|
Post by Doug on May 31, 2015 13:36:35 GMT -5
I notice that even Bruce defines capitalists as "me-me-me." Millions of years define survival as "me and mine" with the definition of mine changing with circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 31, 2015 14:09:37 GMT -5
Russell, as the only person on earth licensed to speak the language, I bow to your greatness. Beyond that. yeah, whatever. Everyone else knows what I mean and Bernie is still a communist with or without a capital C.
"I notice that even Bruce defines capitalists as "me-me-me."
David, I was speaking of cats and I've never met one who gave a damn what anyone else thought. Me, I'm a proud Capitalist but I do care more about others than any cat I've known. I even give to a few charities from time to time and I'm not even a Christian or is that christian since it's not a proper name?
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 15:29:53 GMT -5
the degrees of difference across the left end of the political spectrum But to my general point -- that it is, indeed, the Democratic Party that has moved to the extreme left, and not the Republican Party that has moved to the extrme right: The Republican Party is so diverse across the political spectrum that it is exactly for that reason they cannot win a national election. They will be swamped back out of the senate majority next year and the ONLY elections they will continue to win will be State and Congressional seats. They cannot win the presidency for that exact reason -- they are too broad a spectrum to unify for one candidate. Whomever the Republicans run will be too far to the left for half of their constituency and too for to the right for the other half. And just as happened in 2008 and 2012, one of those halves will stay home. Not so the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter how far to the left the Democratic Party's candidate is. And Sanders illustrates that. He is a socialist by his own definition. And yet, there isn't any Democrat scared off by that extreme political position. If he's the Democratic candidate, everyone who votes Democrat here will vote for him. I guarantee it. And the same general population who does the same thing will consist of the very people who claim without blushing that the Republicans are the extremists. Socialism used to be perceived as extreme by BOTH Republicans AND Democrats. No longer. It is now embraced and vehemently defended by most Democrats. acoustictalk.proboards.com/thread/39745/far-progress
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 31, 2015 15:51:22 GMT -5
John, I'd admire to hear how, say, the Clinton Administration moved the party to the left. In fact, aside from recovering from Cold-War-era allergies to anything that begins with "social" and doesn't end with "security" or start with "ice cream," I'd admire to see a list of Democratic Party policies that demonstrate a leftward move not also represented in the general populace. (I'm thinking specifically of the matters relating to status of women and gay citizens.) Shit, I don't think Obama's all that far left--he's to the right me.
And to be realistic: There's no danger of any Democrat voting for Bernie because Bernie is not going to be the candidate, and he will not be nominated because the rest of the party is not as far left as he is--nor are most of his colleagues as willing to take on various issues as directly as he is. Like Warren (who is explicitly not running) he is using his visibility to affect the conversation, to push a not-particularly-lefty Hillary away from the influence peddlers and contributors who are the real determiners of who runs. And if some supernatural force were to somehow make Bernie the Democratic candidate (because no natural force is going to do it), he would get stomped at the polls unless the GOP put up someone as clearly bonkers as Herman Cain--hell, I suspect even either of the Ridiculous Ricks Perry or Santorum would squeak past Bernie, and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush would have it in a walk. Because not nearly enough Democrats would take the risk.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 15:59:19 GMT -5
John, I'd admire to hear how, say, the Clinton Administration moved the party to the left. Is this red herring to suggest that if the Clintons were not the ones moving the Democratic party leftward, then the Democratic Party must not have moved leftward? Because if that's the point of this red herring, I'm not smelling it.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 16:01:13 GMT -5
And if some supernatural force were to somehow make Bernie the Democratic candidate (because no natural force is going to do it), he would get stomped at the polls unless the GOP put up someone as clearly bonkers as Herman Cain--hell, I suspect even either of the Ridiculous Ricks Perry or Santorum would squeak past Bernie, and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush would have it in a walk. Because not nearly enough Democrats would take the risk. Oh, and this unprovable is just something we're going to disagree on. Sanders would win. Probably with approximately the same margin Obama won with in 2012. As an exercise, try to take a local poll in the Soundhole. I would venture that there isn't one Democratic voting Soundholer who would not vote for Sanders. Not one.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 31, 2015 16:16:19 GMT -5
Not a red herring--just wondering exactly what data stands behind the proposition "the Democratic Party . . . has moved to the extreme left." And there is a question of definition-of-terms that remains unaddressed, and the contrary proposition that the GOP has "not moved to the extreme right." (Ditto definitions needed again.) We can look at the policies of Democratic administrations, at party platforms, at legislative initiatives, at polls of people who identify as Democrats. There are all kinds of data sources--I just grabbed an easy, visible one.
The party may have moved leftward--I suspect that its constituency has done so, certainly in matters like gay marriage (where it tracks with the entire population's change of attitude). And the GOP has certainly moved to the right under pressure from the Tea Party, big-money interests (e.g., the Kochs), and the very vocal, very conservative public-discourse sector represented by Fox News, talk radio, and the hyperventilating right-wing blogosphere. I can point to the operation of some of these forces on the Republican establishment right here in Minnesota, where the caucus system gave anti-abortion activists effective veto over any prospective candidacy.
And I reviewed the Soundhole thread, which tells me that the question(s) raised there were not well formed and that as a result the answers were not what you think they were.
I can't speak for anyone else, but who I vote for depends on who I'm voting against. If you get to imagine Bernie getting the nomination, I get to imagine Arnie Carlson coming out of retirement and providing an old-fashioned rational Republican alternative.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 16:21:14 GMT -5
The party may have moved leftward--I suspect that its constituency has done so Well, then we aren't arguing. Let's find something to disagree on and have at each other. This is boring.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 16:22:09 GMT -5
I've got a backlog of nasty invectives to hurl and you're not giving me the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on May 31, 2015 17:19:42 GMT -5
It's been explained to me many many times that compromise is a terrible no-good very bad thing, and that there is no middle. In that case, if my only choices are fascist oligarchy and socialism, I'll choose socialism every single goddamn time.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on May 31, 2015 17:22:58 GMT -5
I can't speak for anyone else, but who I vote for depends on who I'm voting against. If you get to imagine Bernie getting the nomination, I get to imagine Arnie Carlson coming out of retirement and providing an old-fashioned rational Republican alternative. <Arne> Republican. Best governor Minnesota ever had. I voted for him twice (two different elections, this isn't Chicago.) Oh yeah, and currently disavowed by the sensible, midde-of-the-road, not at all tea-baggered, Minnesota Republican Party.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 17:25:00 GMT -5
It's been explained to me many many times that compromise is a terrible no-good very bad thing, and that there is no middle. Whoever told you that is crazy. You should listen to my take on compromise instead. You won't end up so confused.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 17:26:08 GMT -5
I can't speak for anyone else, but who I vote for depends on who I'm voting against. If you get to imagine Bernie getting the nomination, I get to imagine Arnie Carlson coming out of retirement and providing an old-fashioned rational Republican alternative. <Arne> Republican. Best governor Minnesota ever had. I voted for him twice (two different elections, this isn't Chicago.) Oh yeah, and currently disavowed by the sensible, midde-of-the-road, not at all tea-baggered, Minnesota Republican Party. So you guys would vote Arne Carlson over Bernie Sanders? Why? What's wrong with Sanders?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 31, 2015 17:26:43 GMT -5
It's been explained to me many many times that compromise is a terrible no-good very bad thing, and that there is no middle. In that case, if my only choices are fascist oligarchy and socialism, I'll choose socialism every single goddamn time. Not any difference. National Socialist Party = Nazi Both are more government and against the individual. If you vote for either a D or R you are choosing between Uncle Joe and Uncle Adolph.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on May 31, 2015 17:47:17 GMT -5
Are you not aware of the Twin Cities history of virulent anti-Semitism?
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 18:06:39 GMT -5
Are you not aware of the Twin Cities history of virulent anti-Semitism? I read something about it, why?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on May 31, 2015 18:10:04 GMT -5
Are you not aware of the Twin Cities history of virulent anti-Semitism? I read something about it, why? bill make little joke
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 31, 2015 18:13:11 GMT -5
oh. now I get it.
|
|
|
Post by lar on May 31, 2015 18:42:33 GMT -5
You guys crack me up. This has been a most entertaining thread.
For the record that website sees me as aligned with certain parties on certain issues and certain other parties on other issues. And the percentages are reasonably close. No real surprise. I've always had the thought that none of the parties are a good fit for me. I have a lamentable tendency to view issues individually and not through a set of ideological filters. The upside of that is that it has rendered me unfit for polite society. I’m okay with that.
I think David made the best point when he said that he's been told that compromise is a bad thing. It seems that the various political parties have bought into that idea, wrong as it may be. And it’s led to the kind of knee-jerk government we’ve been experiencing for some time.
On the issue of old Bernie, Russell makes some very good points, even if they aren’t funny. I forgive him for that (the lack of funny, not the good points). For better or worse, the idea of what constitutes communism has been diluted to a fare-thee-well over the years and quite a lot of people lump just about any “ism” under the umbrella of communism.
Without getting too nit-picky over the accuracy of the label my own take on this is that Bernie’s ideas (ideals?) probably fit fairly well within the mish-mash that is often referred to as communism. Whether he is a member of a communist organization, or not, isn’t of much importance. The label isn’t very important either as long as people have an accurate understanding of what he stands for.
I am saddened by how little all of the political discourse on this board, and just about everywhere else, means any more. Those of us who enjoy a good argument over politics have become has-beens in a world where it seems that political opinions are being increasingly formed by the ads run by the big-money so-called “independent” PACs. I don’t want the Koch Brothers, or anyone else, telling me lies about people they don’t like. And I don’t want them to tell me how I should think.
Someone in this thread, I forget who, wrote something that gave me the impression that he tends to vote against a candidate rather than for one. I’ve never been able to vote for a candidate that I thought would do a great job. I have always voted for the guy I thought wouldn’t screw up as bad as his opponent. That seems to be a really bad use of our constitutional prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on May 31, 2015 18:53:45 GMT -5
Saw the movie Aloha just now. The 'king' of the indigenees was wearing a T-shirt, 'Hawaiian by Birth, American by Force.' Must be a relative, Doug. Very nice movie tho. Very simplistic, but carried very pleasant performances by just about everyone, and Rachel McAdams and Emily Stone are awful easy on the eyes.
|
|