In a comment on my recent post Beto O’Rourke: Much Ado About SOMETHING!!! (http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2019/1/28/131526/654), joeldanwalls…after missing the whole point by totally inaccurately comparing Beto O’Rourke to the career neocentrists/neoliberals who currently control about 80% of the U.S. government and its captive mass media…asked:
Give me a reason to consider supporting Beto O’Rourke and I will listen.
My answer follows.
Read on:
OK, I will.
Beto O’Rourke is asking questions that to my knowledge have not been asked…publicly, at least…by any other truly possible candidates for national office. Ever!!! I am quite sure that they have been asked in private by right-wingers whose sole answer is a draconian, white supremacist, corporate-owned dictatorship, but not by someone like O’Rourke…someone who clearly believes in a one vote/one voter democracy of the people.
All of the people!!!
Like this:
“…I think that’s [this is] the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke said. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
I believe that we need a real one vote/one person democracy here. That would necessitate a true constitutional convention. The minute another legitimate Dem candidate for the presidency says something this potentially revolutionary…questioning the very legitimacy of the system as it now stands…I will start paying attention to that candidate as well.
Until then?
O’Rourke stands alone.
I have heard nothing even remotely similar from the pack of lockstep Dems now vying for the presidency. They have all come up through the ranks of the Permanent Government’s Deep State political system, and are thus demonstrably good little boys and girls who are permanently in thrall to the Big Money controllers.
O’Rourke isn’t.
He sees a possible way out through the creative use of popular media.
Good on him!!!
Will he win?
I don’t know.
If he doesn’t…if a Biden, etc. wins?
We all lose.
Even Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the other (apparently) true progressives at or near the top of the current heap haven’t publicly said anything nearly this radical.
Can an empire like ours …still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?
OOOOOooooo…!!!
The “empire” word!!!???
Questioning the current legitimacy and effectiveness of the Holy U.S. Constitution!!!???
Deep courage.
He will eventually be blasted by that empire’s captive mass media, and by its captive politicians on both sides of the non-existent political aisle.
Bet on it.
But…and here is the one positive thing that has arisen from the execrable Donald Trump’s rise to power…
It proved that the combined forces of the empire’s two parties and its mass media cannot any longer count on defeating a candidate who effectively uses the media against itself!!!
There’s your “revolution!!!
Gil Scott-Heron wrote and performed a revolutionarily and prophetically accurate piece of music in 1970 called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. He probably didn’t see how that prediction would really work out, but about 50 years later it’s looking very good that the internet and social media has…so far, at least…”Trumped” (sorry, couldn’t resist) the system. Now it’s just a matter of which side uses that power best, the right wing or the left wing.
Fascists or freedom lovers.
My bet…the only bet that I can see right now…is on Beto O’Rourke and an American Spring.
I think…or maybe “hope and pray” might be a better phrase…that he kicks some serious ass with his all-inclusive humanism.
No “deplorables” for Mr. O’Rourke.
He’s listening to everybody!!!
If not him?
Eventually?
Either someone else does it or an apocalypse of some sort solves the whole problem for us.
Yer OUTTA HERE!!!
A question for 2020.
Which one do you want to support?
Your answers count.
One voter/one vote.
Unfettered access to what the candidates truly think.
Consider them.
Seriously.
Later…
AG
P.S. A distillation of what I have been hearing from the rest of the possible candidates…Republicans and Democrats…and Beto O’Rourke:
Mainstream candidates:
It’s us against them!!!
(Whoever they seek to define as “them.”)
O’Rourke:
No, It’s us against us!!!
A “Wake the Fuck Up” moment if ever I’ve heard one!!!
Pogo For Preznit!!!
Please!!!
First of all, Arthur, O’Rourke’s stated policy positions are entirely of the “neocentrist” variety. Both I and others have pointed this out repeatedly. The reason you refuse to acknowledge this fact is that “neocentrist” is for you not a term describing policy but rather a term of abuse. I’m not hopeful you will ever be honest about this, however.
As for what you’re so thrilled about in O’Rourke’s stream of consciousness musings, fine, he used the word “empire”. That’s such a big deal? Really?
And then O’Rourke mused about–evidently–the inadequacy of the US Constitution in the modern day. FIne, I’ll agree with him about that. So would many other readers here. But what neither O’Rourke nor you has anything to say about it how the 1789 Constitution would be changed. We all know that amending the Constitution is exceptionally hard to do: 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress plus ratification by 3/4 of the states. A constitutional convention? That’s not easy to pull off either. So what exactly is your proposal? Or O’Rourke’s proposal?
With few exceptions, examples around the world of countries tearing up their constitutions and writing new ones from scratch are associated with catastrophes like war and occupation, if not outright violent revolution. Indeed, the only example that readily comes to mind is France tearing up the constitutional arrangements of the 4th Republic–which, if memory serves me correctly, were instituted when independence was restored after the defeat of Nazi Germany–and replacing those arrangements with the 5th Republic in 1958. And why did that happen? Because France was paralyzed by the colonial war in Algeria and the very real threat of a military coup d’etat. Charles de Gaulle was prevailed upon to lead the government, and he agreed only on the condition that a referendum be held on a new constitutional arrangement.
The United States does not have a system for holding a nation-wide referendum. The existing constitution would have to be ditched before a referendum could be held.
So when you and Beto O’Rourke start musing about the 1789 Constitution being outdated, I say, yep, and how exactly do you propose to change or replace it? Until I read the details, I’m going to say that you and Beto O’Rourke are just blowing smoke.
You write:
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The Fire Next Time?
Probably.
It’s another set of prophecies.
It’s gonna get rough.
Too many people murdered or otherwise seriously fucked over in the name of U.S. hegemony/empire.
Have you read it?
You oughta.
I did…when it came out.
It was part of my basic pan-racial education, along with total immersion in the jazz tradition and later the South/Central/Caribbean musical traditions.
Shit’s gonna hit the fan eventually unless someone finds a way to quiet the turmoil without killing more innocent motherfuckers.
O’Rourke?
Let us pray.
AG
You’ve slipped a couple times and let us know the brand of revolution you would prefer, Arthur. You literally want to “break up the u.s.!!!” and strip Federal civil rights and social welfare programs from every single American. In that comments thread you made the case for a counterfactual where the Union decided it was not worthwhile to fight the Civil War, thus leaving millions in literal chattel slavery.
This is only among the utterly vile policy preferences and moral views you have defended in great and disgusting detail in the comments sections to this and other diaries.
You already admitted in this thread from last week that you will be campaigning against the Democratic Party Presidential nominee in 2020. These are the sorts of reasons why I invite you to fuck off with your extraordinarily unpopular and harmful revolutionary plan.
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
If you are going to be a lockstepping DNC apologist, at least be an accurate one, centristfield.
At the very top of that post, I stated:
Later on I wrote (quoting O’Rourke at the beginning):
Are you so HRC-style entitlement poisoned that you absolutely assume that the “Democratic Party Presidential nominee in 2020” will be yet another DNC-approved, lockstep neocentrist like yourself?
You fools “absolutely assumed” yourselves into giving Trump the presidency in 2018.
Great work, folks!!!
Make the same mistake again?
Lose the multicultural, multiracial working class/middle class and youth vote the way you did in 2018? (The young just didn’t vote much after you offed Bernie, and why should they? Vote for another Obama-like warmonger? Hell no!!!)
That would be the “… one false step away from entering that hell of which [O’Rourke] speaks.”
Sometimes I wonder if it is people like you who are the cloaked Trumpistas on this site, continually pushing for already-beaten-at-the-polls ideas and candidates instead of a new vision.
If you are, congratulations are in order.
You’re doing a damned good job!!!
If you manage to win/lose again?
I’ll see you in the hell O’Rourke mentions.
Bet on it.
AG
The DNC appears to like Beto O’Rourke, you insufferable twit. The national Party was excited about his Senate campaign. You’re attempting to create conflict while offering zero real evidence of it.
And again, the critique you traditionally offer of the Democratic Party is that it is too centrist. O’Rourke is the most centrist candidate with any buzz around him right now.
Constant bad faith offerings from you.
“The national Party was excited about his Senate campaign” because he had a good chance to beat Cruz. Patisan politics. If he had won they thought they’d be able to deal with him. Watch that happens if he becomes a likely successful presidential candidate…especially if he refuses to toe the corporate money/PAC line and runs a campaign of, by and through the people.
He’ll get the same “Who do you think you are, youngster!!!” treatment they’re running at AOC.
Watch.
AG
P.S. And if he comes off in any way anti-PermaWar economy?
Fuggedaoudit!!!
Watch.
They’ll try to run the same game on him that they ran on Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Bet on it.
Only…this 4 years later, after Trump proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tweet is more powerful than the back room. But…the DNC and the RNC live by the back room.
And the back stab as well.
It’s all they know how to do.
The leopard doesn’t change his spots, especially when they are signs of imminent cancer.
Watch.
You’re bringing nothing to the table to substantiate your supposition here, and you’re talking past the points I made. Leaders in the national Democratic Party largely seem to like O’Rourke. He’s more centrist than essentially all of the candidates who look like they may stand a chance of being viable. This makes your “the DNC is too centrist” incompatable with your completely unsubstantiated claim that National Democratic Party institutionalists will oppose Beto.
The Dem Party POTUS field is already so large that the odds are against each and every candidate. And here you are setting the ground for supporting Trump again in 2020, as you did in 2016 by campaigning nonstop against the Democratic Party from August to November that year.
Also, too, nice avoidance of your truly terrible views on civil rights.
Tell us more about your support for voter ID laws.
. . . all he’s got.
Arthur—I asked you for about the zillionth time to provide some grist for your arguments. This time it was about Beto O’Rourke’s musing about the US Constitution being past its use-by date. Once again you dodged and resorted to a silly metaphor and stream of consciousness ramblings. The reason is obvious: O’Rourke has no ideas about how to bring our Constitution into the modern day. Neither do you.
You put no effort at all into even trying to grasp the mechanics of the US government and our constitutional arrangements, but instead focus entirely on attacking people who ask you to live in a reality-based universe.
Your reality and mine are radically different. The resent Constitution…and the government that operates under its guidelines…has now been irrevocably bought and sold by huge corporate interests.
It was originally put in place to make sure that “the people”…the hoi polloi, the unwashed, the non-white, non-Protestants, females and any others who were neither fr European descent nor property owners…had absolutely no real say in the government. The Electoral College was the final bulwark in that elitist system. Universal suffrage with one vote/one voter being the aim was not even considered.
There have been many amendments made to that constitution, but none of them have come even close to guaranteeing a real, one vote/one voter system. It is now possible to do so in the internet age, but this is still the very last thing that Big Money wants to see happen. Until the Constitution is amended with that in mind…no Electoral College buffer, no possibility of gerrymandering local voting lines, no unbalanced representation that allows small and unpopulated states to have equal power in the Senate with large and heavily populated states and…most importantly…no Big Money ownership of the electoral process or lobbyist dominance of Congress…this “democracy” is an ongoing farce.
Your so-called reality-based positions are built on lie-based quicksand, and this country is ever more rapidly sinking deeper and deeper into that quicksand.
That is my reality, and i am by no means alone in seeing it.
Bet on it.
You?
You do obviously do not see it.
So it goes.
AG
You dodged once again, Arthur, but nice try.
I asked how you and Beto O’Rourke would amend or replace the existing US Constitution in light of the tremendous difficulty of actually doing so. How would you garner support from 2/3 of members of Congress and 3/4 of states? Instead you wrote a litany of the major defects of the existing Constitution as though you had just discovered them.
If you got a flat tire while driving and then discovered that your jack was missing, would you sit back and watch an instructional video on YouTube about how to change a tire? Cuz that’s the functional equivalent of your delivering a civics lesson when I asked you how you and Beto would actually manage to amend the US Constitution.
First you reach a position of power.
Then…you try to maximize that power…say in the next 2 year election cycle or even longer.
Then…and only then, after the older generation (the one that originally swallowed the neocentrist/neoliberal/neoconervative corporate hustles, hooks, lines and s[
t]inkers)…maybe you might have a chance to actually change things.Or…
We could treat the warmongering DNC as true “progressives.”
You?
Don’t make me laugh.
It hurts too much.
Have a lovely evening…
AG
Good Lord, Arthur. “First you reach a position of power”. Whatever that means….is going to put you in a position to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress to approve amendments? And get 3/4 of the states to ratify them?
FDR took office in 1933 with exceptionally large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Remind me of all the Constitutional amendments that were approved by that Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
Tell me what’s the worst-case scenario for the Senate Republicans if the Democrats win in a landslide in 2020: forty-five seats, say? If they wind up in the minority, they’ll adopt exactly the same opposition to every Democratic proposal that they did to Obama. And they’ll be able to filibuster.
You’re still blowing smoke, Arthur. There aren’t going to be any Constitutional amendments voted out of the next Congress and sent to the states. And the idea that THIRTY EIGHT states would ever ratify Constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College and put an end to gerrymandering is delusional.
Mistype above, corrected:
“The present Constitution…”
AG
I want to thank ouaguabonita personally for his/her/its futile zero ratings.
They tell me that I have hit close to a truth of some sort.
If someone else doesn’t uprate me and it does get zeroed out, I’ll simply repost it as part of a standalone post. hen it will come to even more peoples’ attention.
Great work!!!
You and centristfield make a wonderful pair.
Thanks…
AG
. . .
They don’t tell anyone with a functional brain and any honesty that, but of course that’s a combination that excludes yourself, as you demonstrate here continuously.
Thanks again, arguebonita.
You’re like a bad music reviewer.
When people like that don’t like my playing, I know I’m doing something right!!!
Keep up the good work.
Later…
AG
. . . and ratings are validly based on the content of your comments, with that validity well and thoroughly documented with links to, e.g., factual refutation of your lies. Always have been. The record here is clear and indisputable on that.
Not remotely like “a bad music reviewer”. But that lie’s perfectly in character for you, since it’s an example of what you always do to try (but fail) to deflect perfectly valid criticism and/or downrates: just lie about both the substance of the criticism/downrate and the reasons/motivations of the critic/rater.
And again, ouaguabonita,,,
Thank you so much for your input!!!
I am proud to be your enemy.
AG
. . . “enemy”, pathetic, dishonest, insignificant little fool.
Gee…you sure spout a lot of invective at this poor “pathetic, dishonest, insignificant little fool.” An impartial observer would certainly be tempted to think that you consider yourself my enemy.
That observer also might notice that I almost never post disagreements about you and your positions if you have not first attacked mine in a given thread.
Why?
1-Because I only believe in defensive war.
and
2-Because I know it would just be a waste of time.
You?
Not.
#1 + #2 both.
Have a nice day…
AG
. . . recognize that what you mis-characterize as “attacks” are instead completely valid critiques/downrates based on the content of what you post and thoroughly backed up with full, factual, linked documentation. AKA accountability, a public service at no charge to this community!
Sounds to me like a call for an Emperor, not a Direct Democracy.
On a local blog one day, campaign workers reminisced about the voters and their ignorance. One worker canvassing for Hillary Clinton encountered a voter who asked about her experience. Worker replied “She was Obama’s Secretary of state.” Voter (impressed): “Oh! So she was in charge of driver’s licenses for the whole country!” How many voters can find Venezuela on a map?
How about the game contestant that thought Paris was the Capitol of Hungary? The vast majority of voters are incapable of Direct Democracy. They aren’t even very good at choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
True.
So…what can we do about it!!!???
Except of course keep trying no matter what the oppositions and/or the odds.
Damned if I know.
So…
I do keep trying.
Later…
AG