arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

g-man posted:
flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

bman posted:
g-man posted:
flwino posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Socialism seems to be attracting quite a following. How many here believe in Warren's, Sanders', and Ocasio-Cortez' versions?

Need to define.  Medicare and social security are  socialistic in form.  Also so other programs.  Yes the rich should pay more.  The tax cut gave too much to the top 1% and middle class zilch.

My earnings about even for last two years.  TY 2017  got back $300  TY 2018  $0.00

tax cut gave to the .1%  of wealth holders.  Folks conflate income and wealth.  

 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

Does that question really warrant a reply?  I'll just start with automatic pay for people who are "unwilling" to work.    

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
 

And btw, socialism has been so bastardized that even i have no idea what socialism acutally means.  Apparently you can be a democratic capitalistic socialist due to the dumbing down of meanings in english words.

This definition seems as good as any: "Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. "

And as long as we are talking about the misuse of words so they become political weapons, how about the words "liberal" and "conservative", neither one of which seems to me to be used anywhere near correctly in American political discourse.

I like this definition of liberalism, given that the root of the word is "liberty": "Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty."

And this definition of conservatism: "Conservatism is a political philosophy which believes that if changes need to be made to society, they should be made gradually."

Note the actual meaning of liberalism is pretty much the opposite meaning that is applied in the US, while conservatism is not the opposite but is certainly a very different meaning than that used in the US.

Good post Bman..and correct what a different meaning that Liberalism has in American society than what is written above.  AOC is absolutely out of her mind...and ditto the others (Warren (sorry Pocahontas), Sanders and any others who sign on board to the Green Dream.  Forgot the name of the man I heard on TV last night...but he basically said, that you have to have a childlike mind to spout off / believe the crap AOC spews out.  Complete insanity.  

What crap exactly are we talking about?

Does that question really warrant a reply?  I'll just start with automatic pay for people who are "unwilling" to work.    

You mean welfare and unemployment insurance, which exist throughout the US and according to Republicans, includes millions who are unwilling to work?  Or her Green New Deal, which I agree is a stretch beyond that and pretty out there but doesn't really seem all that different from other social programs. 

Whatever your reply, I for one am happy to see some new ideas for addressing the social inequality in the US, unrealistic as some may be. The Gini coefficient places the US in 33rd place of 38 OECD countries, which is shameful, and of course Trump's tax cuts will make inequality worse.

As for "spewing crap", are you sure you want to go there, being such a loyal and fervent supporter of the Spewer-of-Crap-in-Chief, the person who spews an average of over 10 lies a day over his two years in office?

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

winetarelli posted:

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

What I've found though, is that "Trump supporter" and "dumb" are quite succinct in their descriptions of each other.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

As a classical liberal in the vein of J. S. Mill and John Rawls I am also upset by the misuse of the word these days. 

I would add, however, that classical political liberalism does tend to treat economic issues *somewhat* differently from other issues, whereby things like progressive income taxes and robust social safety nets are not at odds with the traditional liberal and egalitarian political philosophies dating back centuries. Thus, one of the main ‘in practice’ liberal/libertarian distinctions. 

But, indeed, current usage of “liberal” as a synonym for “left” is exactly as rediculous as thinking Mill and Marx are interchangeable. 

What I've found though, is that "Trump supporter" and "dumb" are quite succinct in their descriptions of each other.

While Trump supporters do not seem to hold a monopoly on “dumb”, “dumb” does seem to hold a monopoly on Trump supporters. 

arsenal4ever posted:

Again, 63 million voted for him in 2016. That's a lot of people to castigate. Doubt if that many would do it again, but still, except for both Coasts, he has a lot of supporters.

When there are two horrendously shitty candidates running against each other, the votes are going somewhere. I was hoping he would be less of a petulant jerkoff once in office, but it wasn’t meant to be.

arsenal4ever posted:

Again, 63 million voted for him in 2016. That's a lot of people to castigate. Doubt if that many would do it again, but still, except for both Coasts, he has a lot of supporters.

25% of the total electorate, 17.5% of the total population.

using a measure of IQ going by the average of 100 as the baseline and going +/- 10 pts on either side, gives you 50% of the population sitting around average.  Using the standard bell curve, means 25% are below.

i certainly wouldn't castigate anybody, but i will say that the  us electorate is rather uninformed about policies a nd instead treating the vote more like a sporting event.

arsenal4ever posted:

Agreed

We deserve better from both parties

Understatement! 🙃

An interesting election for sure. Clinton had the most votes ever for her in American history not named Obama. Trump had nearly 63M votes yet had nearly 73M votes against him. 

While Trump still has his cult, he clearly is losing many republican that voted for him only because he was the republican nominee. White college educated women are moving against Trump and we saw that in the midterms. Democrats received over 9M more votes in the 2018 midterms. That margin has never happened before.

All this said, if the Dems are taking the WH back, they must beat Trump in key states that will not support the far left, period. I look at every dem candidate and think how will their message play in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida? 

Not so sure Wineart2, recent Rasmussen poll has Trump at a 52% approval rating. It seemed to jump after the State of the Union address.  The Democrats are looking like they are going to implode with many Prez hopefuls endorsing the Green New Deal and each candidate seeming to push the others further left.   Identity politics seems to be turning on the Dems with the problems in Virginia.  If the Dem party went more centrist, then they would likely be able to take over the White House in 2020, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think we are looking at another crazy election year, with all bets off

The level of identity-grievance politics on the left is, indeed, troubling. (So is the White Christian identity-grievance politics of the right / Fox News.)  Illiberalism from the most vocal Left Twitter scribes has made some inroads into more mainstream left discussions; and public Librals, as a whole, need to do a much better job of defending liberal ideals when attacked by anyone, irrespective of “side”.  (Meanwhile, the right has fully embraced voter purges, conspiracy theories, subservience to Russia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, “alternative facts” and authoritarianism.)  The most vocal people on the left are suggesting giving a middle finger to Obama/Trump voters as well as #NeverTrump Republicans. Which is stooopid for a litany of reasons; one of which — even if you could win that way, which I don’t think you can, there is value in governing from between the 20 yard lines. (I could get into all the reasons this is the case, but I’m sure you fine folks can provide your own analysis.)

I have some policy disagreements with him, as I would with anyone, and I want a younger President, and I think he’s too old, but.  Right now. After Trump.  “Make America Normal Again” is the most important slogan, and Biden is probably the best person for that specific job. He could, immediately, start righting the ship — especially internationally — in a way probably no one else could. *That having been said*... Amy Klobacher, Beto, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Booker all have my eye and I want to hear them all out. Who knows, maybe someone else will come along, too. 

Beto, for a guy who couldnt even beat Cruz, is not going to go far

Booker is an interesting case, he's like a walking fundraising machine on steroids.  I only worry that he gets swayed more by special interests once he gets to the national level and doesnt have the same "checklist" of issues when dealing at the local level.  I'd be interested in hearing his vision of things he wishes to achieve and see if it's something can be solved with money and influence.

Another Biden fan here, for many reasons but largely those given by w + a above:  he would likely take back the Midwest swing states Trump barely won and hold the states Hillary won.  And his rhetoric would fire up the Dem base the way Trump's fires up his base.  Yes he is old and has some political baggage, but no older than Trump and holds a change purse of baggage compared to Trump's container load!  If he picked one of the moderate young'uns as VP:  Amy, Kamala or Corey, he could very well keep voters turned off by his age and style.

All of the above said, someone like Sherrod Brown could end up being a better choice - I know nothing of him now.  And Howard Schultz could blow the whole thing up and get Trump re-elected whoever is the Dem nominee.

arsenal4ever posted:

I hope Omar and Tlaib aren't the face of the new progressive Democratic party, as both appear to be anti-Semitic, and they've only been in office since January.

They apologized in what seemed like a sincere manner.  And yes, they are new.  

Remind me again how many time Steve King has apologized for the dozens of racist comments and tweets he's made over the course of his 22 year career?  

arsenal4ever posted:

I'm just tired of politicians and celebrities shooting their mouth off and then apologizing in a "sincere manner." Anti-Semitism and racism go hand-in-hand. Apologizing does nothing. 

If that's true, can we presume you are no longer a fan/supporter of Trump, who has made more racist dog-whistle comments than all other federal politicians combined? Have you had a political epiphany? 

And BTW, I and most others I think, value sincere remorse for mistakes.  Again, something Trump has never shown despite the thousands of provable lies and misrepresentations, never mind all those racist and hurtful comments.

arsenal4ever posted:

Never been a fan/ supporter of any politician. Why do you jump to such a misguided conclusion?

My bad. I jumped to that conclusion based on some of your previous posts. Or maybe thought you were someone else. Either way, I apologize 

 

bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Never been a fan/ supporter of any politician. Why do you jump to such a misguided conclusion?

My bad. I jumped to that conclusion based on some of your previous posts. Or maybe thought you were someone else. Either way, I apologize 

 

I'm tired of bman shooting his mouth off and then apologizing in a sincere manner.    Sorry bman, I couldn't resist.

thelostverse posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

Never been a fan/ supporter of any politician. Why do you jump to such a misguided conclusion?

My bad. I jumped to that conclusion based on some of your previous posts. Or maybe thought you were someone else. Either way, I apologize 

 

I'm tired of bman shooting his mouth off and then apologizing in a sincere manner.    Sorry bman, I couldn't resist.

Sometimes I forget that i'm Canadian....... ;-) 

arsenal4ever posted:

Just got back from skiing at cold cold Lake Louise with a bunch of Canadians. I like all of you

Aw shucks..... But many of those visiting and working in the Rockies tourist sites are not actually Canadian. Many are foreign guest workers. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×