The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2020, 06:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You do realize that if you assign a description to everyone, that description becomes essentially useless?  

What would you know about integrity if you commonly describe those who disagree with you in ways which don't fit in the least?

I realize it but do you realize it? I ask because you describe us as racist and associate us with racism all the time. It's pretty much useless with us but that hasn't stopped you and others here from doing it. I assume that it's not useless with the minority voters on your side which is why you and others keep using it as much as you and others do.

Socialism works for the Republicans because it fits and it's now supported by most of the Democrats because the Democrats understand that they can't win without the support of those who either want it/believe in it. Now, socialism may not be your cup of tea but you're stuck with the term because the Democratic party is now open as far as socialism these days vs hiding it's association with it like it did for years.

No.  I only apply racism to racists.

Actually, the schtick of calling Democrats Socialist and Republicans fascist has faded somewhat.  A few die hard partisans such as yourself, Eric and Pbrower are still stuck a few decades back.

Some article pointed out recently that Trump is not quite the same as the fascists of 80-100 years ago, because while the fascists set up an efficient state and imposed total control, Trump is mainly an agent of chaos and destruction, and that's what his voters wanted. Needless to say his style of governing is totally inefficient. On the other hand, it is certainly racist, although less overt about it than the fascists; but they have that in common.

The two major Parties are moving farther apart today, and the conflict remains what it was a few decades back, and has intensified, only because no progress has been made on the same issues for 40 years, and regression has occurred. The issues don't go away just because they are not addressed. They get worse. That's what the authors said about a 4T; issues are not dealt with during a 3T, so they file up. There are no issues that have come up recently that are not those that were around a few decades back. The schticks happen because we are "schtuck."

I get that riots stoked by extremists and trouble makers on the left and the right can cause destruction, and that this might be counterproductive, and is not fair to the business owners caught in the middle. I get it Classic Xer that you are a neo-liberal free-market conservative, very hung up on this dominant Republican ideology that handouts are against the virtue of self-reliance, and that they cost you tax money which you and others don't want to spend on those who get them. And it's convenient to gloss over the fact that you and other conservatives see that the people who get these handouts are predominantly from certain disadvantaged ethnic groups.

But what is it, Classic, that accounts for you not mentioning, even once that I can see, the outrage of a policeman wantonly and without cause suffocating an innocent and unarmed black man to death? Even Trump deplored this murder. If you don't, that says something about you. You seem to have no concern about it. If you were not a racist, you would have some concern about this. Do you? Are gross violations of our human rights OK as long as the victim is black?

As JFK put it back in June 1963, is America the land of the free, except for the Negroes?

Democratic city authorities are not permitting the riots to continue. So you right-wingers don't need to be concerned that antifa is taking over our country. That is not the case. Socialism means different things to different people. The right-wing is always concerned that any concession to socialist ideas will lead to full-blown state ownership and control. I disagree with you on that. Sanders is not an advocate of the government of North Korea. He admires the governments of Scandinavia. But conflating this mixed-economy type of capitalism/socialism with totalitarian communism is a convenient slogan that induces fear among uneducated white people.

from wikipedia:
Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist"[7] and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights,[8][9] saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote."[10] He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_...ie_Sanders

Left and Right in the USA today, for whatever reason, disagree primarily today on the value of these "extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes." And, I might add, that has not changed in 124 years.