Ok for one side to disrupt the system and not the other?

[woodsmoke]

The ol' woodsmoker would like to ask just one question.

Why is it ok for the "left" to disrupt the system:

From Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

From Bill Ayers: Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."

We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society."

And it is NOT OK for the "current right" ( Donald Trump)

To disrupt the system:

From the Harvard Business Review.How Much Is Trump Really Disrupting Politics-as-Usual?

From the Motley Fool a business trading advisory group: "Trump represents uncertainty," he said. "Would he actually rip up trade deals and unwind political alliances? If so, he may well throw our economic system into chaos by disrupting supply chains that have been built over decades. This uncertainty is terrifying to many in the business community -- particularly those whose businesses operate internationally.

How is "unwinding political alliances" by a "righty" wrong....

And

How is " disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it," by a "lefty" ok?

Here is what Obama said at LaRaza

At the 2008 National Council of La Raza annual meeting in San Diego, Calif., on July 13, 2008, Obama concluded his remarks by saying, “And together, we won’t just win an election – we will transform this nation. Thank you, and God bless you.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071501138.html

From the interview with O'Reilly:

Here’s Obama’s original statement, in an October 2008 campaign visit to Columbia, Mo:

"Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor."

However, Obama has said that he changed his mind, (Remember Clinton SAID that she will continue Obama's course:

Obama: I don't think we have to fundamentally transform the nation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amentally-tra/


The left has shouted in so many ways that I don't need to supply a reference...that Trump has changed his mind on some stuff...

So why is it OK for a lefty to "change his mind" (again Hillary said that she will continue Obama's ideas) and it is NOT ok for a righty to change his mind?

Just a question, of little worth.

P.S.: lest folks think that they can rush to check Snopes as to whether Obama, who Hillary Clinton said she would follow, was "actually" .... "friends" with Ayers, Snopes says....:"partially". so lefties will poooh pooh it and righties will say that the glass is at least half full.

woodwonderingsmoke

[TWPonKubuntu]

At least this only happens every four years.

I'd get ulcers if it were more frequent.

[Qqmike]

I only quickly scanned your post Woody, but * MY * impression of this circus is simply that it is the HOW that is being questioned with Trump: how he is doing things, not so much what he wants to do (although there are some what's in question). As you all know, I lean strongly left, but I am open-minded to voting the man/woman, not the party. At the beginning of this campaign, the primaries, when I first heard Trump speak where he laid out the gist of his ideas about getting things done, I was impressed. It was one of his early, business-like, calm but forceful, sensible speeches. But jeez-Louise ... the guy turns out to be a flickering, basket-case, possibly qualifying for some DSM label (beyond his flaming ego-centric, narcissistic, dictatorial, bigot-dramatic, inciting, ... whatever et cetera's ...). By his behavior, Trump has scared the sh* out of everyone. Is the guy stable? Isn't his family upset with him--this must adversely affect the Trump brand, the business. He doesn't have to be a political insider, a career politician, but he should at least understand them at a profound level and know how to navigate, negotiate, communicate, handle them, and manipulate his way through the system. Not just simply insanely announce that He will be King, Trust Him. One other aspect of this wrt Trump, per se: If he wanted to change the political/economic/military/International system(s), doing things another and a better way, it would help if he hadn't brought along all his other crap, offending almost every demographic on the planet. So, I feel, in this current case, it was how he went about doing things, not what, per se, he wanted to change or to do. People question his sanity; and thus it is difficult to entertain the details of some of his ideas. You reach the point where you don't take him seriously any more, when he talks. My 3 cents. (We did have a 3-cent piece, you know; I like the old 2-cent piece better.)

[woodsmoke]

the guy turns out to be a flickering, basket-case, possibly qualifying for some DSM label (beyond his flaming ego-centric, narcissistic, dictatorial, bigot-dramatic, inciting, ... whatever et cetera's ...)

LOL Well at least he lets us SEE it instead of hiding it behind like the woman on the insurance advert: blah, blah, blah, blah... lol

We did have a 3-cent piece, you know; I like the old 2-cent piece better.

No.........I did NOT know that! thank you1 I learn something new from your posts all the time!

woodnotknowledgeableaboutcoinagesmoke

[TWPonKubuntu]

Qqmike, in full disclosure, I stand on the other side of the fence.

Yes, Trump is bombastic, but he also gets results. Unlike what we have in office now.

When I look at the opposition candidate, I too am scared '*****' (use several adjectives which are not acceptable in polite company here).

Both sides in this contest have baggage and dirty laundry, it is after all, a political system and not a popularity contest.

So my choice is made based on what each "side" has done in the past and what they say they will do in the future. I do have a healthy amount of skepticism and right now, I see too much of back-room, under-the-table and frankly criminal behavior coming from the Clinton/Obama camp (I would include Biden in that camp, but he is the clown who distracts the bull and entertains the crowd).

If this were an "honest" contest, I would look at results from both candidates. But it is politics and honesty can get you killed, either in the career sense or in the real sense. So we must ask; "Who is the least 'deplorable' (thank you Hillary for that meme)"

So, who do voters fear more and is fear a driving factor in the voters?

The other factor is the carrot and stick aspect. Which candidate is offering the better bribe for voters? Elections ARE bought and paid for with promises to the voters.

It's not a question of what they SAY they will do, but what they have already done, publicly and privately. Once a crook, always a crook is another way to express this.

[/rant off]
No, I will not be voting for the Clintons.

[MoonRise]

There are other parties to consider. That is not throwing you vote away. The chances are slim, yes but it affects the 2 primary ones more than people realize. Truly, the issue is the debates should include those other parties. That's what is the problem. People try to keep it a 2 party system.

[Snowhog]

There are other parties to consider. ... People try to keep it a 2 party system.

No, it is not 'people'; it's the two domineering Parties. That's the real problem. And yes, I whole heartedly agree that ALL federally qualified Presidential candidates should be include in EVERY debate (a word I use very loosely here; there isn't anything even remotely similar to a true debate in any of these 'debates'). The problem is that the debates are hosted and wholly funded by private organizations, and as such, they make the rules. Oh if I could be Supreme Dictator for just one day, the changes I would make.

[TWPonKubuntu]

Moonrise,

That is why we have primary elections, biased thought they may be (are).

I watched the initial debates which had so may speakers that nothing of import could be discussed. They were a dog and pony show for the masses, and not an opportunity to present candidate views.

In my lifetime, I've never seen a third party candidate who I would seriously consider as president (lower case). Too many are simply too far outside of what I see as reality.

Yes, we are a political species, but that means we have widely divergent ideas on how we are best represented in government. In truth we are less represented than we are governed (used in the pejorative sense), at least in current society.

This is why revolutions happen, with predictable frequency... I do like Trumps latest meme: "Help me drain the swamp". It touches a sore point in my view of government.

Hey people, it will be over in a few days and we can start all over again. What? You thought all our problems would be solved by this election? Where's the fun in that?

[TWPonKubuntu]

Oh if I could be Supreme Dictator for just one day, the changes I would make.

Snowhog for President! On the Kubuntu ticket!

[MoonRise]

@Snowhog: Yeah, I can agree with that.

[Qqmike]

Who gets results? That is the rhetorical question. If you think Trump does, have a look at Frontlines segment on the two candidates and their backgrounds.

The other issue is risk. What are the risks with each? and then what are the results-likely versus risk, with each candidate. In particular, Trumps "results" are highly questionable. He's basically made a lot of it simply selling his brand around the world; and his financial ethics stink.

Frankly, as much as I want change in some ways, I'd rather keep the status quo--yep: business and politics and usual--than to risk some wild, crazy nut ranting the USA into chaos and international volatility.

As for 3rd party candidates, jeez, so many of them have seemed so totally off-the-wall, way too academic, way to weak. Look at Gary Johnson. Has all that maryjane gone to his brain cells?

[Qqmike]

btw, my dad always told me to avoid discussing two subject--politics and religion--with people ...

[TWPonKubuntu]

btw, my dad always told me to avoid discussing two subject--politics and religion--with people ...

...some wild, crazy nut ranting the USA into chaos and international volatility.

My dad also told me that. I believe it now. So I talk to cats as often as I can, they understand and agree. I need the reassurance.

The question is: which wild, crazy nut?

[GreyGeek]

A lot has been made about Hillary's "public" and "private" opinions, conflicting and opposing as they are. However, it has been my observation that for the last 50 years there has been little difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. What they speak in public is often poles apart, but what they do in private, in congressional back rooms making sausage, results in little significant change in policies. This election cycle has made that glaringly obvious. The WikeLeaks emails has made it obvious to anyone with two gray cells to rub together how bias the 99% of the media is. It has, for all practical purposes, become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, and has been such even before the days of Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner and Max Robbins.

[Qqmike]

how bias the 99% of the media is. It has, for all practical purposes, become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party,

I hear that, respectfully, but I must say that many liberals certainly don't feel that way! I can't tell you how frustrated my liberal pals and I are quite often to see how the press covers stories about Trump, Hillary, and this election, often feeling that Trump gets off easy on many things. I'm thinking mainly about mainstream commercial television, and ABC, CBS, NBC.

The really good guys are not stepping up to run for office as they are too frustrated, burned out, or cynical--or afraid of the collateral damage to their lives.

Status quo at this age re many issues: don't rock the boat on Soc Sec and Medicare.