(09-05-2020, 12:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, are you using your own tax dollars to purchase and trade for their votes or are you using our tax dollars as well? I don't mind if liberal Democrats and progressive use their own money (tax dollars) to purchase the votes and sustain the votes that they need sustain themselves and keep themselves in power. Yes, its a natural trade off that the country ( the Americans outside the liberal Democratic/ progressive bubble ) are becoming more and more aware of these days.

(09-05-2020, 01:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Of course it would mean that some of you Republicans would pay more in taxes, as well as some of the Democrats (including now likely myself too). Unless we are forever to expand our national debt beyond all recognition, the upper middle class and the oligarchy has to pay more. We need to spend less on the military and needless wars. And we all need to contribute to a society that works for all, and not just for the few or for one race. This is what Wade Davis calls a sense of solidarity when we know that everyone in our country counts and is supported. How much more in taxes you personally Classic Xer would need to pay, I am not privy to, since I don't know what your wealth status and tax bracket is. But such taxation would not, in my choice, be unreasonable or debilitating; it would only be irritating to your ideology and your prejudice against providing tax money to non-whites and liberals who are poor.

We do need more socialism in our society, as Davis describes it. I am in agreement with him. That does not mean we need the kind of socialism that puts private enterprise out of business, especially small business. Even corporations would still exist. They just would not be in the position they are in now of controlling our politics and squeezing out all reform and progress and keeping our nation in decline, and evading their proper responsibility to the commonweal. 

An unequal country divided between rich and poor and between white and people of color, and thus in stagnation and stalemate, is not sustainable. It is not in the interest of any American of any Party. The policies of the Democratic Party needs to become again the new consensus if we are to survive as a prosperous nation, rather than a banana republic. Trickle-down, self-reliance-meme individualism and opposition to any collective action needs to be defeated at the polls from now on.

(08-30-2020, 05:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Did you know that its illegal to protect your property in Minneapolis or confront someone who is stealing your stuff in Minneapolis? You have rights, I have rights and everyone we know have rights. You tell me, are your rights worth risking your life to keep and keep everything that you hold dear in such an endeavor or not?

Quote:So, how much is a piece of shit property located in a really shitty part of town with people who don't care about property or feel obligated to pay rent going to be worth?

Quote:In short, you can choose to live out your as an American like me with all your rights intact with a government that respects them

Quote:It's your choice but if make the wrong choice now it will most likely be the last choice that you make as an American.  Personally, I believe the USA is worth defending and waging a multi faceted war with today's Left to keep the bulk of the country intact myself.

(09-07-2020, 08:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 05:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Did you know that its illegal to protect your property in Minneapolis or confront someone who is stealing your stuff in Minneapolis? You have rights, I have rights and everyone we know have rights. You tell me, are your rights worth risking your life to keep and keep everything that you hold dear in such an endeavor or not?

We have lived in urban neighborhood for thirty years and have never had a problem with people other than the boyfriends/husbands of my daughter and granddaughter trying to steal my stuff. This issue is hardly a state matter and we have  dealt with it privately.

Quote:So, how much is a piece of shit property located in a really shitty part of town with people who don't care about property or feel obligated to pay rent going to be worth?

Not much, which is why I don’t own any. Do you?

Quote:In short, you can choose to live out your as an American like me with all your rights intact with a government that respects them

I already do.

Quote:It's your choice but if make the wrong choice now it will most likely be the last choice that you make as an American.  Personally, I believe the USA is worth defending and waging a multi faceted war with today's Left to keep the bulk of the country intact myself.

Sound to me that you are the folks who threatening  to take property that is not yours. Are you frustrated with the hand you were dealt and want to take mine? Is that it?

(09-04-2020, 07:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN has militia member felons proceeding with weapons towards Kenosha and Portland.  I have in the past assumed most rural militias were concerned more with the 2nd Amendment and their own possession of weapons than other issues, and thus that they would remain inactive until blues tried to violate the constitution.  At this point some militias are clearly involved in illegal and violent support of Trump, ready to move out of their home territory and instigate violence without respecting the law.

(09-07-2020, 08:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 05:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Did you know that its illegal to protect your property in Minneapolis or confront someone who is stealing your stuff in Minneapolis? You have rights, I have rights and everyone we know have rights. You tell me, are your rights worth risking your life to keep and keep everything that you hold dear in such an endeavor or not?

We have lived in urban neighborhood for thirty years and have never had a problem with people other than the boyfriends/husbands of my daughter and granddaughter trying to steal my stuff. This issue is hardly a state matter and we have  dealt with it privately.

Quote:So, how much is a piece of shit property located in a really shitty part of town with people who don't care about property or feel obligated to pay rent going to be worth?

Not much, which is why I don’t own any. Do you?

Quote:In short, you can choose to live out your as an American like me with all your rights intact with a government that respects them

I already do.

Quote:It's your choice but if make the wrong choice now it will most likely be the last choice that you make as an American.  Personally, I believe the USA is worth defending and waging a multi faceted war with today's Left to keep the bulk of the country intact myself.

Sound to me that you are the folks who threatening  to take property that is not yours. Are you frustrated with the hand you were dealt and want to take mine? Is that it?

(09-07-2020, 12:00 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(09-07-2020, 08:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 05:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Did you know that its illegal to protect your property in Minneapolis or confront someone who is stealing your stuff in Minneapolis? You have rights, I have rights and everyone we know have rights. You tell me, are your rights worth risking your life to keep and keep everything that you hold dear in such an endeavor or not?

We have lived in urban neighborhood for thirty years and have never had a problem with people other than the boyfriends/husbands of my daughter and granddaughter trying to steal my stuff. This issue is hardly a state matter and we have  dealt with it privately.

Quote:So, how much is a piece of shit property located in a really shitty part of town with people who don't care about property or feel obligated to pay rent going to be worth?

Not much, which is why I don’t own any. Do you?

Quote:In short, you can choose to live out your as an American like me with all your rights intact with a government that respects them

I already do.

Quote:It's your choice but if make the wrong choice now it will most likely be the last choice that you make as an American.  Personally, I believe the USA is worth defending and waging a multi faceted war with today's Left to keep the bulk of the country intact myself.

Sound to me that you are the folks who threatening  to take property that is not yours. Are you frustrated with the hand you were dealt and want to take mine? Is that it?

But the government will at times take property that isn't theirs. It's called eminent domain, and is usually pure evil. Up until the well-known Kelo case in New London, CT it was damn near impossible to fight against until a progressive legal outfit titled Institute for Justice took on the case of this woman who thought her home was her castle until the government decided it wasn't. The story was even made into a movie titled "Little Pink House" (no relation to the song by John Mellencamp). That case was only a moderate wake up call however as the US Supreme Court declined to get involved in the case. Ms. Kelo scored only a partial victory as she got to keep her house but it was moved to a new location. And in Joliet, IL, a southwest suburb of Chicago, homes were lost in a quick take action to make way for a minor league baseball stadium.  IJ has scored other victories in the fight against eminent domain abuse since the Kelo case.

(09-07-2020, 07:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful what you wish for.  Blue America funds most of government at all levels.  If you make it partisan, it could leave your Red America with crumbling schools, no fire or police protection and roads only suited for off-road vehicles.



It's hard to make this case to people who see others rising as a personal loss, when it's just the opposite. Impoverished people don't buy things because they can't. The logic is simple, but the visceral reaction makes it impossible to see.  Red America has an idea of vast carnage if they can't rule and keep others in their place, and that's only going to change when it's proven wrong in practice and today's naysayers depart the scene.

(09-05-2020, 01:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 12:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you valued democracy, you wouldn't be placing the integrity of it at risk by purchasing and trading for votes...

Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

So, are you using your own tax dollars to purchase and trade for their votes or are you using our tax dollars as well? I don't mind if liberal Democrats and progressive use their own money (tax dollars) to purchase the votes and sustain the votes that they need sustain themselves and keep themselves in power. Yes, its a natural trade off that the country ( the Americans outside the liberal Democratic/ progressive bubble ) are becoming more and more aware of these days.

Yes, it needs to be a policy to which all Americans contribute, in the renewed sense that Wade Davis talked about in this interview I posted before.





Of course it would mean that some of you Republicans would pay more in taxes, as well as some of the Democrats (including now likely myself too). Unless we are forever to expand our national debt beyond all recognition, the upper middle class and the oligarchy has to pay more. We need to spend less on the military and needless wars. And we all need to contribute to a society that works for all, and not just for the few or for one race. This is what Wade Davis calls a sense of solidarity when we know that everyone in our country counts and is supported. How much more in taxes you personally Classic Xer would need to pay, I am not privy to, since I don't know what your wealth status and tax bracket is. But such taxation would not, in my choice, be unreasonable or debilitating; it would only be irritating to your ideology and your prejudice against providing tax money to non-whites and liberals who are poor.

We do need more socialism in our society, as Davis describes it. I am in agreement with him. That does not mean we need the kind of socialism that puts private enterprise out of business, especially small business. Even corporations would still exist. They just would not be in the position they are in now of controlling our politics and squeezing out all reform and progress and keeping our nation in decline, and evading their proper responsibility to the commonweal. 

An unequal country divided between rich and poor and between white and people of color, and thus in stagnation and stalemate, is not sustainable. It is not in the interest of any American of any Party. The policies of the Democratic Party needs to become again the new consensus if we are to survive as a prosperous nation, rather than a banana republic. Trickle-down, self-reliance-meme individualism and opposition to any collective action needs to be defeated at the polls from now on.

(09-08-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-07-2020, 07:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful what you wish for.  Blue America funds most of government at all levels.  If you make it partisan, it could leave your Red America with crumbling schools, no fire or police protection and roads only suited for off-road vehicles.



It's hard to make this case to people who see others rising as a personal loss, when it's just the opposite. Impoverished people don't buy things because they can't. The logic is simple, but the visceral reaction makes it impossible to see.  Red America has an idea of vast carnage if they can't rule and keep others in their place, and that's only going to change when it's proven wrong in practice and today's naysayers depart the scene.

You can have Hollywood, whatever is left of Wall Street, whatever is left of Sin City, whatever is left of Amazon. Google, Facebook/Twitter, a group of banks, a few national channels and their cable affiliates, PBS, NPR, whatever is left of the Democratic party and whatever is left of its base as the rest of the country votes to parts ways and move forward as America.

Quote:If we continue on the path we are on, we will be living in separate countries within a decade

Quote:Yes, blue America seems to still have influence over most blue related governments at most levels these days and seems to be hell bent on going down with them. Dude, you're on the side who doesn't value police protection that doesn't care that it has crumbling schools and doesn't care it causes mass fires that require support from neighboring fire departments. You should really start reading your own posts and applying them to yourself and the side that you're on. You're an old Liberal fool who is nearing the end of life who is not thinking of the young Liberal fools who are going to be left behind to pay the consequences for choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

(09-08-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-07-2020, 07:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful what you wish for.  Blue America funds most of government at all levels.  If you make it partisan, it could leave your Red America with crumbling schools, no fire or police protection and roads only suited for off-road vehicles.

It's hard to make this case to people who see others rising as a personal loss, when it's just the opposite. Impoverished people don't buy things because they can't. The logic is simple, but the visceral reaction makes it impossible to see.  Red America has an idea of vast carnage if they can't rule and keep others in their place, and that's only going to change when it's proven wrong in practice and today's naysayers depart the scene.

You can have Hollywood, whatever is left of Wall Street, whatever is left of Sin City, whatever is left of Amazon. Google, Facebook/Twitter, a group of banks, a few national channels and their cable affiliates, PBS, NPR, whatever is left of the Democratic party and whatever is left of its base as the rest of the country votes to parts ways and move forward as America. If we continue on the path we are on, we will be living in separate countries within a decade Yes, blue America seems to still have influence over most blue related governments at most levels these days and seems to be hell bent on going down with them. Dude, you're on the side who doesn't value police protection that doesn't care that it has crumbling schools and doesn't care it causes mass fires that require support from neighboring fire departments. You should really start reading your own posts and applying them to yourself and the side that you're on. You're an old Liberal fool who is nearing the end of life who is not thinking of the young Liberal fools who are going to be left behind to pay the consequences for choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

(09-08-2020, 05:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-07-2020, 07:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful what you wish for.  Blue America funds most of government at all levels.  If you make it partisan, it could leave your Red America with crumbling schools, no fire or police protection and roads only suited for off-road vehicles.

It's hard to make this case to people who see others rising as a personal loss, when it's just the opposite. Impoverished people don't buy things because they can't. The logic is simple, but the visceral reaction makes it impossible to see.  Red America has an idea of vast carnage if they can't rule and keep others in their place, and that's only going to change when it's proven wrong in practice and today's naysayers depart the scene.

You can have Hollywood, whatever is left of Wall Street, whatever is left of Sin City, whatever is left of Amazon. Google, Facebook/Twitter, a group of banks, a few national channels and their cable affiliates, PBS, NPR, whatever is left of the Democratic party and whatever is left of its base as the rest of the country votes to parts ways and move forward as America. If we continue on the path we are on, we will be living in separate countries within a decade Yes, blue America seems to still have influence over most blue related governments at most levels these days and seems to be hell bent on going down with them. Dude, you're on the side who doesn't value police protection that doesn't care that it has crumbling schools and doesn't care it causes mass fires that require support from neighboring fire departments. You should really start reading your own posts and applying them to yourself and the side that you're on. You're an old Liberal fool who is nearing the end of life who is not thinking of the young Liberal fools who are going to be left behind to pay the consequences for choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

If you add together the parts of Blue America you feel comfortable abandoning, what's left to pay YOUR bills?  You say you value police protection, schools and the like, but  tend to refuse any taxation you can avoid. When it's all Red America, how will that work?  Oh yeah -- citizen militias and teaching your own children. How quaint.

Personally, I would favor something along the schism line, but it's hard to see how it would be done.  Every city of any size is a Democratic stronghold, and most smaller cities are more blue than red.  Suburbs are split along gender lines, so I guess we get all the women and you get the men.  I guess that solves your paying-for-schools problem.  You won't need any. You will have plenty of game to hunt and fields to grow food. At least you won't starve.

(09-07-2020, 11:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, I've never had an interest in your personal property, your personal income/ wealth or your family related issues that may grow beyond family related  and become much more troublesome with time either.

(09-08-2020, 12:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would we have as many bills to pay and financial obligations to meet? How many bills and financial obligations else where would go away with them and their wealth? I've never bitched about paying taxes for schools, law enforcement, the military, freeway systems, social security/medicare as you've claimed and have been wrong about many times. As a matter of fact, I have ridiculed you for being stupid and saying stupid stuff to taxpayers who contribute as much if not more in taxes than you. If we lose Hollywood and the bulk of its over valued movie stars and you lose Ford Motor and Toyota, who wins in that scenario?

(09-08-2020, 01:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 01:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 12:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you valued democracy, you wouldn't be placing the integrity of it at risk by purchasing and trading for votes...

Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

So, are you using your own tax dollars to purchase and trade for their votes or are you using our tax dollars as well? I don't mind if liberal Democrats and progressive use their own money (tax dollars) to purchase the votes and sustain the votes that they need sustain themselves and keep themselves in power. Yes, its a natural trade off that the country ( the Americans outside the liberal Democratic/ progressive bubble ) are becoming more and more aware of these days.

Yes, it needs to be a policy to which all Americans contribute, in the renewed sense that Wade Davis talked about in this interview I posted before.





Of course it would mean that some of you Republicans would pay more in taxes, as well as some of the Democrats (including now likely myself too). Unless we are forever to expand our national debt beyond all recognition, the upper middle class and the oligarchy has to pay more. We need to spend less on the military and needless wars. And we all need to contribute to a society that works for all, and not just for the few or for one race. This is what Wade Davis calls a sense of solidarity when we know that everyone in our country counts and is supported. How much more in taxes you personally Classic Xer would need to pay, I am not privy to, since I don't know what your wealth status and tax bracket is. But such taxation would not, in my choice, be unreasonable or debilitating; it would only be irritating to your ideology and your prejudice against providing tax money to non-whites and liberals who are poor.

We do need more socialism in our society, as Davis describes it. I am in agreement with him. That does not mean we need the kind of socialism that puts private enterprise out of business, especially small business. Even corporations would still exist. They just would not be in the position they are in now of controlling our politics and squeezing out all reform and progress and keeping our nation in decline, and evading their proper responsibility to the commonweal. 

An unequal country divided between rich and poor and between white and people of color, and thus in stagnation and stalemate, is not sustainable. It is not in the interest of any American of any Party. The policies of the Democratic Party needs to become again the new consensus if we are to survive as a prosperous nation, rather than a banana republic. Trickle-down, self-reliance-meme individualism and opposition to any collective action needs to be defeated at the polls from now on.

Nope. An unequal country or state that's mainly divided between rich and poor, race and gender, capitalism and socialism  is not sustainable and will eventually fail. ....

(09-08-2020, 02:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We need good cops, and it is better that the cops know some liberal arts so that they might be able to persuade people in family arguments that their bickering that has led to violent anger is the problem more than the objects of bickering -- instead of watching violence unfold and shooting the first person who grabs a weapon.

I believe in law and order, and I am very much on the Blue side. Of course lawlessness makes the formality of civil liberties mere cant. On the other side, unjustifiable police brutality is itself lawlessness not compatible with law and order and civil liberties. You can rail about Black Lives Matters all you want -- but it has a narrow purpose, and it is not a "Get Out of Jail, Free" card for African-American offenders. Give Black Lives Mattes what it wants, and criminal offenders will be caught with just enough force to subdue them, and offenders will be taken to jail safely. OK, pull a gun on a cop and expect to die -- but that's what nobody protests now. You might recall that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have made clear that people who exploit a peaceful protest for criminal deeds violate the rules of civil society and deserve to be apprehended, prosecuted, and incarcerated. 

You, Classic X'er, demonstrate why you cannot lead. You stand for an ideology that debases people in the name of a vague tradition that becomes increasingly irrelevant and offensive. Your ideology makes needful change impossible, and reversion to old vices in public life a certainty. Progress depends upon people questioning old ideas for their merits and rejecting those when something is better and available. To be sure, there are old truths that can never be countered, like mathematical and physical laws and the conventions of logic. The rest is typically shakier, including national identity. 

I am not convinced of the superiority of "America" as you understand it to my conception. There are plenty of ways in which to be an American, some of those ways being completely exotic to Americans of the time of the Founding Fathers. "America" does not imply a certain ethnic origin or limited range of religious beliefs. "America" has been able to adjust to big changes in America, including the rise of new systems of belief (such as Mormonism). "America" does not imply that 95% of the people exist to enrich, indulge, and obey 2% who get everything as was the case in Imperial Russia. We all know how that went.

You need to get out more.

(09-08-2020, 10:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why do you keep telling the one with the more active lifestyle and the broader sense of social appeal  that he needs to get out more? Yep. I've noticed that your candidates are being forced to the center and address a major  issue that they both would have preferred to ignore. I also noticed that Biden is trying to be more like Trump. So, how does it feel to be on the side that's now in the damned if you do-damned if you don't position that the Democrats are finding themselves in today? So, who told you this was going to happen months ago? I can't help it that you're to ignorant (to much of an imbecile or political moron) to see what the rest of saw coming a while ago. Personally speaking, you seem to be more of a Progressive than an American Democrat these days.

(09-08-2020, 10:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-08-2020, 10:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why do you keep telling the one with the more active lifestyle and the broader sense of social appeal  that he needs to get out more? Yep. I've noticed that your candidates are being forced to the center and address a major  issue that they both would have preferred to ignore. I also noticed that Biden is trying to be more like Trump. So, how does it feel to be on the side that's now in the damned if you do-damned if you don't position that the Democrats are finding themselves in today? So, who told you this was going to happen months ago? I can't help it that you're to ignorant (to much of an imbecile or political moron) to see what the rest of saw coming a while ago. Personally speaking, you seem to be more of a Progressive than an American Democrat these days.

Personally I think Biden is trying to distinguish himself from Trump.  If Trump speaks poorly of military families, Biden will emphasize that his son was a member of the military and play up his respect for the armed forces.  If Trump sees things in terms of money and transactions, Biden will emphatize with people.  If Trump and his followers are trying to increase the violence and division, Biden will denounce violence, call on Trump to do so as well, and work to end violence.

Why would anyone try to seem like Trump?

Very different values.

(09-08-2020, 06:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-08-2020, 01:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 01:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 12:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

So, are you using your own tax dollars to purchase and trade for their votes or are you using our tax dollars as well? I don't mind if liberal Democrats and progressive use their own money (tax dollars) to purchase the votes and sustain the votes that they need sustain themselves and keep themselves in power. Yes, its a natural trade off that the country ( the Americans outside the liberal Democratic/ progressive bubble ) are becoming more and more aware of these days.

Yes, it needs to be a policy to which all Americans contribute, in the renewed sense that Wade Davis talked about in this interview I posted before.





Of course it would mean that some of you Republicans would pay more in taxes, as well as some of the Democrats (including now likely myself too). Unless we are forever to expand our national debt beyond all recognition, the upper middle class and the oligarchy has to pay more. We need to spend less on the military and needless wars. And we all need to contribute to a society that works for all, and not just for the few or for one race. This is what Wade Davis calls a sense of solidarity when we know that everyone in our country counts and is supported. How much more in taxes you personally Classic Xer would need to pay, I am not privy to, since I don't know what your wealth status and tax bracket is. But such taxation would not, in my choice, be unreasonable or debilitating; it would only be irritating to your ideology and your prejudice against providing tax money to non-whites and liberals who are poor.

We do need more socialism in our society, as Davis describes it. I am in agreement with him. That does not mean we need the kind of socialism that puts private enterprise out of business, especially small business. Even corporations would still exist. They just would not be in the position they are in now of controlling our politics and squeezing out all reform and progress and keeping our nation in decline, and evading their proper responsibility to the commonweal. 

An unequal country divided between rich and poor and between white and people of color, and thus in stagnation and stalemate, is not sustainable. It is not in the interest of any American of any Party. The policies of the Democratic Party needs to become again the new consensus if we are to survive as a prosperous nation, rather than a banana republic. Trickle-down, self-reliance-meme individualism and opposition to any collective action needs to be defeated at the polls from now on.

Nope. An unequal country or state that's mainly divided between rich and poor, race and gender, capitalism and socialism  is not sustainable and will eventually fail. ....

Why do you always vote for it then?

(09-08-2020, 04:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2020, 12:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Would we have as many bills to pay and financial obligations to meet? How many bills and financial obligations else where would go away with them and their wealth? I've never bitched about paying taxes for schools, law enforcement, the military, freeway systems, social security/medicare as you've claimed and have been wrong about many times. As a matter of fact, I have ridiculed you for being stupid and saying stupid stuff to taxpayers who contribute as much if not more in taxes than you. If we lose Hollywood and the bulk of its over valued movie stars and you lose Ford Motor and Toyota, who wins in that scenario?

Right now, the tech giants in Silicone Valley are worth more than the entire European stock market, and the rest of the US markets too.  We'll be fine.

(09-09-2020, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-08-2020, 04:36 PM)David Horn Wrote: Right now, the tech giants in Silicone Valley are worth more than the entire European stock market, and the rest of the US markets too.  We'll be fine.

How many American tech giants would you lose to an American Country like ours? I think the vast majority of them would opt to move and remain with America and side with America against the Left myself.