The Partisan Divide on Issues

[pbrower2a]

(01-27-2020, 02:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 02:08 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... Who/which party/which side has to become more socialist these days Bob?

I'm obviously not Bob, but I would like to know: when you ask this question, what do you mean by "socialist"?

You don't know what socialist means? I suggest that you look it up, learn what it means and see how well it fits your views and the positions that you take and so forth. Marx and Lennon may have been cool or viewed as a heroic figure by many back in the day. Where are they now? Hint...What happened back then is just beginning to happen now and you already know the outcome.

Marx and Lennon -- the poster? That poster referred to Groucho Marx and John Lennon. Marx and Lenin? They were very nasty people.

There is no firm definition of the word socialism. In America it has long been the political equivalent of a cuss-word as is fascism. Big government? We haven't had a President committed to small government since at least Gerald Ford.

One ideology that used the word socialism was national socialism, which of course is a nightmare for workers who found themselves defenseless against the demands of industrialists, executives, or big land-owners -- let alone for Jews and political dissidents.  One variant of national socialism, Strasserism, believed in a socialist reorganization of society but held the opinion that Jews were the worst exploiters of all. We can largely ignore that as a meaningful definition of socialism, an anathema to all other socialists. Likewise one has the Ba'athists of Iraq and Syria that originally had a socialist agenda but eventually became crony capitalists of the worst sort. 

Marxism-Leninism has had its variants, but all depend largely upon government ownership and operation of productive resources on the grounds that such will accelerate economic growth (and progress to communism, an era in which scarcity is no more and government is irrelevant). It rejected markets for deciding what was desirable and what wasn't and lost all rational means of determining desirable ends of a 'socialist' economy. I will get to the consequences of government ownership and operation of the economy and one reason for rejecting such.

One fault with Marxism-Leninism was dictatorship... not so much in a powerful State apparatus but instead in a monopoly Party that destroyed democracy. So what does one have if one keeps Marxist-Leninist economics (government ownership and operation of the means of production? Democratic socialism. This in theory is what the reformed Communist wing of the (east) German Sozialistische Einheits-Partei (SED) after the collapse of Commie rule. The SED refashioned itself as the Partei Demokratisches Sozialismus (PDS), which was little trusted.

Most credible is the social-market society in effect in the German Federal Republic (and some other countries) which established a high-tax, high-service economy that allowed capitalist markets to operate. To many (I included) it is the best of all possible worlds, one which allows consumer choice, fosters individual development to the fullest, and reduces poverty to the minimum. How attractive is it? Such countries as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia went quickly to it -- in part by selling off the "socialist" economy.

We do not have this; we instead have what may be the purest plutocracy in the First World, one that puts profit above all else irrespective of the social cost. It is optimal for people of supreme talent or who have inherited wealth or special connections, but anyone else struggles for whatever he gets.

Nobody in the Democratic Party wants to take over private industry through nationalizations as the Commies did. Heck, even the Communist Party of the United States has abandoned that idea -- at least such is their claim.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Hearts vs Minds....I know it's an issue that's going to break/impact the Democrats. Who/which party/which side has to become more socialist these days Bob?

I already answered that question once.  My answer was not simple enough for you to accept?  Understand?  It had to do with applying old world labels to new world political systems.

Instead, let me ask some questions.  Your ship just passed the statue of a lady with a plaque at her base talking about huddled masses yearning to breath free.  Getting off the ship there are two guys.  One is telling everyone from the ship where to find somewhere to stay, where to find a job, and who to vote for.  The other is wearing camouflage, carrying an assault rifle, and is near two signs with arrows pointing in opposite directions.  Parents.  Children.

Three questions.

Which is the Tammany Hall Democrat?

Which is the border Republican?

Which of the two would you go with?

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2020, 02:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 02:08 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... Who/which party/which side has to become more socialist these days Bob?

I'm obviously not Bob, but I would like to know: when you ask this question, what do you mean by "socialist"?

You don't know what socialist means? I suggest that you look it up, learn what it means and see how well it fits your views and the positions that you take and so forth. Marx and Lennon may have been cool or viewed as a heroic figure by many back in the day. Where are they now? Hint...What happened back then is just beginning to happen now and you already know the outcome.

I don't know what county you live in, but perusal of election records show widening gaps between the candidates and parties in recent years. In rural and smaller counties, Trump did better than Romney. In urban counties, Hillary Clinton did better than Obama. So if you live in a Republican bubble, it might seem like the outcome is going to be increasing Republican support and power. But for those who live in urban areas, the outcome would seem to favor Democrats.

And I expect the population of urban areas is growing and rural areas decreasing.

Socialist means public (government) ownership of the economy. Today's Democratic Party, including its left wing, is a long way from this basic definition. Such politicians as Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders favor moving toward the Scandinavian model, which is still capitalist but with higher taxes, more social and educational programs, some public ownership, etc; in other words, people in those countries get value for their tax money, while ours is wasted on military spending, pork, drug wars, and interest on the national debt, which is ballooned by tax cuts for the rich. All thanks to Republicans and compliant Democrats.

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2020, 02:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 04:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 12:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: For what it's worth, I've never viewed us as being all that far apart domestic policy wise. We differed greatly on foreign policy and global policy. I don't have an attachment to a political party/term or an attachment to a particular side of an old forum or a group here either at this point. Like I side, the Democratic party completely turned me (lost my support) off long ago. So, I tend to vote Republican these days. I'm pro American worker, pro American family, pro American rights and pro American overall. I guess that what makes me more in line with the Tea Party today. I'm not so much dreaming it, I'm seeing it's influence with Republicans these days.

One problem is that your view on things like policy oversimplifies, and you are inclined to demonize those who do not oversimplify the same way.  That makes you an easy target.  My approach assumes everybody has their own well justified perspective, and the view of the situation is not complete until you have included all the perspectives.  (And that does not even count angles like astrology, which are not justified, but some people view it as if they were valid.)

Problems like the Middle East and the Republicans are not simple or limited to a few things.  I mean, the economic way of looking at things from the middle of the country is fine, but you have to be aware that the Middle East is switching from Agricultural Age values to modern and that is always ugly.  The Republican Party has been infected with racism, elites allegiance and loyalty to specific groups.  You cannot just ignore these for an economic view.

From my perspective, much jumping around between ways of looking at the world is required.  Bringing it back to one approach is just incomplete.

Bob, I notice that you keep using racism and continue imposing/applying racism and continue going along the so called liberal view/accusation of us and the party that we support as being racially driven and motivated and so forth. Yes, I understand you're need for jumping around and including a bunch irrelevant information/ liberal nonsense and ignoring sentences that get straight to the heart/center of an issue directly related to you and the so called liberal party that you support these days vs playing your game and fucking around with you.

Did you know that there are 21 million pro-life Democrats who live in this country who are free to switch their allegiance at anytime? Did you know that there are also millions of American workers associated with American unions who are free to switch their political allegiance at anytime as well? Now, if you want to stick to the heart and stick to emotional pleas and continue with trying to use guilt or shame or false accusation or demonizing or imposing fear as a means and stick to doing whatever else the so called liberals are doing or telling/showing you to do these days that's fine with me because I don't care if the so called liberals continue digging your graves and continue breaking American laws, ignoring constitutional process's, continue supporting left wing lunatics and their crazy ideas and continue turning off more good American people and continue burning bridges with most of America itself.

The problem is, Republican voters (such as yourself) are opposed to taxes because some of it (very little actually) goes for welfare to poor people, which are more often non-white. Thus these ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties. And racism is part of the motivation because of who (they think) gets that money, and whom the Republicans don't want to spend their tax money on. And immigrants are also among those which Republicans don't want to support, but to restrict. Anti-immigration policy and politics in the USA has always been racist.

If we stop seeing these slogans and attitudes, then we will stop saying that racism is part of Republican Party policy.

Of course, if things like astrology are not included in a view of "all the perspectives," that view is not complete. It is certainly better justified than trickle-down economics and the racist dog-whistle it sounds. But, like everything else, it helps to actually understand other perspectives than your own. That doesn't happen too often.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2020, 09:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem is, Republican voters (such as yourself) are opposed to taxes because some of it (very little actually) goes for welfare to poor people, which are more often non-white. Thus these ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties. And racism is part of the motivation because of who (they think) gets that money, and whom the Republicans don't want to spend their tax money on. And immigrants are also among those which Republicans don't want to support, but to restrict. Anti-immigration policy and politics in the USA has always been racist.

If we stop seeing these slogans and attitudes, then we will stop saying that racism is part of Republican Party policy.

Of course, if things like astrology are not included in a view of "all the perspectives," that view is not complete. It is certainly better justified than trickle-down economics and the racist dog-whistle it sounds. But, like everything else, it helps to actually understand other perspectives than your own. That doesn't happen too often.

The majority (the largest percentage) of the poor are actually white people these days. The majority in liberal run/liberal controlled areas are more likely minorities of some sort these days. The problem is, you don't seem know that's a fact and continue to use minorities as an excuse for our discontent with liberals like you. As far as I'm concerned, the hood can have you people and do whatever they want with you people. Dude, you'll never stop seeing slogans and attitudes that can be used to promote racism because your lively hood and the political power of liberal elites relies on it these days. Yep, that's what icky people like you do and skin tone doesn't matter when it comes to recruiting more icky people like you.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-27-2020, 09:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 02:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 02:08 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... Who/which party/which side has to become more socialist these days Bob?

I'm obviously not Bob, but I would like to know: when you ask this question, what do you mean by "socialist"?

You don't know what socialist means? I suggest that you look it up, learn what it means and see how well it fits your views and the positions that you take and so forth. Marx and Lennon may have been cool or viewed as a heroic figure by many back in the day. Where are they now? Hint...What happened back then is just beginning to happen now and you already know the outcome.

I don't know what county you live in, but perusal of election records show widening gaps between the candidates and parties in recent years. In rural and smaller counties, Trump did better than Romney. In urban counties, Hillary Clinton did better than Obama. So if you live in a Republican bubble, it might seem like the outcome is going to be increasing Republican support and power. But for those who live in urban areas, the outcome would seem to favor Democrats.

And I expect the population of urban areas is growing and rural areas decreasing.

Socialist means public (government) ownership of the economy. Today's Democratic Party, including its left wing, is a long way from this basic definition. Such politicians as Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders favor moving toward the Scandinavian model, which is still capitalist but with higher taxes, more social and educational programs, some public ownership, etc; in other words, people in those countries get value for their tax money, while ours is wasted on military spending, pork, drug wars, and interest on the national debt, which is ballooned by tax cuts for the rich. All thanks to Republicans and compliant Democrats.

Looking at my computer’s dictionary and thesaurus…

so·cial·ism
Dictionary.  noun

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

Thesaurus

leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; communism, Bolshevism; radicalism, militancy; progressivism, social democracy; laborism; Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism. ANTONYMS conservatism

The primary definition is marxist.  By that definition, the phrase does not apply to the United States.  We are in no way evolving along a line involving a state ownership of all the means of production.  We use capitalism.  The robber barons and stock owners own the means of production.

In Europe, the social democracies are quite different from communism.  Again, the state under social democracy generally does not own the means of production.  The Enlightenment memes including democracy, separation of powers and human rights are featured.  Capitalism is used to drive the economy.  Thus communism as practiced in Eastern Europe and Asia is quite different from social democracy as practiced in Western Europe.  

As one can easily see by the thesaurus section, socialism can take many forms.

Thus, I would echo Eric.

In the US, the Democrats do propose more regulations of capitalism.  The Republicans favor less regulation, in the extreme promoting capitalism far less fettered by regulation.  In recognizing that capitalism unfettered is flawed, and it is necessary to prevent its abuse, the Democrats do open themselves up to the socialism label, but they take no action to secure for the government to monopolize the means of production.  Exactly when regulations are necessary for worker safety, to prevent exploitation, to limit worker hours, to prevent things like the housing bubble collapse of the economy, is a matter over which the two parties struggle.  Exactly what degree of regulation is ideal looks to be argued over forever, but it is clear that either extreme would be onerous, and that the sweet spot is balanced somewhere in between.

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2020, 11:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 09:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem is, Republican voters (such as yourself) are opposed to taxes because some of it (very little actually) goes for welfare to poor people, which are more often non-white. Thus these ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties. And racism is part of the motivation because of who (they think) gets that money, and whom the Republicans don't want to spend their tax money on. And immigrants are also among those which Republicans don't want to support, but to restrict. Anti-immigration policy and politics in the USA has always been racist.

If we stop seeing these slogans and attitudes, then we will stop saying that racism is part of Republican Party policy.

Of course, if things like astrology are not included in a view of "all the perspectives," that view is not complete. It is certainly better justified than trickle-down economics and the racist dog-whistle it sounds. But, like everything else, it helps to actually understand other perspectives than your own. That doesn't happen too often.

The majority (the largest percentage) of the poor are actually white people these days. The majority in liberal run/liberal controlled areas are more likely minorities of some sort these days. The problem is, you don't seem know that's a fact and continue to use minorities as an excuse for our discontent with liberals like you. As far as I'm concerned, the hood can have you people and do whatever they want with you people. Dude, you'll never stop seeing slogans and attitudes that can be used to promote racism because your lively hood and the political power of liberal elites relies on it these days. Yep, that's what icky people like you do and skin tone doesn't matter when it comes to recruiting more icky people like you.

Conservative and Republican people in rural areas and white areas still vote against taxes that may be used to help non-white groups. It doesn't matter if these groups live in urban areas or not. Federal and state taxes do not just finance poor whites in rural areas.

It's your slogans that we would appreciate not seeing. If you are offended by my post, perhaps it shows that the shoe fits? My statement remains a bedrock fact. Non-white ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and motivates their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties.

These days, cities are getting more expensive to live in, especially on the coasts. Poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco or New York anymore. Liberal white people are more likely to live there, unless they are rich liberal non-white people. Maybe what you say about the hood applies to some other cities like Detroit, Milwaukee or Baltimore, but gentrification is also happening in some of these cities. The urban areas are where the jobs are and where the interesting people live. Young, bright people don't live in red, rural areas where people vote by 8 to 1 margins for Trump. These people are dumb and boring. Young people want opportunity and fun. So they move to blue cities, and leave the red areas to those who prefer a declining banana republic or who feel abandoned, resentful and stuck there and drugged up.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2020, 09:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know what county you live in, but perusal of election records show widening gaps between the candidates and parties in recent years. In rural and smaller counties, Trump did better than Romney. In urban counties, Hillary Clinton did better than Obama. So if you live in a Republican bubble, it might seem like the outcome is going to be increasing Republican support and power. But for those who live in urban areas, the outcome would seem to favor Democrats.

And I expect the population of urban areas is growing and rural areas decreasing.

Socialist means public (government) ownership of the economy. Today's Democratic Party, including its left wing, is a long way from this basic definition. Such politicians as Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders favor moving toward the Scandinavian model, which is still capitalist but with higher taxes, more social and educational programs, some public ownership, etc; in other words, people in those countries get value for their tax money, while ours is wasted on military spending, pork, drug wars, and interest on the national debt, which is ballooned by tax cuts for the rich. All thanks to Republicans and compliant Democrats.

I know what country I live in, I live in the country that would view/recognize an attempt to completely take over American industries like healthcare and energy as socialist and directly associate it with socialism. I think Bernie and AOC should pack up and move to Scandinavia to help keep them from moving away from socialism like they're doing today. I agree that our trickle down economics doesn't work as well for the big government (nanny state) trickle down believers and most of their welfare recipients these days. You keep telling me that and I haven't disagreed with your views. Yes, you have a big problem that the other side doesn't have these days. As far as the big cities, I expect them to remain in liberal hands and continue to decay and decline like they're doing now. I also expect to see matters getting worse as the rest of America begins to crack down and address issues related to do nothing blue America.

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2020, 11:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 09:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know what county you live in, but perusal of election records show widening gaps between the candidates and parties in recent years. In rural and smaller counties, Trump did better than Romney. In urban counties, Hillary Clinton did better than Obama. So if you live in a Republican bubble, it might seem like the outcome is going to be increasing Republican support and power. But for those who live in urban areas, the outcome would seem to favor Democrats.

And I expect the population of urban areas is growing and rural areas decreasing.

Socialist means public (government) ownership of the economy. Today's Democratic Party, including its left wing, is a long way from this basic definition. Such politicians as Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders favor moving toward the Scandinavian model, which is still capitalist but with higher taxes, more social and educational programs, some public ownership, etc; in other words, people in those countries get value for their tax money, while ours is wasted on military spending, pork, drug wars, and interest on the national debt, which is ballooned by tax cuts for the rich. All thanks to Republicans and compliant Democrats.

I know what country I live in, I live in the country that would view/recognize an attempt to completely take over American industries like healthcare and energy as socialist and directly associate it with socialism. I think Bernie and AOC should pack up and move to Scandinavia to help keep them from moving away from socialism like they're doing today. I agree that our trickle down economics doesn't work as well for the big government (nanny state) trickle down believers and most of their welfare recipients these days. You keep telling me that and I haven't disagreed with your views. Yes, you have a big problem that the other side doesn't have these days. As far as the big cities, I expect them to remain in liberal hands and continue to decay and decline like they're doing now. I also expect to see matters getting worse as the rest of America begins to crack down and address  issues related to do nothing  blue America.

Ha ha, no I said I don't know what county you live in. Are you in Hennepin or some more outlying county?

As your hero Reagan said, "there you go agin."

"crack down and address issues related to do nothing blue America."

In other words, "I don't want to give tax money to those lazy folks who don't work." Same o, same o, and yes it is racist.

You know what trickle-down economics is. It's the ideology you vote for. Reduce taxes and regulations on business and the wealthy, and wealth will trickle down from them to the rest of us. "freedom" and "free enterprise," "self-reliance" "get the government off our backs" "government is the problem" etc. It doesn't work.

Medicare for All is not socialism. I am on medicare now. I pay one fee to the government, and I get services, for free or reduced price, from a private doctor and a network of private doctors. These doctors are not government employees. Medicare works. Why not extend it to all? Private insurance companies are greedy, useless middle-men who deny coverage for no reason and jack up rates. Who needs 'em?

I wouldn't mind extending medicare in its current form to all, which includes private health insurance but under regulation. I pay Part B to the government, and a non-profit insurance company administers my account. I don't deal with any government employees directly.

Our private energy company is not being overseen well. It is going bankrupt. Municipal energy companies work well. Why not? I pay for my energy now to my city, in cooperation with the private energy company. I pay only for the renewable portion. It's working, although my energy company may be going bankrupt. The city may take over completely; our mayor is proposing it. With my solar panels, I may generate more energy and get more money back than the cost of energy from the grid.

I am not concerned that our health and energy companies going more public threatens the capitalist system. There are plenty of American companies doing well and supplying goods and services. Silicon Valley is alive and well, for example. So are amazon and microsoft up there in Seattle. They just need to be better regulated in some cases when they pollute or abuse people. An economy of smaller companies than our behemoth corporate giants would work better for all except a few bosses.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2020, 05:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Hearts vs Minds....I know it's an issue that's going to break/impact the Democrats. Who/which party/which side has to become more socialist these days Bob?

I already answered that question once.  My answer was not simple enough for you to accept?  Understand?  It had to do with applying old world labels to new world political systems.

Instead, let me ask some questions.  Your ship just passed the statue of a lady with a plaque at her base talking about huddled masses yearning to breath free.  Getting off the ship there are two guys.  One is telling everyone from the ship where to find somewhere to stay, where to find a job, and who to vote for.  The other is wearing camouflage, carrying an assault rifle, and is near two signs with arrows pointing in opposite directions.  Parents.  Children.

Three questions.

Which is the Tammany Hall Democrat?

Which is the border Republican?

Which of the two would you go with?

Yep, you answered it by down grading it and refusing to answer it. To answer you question, I'd go with the liberal lawyer who arranged everything in advance and go with liberal flow and ignore the border Republicans and ignore their signs too. I sure hope the Tammany Democrats can afford taking care of all of you and the millions more that will be flooding in from all over the country to seek refuge from deportation and so forth.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2020, 12:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ha ha, no I said I don't know what county you live in. Are you in Hennepin or some more outlying county?

As your hero Reagan said, "there you go agin."

"crack down and address issues related to do nothing blue America."

In other words, "I don't want to give tax money to those lazy folks who don't work." Same o, same o, and yes it is racist.

You know what trickle-down economics is. It's the ideology you vote for. Reduce taxes and regulations on business and the wealthy, and wealth will trickle down from them to the rest of us. "freedom" and "free enterprise," "self-reliance" "get the government off our backs" "government is the problem" etc. It doesn't work.

Medicare for All is not socialism. I am on medicare now. I pay one fee to the government, and I get services, for free or reduced price, from a private doctor and a network of private doctors. These doctors are not government employees. Medicare works. Why not extend it to all? Private insurance companies are greedy, useless middle-men who deny coverage for no reason and jack up rates. Who needs 'em?

I wouldn't mind extending medicare in its current form to all, which includes private health insurance but under regulation. I pay Part B to the government, and a non-profit insurance company administers my account. I don't deal with any government employees directly.

Our private energy company is not being overseen well. It is going bankrupt. Municipal energy companies work well. Why not? I pay for my energy now to my city, in cooperation with the private energy company. I pay only for the renewable portion. It's working, although my energy company may be going bankrupt. The city may take over completely; our mayor is proposing it. With my solar panels, I may get generate more energy and get more money back than the cost of energy from the grid.

I am not concerned that our health and energy companies going more public threatens the capitalist system. There are plenty of American companies doing well and supplying goods and services. Silicon Valley is alive and well, for example. So are amazon and microsoft up there in Seattle. They just need to be better regulated in some cases when they pollute or abuse people. An economy of smaller companies than our behemoth corporate giants would work better for all except a few bosses.

I live in the United States. A government takeover of an American industry would be viewed as socialist and associated with socialism here. Yep, you have medicare now like most retiree's. What did you have to do to be entitled to receive it? Why is Bernie running as a Democrat when he's an Independent candidate? What a punk move but that's like Bernie and the lame liberal party that allows him to get away it today.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2020, 01:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep, you answered it by down grading it and refusing to answer it. To answer you question, I'd go with the liberal lawyer who arranged everything in advance and go with liberal flow and ignore the border Republicans and ignore their signs too. I sure hope the Tammany Democrats can afford taking care of all of you and the millions more that will be flooding in from all over the country to seek refuge from deportation and so forth.

Again, I already answered the question once. I just could not make the answer simple enough for your limited understanding.

Well, the guys the Tammany Hall political machine used to send to Ellis Island were in general not lawyers. In many ways it was machine politics at its worst. But they were really out to help their own.

And America could be great again if they expanded the government to fit. I am not worried about it. Tax and Spend Liberalism back in its heyday used to produce much more than today where the conservatives have deliberately crippled the economy. If you decide to hurt the minorities, you wind up hurting everybody. Ask an X’er or Millennial about their retirement plan. Better dead than red?

And, yes, racism and privilege are flaws. See the above paragraph. Pretending the Southern Strategy doesn’t exist doesn’t at all make the Southern Strategy not exist. Not all conservatives are racists. Those that are are a problem.

I would add pretending any problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make the problem go away. (Bridges. Global warming.) It just puts off the solution, guarantees disaster, and makes the problem worse.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2020, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 11:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 09:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem is, Republican voters (such as yourself) are opposed to taxes because some of it (very little actually) goes for welfare to poor people, which are more often non-white. Thus these ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties. And racism is part of the motivation because of who (they think) gets that money, and whom the Republicans don't want to spend their tax money on. And immigrants are also among those which Republicans don't want to support, but to restrict. Anti-immigration policy and politics in the USA has always been racist.

If we stop seeing these slogans and attitudes, then we will stop saying that racism is part of Republican Party policy.

Of course, if things like astrology are not included in a view of "all the perspectives," that view is not complete. It is certainly better justified than trickle-down economics and the racist dog-whistle it sounds. But, like everything else, it helps to actually understand other perspectives than your own. That doesn't happen too often.

The majority (the largest percentage) of the poor are actually white people these days. The majority in liberal run/liberal controlled areas are more likely minorities of some sort these days. The problem is, you don't seem know that's a fact and continue to use minorities as an excuse for our discontent with liberals like you. As far as I'm concerned, the hood can have you people and do whatever they want with you people. Dude, you'll never stop seeing slogans and attitudes that can be used to promote racism because your lively hood and the political power of liberal elites relies on it these days. Yep, that's what icky people like you do and skin tone doesn't matter when it comes to recruiting more icky people like you.

Conservative and Republican people in rural areas and white areas still vote against taxes that may be used to help non-white groups. It doesn't matter if these groups live in urban areas or not. Federal and state taxes do not just finance poor whites in rural areas.

It's your slogans that we would appreciate not seeing. If you are offended by my post, perhaps it shows that the shoe fits? My statement remains a bedrock fact. Non-white ethnic groups and races are scapegoats for Republicans' opposition to paying taxes, and motivates their support for trickle-down economics. "I don't want my tax money going to these lazy people who don't work" is the leading slogan and appeal of the Republican Party, especially in the rural counties.

These days, cities are getting more expensive to live in, especially on the coasts. Poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco or New York anymore. Liberal white people are more likely to live there, unless they are rich liberal non-white people. Maybe what you say about the hood applies to some other cities like Detroit, Milwaukee or Baltimore, but gentrification is also happening in some of these cities. The urban areas are where the jobs are and where the interesting people live. Young, bright people don't live in red, rural areas where people vote by 8 to 1 margins for Trump. These people are dumb and boring. Young people want opportunity and fun. So they move to blue cities, and leave the red areas to those who prefer a declining banana republic or who feel abandoned, resentful and stuck there and drugged up. 

Dude, anything we support or oppose can be viewed or labelled as racist at this point. So, whatever, keep doing it and pray that your leadership doesn't hurt you worse than it's hurting you know with us, does anything stupid that actually impacts us and requires a nasty response or your state doesn't get itself further in trouble and collapse. You should also know that when you call  people racists who aren't racists those people will be offended/insulted. Now, I'd love to have an opportunity to challenge one the dumb racist blacks or one of them dumb sexist women or dumb Islamic racists or dumb narcissists or dumb socialists of yours in House today. Also, I wouldn't advise that you continue using us as your scapegoats either. I mean, I watched as people were getting beaten by angry minorities in the streets of LA during the 90's.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2020, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 01:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yep, you answered it by down grading it and refusing to answer it. To answer you question, I'd go with the liberal lawyer who arranged everything in advance and go with liberal flow and ignore the border Republicans and ignore their signs too. I sure hope the Tammany Democrats can afford taking care of all of you and the millions more that will be flooding in from all over the country to seek refuge from deportation and so forth.

Again, I already answered the question once.  I just could not make the answer simple enough for your limited understanding.

Well, the guys the Tammany Hall political machine used to send to Ellis Island were in general not lawyers.  In many ways it was machine politics at its worst.  But they were really out to help their own.

And America could be great again if they expanded the government to fit.  I am not worried about it.  Tax and Spend Liberalism back in its heyday used do produce much more than today where the conservatives have deliberately crippled the economy.  If you decide to hurt the minorities, you wind up hurting everybody.  Ask an X’er or Millennial about their retirement plan.  Better dead than red?

And, yes, racism and privilege are flaws.  See the above paragraph.  Pretending the Southern Strategy doesn’t exist doesn’t at all make the Southern Strategy not exist.  Not all conservatives are racists.  Those that are are a problem.

I would add pretending any problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make the problem go away.  (Bridges.  Global warming.)  It just puts off the solution, guarantees disaster, and makes the problem worse.

I agree, ignoring major problems and shifting problems on others and blaming others for problems doesn't make problems go away. I don't know if you will live long enough to see the carnage and violence as the progressive era of old begins to come to end. I hope not for you sake. I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2020, 04:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree, ignoring major problems and shifting problems on others and blaming others for problems doesn't make problems go away. I don't know if you will live long enough to see the carnage and violence as the progressive era of old begins to come to end. I hope not for you sake. I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

The way I read it, there was a progressive era from FDR to LBJ.  The conservative policies dominated between Nixon and at least Trump, crashing America’s greatness.  The impeachment of Trump and the ‘OK Boomer’ meme hint that another progressive time may be coming.  Even if so, it is not here yet.

I do believe the reds are more independent, could survive a bad time cleaner.  On the other hand blues work together better, could make a good time better.  The latter seems more likely.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2020, 03:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: These days, cities are getting more expensive to live in, especially on the coasts. Poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco or New York anymore. Liberal white people are more likely to live there, unless they are rich liberal non-white people. Maybe what you say about the hood applies to some other cities like Detroit, Milwaukee or Baltimore, but gentrification is also happening in some of these cities. The urban areas are where the jobs are and where the interesting people live. Young, bright people don't live in red, rural areas where people vote by 8 to 1 margins for Trump. These people are dumb and boring. Young people want opportunity and fun. So they move to blue cities, and leave the red areas to those who prefer a declining banana republic or who feel abandoned, resentful and stuck there and drugged up. 

Dude, anything we support or oppose can be viewed or labelled as racist at this point. So, whatever, keep doing it and pray that your leadership doesn't hurt you worse than it's hurting you know with us, does anything stupid that actually impacts us and requires a nasty response  or your state doesn't get itself further in trouble  and collapse. You should also know that when you call  people racists who aren't racists those people will be offended/insulted. Now, I'd love to have an opportunity to challenge one the  dumb  racist blacks or one of them dumb sexist women or dumb Islamic racists or dumb narcissists or dumb socialists of yours in House today. Also, I wouldn't advise that you  continue using us as your scapegoats either. I mean, I watched as people were getting beaten by angry minorities in the streets of LA during the 90's.

Your part of the Right -- working-class white people who support the Tea Party politically -- does not establish the economic ethos that has developed almost without a break for forty years. The real rulers, the asset owners and bureaucratic elites, on have successfully imposed an ethos in which on behalf of their swinish selves, everything possible becomes a privilege of high price, toil becomes a harsh duty with minuscule reward, and life becomes a grim struggle for what should never be a privilege -- survival. Monopolization and vertical integration get the reward of tax cuts for classes that get the passive income of economic rent which has become the majority of income. We get an illusion of prosperity while more of us go poor despite working harder and longer under harsher discipline. So we have increasingly blatant expressions of indulgence in a society that increasingly resembles a Marxist stereotype of capitalism.

We even have our 'opiate of the masses' in dumbed-down entertainment as a diversion from thinking such 'troublesome' thoughts as the need to supplant the every-man-for-himself ethos that the Master Class has imposed. We get a celebrity circus as an anodyne. Wise people can see through it; fools accept it. You, Classic X'er, accept what the economic elites tell you. We even get someone who has made his income either as a landlord to people who must live in Greater New York to avail themselves of certain job opportunities or by supplying schlock entertainment. I found it easy to "fire" The Apprentice with my remote control. 

The conspicuous consumption of the Master Class does about as much good for most of us as did the expensive clothes, jewelry, and cars of wildly-successful criminals of the ghettos in the Boom Awakening to the desperately-poor. The choice of our economic elites, one that they can enforce, is that of cream for the princess' cat over milk for the baby of a farm laborer. Your part of the American political spectrum is the last, except for the amoral and rapacious elites who exploit us all, to recognize the reality of a sick society. The generational cycle itself is creating a desire for a child-friendly order. Severe poverty is not compatible with a child-friendly culture forming under your nose yet invisible to you.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2020, 04:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

Using those dreaded statistics shows that robust social infrastructure leads to more satisfying lives and, surprisingly, to greater entrepreneurship. That's why the Scandinavian countries are always rated so high on total life satisfaction. The US never gets above the mid-20s.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2020, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 04:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree, ignoring major problems and shifting problems on others and blaming others for problems doesn't make problems go away. I don't know if you will live long enough to see the carnage and violence as the progressive era of old begins to come to end. I hope not for you sake. I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

The way I read it, there was a progressive era from FDR to LBJ.  The conservative policies dominated between Nixon and at least Trump, crashing America’s greatness.  The impeachment of Trump and the ‘OK Boomer’ meme hint that another progressive time may be coming.  Even if so, it is not here yet.

I do believe the reds are more independent, could survive a bad time cleaner.  On the other hand blues work together better, could make a good time better.  The latter seems more likely.

Being independent means one is better able to fend for oneself by oneself.  Being more community focused just shifts the paradigm to the commonweal.  I would argue that, overall, the more communal option is better for most people, but less so for the best of the best.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2020, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 04:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

Using those dreaded statistics shows that robust social infrastructure leads to more satisfying lives and, surprisingly, to greater entrepreneurship. That's why the Scandinavian countries are always rated so high on total life satisfaction.  The US never gets above the mid-20s.

The Scandinavians are Scandinavians. You forget that the US isn't comprised of mainly Scandinavians these days. I'd say Minnesota ranks pretty close to most Scandinavian countries these days. Hint...Minnesota ain't all that liberal like you these days. Look at our obvious differences and ask how can two Americans have such a major difference in their views of their country and countrymen. I seriously doubt that Norway has anti-Norway liberals like ours to contend with who view themselves as being above the law in Norway who refuse to recognize the laws of Norway. How easy would it be for Norway to do the unthinkable and boot the troublesome high almighty liberals out of Norway. It would be pretty easy compared to here because it would require a state by state constitutionally friendly approach to accomplish that task here.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2020, 10:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 04:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree, ignoring major problems and shifting problems on others and blaming others for problems doesn't make problems go away. I don't know if you will live long enough to see the carnage and violence as the progressive era of old begins to come to end. I hope not for you sake. I don't have a problem with my retirement plan. I'm an X'er you know. I'd say it's better to be wealthier and more self sufficient than being more dependent like must blues these days. The reds themselves will be fine regardless of the situation because the reds are already committed to taking off themselves/their own so to speak.

The way I read it, there was a progressive era from FDR to LBJ.  The conservative policies dominated between Nixon and at least Trump, crashing America’s greatness.  The impeachment of Trump and the ‘OK Boomer’ meme hint that another progressive time may be coming.  Even if so, it is not here yet.

I do believe the reds are more independent, could survive a bad time cleaner.  On the other hand blues work together better, could make a good time better.  The latter seems more likely.

Being independent means one is better able to fend for oneself by oneself.  Being more community focused just shifts the paradigm to the commonweal.  I would argue that, overall, the more communal option is better for most people, but less so for the best of the best.

Being independent means being able to fend for oneself and others during tough times without relying on government. The country boys could bring that lunatic of yours down to his knees and basically shut down the liberal government of your state if they wanted to as they demonstrated the other day. Oh, I heard they didn't cause any trouble or make a big mess and leave a big mess behind for others to pickup up when they left either.