https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html
Pro-Universal Healthcare, pro-Immigration rights (and in favour of the abolition of ICE), pro-government backed work programs... and she won in America (okay, in New York)... fuck yes.
Quote[size=1.2rem]Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina running her first campaign, ousted 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in New York's 14th congressional district on Tuesday, CNN projects, in the most shocking upset of a rollicking political season.[/size]
An activist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Ocasio-Cortez won over voters in the minority-majority district with a ruthlessly efficient grassroots bid, even as Crowley -- the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House -- outraised her by a 10-to-1 margin.
This was the first time in 14 years a member of his own party has attempted to unseat Crowley, who chairs the Queens County Democrats. His defeat marks a potential sea change in the broader sphere of liberal politics -- a result with implications for Democrats nationwide that would recall, as optimistic progressives routinely noted during the campaign, former GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor's loss to the insurgent, tea party-backed Dave Brat in June 2014.
What does pro universal health care mean?
Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2018, 02:47:13 AM
What does pro universal health care mean?
Being in favour of universal healthcare.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2018, 03:03:11 AM
Being in favour of universal healthcare.
Ok, forget “pro†what is universal health care?
My guess is “Obamacare†with a new name.
Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2018, 03:35:12 AM
Ok, forget “pro†what is universal health care?
My guess is “Obamacare†with a new name.
Universal healthcare is a system that is essentially using social money to provide healthcare and financial stability in regards to healthcare to all members of said society. Nearly universally it has proven to be both more cost effective, provide more coverage to more of the population, and to be a more efficient system all around. Considering you come from a country that practices this system, it seems weird to have to explain that.
And nope, rather she supports the "Improved and Expanded Medicare for All Act", which essentially allows all American citizens the right to buy into medicare; both providing affordable healthcare services as well as reducing the cost of medicare, which is already at a 60% lower growth than privatized insurance. While medicare is both cheaper and more transparent than private insurance (and covers more ailments), it does still require users to pay for half of the medical costs which is still too much for most Americans... so while that's a step in the right direction, it still needs work.
Nevertheless, I'll take "needs more work" over "completely broken, so let's not even try to fix it" (aka; private insurance) any day.
Oh, and I forgot to mention... she worked for Bernie Sanders for a while, and in terms of fundraising... managed to scrap up $600,000 to her opponents Wall Street backed $6mil+.
So what about the 12 million “undocumented†citizens? More coming every day.
Who is paying for them?
And you want open borders too?
Socialist healthcare still needs to be payed for. And the quality of health care goes down markedly.
Have a look at the UK NHS.
QuoteSo what about the 12 million “undocumented†citizens? Who is paying for them?
They pay for themselves; undocumented citizens pay taxes. In 2015 undocumented citizens paid an estimated $23.6 billion dollars in taxes[1] to the IRS.
Secondly, she wants to make the path to citizenship much more streamlined and opened, meaning they won't be undocumented... as well as abolishing ICE, which is a major player in keeping undocumented workers from reporting income or looking for more legitimate work.
Thirdly, the fact that they are undocumented does not somehow mean they deserve to have their basic quality of life needs denied to them.
QuoteBut why didn’t this work for Obama?
Maybe because he never proposed a universal healthcare bill, and the bill he did eventually get through was essentially a Republican healthcare bill from several decades ago that was still "too far left" for modern day Republicans.
QuoteSocialist healthcare still needs to be payed for. And the quality of health care goes down markedly.
Yes, it does. But the numbers don't lie; socialized healthcare systems are significantly cheaper than privatized systems. We currently spend 17.4% of our total GDP on medical care, with the Dutch and Swiss being next at 11.1% of their total GDP (to compare, the UK only pays 8.5% of their total GDP in health care expenses).[2]
To put that into hard cash, that was in 2010 about $8,233 per person spent on health care. Using the 2010 graph where Norway was the second most expensive and Switzerland at third, the Norwegians paid $5.4k and Swiss $5.2k a year on health care per person (the United Kingdom paid $3.4k per person, or under half what Americans paid).[3]
I have quoted these numbers before, and perhaps it was for Gilga and not you, but I do not feel like going into them again. Essentially though, there are very, very few categories in which American healthcare is superiour to socialized countries healthcare, and when we are paying twice the amount and getting subpar results for it... I'm sorry, but you simply cannot argue that the quality of healthcare drops.[4]
QuoteHave a look at the UK NHS.
I have, and for all it's flaws (as any system is going to have) it is still incredibly more cost effective, medically effective, and protects a much larger percentage of the population than the American healthcare system. If anything, you should be asking me NOT to look at it.
[1]http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2015ARC/ARC15_Volume1_MSP_18_ITIN.pdf
[2]https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/22/could-universal-health-care-save-us-taxpayers-money
[3]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
[4]https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-u-s-highest-rate-deaths-amenable-health-care-among-comparable-oecd-countries
QuoteAnd you want open borders too?
Borderline open, yes. Obviously people need to present ID, passport, etc. to come into the country, but if someone has the money to buy a house or apartment here and pays taxes, then they should be free to come and go as they please.
Only the rich can come and go as they please?
That is not what socialism is about!
How many rich people sneak in to the USA from the south in the dead of night wanting to buy a house and pay taxes?
(https://i.imgur.com/2hjbnNH.gif)
An OK development, but not the general election, just a primary. Most D party primary challengers this year were more conservative than the incumbents they are challenging. And there is no sign that the DNC will welcome Bernie Bros.
Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2018, 03:35:12 AM
Ok, forget “pro†what is universal health care?
My guess is “Obamacare†with a new name.
No. Universal Healthcare is what we expected 10 years ago. Obamacare is what we got. Obamacare is a Republican creation designed to undermine what the Clintons were trying to promote back in the early 90s. They are completely different and unrelated
political solutions
Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2018, 04:11:06 AM
So what about the 12 million “undocumented†citizens? More coming every day.
Who is paying for them? Socialist healthcare still needs to be payed for. And the quality of health care goes down markedly.
.
This is an important observation, and it's not something at the forefront of the debate in either Obamacare or Universal Healthcare. We actually don't know how undocumented citizens will be handled. But "Universal" may be misleading. It doesn't mean automatic coverage as the name implies. By assumption it's going to be paid for by documented citizens, who will then benefit from lower costs. Will it be given to those who are just here? That has not been worked out, and will be a secondary debate. And it can be addressed like it is in Canada. When I was living there and needed a doctor, I paid out of pocket about what I would pay in the US. There was no free ride for undocumented visitors not paying into the system.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2018, 02:19:32 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html
Pro-Universal Healthcare, pro-Immigration rights (and in favour of the abolition of ICE), pro-government backed work programs... and she won in America (okay, in New York)... fuck yes.
This is interesting, but would not happen in most of the country. It might be part of a reading that predicts a small shift toward socialism in the US, or it might be an anomaly causing unwarranted optimism in the left. I think it's great, but I'm not running out to by US Treasury Bills just yet.
All politics is local. One precinct doesn't an election make. One congressional district doesn't make a congressional majority.
Obama and the 2010 Congress health plan ... he signed it, so it has his name on it. He screwed you. Like any good politician would.
Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2018, 04:35:27 AM
Only the rich can come and go as they please?
That is not what socialism is about!
How many rich people sneak in to the USA from the south in the dead of night wanting to buy a house and pay taxes?
(https://i.imgur.com/2hjbnNH.gif)
We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to help refugees (and our own) if we wanted to. It might mean some people won't be able to afford their fifth yacht or private plane, but that is a more than fair trade.
So you say, but you're not the one having to live a hard life by having to live without a fifth yacht!
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 27, 2018, 07:09:42 PM
So you say, but you're not the one having to live a hard life by having to live without a fifth yacht!
No, but I am the one paying for it.
Well, hell, surely you can't expect rich people to pay for there own yachts!
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 27, 2018, 07:09:42 PM
So you say, but you're not the one having to live a hard life by having to live without a fifth yacht!
Human wants are unlimited. You can have some of this and some of that, but not all of anything, let alone all of everything. Individually or collectively.
No, I don't think we can take 100 million Latin Americans in, nor can Europe take 100 million ME/Africans in. That is a lot of folks.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 27, 2018, 07:46:40 PM
Well, hell, surely you can't expect rich people to pay for there own yachts!
Perish forbid! And the people working on the yachts should do it for free just for the honor of the ride!
"In New York"
Who gives a crap.
If it isn't someplace majorly Conservative it's not a big win.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 02:19:07 AM
"In New York"
Who gives a crap.
If it isn't someplace majorly Conservative it's not a big win.
A win over a Party Boss suggests a lot about how the general electorate is reacting.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 02:57:31 AM
A win over a Party Boss suggests a lot about how the general electorate is reacting.
Too bad the Ds didn't do that in 2016. Now we will get conservative SCOTUS for the next 100 years. Dred Scott ... can you hear me now?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 02:57:31 AM
A win over a Party Boss suggests a lot about how the general electorate is reacting.
It does kind of suggest that people aren't blindly acting as cheerleaders for a party, but are actually seeing how things are and how they want them to change. The thing I like about it is that people here are acting as if they are NOT obligated to support a party because it's the "party", but focusing more on what they want their party to be. Government's obligation in a democracy should be to the people, not the other way around. Yet we are taught patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance, things that specify only our obligation to the government.
But there may be other reasons why this is going on. The story only reports what happened this time, not why it happened. And there can be less desirable motivations at play that we don't see from the report.
Quote from: SGOS on June 28, 2018, 07:44:58 AM
It does kind of suggest that people aren't blindly acting as cheerleaders for a party, but are actually seeing how things are and how they want them to change. The thing I like about it is that people here are acting as if they are NOT obligated to support a party because it's the "party", but focusing more on what they want their party to be. Government's obligation in a democracy should be to the people, not the other way around. Yet we are taught patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance, things that specify only our obligation to the government.
But there may be other reasons why this is going on. The story only reports what happened this time, not why it happened. And there can be less desirable motivations at play that we don't see from the report.
As I understand the New York City campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knocking off high-ranking Rep. Joseph Crowley, who was eyeing the House speakership, the democrats are getting angry about the way the Republicans have been playing the game and are tired of it.
Which bodes well for the November elections. Trump likes to talk about a "Red Wave", but he talks out of his hat and makes things up so often, the number of people who agree with him are going down in every poll. Eventually, even his supporters are falling away as they see things that don't add up about him.
The fight about the nominee for Justice Kennedy's seat on the Supreme court will be very informative. The Senate is 50-49 Republican, and there are several departing Republican Senators who despise Trump and are retiring. It would only take 1 angry departing Republican Senator to vote with a solid Democratic block to prevent a nominee from being considered per Republican Leader McConnell's own previous demand of "no Supreme Court nominee be considered in an election year".
Democratic Socialist?
Think about that for a moment.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 11:50:49 AM
Democratic Socialist?
Think about that for a moment.
Two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner ;-) Majority vote rules. Vive Le Terror.
"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.
Tell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.
I am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 01:13:37 PM
"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.
Tell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.
I am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.
Mexico and Canada first ... but they all have to grow a beard like Castro and smoke a Havana cigar.
This is Sean Hannity's list of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's evil agenda.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvfMreXcAAIvkn.jpg)
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 11:50:49 AM
Democratic Socialist?
Think about that for a moment.
Okay, lets...
Democracy = a system of government where the people exercise power over the government through the act of voting, and is generally regarded as "rule by the majority" (though the constitution helps, and is intended, to protect any given minority from being oppressed by the majority).
Socialism = a system where a given means of production is owned by the majority rather than individual parties.
Quote"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.
Not even remotely. Socialism means that the majority has power over an enterprise, meaning it is by it's nature more akin to democracy than capitalism is. If anything, Democratic Capitalist would be closer to an oxymoron because the core tenant of capitalism is that the individual has control of the means of production.
Of course, neither are oxymorons because there is no such thing as a pure capitalist or a pure socialist, and neither of them are actually inherently tied to the concept of Democracy or Authoritarian, but by their nature socialism is more fit for democracy and capitalism more for authoritarianism.
QuoteTell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.
That would probably be a good idea, considering essentially every Western country (and most Eastern) practice various degrees of socialism and do so perfectly fine.
QuoteI am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Everyone practices mortality ... but the degree of it is not insignificant.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 28, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
This is Sean Hannity's list of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's evil agenda.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvfMreXcAAIvkn.jpg)
Why the man sounds like maniacal tyrant. Now there's one mean sonofabitch.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 01:13:37 PM
"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.
Tell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.
I am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.
No, both are rooted in the idea of benefits to all citizens rather than an elite. There ARE differences, but one can logically be between the 2 ideas.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 08:43:44 PM
No, both are rooted in the idea of benefits to all citizens rather than an elite. There ARE differences, but one can logically be between the 2 ideas.
Correct. Oligarchy for example is partly democratic and party autocratic. Our representative system is oligarchic. But some people think that the WH is a monarchy or dictatorship, that SCOTUS and Congress don't exist. So then it becomes vitally important to control who is in the WH. And it does matter, the Dark State has been in control of the WH since 1963. The People don't control anything, the peasants never do.
A voice from the past ...
"THE GULF BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYED IS CONSTANTLY WIDENING, AND CLASSES ARE RAPIDLY FORMING, ONE COMPRISING THE VERY RICH AND POWERFUL, WHILE IN ANOTHER ARE FOUND THE TOILING POOR. AS WE VIEW THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGGREGATED CAPITAL, WE DISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES, WHILE THE CITIZEN IS STRUGGLING FAR IN THE REAR OR IS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BENEATH AN IRON HEEL." GROVER CLEVELAND, STATE OF THE UNION, DECEMBER 3, 1888
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2018, 02:08:42 AM
A voice from the past ...
"THE GULF BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYED IS CONSTANTLY WIDENING, AND CLASSES ARE RAPIDLY FORMING, ONE COMPRISING THE VERY RICH AND POWERFUL, WHILE IN ANOTHER ARE FOUND THE TOILING POOR. AS WE VIEW THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGGREGATED CAPITAL, WE DISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES, WHILE THE CITIZEN IS STRUGGLING FAR IN THE REAR OR IS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BENEATH AN IRON HEEL." GROVER CLEVELAND, STATE OF THE UNION, DECEMBER 3, 1888
It may have been worse in 1888-1910. It seems like things got better for a while, but I think it was only swing of the pendulum, which is now heading back toward gloomier times for the unwealthy.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 28, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
This is Sean Hannity's list of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's evil agenda.
Reminds me a lot of some pinko commie old fart with bad hair that the media said didn't have a snowball's chance in hell (I'm pretty sure I just encapsulated the full extent of their coverage)
Yet the platform seems to be a large part of Cortez's success. Hmm, I wonder what lessons we could draw from that...
Quote from: SGOS on June 29, 2018, 07:10:08 AM
It may have been worse in 1888-1910. It seems like things got better for a while, but I think it was only swing of the pendulum, which is now heading back toward gloomier times for the unwealthy.
Correct, Teddy Roosevelt wasn't to become President, they made him VP to end his career, then an assassin killed McKinley. Oops! Without that assassin there would be no national parks and Standard Oil and US Steel would own us as slaves.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 02:57:31 AM
A win over a Party Boss suggests a lot about how the general electorate is reacting.
Pretty much. I know I want the Democrats to actually
be Democrats again, not just some sort of Republican Lite in cheaper suits, and I think that a number of my brother and sister Dems are finally feeling the same way. I hate what the DLC did to the party, whose answer to the losses of the '80s was not to find a way to better deliver our message, but to instead move in the direction of the Republicansâ€"the one major thing I hold against Bill and Hillary, although they're still a damn sight better than the alternative.
It's left us with a center/center-right party and a far-right party and no options on the left. Obama would not be entirely out of place in the centrist, EU-friendly end of Theresa May's Conservatives (although more likely a LibDem), or in the German FDP, or even on the more centrist end of Angela Merkel's CDU.
The Republicans, on the other hand, rather than seize the opportunity of having Democrats moving their way and getting a whole bunch of their more moderate ideas enacted, have run even further to the right and wouldn't be out of place in Germany's AfP, in Marine Le Pen's National Front, in UKIP, and many teabaggers sound like they've come from the British National Party.
If I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point,
someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party. That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
Quote from: trdsf on June 29, 2018, 01:20:31 PM
Pretty much. I know I want the Democrats to actually be Democrats again, not just some sort of Republican Lite in cheaper suits, and I think that a number of my brother and sister Dems are finally feeling the same way. I hate what the DLC did to the party, whose answer to the losses of the '80s was not to find a way to better deliver our message, but to instead move in the direction of the Republicansâ€"the one major thing I hold against Bill and Hillary, although they're still a damn sight better than the alternative.
It's left us with a center/center-right party and a far-right party and no options on the left. Obama would not be entirely out of place in the centrist, EU-friendly end of Theresa May's Conservatives (although more likely a LibDem), or in the German FDP, or even on the more centrist end of Angela Merkel's CDU.
The Republicans, on the other hand, rather than seize the opportunity of having Democrats moving their way and getting a whole bunch of their more moderate ideas enacted, have run even further to the right and wouldn't be out of place in Germany's AfP, in Marine Le Pen's National Front, in UKIP, and many teabaggers sound like they've come from the British National Party.
If I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point, someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party. That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
I can't explain the Democratic strategy over the last 30 years, although I can make guesses. Several members, now gone from the forum, applauded the strategy of following the Republican lead, which would push the Rs so far to the right, they would destroy themselves. If in fact that was the strategy, it didn't work. Someone at headquarters didn't read the opposition correctly.
I doubt that was the strategy, however. I think they just wanted to capture some moderate Republicans while expecting their loyal constituents to vote Democratic out of habit, or expecting the more astute to at least vote using the principle of the lesser of evils. I don't think they anticipated the demoralization factor that kept some would be Democrats from going to the polls last election.
I don't hate the Democratic Party the way Baruch does. It's more like I've just lost interest in what they are selling, and also, I don't trust them the way I used to. I think they have obligated themselves to corporations, because corporations are people... people with money. And it's fun to do favors for people with money. Wining elections might be more about competing for the power to favors for the wealthy.
But I don't see the party doing anything to change either. I hear them talk about the fact that they are talking about it, but I don't know what they actually talk ABOUT. My guess is that they are talking about new strategies to win elections, while not worrying so much about what people want. Things just seem business as usual. This thing in New York was an anomaly caused by people. I don't believe for a second that this event was any part of the DNC strategy, and I think the DNC is mostly trying hard to ignore it: "Oh, that's just some people that don't understand the big picture. All they think about is themselves. Their concerns are not of any great importance."
Quote from: SGOS on June 29, 2018, 01:56:42 PMI can't explain the Democratic strategy over the last 30 years, although I can make guesses. Several members, now gone from the forum, applauded the strategy of following the Republican lead, which would push the Rs so far to the right, they would destroy themselves. If in fact that was the strategy, it didn't work. Someone at headquarters didn't read the opposition correctly.
Correct. Rather than allowing extremism to push the Republicans from power, we now have extremists with power, the worst possible outcome.
Basically, this was like using fire on zombies. It might sound like a good idea, but believe me, it's not. Not only does it not kill the zombies, you now have zombies that are much, much more dangerous.
QuoteI doubt that was the strategy, however. I think they just wanted to capture some moderate Republicans while expecting their loyal constituents to vote Democratic out of habit, or expecting the more astute to at least vote using the principle of the lesser of evils. I don't think they anticipated the demoralization factor that kept some would be Democrats from going to the polls last election.
Indeed. They both misunderstood conservatives (who will vote for Republicans no matter what) and misunderstood liberals (whose votes are not a given and who will become deeply unhappy with Democrats who they feel do not present a liberal-enough platform)
Quote from: trdsf on June 29, 2018, 01:20:31 PMIf I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point, someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party. That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
Perhaps. But parties only exist because of large bases of support. The political polarization of America has affected both politicians and voters. Similarly, there's been an erosion of "moderate" positions between Democrats and Republicans.
What would a centrist party platform even look like? Muslims shouldn't be allowed to enter the country except the ones who know how to make really good falafel? Gay marriage is immoral and unnatural and sinful in the eyes of God but gays can get hitched in California? Healthcare for all but only if gay conversion therapy is included?
I'm kidding of course and being wildly sardonic, but surely, you see the problem here.
That's the problem imo ... Americans, even liberals and progressives, have bought into this lie pushed by the super wealthy that any type of sensible economic policy is leftist, and bought into lies from wealthy conservatives and Christian leaders that any sort of social justice, be it towards the LGBT, African American, women or whoever communities is far-left.
I would say it's less American society has become polarised and more that it was made polarised by changing definitions of what is left or right. 30 years ago what passes as a republican now would have been a radical member of society.
Apparently, anyone with compassion is considered "liberal."
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2018, 03:19:42 PM
Apparently, anyone with compassion is considered "liberal."
Traditionally true ... but Marxists aren't liberal, they are parasites and revolutionaries. Like the mob in Paris, 1792. The American Revolution was liberal, but only for propertied White men. Should have kept it that way?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0
Quote from: pr126 on June 30, 2018, 12:48:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0)
It doesn't work, except in the overwhelming majority of cases where it does (i.e. the entire Western world, even America). You always complain about the "other" coming and destroying the Western way of life, and yet you seem to be opposed to basically everything in our culture that makes us better than everyone else.
*Does best pr impression* - If you hate democratic socialism so much pr, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia? I hear it's really nice this time of year. Maybe head off to North Korea or Turkey.
Stop and think about it... no SJWs, no women making too much noise... being surrounded by people who agree with you on Islam... it would be paradise!
Quote from: pr126 on June 30, 2018, 12:48:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0
Stephen Crowder is correct that socialism and capitalism are two different philosophies of governing. I can also agree with many of the points he makes about the benefits of capitalism. It all boils down to, as Crowder states,
what is the legitimate role of government. Crowder and I have a different idea about where that line should be drawn. I believe Crowder creates a false dichotomy, you either are a capitalist or a socialist. He believes that anything beyond the justice system and national defense shouldn't be administered or regulated by the government and I think the government needs to have a broader role, yet I don't consider myself a socialist because I don't want the government to take over the means of production and or try to create financial equity. I consider Crowder an ideologue and I'm more a pragmatist who has no problem using government when necessary to fix problems-- I'll use all the tools available. I also think Crowder and I have different ideas of what liberty looks like. For Crowder, freedom is not having the government force people to do things, where I see liberty as not simply freedom from the government but a system that allows for more opportunities for its citizens.
I'm in agreement with Crowder that if the free market can provide good outcomes the government need not be involved. For example, I'm not convinced a federal minimum wage leads to better outcomes. An example where I would disagree is in an area such as healthcare. Free markets depend on people being able to exchange money for services but with healthcare sick people often can't work and therefore don't have the money to afford care. There are many reasons, even purely selfish reasons, why it is in no one's best interest for citizens to be sick or disabled. Healthcare isn't like other goods and services and "the invisible hand of the market" isn't going to work here. Americans have proven it doesn't work. I work in an emergency room and it would be in the hospital's best financial interest if we only treated people who had the ability to pay. There have been cases (NOT where I work) where emergency department staff literally drove sick people off and dropped them off on the curb in their hospital gown because they didn't have the ability to pay. The reason all hospitals don't do this is that it is illegal but there is nothing in the free market model that would prevent healthcare providers from not treating people who can't pay. Government is needed to solve this problem.
Aggregate analysis is hard, and fraught with statistical falsehoods and spurious "weighting".
Ask what improved health care for instance, will do for person X ... then we can agree. What a 1% increase in inflation will do for a million people ... is just a statistic. But of course for collectivists, only the mass of people, and the so called average Joe they derive from statistics ... matters. Ideological tools of the political class.
We can't be completely individualist or completely collectivist ... we have to do both. But the extremists don't care.
The EUSSR is falling, just like the USSR. And deliberately demolished by its opponents. The US is opposed to socialism, period. We are using the ME and China and Russia to destroy the EUSSR. The Brexit British are trying to scurry out of the cross-fire, but they are too late. You will all end up like Greece, and under the Silk Road Pact ... not Nato.
Unfortunately people only see what they want to see. Europe or parts of it are paradise, and those not already there want to get there. Same as half the human race who is trying to get there, for all the free shit. Singing .. China, Russia, Uber Alles ...
Quote from: trdsf on June 29, 2018, 01:20:31 PM
...
Pretty much. I know I want the Democrats to actually be Democrats again, not just some sort of Republican Lite in cheaper suits, and I think that a number of my brother and sister Dems are finally feeling the same way. I hate what the DLC did to the party, whose answer to the losses of the '80s was not to find a way to better deliver our message, but to instead move in the direction of the Republicansâ€"the one major thing I hold against Bill and Hillary, although they're still a damn sight better than the alternative.
...
I heard a Republican strategist forcefully claiming on MSNBC today that Democrats had moved far to the "left" and that half the voters supported ending Roe v Wade, and some other nonsense about "most people" supporting all anti-immigrant actions of the Trump Administration.
It was falsifiable nonsense of course. The Democrats have moved slightly toward the center, because quite frankly, as a political party, they are weak fools who couln't beat a 10 year old Republican in any strategic game. They don't have the will to stand up and fight Republicans toe to toe, they are embarrassed to raise their voices about things that should matter to them, and they wilt when confronted.
I used to be a Republican. I understand how they think. Play chess, not Candyland. Take no prisoners. Make whatever argument works TODAY! Admit nothing, lie about anything, and crush the enemy! Abuse any rule, break any tradition, take advantage of and custom that gives the least little advantage. Rules are made to be broken, they think.
I discussed basketball with a carpool member who was an utter Republican. He admitted without any shame that the only point of penalties in basketball was to make an evaluation of the benefits of committing them versus the cost of the penalty. He saw it COMPLETELY as a benefit analysis vs a matter of obeying the rules.
THAT is what we Democrats are facing. The Republicans are not playing by the same rules (or any). They will try to win with any argument that gets their base excited to vote for them.
Better get down into the trenches, or Dems will loose for the next generation.
MSM is falsifiable of course. No better than YouTube ... just that it has DNC support. And your description shows by the R's win as much as they do (despite being more despicable than Bugs Bunny (as claimed by Daffy Duck).
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 29, 2018, 02:24:15 PM
Perhaps. But parties only exist because of large bases of support. The political polarization of America has affected both politicians and voters. Similarly, there's been an erosion of "moderate" positions between Democrats and Republicans.
What would a centrist party platform even look like? Muslims shouldn't be allowed to enter the country except the ones who know how to make really good falafel? Gay marriage is immoral and unnatural and sinful in the eyes of God but gays can get hitched in California? Healthcare for all but only if gay conversion therapy is included?
I'm kidding of course and being wildly sardonic, but surely, you see the problem here.
The thing is, occupying the center ground didn't used to be a problemâ€"it was how things actually got done.
Interesting you should bring up health care -- Eisenhower and Nixon both proposed something along the lines of a proto-ACA, federal supports for purchasing private insurance and federal assistance for the poorest rather than a straight universal program. So yes, we could have had a partial solution nearly 50 years ago, and we might still be calling it 'Nixoncare' to this day had it happened.
From Reagan onwards, however, even that was too much for the GOP to countenance, until we reached the point where Dubya's "solution" was not to actually provide coverage, but tort reform and medical savings accountsâ€"as if the uninsured, mainly low-earners, are a) spending their money on attorneys rather than on health insurance, and/or b) can just magically sock away a couple thousand dollars and the only reason they don't is because their interest rates are taxed. I mean, how do you compromise with that delusional a take on reality?
And even if you wanted to, the modern GOP considers 'compromise' just as dirty a word as they do 'liberal' -- which was on display during their failed attempt to kill the ACA, when they couldn't even compromise
with themselves.
Anyway, if the GOP loses in the next few election cycles, either the less-ideologically bound are going to say "fuck this" and seek out some ground closer to the center, or the money's going to go away when they're in minority and can't deliver anymore. Either result is deadly to what the Republican party has evolved into, and I would love to see it happen.
Truman also proposed a national health plan. Kennedy actually tried to get people to exercise, including in Elementary School ... I was there when it happened.
Quote from: Baruch on July 02, 2018, 06:32:52 PM
Kennedy actually tried to get people to exercise, including in Elementary School
I could never do the 'sit and reach'
Quote from: trdsf on July 02, 2018, 01:22:14 PMAnyway, if the GOP loses in the next few election cycles, either the less-ideologically bound are going to say "fuck this" and seek out some ground closer to the center, or the money's going to go away when they're in minority and can't deliver anymore. Either result is deadly to what the Republican party has evolved into, and I would love to see it happen.
That's what I thought not long ago. I figured that the McCain and Romney loses would get it through their thick skulls that they're barking up the wrong tree by doubling down on gay marriage (a fight they ultimately lost) and opposing Obamacare.
And then, during a weak primary with such luminaries as Jeb "please applaud" Bush and Ted "stepmom doesn't technically count as incest" Cruz, a strange thing happened. Trump swooped in and took over. Arguably, the Republican party died that day. Now it's just the Trump cult. And after scandal after scandal - some frivolous, some serious, some heart-attack serious - about 40% of the country looks at this orange turd and say he's doing just fine.
Why change? Apparently, this new tack is working out for them just fine. (...for the time being. The generational/ethnic stats paint a bleak long-term picture for the GOP but I have sneaking suspicion they'll go scorched earth by that time.)
The Democrat party died also ... it became the party of Clinton! Good riddance to both of them, unfortunately the zombie parties continue to look for brains!
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 03, 2018, 12:03:39 AM
That's what I thought not long ago. I figured that the McCain and Romney loses would get it through their thick skulls that they're barking up the wrong tree by doubling down on gay marriage (a fight they ultimately lost) and opposing Obamacare.
And then, during a weak primary with such luminaries as Jeb "please applaud" Bush and Ted "stepmom doesn't technically count as incest" Cruz, a strange thing happened. Trump swooped in and took over. Arguably, the Republican party died that day. Now it's just the Trump cult. And after scandal after scandal - some frivolous, some serious, some heart-attack serious - about 40% of the country looks at this orange turd and say he's doing just fine.
Why change? Apparently, this new tack is working out for them just fine. (...for the time being. The generational/ethnic stats paint a bleak long-term picture for the GOP but I have sneaking suspicion they'll go scorched earth by that time.)
That's why a good Democratic turnout this fall that blows through all the gerrymandering the Repubs did in '12 will be a lesson they can't fail to notice. When you look at the advantage they built in for themselves, if they *still* can't hold the House... yeah.
Quote from: trdsf on July 02, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
The thing is, occupying the center ground didn't used to be a problemâ€"it was how things actually got done.
Interesting you should bring up health care -- Eisenhower and Nixon both proposed something along the lines of a proto-ACA, federal supports for purchasing private insurance and federal assistance for the poorest rather than a straight universal program. So yes, we could have had a partial solution nearly 50 years ago, and we might still be calling it 'Nixoncare' to this day had it happened.
From Reagan onwards, however, even that was too much for the GOP to countenance, until we reached the point where Dubya's "solution" was not to actually provide coverage, but tort reform and medical savings accountsâ€"as if the uninsured, mainly low-earners, are a) spending their money on attorneys rather than on health insurance, and/or b) can just magically sock away a couple thousand dollars and the only reason they don't is because their interest rates are taxed. I mean, how do you compromise with that delusional a take on reality?
And even if you wanted to, the modern GOP considers 'compromise' just as dirty a word as they do 'liberal' -- which was on display during their failed attempt to kill the ACA, when they couldn't even compromise with themselves.
Anyway, if the GOP loses in the next few election cycles, either the less-ideologically bound are going to say "fuck this" and seek out some ground closer to the center, or the money's going to go away when they're in minority and can't deliver anymore. Either result is deadly to what the Republican party has evolved into, and I would love to see it happen.
"delusional a take on reality", that's GOOD!
Some interesting commentary for BernieBros ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-j163g-KY
The embarrassing political ignorance of Americans, constantly forces me to go outside the US for something other than baby babbling.
Quote from: trdsf on July 03, 2018, 10:55:44 AM
a lesson they can't fail to notice.
Really? Don't be too surprised when they fail to notice...
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 07, 2018, 01:48:16 PM
Really? Don't be too surprised when they fail to notice...
It will take at least three election cycles. The first and second ones, they'll proclaim their problem was that they weren't conservative enough.
Quote from: trdsf on July 07, 2018, 04:46:37 PM
It will take at least three election cycles. The first and second ones, they'll proclaim their problem was that they weren't conservative enough.
It might take more election cycles for the "old white crazy (get off my lawn you damn kids) guys" to die off before the Republican party (and note I give them their whole name as opposed to the Republicans who keep referring to the "Democrat" party when it is the "Democratic" party). Regardless, the Republicans are fighting to keep voters who are now entering assisted-living facilities and will stop voting soon.
You can't (successfully) fight demographics.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 12:21:11 AM
It might take more election cycles for the "old white crazy (get off my lawn you damn kids) guys" to die off before the Republican party (and note I give them their whole name as opposed to the Republicans who keep referring to the "Democrat" party when it is the "Democratic" party). Regardless, the Republicans are fighting to keep voters who are now entering assisted-living facilities and will stop voting soon.
You can't (successfully) fight demographics.
Yeah, that's another thing that's coming into play, they're losing their base to natural attrition. I'm just not sure the country can hang on while we wait.
Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 12:31:11 AM
Yeah, that's another thing that's coming into play, they're losing their base to natural attrition. I'm just not sure the country can hang on while we wait.
Well, first, I am hoping for good results in November. I am pretty sure the Republicans will suffer major loses in the elections. The House is likely and the Senate is possible. That is a likely historical result. If that doesn't happen, we are in for at least 2 more horrible years. And it may be time to take to the streets if that happens.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 12:21:11 AM
It might take more election cycles for the "old white crazy (get off my lawn you damn kids) guys" to die off before the Republican party (and note I give them their whole name as opposed to the Republicans who keep referring to the "Democrat" party when it is the "Democratic" party). Regardless, the Republicans are fighting to keep voters who are now entering assisted-living facilities and will stop voting soon.
You can't (successfully) fight demographics.
Except there is no progress, so demographics or not, you always end up with a new bunch of monkeys replacing the old bunch of monkeys. No way to progress that way.