Why Do We Need a Radical President?

[Don1]

It's simple.

Our policies alternating between Republican Administrations and moderate Democratic Administrations have led to the current Global Warming Crisis. We now face an existential threat.

We cannot compromise or allow corruption. A radical program like the Green New Deal needs to be a starting point of discussion. We cannot start with same old we'll curb emmissions by X and then have a Republican roll that back or compromise to one half X.

The world is on fire. Literally. The dry conditions created by global warming have allowed more natural fires and allowed more chance for people setting fires to have bigger impacts to forests. The use of plastics is destroying the oceans. The fires just create more CO2 which amplifies the warming.

Though it could be our grandchildren that will live in a post-apocalyptic graveyard, the critical decision time is NOW. Science says so. We have to put the brakes on all the way to the floor of the car. NOW. Or we go off the cliff later.

It's not a yellow traffic light telling you to slow down. It's a sign that reads "Wrong Way."

We need a radical President NOW who will veto, who will litigate, who will make legal executive orders, who will push a new deal, who is uncorrupted by oil money.

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. +1,000,000

I'm so tired of the swarms of posters here and elsewhere trying to shove establishment and corporate-friendly candidates down our throat.

They are indeed better than MF45 and the republicon scum, but this is an emergency, and we need immediate direct action. And someone who will put republicons in their place - the dumpster.

[Don1]

5. Completely Agree

Indeed, this is an emergency.

[NurseJackie]

37. Oh, whaaaa!

[FoxNewsSucks]

38. Wow, great argument.

Totally convincing.

Not.

[NurseJackie]

39. Actually, I wasn't making an argument. Nor was I trying to convince.

[beastie boy]

3. I believe you are advocating for a radical left President. Thre is another side to this coin.

A radical right President. Trump has shown that, by hook or by crook, a radical right candidate can win the Presidency. I have yet to see any evidence that a radical left candidate can do the same.

[Don1]

7. That's like talking electability

While you are in the E.R. dying.

[beastie boy]

8. The analogy does not quite work.

It's more like deciding on who to call when you are stabbed in the back: a guru or a doctor.

[Don1]

12. That analogy doesn't work.

It's like having a gun shot wound and going to the E.R.

Republicans kick you out on the street.
Centrists check your insurance and give you a bandaid.
Real liberals give you the surgery you need.

[beastie boy]

22. So centrists are not real liberals, I presume.

Ok, here's another analogy, considering we have no indication "real" liberals can deliver on their promises:

It's like going to the ER room with a gunshot wound in your leg and having a choice between an experienced physician who has treated gunshot wounds before telling you your wound is treatable and an intern with no experience telling you you have to amputate your leg because he read in a textbook that treating a wound is outdated and will surely result in your death, and besides, the other guy is not a real surgeon because he is not buying what's in the textbook.

[HarlanPepper]

32. Sigh

I noticed that too. Some folks are in really really deep.

[LanternWaste]

4. The sans-culottes justified their actions the same way.

[Kentonio]

42. You mean the guys who overthrew an absolute monarchy and replaced it with a Republic?

Doesn't that sound a little bit familiar in a more local sense too?

[brooklynite]

6. The problem is that we HAVE a radical President...

...and Bernie is least likely to defeat him.

[Don1]

9. No

The problem is Global Warming. We need a radical solution, not more centrism.

[brooklynite]

10. And if Trump is re-elected, that's what you'll get.

[Don1]

11. Same with centrism. n/t

[denem]

13. 'We cannot compromise'

is why Sanders will go nowhere at the convention.

[MineralMan]

14. No. We Need a Progressive President

A "radical" nominee will lose the election. All of our leading candidates, however, are progressive. What we need is to defeat Donald Trump and regain control over the Senate. We won't do that if the Democratic nominee can't win the election. What we need is a solid Democrat as our nominee.

[Don1]

18. Defeating Twitler is only half the battle.

The President will also have to be radical enough to save the environment. Not centrist on this issue.

[MineralMan]

19. Here's the thing: Presidents can't do all that much on major issues like that.

Those things require bills to be passed through Congress. Passing radical bills through Congress is never something that is easy to do, and it's often quite impossible.

Quite frankly, the next Democratic President will have his or her hands quite full just undoing the damage Trump has done. If that can be done, then we can move on to do other important things. Saving the environment is a very complex and difficult thing to accomplish. It will not happen through an Executive Order or any other thing a President can do alone.

First, we have to win. Then we can move on from there. Winning will not be easy, I guarantee.

[HarlanPepper]

33. The environment won't be "saved" in one term

I don’t care if it’s Biden, Warren, Pete, Bernie or Jesus. The lack of realistic expectations, that someone could think the environment can be saved by one person, is disturbing.

[Don1]

34. I agree.

Since no one said that, it's not as disturbing as one would think.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the science either. We are at the point of no return.

There is literally no time for a centrist response to the environmental crisis.

Anything less than a radical change will not cut it.

[Autumn]

15. Middle of the road policies will do nothing to stem what we are facing. We die a slow death or

we make radical changes. There are no other choices. I know my choice.

[Don1]

17. Exactly. n/t

[k2qb3]

16. It's only our grandkid's problem for people who've already got grandkids.

The time to act was decades ago.

I'm half-expecting a blue ocean event this summer, no real way to predict exactly when that will happen but it's SO warm in the northern hemisphere this winter.

[ismnotwasm]

20. No.

A president, radical or not, is not the point. How do we arrange cooperation with our allies, or competitors? It’s a small world in a big universe, I believe you are limiting the scope of intervention for global warming.

There are a number of people who deny it exists, or don’t care. How do you counteract that? What makes it through Congress?

Electing a “radical” (and personally, I feel there is nothing radical about interventions for global warming) it’s a front and very center issue, does not NOT solve the question brought up by the scope of the problem.

[pecosbob]

21. So, what? Did Karl Marx suddenly appear on the ballot?

There are no freaking radicals in the race. Wake up and shut off the mainstream media lie machine already.

[Don1]

23. Please. Radical is just a word.

Radical is just a word. Marxists do not own it. The people do.

We do not need to hear about a distinction between reformist and radical or a counterpunchian claim that Bernie is a social democrat.

Instead, we can turn to The Dictionary

1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
"a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework"

2. advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.

Does Bernie represent the progressive section of the Democratic Party? Yes. Therefore, the word works.

Does Bernie support the extreme section of the political party? Yes. Therefore, the word works a second time.

Of course, he's not out to undo capitalism. I never said he was. But radical doesn't need to mean that.

Please pay attention not to words but ideas and substance.

The Green New Deal is a radical policy. And that is exactly or nearly exactly what is needed.

[pecosbob]

24. I object to any language that is continually used to move the Overton Window to the right

Nothing in any of the primary candidates' platforms appear to me to be radical at all. Illustrate their radical policies for me and I'll agree. I simply don't consider asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes to be radical. Nor do I consider reigning in military spending to be radical. I don't agree that smart climate change policy is radical. Firewalls between investment banks and savings banks doesn't seem very radical to me, but then I'm not wealthy. I could go on...

[Don1]

25. Perhaps, you are confusing radical with irrational

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I can be a bit literal. I mean literally radical as I have outlined from my argument that follows from the denotation.

If you disagree due to connotation of the word, I totally understand, but in my view I LIKE the word radical. I do not see it as a bad thing. If you disagree that usage will move people away, I also understand that.

I apologize for not taking these things into consideration. Perhaps I should have used a different word. Liberal, maybe. Or Progressive. Everyone would not be happy no matter the words I used.

I don't mind stirring the pot sometimes to put out substance. I will say if you make your own thread with those arguments about rational policies as you outlined, message me and link it. I will certainly recommend the thread.

[pecosbob]

26. Cool...I withdraw any and all complaint or criticism

I just get hung up on American abuse and misuse of language. In any other nation on Earth Bloomberg, Biden and Klobuchar would be considered moderate conservatives and Warren and Sanders would be moderate liberals. The only radicals left in America are right wing.

[squirecam]

28. This is absurd

Climate change will require the entire planet. Not just the US.

Radical change = nothing being done and things being worse. Because you won’t win and can’t compromise with the rest of the world even if you did.

[texasfiddler]

29. I strongly disagree

The radical left is it's own biggest enemy. I am as liberal as any Democrat and I want action on climate change and social justice and I believe in law and science. We do not have the propaganda network to push this. The right wing has had AM radio blasted through every working man’s truck for the last 25 years through the heartland. The electoral college and Senate structure supports this propaganda. Unfortunately we can’t be as “radical” and succeed. Why can’t you see this? Yes Hollywood and the California TV industry has helped change the views of kids under 35 in terms of racial, gender, sexual orientation, and science views, but it ain’t enough yet. PLEASE BE MORE REALiSTIC and PRAGMATIC. Show me how Bernie is leading in the polls in the swing states and I’ll vote for him in the primary. P.S. - I believe in statistics

[squirecam]

30. Gore would have protected the environment.

Instead the Sarandon crew pushed Nader. How’d that work out.

The Green Party - killing the environment since 2000.

[jcmaine72]

31. We already have a radical President.

We have swung so far to the right these past four years that our new center is somewhere between Pinochet's Chile and Franco's Spain. We need to move the needle back towards the left just to re-center the center.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. Radical candidates don't win electoral politics, especially in a largely two-party system.

[Voltaire2]

41. For example Trump.

[comradebillyboy]

36. We have a radical president right now. We don't need another.

[Recursion]

40. Then you need to find a radical candidate who can win 4 of MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL

And we don't have one of those. So we have to focus on the kind of President we can actually get elected.