Presidential election, 2016

[Classic-Xer]

(01-07-2017, 10:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't mind Classic Xer's description of me as a blue recruiter. It would be nice if I could convince more people to my point of view. Classic says he is taking folks like me on to "open up" the discussion; in other words, to oppose points of view like mine. That seems legit for a forum discussion, although it might suggest we are too stuck in our positions.

What I pointed out to Classic, and others did as well, is the error behind his use of the term "blue recruiter." Classic assumes in his statements that anyone who supports Democrats or liberals is dependent on them, and that's the only reason we support Democrats. This is not true, and it could be taken as a "vile stereotype." THAT'S where Classic goes off the rails. But it's not so much that it's a personal insult, as it just shows his condition of being brainwashed by the same old meme; the same trickle-down libertarian economics meme that says "taxes are theft for freeloaders"-- the same meme I have been debunking here for 20 years. The SAME OLD SLOGANS that have our country completely stifled and beholden to the top 1% most wealthy people in the country. Classic Xer is just a very typical "classic" example of someone hooked on those slogans. Galen is perhaps the MOST typical, and the most dogmatic and aggressive believer.

A valid point of view.  I'd agree with your concern about 'Democrats and liberals are all freeloaders' being a false meme.  We could argue about whether to call it a meme or a stereotype.  Both words would do.  I agree it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to most progressives I know.  

I believe in safety nets, not freeloaders.  I've recently been touting Article 25 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights as defining what safety nets ought to be there.  However, an emphasis also ought to be on an inclusive economy.  The more folks get a living wage, the less the government has to spend on safety nets.  It is as appropriate to work so folks don't need the safety nets as it is to make sure the safety nets are there.  Doing one without doing the other doesn't make a lot of sense.

I assume the above roughly outlines the attitude of many progressives.  Does this make sense to you, Eric?

I was also recently accused of wanting to knock down the wealthy.  That's another false motivation.  I have nothing against people getting very rich so long as the basics are available to the very poor.  Again, for a notion of what I mean by basics, see Article 25.  This notion that I want to knock down the rich came from only one person.  I don't see it as a common belief shared by many conservatives?  Am I wrong?  If it isn't true of me, are there any progressives out there who will admit to wanting to knock down the wealthy for the sake of knocking down the wealthy?

I can see a flip side stereotype of conservatives.  They are concerned only about their own wealth, have never needed safety nets, don't anticipate that they will ever need safety nets, don't think anyone should ever need safety nets, that a willingness to work and a free economy should be enough.  They have just seen so little ugly that they don't believe at a gut level that ugly truly exists.  Thus, for many, Article 25 is and ought to remain a nigh on forgotten set of empty words.

One could take the above paragraph and add insulting words like 'heartless', and 'cruel'.  This could make it a vile stereotype.  To what extent is the stereotype true?  The persistent Republican desire to cut their own taxes and cut entitlements suggests there is something to it.

Thinking progressives freeloaders or conservatives heartless isn't the same degree of direct insult, perhaps, as calling the other guys idiot, stupid, ammosexual, or insane.  Still, it might be prudent, before slamming the other guy's motivations, to make sure you are listening enough that you really understand the other guy's motivations.  

Classic?  Galen?  Has Eric got you pegged right?  He seems to think you have progressives pegged as freeloaders.  Do you seriously think such?  Or has Eric got your motivations wrong?

Which group, the progressive voters or the Progressives themselves? I don't have you pegged as a freeloader or view you as progressive who's political views and ideological beliefs are exclusively tailored and more likely to attract freeloaders. I have no problem with safety nets. I have a problem with hammocks taking the place of/eliminating safety nets.