11-16-2016, 01:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2016, 04:05 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-16-2016, 12:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric part of your problem is you seem stuck in the 1960s meme of "the radicals" against "The Establishment."
This is not your father's establishment, so to speak.
The subset of people who came of age during the 1960s and who turned out successful - became the establishment.
I don't think that's a problem. Whether someone would think that's a problem for me, just depends on their views, and what you define as establishment. To me it's clear that politicians are not necessarily part of "the establishment." It depends on what they are doing in office. If they support progress, according to my definition of it, then they are not "establishment." That mostly applies to Hillary R. Clinton, and more to Elizabeth Warren, and more still to Bernie Sanders. They are not "establishment" because they are working to help the people, not the powerful. If you want to call them "1960s radicals," be my guest. I agree with them and I support them no matter what year it is.
And who are the powerful? Who is the Establishment? The wealthy people who use their wealth to boost their wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us. That was true in 1968 and it's true today. Nothing has changed at all, except of course they are now far more powerful thanks to Republican policies these last 40 years. What is progress? Advancing the needs of the people and the environment the people depend on.