Jump to content
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

Agreed she has no chance.  The Native American heritage thing backfired and ruined her.

I don't even think that's it... she's just an uninspiring candidate, and she's too far left to appeal to moderates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/11/2018 at 20:22, holystove said:

I am amazed at how long Macron got away with calling Trump an idiot in public (at the UN, Rememberance day, ...).  Seems Trump finally snapped; will be a huge boost for Macron in France.

Don't know why, when I clicked on the Trump thread, it put me in at this post?  However, in passing, if there was a boost in Macron's rating then it didn't last long.  I see that it is currently down to 31% which is lower than Hollande at his worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sibdane said:

I don't even think that's it... she's just an uninspiring candidate, and she's too far left to appeal to moderates. 

If right wing populism that arguably has delivered nothing to the swinging voters who gave Trump the electoral college can mobilise votes, I would argue that left wing populism can do the same.

Keep in mind that Trumps numbers were pathetic, the Dems just failed to get people into the polling booths.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Chach said:

If right wing populism that arguably has delivered nothing to the swinging voters who gave Trump the electoral college can mobilise votes, I would argue that left wing populism can do the same.

Keep in mind that Trumps numbers were pathetic, the Dems just failed to get people into the polling booths.

 

 

I agree completely with the premise but besides my family all my relatives are conservatives and trump people. I would not say he has delivered nothing.  If anything he has delivered everything.  He’s validated hate speech and racism, he’s validated anti immigrant behavior and made that ok, he’s validated a tabloid news organization that was considered a joke (the one they all watch, Fox) and made it his mouthpiece, he’s victimized the democrats and called them un American, he has made nationalism the only way saying if you’re not nationalist your un American.  

 

All the twisted shit they thought he validates and supports and goes even further.  He will sweep the next election, vault me on it.  Middle class whites have gone trump, minorities don’t vote, there’s not enough intellectuals and liberals to cover the massive baby boomer conservative vote in the states where it counts.

 

yes I’m pessimistic, yes I’m down on left wing politics, yes I think Americans are majority stupid and racist and selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, markjazzbassist said:

I agree completely with the premise but besides my family all my relatives are conservatives and trump people. I would not say he has delivered nothing.  If anything he has delivered everything.  He’s validated hate speech and racism, he’s validated anti immigrant behavior and made that ok, he’s validated a tabloid news organization that was considered a joke (the one they all watch, Fox) and made it his mouthpiece, he’s victimized the democrats and called them un American, he has made nationalism the only way saying if you’re not nationalist your un American.  

All the twisted shit they thought he validates and supports and goes even further.  He will sweep the next election, vault me on it.  Middle class whites have gone trump, minorities don’t vote, there’s not enough intellectuals and liberals to cover the massive baby boomer conservative vote in the states where it counts.

yes I’m pessimistic, yes I’m down on left wing politics, yes I think Americans are majority stupid and racist and selfish.

I can't comment on your personal situation but the Trump presidency for me is going to pay dividends for liberalism in the medium to long term

For the first time in a long time, I'm listening to and agreeing with  conservatives (real ones with a thought out conservative position) and liberals and conservatives are talking to each other which is why I think a centrist like Beto O'Rourke or Cory Brooker is the best chance to knock Trump off his perch. Warren and Sanders can play an important role and move the policy conversation to the left but I don't think they can win. I could change my mind though.

Interesting to see a lot of smear already going out about O'Rourke and his voting record which leads me to believe someone is very nervous about his potential. 

 

Edit: With regards to the bolded, Obama won twice so stupid racist and selfish would have to be in the minority :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chach said:

I can't comment on your personal situation but the Trump presidency for me is going to pay dividends for liberalism in the medium to long term

For the first time in a long time, I'm listening to and agreeing with  conservatives (real ones with a thought out conservative position) and liberals and conservatives are talking to each other which is why I think a centrist like Beto O'Rourke or Cory Brooker is the best chance to knock Trump off his perch. Warren and Sanders can play an important role and move the policy conversation to the left but I don't think they can win. I could change my mind though.

Interesting to see a lot of smear already going out about O'Rourke and his voting record which leads me to believe someone is very nervous about his potential. 

 

Edit: With regards to the bolded, Obama won twice so stupid racist and selfish would have to be in the minority :D

I really hope you are right man, my view of this country is not great at this moment in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chach said:

I can't comment on your personal situation but the Trump presidency for me is going to pay dividends for liberalism in the medium to long term

For the first time in a long time, I'm listening to and agreeing with  conservatives (real ones with a thought out conservative position) and liberals and conservatives are talking to each other which is why I think a centrist like Beto O'Rourke or Cory Brooker is the best chance to knock Trump off his perch. Warren and Sanders can play an important role and move the policy conversation to the left but I don't think they can win. I could change my mind though.

Interesting to see a lot of smear already going out about O'Rourke and his voting record which leads me to believe someone is very nervous about his potential. 

 

Edit: With regards to the bolded, Obama won twice so stupid racist and selfish would have to be in the minority :D

I think O'Rourke would be the best candidate. He was so close to winning Texas, which as a Democrat is a huge statement. If he decides to run then he would he my early first choice. I honestly think he'd be for us like Trudeau is for Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind blowing this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-46757179

Another woman in the university video is wearing a t-shirt with, "What will your legacy be?" on it. That's a question that a lot of Americans (along with billions of others Worldwide) need to be looking in the mirror and asking themselves at this point in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=65&v=Qj2Xald7NYQ

Edit: Reading up on the lady I like her a lot!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Mind blowing this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-46757179

Another woman in the university video is wearing a t-shirt with, "What will your legacy be?" on it. That's a question that a lot of Americans (along with billions of others Worldwide) need to be looking in the mirror and asking themselves at this point in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=65&v=Qj2Xald7NYQ

Edit: Reading up on the lady I like her a lot!

 

Yep -- it's a pretty pathetic thing to latch onto in order to try and make a point that someone is disqualified for their job.

She rolls with the punches and seems an incredibly smart woman. We need younger representation like her in government, because right now its filled with old politicians who don't know anything about the modern society or embracing technology; that includes Republicans AND Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

Won’t matter, the shutdown could last years according to Trump, unless he gets the money for the border wall :doh:

He’s supposed to be some amazing negotiator.  He’s awful at it.  That comment is dumb by him, perfect sound bite for the next election.  Not to mention the onus lies on him, Congress already approved the bill and he said no since it didn’t have border wall money.  It’s all on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

yeah she's the future of liberal-ish politics.  and yes the repubs followers are crazy for trying to attack her over every little thing.  yet another reason i hate social media and it's constant negativity

Is that a sign they are scared of her? 

I think she’s very impressive from the few twitter clips I’ve seen of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

He’s supposed to be some amazing negotiator.  He’s awful at it.  That comment is dumb by him, perfect sound bite for the next election.  Not to mention the onus lies on him, Congress already approved the bill and he said no since it didn’t have border wall money.  It’s all on him.

Apparently it’s a national emergency and he’s going to try and bypass Congress. Wouldn’t that need approval from the Supreme Court? 

Tiptoeing closer to a dictatorship 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StevO said:

Is that a sign they are scared of her? 

I think she’s very impressive from the few twitter clips I’ve seen of her. 

Oh yes they are scared of her, she’s young and has a bright future.  Yeah I’m impressed with her as well so far.

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Apparently it’s a national emergency and he’s going to try and bypass Congress. Wouldn’t that need approval from the Supreme Court? 

Tiptoeing closer to a dictatorship 

The Congress Repubs said they won’t go along with that.  If he does any “go around” to get the wall it will be taboo and be used against him that he doesn’t play by the rules etc etc next election.  His people know this and that’s why he threatens with it but they are telling him don’t do it.  It will backfire.

 

they are trying to make this wall thing a bigger issue than it is.  Throwing tear gas at people crossing the border, ripping kids from a families and separating them.  They are manufacturing a crisis of which they believe the wall is the solution.  None of this happened under other presidents (even republicans ones). 

 

If you read articles from people who work inside the White House (lower level employees and career civil aervants) who have leaked info you realize Trump is not a smart guy and is extremely impulsive.  He tried to invade Syria only for his secretary of defense and other military leaders to evade him until his mood blew over.  That is scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, markjazzbassist said:

Oh yes they are scared of her, she’s young and has a bright future.  Yeah I’m impressed with her as well so far.

The Congress Repubs said they won’t go along with that.  If he does any “go around” to get the wall it will be taboo and be used against him that he doesn’t play by the rules etc etc next election.  His people know this and that’s why he threatens with it but they are telling him don’t do it.  It will backfire.

 

they are trying to make this wall thing a bigger issue than it is.  Throwing tear gas at people crossing the border, ripping kids from a families and separating them.  They are manufacturing a crisis of which they believe the wall is the solution.  None of this happened under other presidents (even republicans ones). 

 

If you read articles from people who work inside the White House (lower level employees and career civil aervants) who have leaked info you realize Trump is not a smart guy and is extremely impulsive.  He tried to invade Syria only for his secretary of defense and other military leaders to evade him until his mood blew over.  That is scary.

“Doesn’t play by the rules” will be cocaine for those that voted for him “speaking his mind”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ignores congress, does what he wants and blames the democrats for blocking him. Divide and conquer. I’d say his tactics are deviously brilliant, but honestly I don’t think he has that intelligence and it’s a clear sign of the president being a puppet to someone (like w Bush)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Among the people I know, I don't see any waning in their support of Trump whatsoever. If anything, they are even more fanatical in their support.

It’s what I see and hear too. I think there’d be a civil war before any waning in support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2019 at 12:33, sibdane said:

I don't even think that's it... she's just an uninspiring candidate, and she's too far left to appeal to moderates. 

She’s too moderate to appeal to true leftists, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

She’s too moderate to appeal to true leftists, too.

Not sure I would agree with that but for arguments sake, what would be the alternative for "true leftists" if Warren was the candidate?

Stay at home?

Yeah, that really worked out last time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chach said:

Not sure I would agree with that but for arguments sake, what would be the alternative for "true leftists" if Warren was the candidate?

Stay at home?

Yeah, that really worked out last time.

 

To the first bit: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/08/is-warren-more-of-a-moderate-040609

To the second:

No of course not and what a jump to make. But as she’s the first Democrat of note to announce her candidacy, that’s not a position anyone is even close to assuming. I just tend to agree that she’s too polarizing to both sides (too progressive for moderates and too much of a capitalist for the far left) to have a truly viable candidacy.

It’ll be interesting to see how many of Booker, Biden, Gabbard, Harris, O’Rourke and Sanders decide to run, as I think all of them have a much better shot in a general election than Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more moderate candidate would be preferred in order to win the swing voters. "True leftists" will still vote for a Democrat regardless of if they're far enough left or not, as long as it's not Trump and the DNC doesn't screw up again (Hillary vs. Bernie). 

I've said O'Rourke is my early choice before. He reminds me the most Obama with his policy and charisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sibdane said:

I think a more moderate candidate would be preferred in order to win the swing voters. "True leftists" will still vote for a Democrat regardless of if they're far enough left or not, as long as it's not Trump and the DNC doesn't screw up again (Hillary vs. Bernie). 

I've said O'Rourke is my early choice before. He reminds me the most Obama with his policy and charisma.

Trouble is, as much as I liked him, Obama did estrange folk (that I know anyway). 

Its goin to be tough for whomever steps up, on both sides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i want a lefty because i'm not a moderate or repub.  i want a socialist.  i want the UK healthcare system, i want free college for my kids, i want a universal basic income for those that are in need.  i'm willing to be taxed to the high heavens for it all.  i believe in love and compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

i want a lefty because i'm not a moderate or repub.  i want a socialist.  i want the UK healthcare system, i want free college for my kids, i want a universal basic income for those that are in need.  i'm willing to be taxed to the high heavens for it all.  i believe in love and compassion.

I hate the fact that those qualities mark you out as a "lefty" (as a derogatory term for many) in this day and age, it should be the norm in every developed country, we should be past the "haves" and "have nots" as there's plenty for everyone to live comfortably if systems were fair. Fiefdom, xenophobia and nationalism should have had their day but we seem to be ushering them back in all over the globe. Brazil the most recent example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

i want a lefty because i'm not a moderate or repub.  i want a socialist.  i want the UK healthcare system, i want free college for my kids, i want a universal basic income for those that are in need.  i'm willing to be taxed to the high heavens for it all.  i believe in love and compassion.

Out of interest how would you feel if you had 1 kid and someone has 10 kids knowing that their family was 10 x the cost of yours and yet you were being taxed the same (assuming of the same modest income). 

Not trying to make a point of it or anything, just genuinly interested. In America you see more of the "true" cost of everything compared to over here so just interested to see what you (or any other Americans) think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bailey said:

Out of interest how would you feel if you had 1 kid and someone has 10 kids knowing that their family was 10 x the cost of yours and yet you were being taxed the same (assuming of the same modest income). 

Not trying to make a point of it or anything, just genuinly interested. In America you see more of the "true" cost of everything compared to over here so just interested to see what you (or any other Americans) think? 

that wouldn't bother me.  i just want equality, when the haves are hoarding everything and getting lawmakers elected so they can have more and take more from the have nots that just doesn't jive with me.  i get that we can't all be rich.  i get that we can't all have the perfect life.  but you look at the scandinavian countries and they have high levels of happiness and also extremely high taxes, but there isn'tt the systematic poverty there is here in the states.  i understand its not perfect, but the crime rates, poverty rates, etc are WAY lower than here.  people may not have massive american mansions and 5 cars and massive possible upside to finance as in america, but living a simple life without the stress of are you going to eat, are you going to be able to have a place to sleep, etc is worth it to me.

 

caveat, i'm more on the minimalist side of living so i guess it's easier in a sense for a person like myself to not worry about being taxed and not having a lot so others can have more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

i want a lefty because i'm not a moderate or repub.  i want a socialist.  i want the UK healthcare system, i want free college for my kids, i want a universal basic income for those that are in need.  i'm willing to be taxed to the high heavens for it all.  i believe in love and compassion.

You don't want a socialist surely you mean you want a democratic socialist?

If its the former you have no chance and that's probably for the best as I can't think of a single instance where the planned economy has actually worked, if you mean the latter and want something that closer to the Scando model then Warren would be a good start in that direction:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i watched the oval office announcement and i'm still just amazed that this buffon is our president.  what a country.

 

@Chach just because none of the socialist economies have worked doesn't mean it won't.  the democratic governments haven't exactly been the model for compassion and peace either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

just because none of the socialist economies have worked doesn't mean it won't

That's actually exactly what it means, that's why you run experiments and when they don't work you try again and improve on them. 

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism whatever, they are academic theories none of them are going to have all the answers to human/social flourishing we keep the bits that work and throw away what doesn't and they are refined over time.

Government does some things better, but not everything. Should you have a single payer universal healthcare system? of course you should but you can't move straight to it from where you are now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chach said:

That's actually exactly what it means, that's why you run experiments and when they don't work you try again and improve on them. 

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism whatever, they are academic theories none of them are going to have all the answers to human/social flourishing we keep the bits that work and throw away what doesn't and they are refined over time.

Government does some things better, but not everything. Should you have a single payer universal healthcare system? of course you should but you can't move straight to it from where you are now. 

 

says who?  you?  ok, well everyone's got an opinion, if you think you got all the answers why don't you run for office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

says who?  you?  ok, well everyone's got an opinion, if you think you got all the answers why don't you run for office?

That's an emotional reaction on the other end of the spectrum of the kind that gave your country Donald J Trump.

Engage in dialectic, have an actual argument. Play the ball, not the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, StevO said:

I see people like Mark, who want the best for everyone, want a peaceful society where sick people recieve treatment and the poor get a helping hand to improve their lives and education for young people. This all seems perfectly rational to me, but then I see people like that get called communists and things like that, like it’s a bad thing.

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US, there's much misuse of the term socialism. 99% of the time, people mean democratic socialist (as per the Nordic countries). Conservative outlets, though, immediately equate that with Venezuela. It's crass dishonesty.

These outlets then go the next step. Offering healthcare for all is a step toward socialism, so we'd be like Venezuela this time next year!

I know this sounds obviously stupid to observers in Europe, but this happens all the time here the US. It's raw scare tactics, and it keeps wavering independents from crossing from right to left. Marketing (or some might say propaganda) works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

In the US, there's much misuse of the term socialism. 99% of the time, people mean democratic socialist (as per the Nordic countries). Conservative outlets, though, immediately equate that with Venezuela. It's crass dishonesty.

These outlets then go the next step. Offering healthcare for all is a step toward socialism, so we'd be like Venezuela this time next year!

I know this sounds obviously stupid to observers in Europe, but this happens all the time here the US. It's raw scare tactics, and it keeps wavering independents from crossing from right to left. Marketing (or some might say propaganda) works.

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think current Pure Socialist economies have been implemented the way they should (venezuela, cuba, etc) but that doesn't mean the romantic notion of true socialism is a bad one in my eyes, just that well they got it wrong. Yes i get that true socialism is mostly theoretical due to the inability of humans to not be greedy and corrupt and power hungry especially when it comes to government, but i'm a glass half full romantic positive person, so i believe if somehow implemented correctly it could (in theory) work great. currently democratic socialism is kinda straddling both worlds, trying to make capitalsim less drastic and more equal, and trying to make government a mix of both "of the people" and "of the institution".  That sounds great to me.  Will it work out?  Who knows?  Democracy in the USA has turned out to be government of the big corporations, so it's not really working well in my eyes, i'd like to give something else a chance.

 

Lastly, socialism and capitalism are forms of economies, not a form of government.  So i can be a socialist and not a communist or pro-dictator.  they are mutually exclusive.  you can have a socialist economy ruled by the people (democratic socialist), state (communist), or person (dictator) or many other iterations in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

As demonstrated in Mark’s post above here, Chach, I think it’s you who are reaching here and who are appealing to emotion as you did previously in reacting sarcastically to my opinion of Warren’s mixed bag political record.

Historically, socialism has, in the capital W Western world, always turned into a form of authoritarianism. That’s not what the theory of socialism actually is, however, and the socialism you speak of is so far out of bounds from what any American would tolerate based on leftovers from McCarthyism that it’s not within the realm of possibility to have an authoritarian socialist candidate here (an authoritarian populist, sure, as that’s what we have on our hands now).

Additionally, you discussed how socialism, communism and capitalism are all academic theories to be tested and judged on their merits essentially. Mark and I would argue that we’ve seen the effects of unfettered capitalism (the kind that allows lobbyists to influence elections to the degree that the government has just become another cog in the capitalist machine) and judged it to be a pretty terrible thing to many of the people with whom we share this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/01/2019 at 11:41, sibdane said:

I think a more moderate candidate would be preferred in order to win the swing voters. "True leftists" will still vote for a Democrat regardless of if they're far enough left or not, as long as it's not Trump and the DNC doesn't screw up again (Hillary vs. Bernie). 

I've said O'Rourke is my early choice before. He reminds me the most Obama with his policy and charisma.

As much as I will do and vote for whoever it takes to get this mockery out of office, I hate the appeals to moderation in order to coax a middle ground to vote another neoliberal capitalist democrat into office. Republicans won the last presidential election year because they have been ruthlessly unafraid of alienating groups, focused on the sole goal of retaining power and thus retaining privilege.

If Democrats truly want to be the party of justice, it’s time to stop pandering and time to be equally unapologetic about fighting for justice in all its forms - economic, environmental, racial, sexual, etc. Sadly, I don’t see many candidates making that kind of statement with the exception of a few in our recently minted class of freshman representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nyblue23 said:

As much as I will do and vote for whoever it takes to get this mockery out of office, I hate the appeals to moderation in order to coax a middle ground to vote another neoliberal capitalist democrat into office. Republicans won the last presidential election year because they have been ruthlessly unafraid of alienating groups, focused on the sole goal of retaining power and thus retaining privilege.

If Democrats truly want to be the party of justice, it’s time to stop pandering and time to be equally unapologetic about fighting for justice in all its forms - economic, environmental, racial, sexual, etc. Sadly, I don’t see many candidates making that kind of statement with the exception of a few in our recently minted class of freshman representatives.

Right. Lesser of the two evils, as they say.

Bingo, on the second part in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

Socialism is a brilliant concept until you bring humans into the equation ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/01/2019 at 11:34, Matt said:

Didn’t trump win by capitalising on a polarised nation? It would only make things worse, no?

Trump won by capitalizing on xenophobia and fear. There’s nothing we can do to conquer those concepts politically except for help the targets of that xenophobia and fear become valued. The moderate and bipartisan nature of the Clinton and Obama presidencies helped foster an environment where Trump became a possibility, or in other words, the nation became polarized in a time of relative moderation. I fail to see how electing another moderate will help fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

Trump won by capitalizing on xenophobia and fear. There’s nothing we can do to conquer those concepts politically except for help the targets of that xenophobia and fear become valued. The moderate and bipartisan nature of the Clinton and Obama presidencies helped foster an environment where Trump became a possibility, or in other words, the nation became polarized in a time of relative moderation. I fail to see how electing another moderate will help fix that.

Absolutely, but xenophobia and fear are extremes. 

I agree with helping the targets of that, but you also have to educate those you perpetuate it. 

I’ve used the pendulum analogy before, and it’s still true now. The swing has gone further one way than it should, and to address it you need an equal an opposite reaction to bring it even halfway back. Once that momentum swings back the other way, then moderates are the solution; people who compromise and address the differences between the extremes. 

1 term of a Sanders and then someone to lay the moderate is the ideal solution. I fear though that Trump will get a second term and civil unrest will be the outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Absolutely, but xenophobia and fear are extremes. 

I agree with helping the targets of that, but you also have to educate those you perpetuate it. 

I’ve used the pendulum analogy before, and it’s still true now. The swing has gone further one way than it should, and to address it you need an equal an opposite reaction to bring it even halfway back. Once that momentum swings back the other way, then moderates are the solution; people who compromise and address the differences between the extremes. 

1 term of a Sanders and then someone to lay the moderate is the ideal solution. I fear though that Trump will get a second term and civil unrest will be the outcome. 

Heard. I guess I missed that you were also advocating for an opposite extreme. The problem is that in this country, like in yours, the morality of the two sides (not parties - sides) are not at all equal. Instead of envisioning the term moderate on a political spectrum, all I see is the pure evil that is in office currently and the evil with a little moderation that has been in office for the last 30 years of my life (I’m 30).

The term moderate in the context of U.S. politics equates, at least to me, to mean a neoliberal who is willing to work across the aisle to preserve the status quo in terms of a barely functioning, highly predatory brand of government-sponsored capitalism that does not work for the majority of Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chach said:

That's not actually what happened, Mark declared he wanted a Socialist candidate. Socialism in practice is just another form of authoritarianism as is/was communism which has time and time again actually proved itself to be a bad thing.

I didn’t mean you Chach, I didn’t mean Mark either. Just people like him as I put, I’m only speaking about things I’ve seen and heard in the flesh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nyblue23 said:

Heard. I guess I missed that you were also advocating for an opposite extreme. The problem is that in this country, like in yours, the morality of the two sides (not parties - sides) are not at all equal. Instead of envisioning the term moderate on a political spectrum, all I see is the pure evil that is in office currently and the evil with a little moderation that has been in office for the last 30 years of my life (I’m 30).

The term moderate in the context of U.S. politics equates, at least to me, to mean a neoliberal who is willing to work across the aisle to preserve the status quo in terms of a barely functioning, highly predatory brand of government-sponsored capitalism that does not work for the majority of Americans.

I’m not necessarily advocating it, more recognising that it’s a necessity to get back on track. The evil, as you correctly put it, absolutely needs putting down, but unless you understand why it got to where it is, you can never really correct things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sibdane said:

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

Whilst the theory of moving to a Nordic way of life is all well and good, there is absolutely no way either of our countries could do it. Their political system has evolved over hundreds of years based on their culture. What works in those countries wouldn't even necessarily work in the USA or UK even if it was accepted by the people.

7 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

i don't think current Pure Socialist economies have been implemented the way they should (venezuela, cuba, etc) but that doesn't mean the romantic notion of true socialism is a bad one in my eyes, just that well they got it wrong. Yes i get that true socialism is mostly theoretical due to the inability of humans to not be greedy and corrupt and power hungry especially when it comes to government, but i'm a glass half full romantic positive person, so i believe if somehow implemented correctly it could (in theory) work great. currently democratic socialism is kinda straddling both worlds, trying to make capitalsim less drastic and more equal, and trying to make government a mix of both "of the people" and "of the institution".  That sounds great to me.  Will it work out?  Who knows?  Democracy in the USA has turned out to be government of the big corporations, so it's not really working well in my eyes, i'd like to give something else a chance.

 

Lastly, socialism and capitalism are forms of economies, not a form of government.  So i can be a socialist and not a communist or pro-dictator.  they are mutually exclusive.  you can have a socialist economy ruled by the people (democratic socialist), state (communist), or person (dictator) or many other iterations in my opinion.

 

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Socialism is a brilliant concept until you bring humans into the equation ;) 

Matt is spot on. I would expect that a "true romantic socialist" would never make it into mainstream politics, at least in our countries, because it takes a certain type of person to get into politics in the first place, but then its unlikely that such a candidate would never make it to the top of their respective party.

Many people consider Corbyn to be this guy in the UK but nepotism is rife, trade union leaders are on fat pay packets and are mostly white males and he has an aggressive and quite combative following. True socialism doesn't work because of human nature and then as MJB says you need to balance aspects of capitalism with aspects of socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Whilst the theory of moving to a Nordic way of life is all well and good, there is absolutely no way either of our countries could do it. Their political system has evolved over hundreds of years based on their culture. What works in those countries wouldn't even necessarily work in the USA or UK even if it was accepted by the people.

 

Matt is spot on. I would expect that a "true romantic socialist" would never make it into mainstream politics, at least in our countries, because it takes a certain type of person to get into politics in the first place, but then its unlikely that such a candidate would never make it to the top of their respective party.

Many people consider Corbyn to be this guy in the UK but nepotism is rife, trade union leaders are on fat pay packets and are mostly white males and he has an aggressive and quite combative following. True socialism doesn't work because of human nature and then as MJB says you need to balance aspects of capitalism with aspects of socialism.

It can’t take a certain type of person for one sole reason; human nature. That is, survival. It’s a beautiful ideal, but at the end of the day you will always protect your own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sibdane said:

The part in bold is exactly correct. "Socialism" is a scary word to a lot of Americans, and it's usually the same Americans who associate it with Venezuela, Russia, etc. (irony here being now that a lot of conservatives have favorable opinions of Russia). At the same time, these people honestly have no idea what type of government the Nordic countries operate under or realize how high the quality of life is either.

True that, Zepps could be spot on here.

image.png.d73cc3c1354e0c5e45e6f918abf24d83.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chach said:

True that, Zepps could be spot on here.

image.png.d73cc3c1354e0c5e45e6f918abf24d83.png

A country with a tax rate that high cannot be called simply a capitalist country. It’s a mixed economy. When your highest income tax rate is over 60% and kicks in if you make 1.2x the average income, you are controlling a large portion of goods and determining how they should be allocated - not allowing them to re-enter the market as in strict laissez-faire capitalism.

Further, in repeatedly pointing to Venezuela as the model of socialism, you’re again conflating the word with its worst outcomes and ignoring that free-market capitalism has also been unkind to a very large sector of the population that is subject to it. Socialism in theory does not necessarily mean that the government owns the means of production - it means that the collective owns the means of production. While it’s hard to conceive of an organized body that could control means and distribute goods outside of a system of government, it’s not impossible on a small scale and to consistently demonize all aspects of a theory because of its worst possible outcomes is pretty dishonest.

That said, I’ll concede that in some aspects, Scandinavian countries follow a capitalist model more closely than does the U.S., as they interfere little with specific economies and do very little to prop up their corporations with government subsidies. The American government cannot say the same, as it is constantly unnecessarily subsidizing underperforming markets (i.e. American farming and specifically the corn and dairy markets) at the expense of the health of its own citizens. We also infamously like to massively reward banks for indiscretion while still limiting the amount of oversight we give them.

Pure socialism would almost definitely never work on the scale of a country as large as the U.S., and would likely never work in even a much smaller country due to the greed that has been mentioned in this thread. Nor, though, does pure oligarchical capitalism where a few wealthy elites are allowed to essentially control an entire economy through their perpetuating monetary influence.

Economies are not so black and white. Socialism is no more a dirty word than capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

A country with a tax rate that high cannot be called simply a capitalist country. It’s a mixed economy. When your highest income tax rate is over 60% and kicks in if you make 1.2x the average income, you are controlling a large portion of goods and determining how they should be allocated - not allowing them to re-enter the market as in strict laissez-faire capitalism.

Further, in repeatedly pointing to Venezuela as the model of socialism, you’re again conflating the word with its worst outcomes and ignoring that free-market capitalism has also been unkind to a very large sector of the population that is subject to it. Socialism in theory does not necessarily mean that the government owns the means of production - it means that the collective owns the means of production. While it’s hard to conceive of an organized body that could control means and distribute goods outside of a system of government, it’s not impossible on a small scale and to consistently demonize all aspects of a theory because of its worst possible outcomes is pretty dishonest.

That said, I’ll concede that in some aspects, Scandinavian countries follow a capitalist model more closely than does the U.S., as they interfere little with specific economies and do very little to prop up their corporations with government subsidies. The American government cannot say the same, as it is constantly unnecessarily subsidizing underperforming markets (i.e. American farming and specifically the corn and dairy markets) at the expense of the health of its own citizens. We also infamously like to massively reward banks for indiscretion while still limiting the amount of oversight we give them.

Pure socialism would almost definitely never work on the scale of a country as large as the U.S., and would likely never work in even a much smaller country due to the greed that has been mentioned in this thread. Nor, though, does pure oligarchical capitalism where a few wealthy elites are allowed to essentially control an entire economy through their perpetuating monetary influence.

Economies are not so black and white. Socialism is no more a dirty word than capitalism.

You've literally proved Zepp's point there.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

I have never said that economies were black and white, you can read the post above where I said they were academic theories and we keep the parts the work (redistribution/welfare state) and we discard what doesn't.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chach said:

You've literally proved Zepp's point there.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

I have never said that economies were black and white, you can read the post above where I said they were academic theories and we keep the parts the work (redistribution/welfare state) and we discard what doesn't.

 

 

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

I agree with your sentiment on socialism, for me socialism  gets tarred with communism which it isn'tt. I class my self as a socialist even though from the outside I have the look and trappings of a so say Capitalist. For me Socialism doesn't mean you can't be successful or better yourself and enjoy the finer things in life, but you should never forget that there will always be people who are less fortunate than you and will need the help of a welfare state which is supported by your taxes, I have no problem paying my personal and company income tax but I would rather it was to a socialist Labour government than a Capitalist Conservative government and the reasons are to numerous to go into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

I don’t know what point I’ve proved other than demonstrating that you, Vox, Zepp and the prime minister of Denmark are all irrationally afraid of the word socialism. A welfare state is far from a capitalist principle. It’s a socialist one. All of those sources are unnecessarily splitting hairs over what kind of system a free market with loads of government sponsored-redistribution is/should be called.

Thats the point, its not one or the other. Marx's theories were a result of directly of observing what was wrong with capitalism, which I agree with.

Communism and Socialism are by definition the exclusion of the free market, there is no getting away from that, theres no irrational fear I just think its important that you don't rebadge failed ideologies in a manner that could hand victory to the people who would easily demonstrate that and use those failures against you.

The key take away from the Zepps post was not that Denmark was capitalist but that those on the left need a better marketing strategy to win than referring to redistributive and social policies as Socialism, especially in America.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×