Dan TheBookMan danust2012 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 22:37:39 UTC 2017

On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:03 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ​> ​Most so called radicals are not radical at all. Anyone operating inside a major political party in the US isn't much of a radical.
> ​Then no radical has had power in the entire history of the USA , and a political radical that is unable to make a radical political change isn't much of a radical.  

Two points:

1) You presume the only way to influence things in the direction of radical change is to be in power. (I take it you mean to be in office. In other words, no one outside of those in elected office has any actual control or influence over anything. If that's your position, then why do you bother talking about politics? You're not in office, right?)

2) I was speaking about in our times. Really, I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone today in the two major parties being a radical. Sure, someone might call them a radical -- e.g., Sanders. Yet, to stick with that one example, it seems rather tepid in terms of radicalism. Really, someone who probably would've expanded the welfare state a little and maybe not be as bellicose as his predecessor is a radical?


  Sample my Kindle books via:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170328/8de0c7df/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list