieng legal.
And Senator Clinton BTW opposed Gay marriage in 2004.
Diane Savino pretty much encapsulates how I’ve ALWAYS felt about Gay marriage:
Saying it better than I ever could.
If people like me don’t start voting as if we’re actually doing things like
www.amazon.com/…
Reading the Blurbs of the book The reviews:
Of all the articles and books of Chomsky that I have read, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies is without doubt the most exhaustively researched (and footnoted), the most logically structured, and the most convincing. Chomsky reminds us that the majority of the populace rely on the various media institutions for their information about political affairs; both domestic and foreign. One can only hold an opinion on a topic if one knows about the topic. So take, for example, the popular myth of the 'persistent Soviet vetoe' at the UN during the cold war. Why do people believe the USSR was constantly vetoeing any and every Security Council Resolution? Simple! When they did, it generated front page condemnation. When the US or the UK exercised their right of veteo: silence. As Chomsky notes, during the years of 1970 and 1989 the former Soviet Union veteod 8 resolutions. The US veteod some 56. This is what Chomsky refers to as Thought Control. Unless the public examine the factual record of the UN themselves, they will never come by this information, (at least not in the mainstream press). So although Chomsky's title may appear somewhat paradoxical, or oxymoronic, a moments reflection on such facts shows it to be, in fact, extremenly pragmatic and truthful. The question is, have you the honesty and sheer guts to question yourself and challenge the information which has contributed to your beliefs? The crux of Chomsky's argument is that propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship. Chomsky points out that, in fact, propaganda is, contrary to popular postulations, more important and vital to a democratic society because people still have some rights. That is, since people can talk, the powers that be must ensure that only the correct words come out of the peoples' mouths. In a dictatorship it does not really matter too much what people think; for whatever they may think, they have to do what they are told, by pain of death. In countries such as the US (and the UK) other, more subtle, methods are required. People often critisise Chomsky for the sources of his information (the copious footnotes). No such critique can be levelled at this work. Chomsky's sources are declassified internal planning documents, naval proceedings documents, and the very institutions he examines, New York Times, Washington Post etc. If there was one Chomsky book I would suggest you to read, this would be it.
Then how are they ever going to realize?