>>But one of the infuriating things about the Sanders
>movement
>>is that people treat him as being more honest, more genuine,
>>and more "pure" than other politicians,
>
>i think you are speaking about a specific group of people that
>you have engaged with,
>in the numerous 'posts that say the same thing, different
>day',
>some of us ignore those posts
>because to be honest, they are tinged with the very lack of
>nuance that makes (american) politics infuriating
>(everything is too black and white)
>but listen, i think i put up one of the first 'why not bernie'
>posts on here, way before it became a thing
>i also know that since, there are things about him that
>disappoint me
>(including he should *now* be doing more to ensure we all vote
>clinton, instead of maintaining this division.
>and working a bit more to increase # of dems in house and
>senate- or whatever's up for election) if we are really
>serious about change).
>so.. not everyone has elevated bernie to a lofty pedestal.
>maybe just those you choose to interact with,
>and those of us who haven't also hold views that are rational
>and would prefer not to included in some mythical 'bernie
>supporters'

Did I ever include you among the "mythical Bernie supporters"? To be honest I didn't even know you liked him until your first patronizing "you can do better" post.


>>Though it's obviously a bit of a postjack,
>
>an unnecessary one, at that. i dont know whom it is in here
>that you are addressing.
>maybe you can point them out, so they can read all this.

Well, given that I started out by replying to denny, he would be the obvious guess.



>i'd much rather spend time talking about how the american
>political system does not have a proper conservative or
>liberal party
>at least not in the way these are described. you have a fringe
>(right) party, and an increasingly right-shifting democratic
>party.

Increasingly right-shifting, though? We shouldn't divert the thread over this (arguing with CaptainRook is far more important), but the Democratic party has shifted dramatically to the left since the '90s, including Hillary Clinton. In part this is because the country has moved to the left thanks to the collapse of the Bush administration, anger at the Republican Congress, the rise in acceptance of gay rights, concern over global warming, and other issues. The Democratic party, which is in the business of pleasing a maximal coalition of progressive voters, "designs a platform based on what they think is popular", as they should.


>>If Bernie Sanders became president, I would worry about the
>>future of nuclear power (and by extension, the climate and
>>energy crises), about regulation of agricultural practices,
>of
>>biotechnology, of aspects of medical research.
>
>again, i appreciate science as much as the next person.
>but some of these *do* need regulation (agriculture e.g.-
>remove the farm subsidies).

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that agriculture should not be regulated. Of course it should. In general I would say that all industries should be heavily regulated. My only point is that this regulation should be based on facts and not pseudo-environmentalist fever dreams.


>there have been godknows how many posts that have gone back
>and forth about this very issue
>i dont know why you want them to spill over to posts that dont
>have anything to do with bern-hill

When I bring up science in the politics threads, nobody notices. When I bring up politics in the science threads, apparently it touches a nerve. There's your answer.


>and btw, im not dismissing c.rook.
>i am engaging with him because this shit is very very
>important to me and even being able to change one or two
>persons minds (or give them pause for thought is worthwhile to
>me)

Very good. You're not gonna change his mind, or probably anybody else's. But nobody understands the motivation to fight the good fight more than I do. Matter of fact, *this is precisely why I so relentlessly attack Bernie*. I'm hoping (against all reason) to change a few people's minds just like you are.

>so im not here to point and laugh, as you suggest, or feel
>superior.

But deep down, as much as we wouldn't like to admit it even to ourselves, I think that's a fundamental part of the motivation for all of us. I'm really not trying to accuse you in particular. I really do respect you; always have.

>im here because this shit is too important to just let slide
>
>holding olympics to see who's the more dishonest between bern
>or hill
>is not.

See, this is where we have to disagree. While the antivax movement is definitely too important to just let slide, and more broadly, so is the "progressive mysticism" movement (to make up a phrase) that denny first noted in here, it really doesn't do any good for the issue to argue with a single idiot on the internet whose entire goal from the very beginning was to bring attention to his cause. Putting aside the fact that arguments on OKP make a negligible difference on any issue, if anything, by arguing with him and bringing his ridiculous agenda thread up to well over 100 replies all we're really doing is bringing him the attention he craved from the very beginning. If the thread had sunk directly off of the front page then fewer people would have been misled by his bullshit. I think we argue in these threads because it makes us feel better, first and foremost, whether it does any good or not.

And yeah, that's why we argue about politics in the politics threads. But at least the politics threads are timely. At least changing a few minds on political issues, if it were ever to happen, could actually matter for something and wouldn't just be swallowed up in the permanent and inevitable tide of irrationality.