How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
February 12, 2020
What if, in the end, you have to choose between Trump and Bernie Sanders? Who do you pick?
My son John asks and answers the question here.
How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)
ADDED: Poll results:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
444 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 444 Newer› Newest»I was asking a critic of Sanders which of his policies, if implemented, would have the long-term effect of making food, water, and toilet paper unavailable?
You must have misunderstood me, so let me rephrase.
Every communist country since the philosophy was invented had the exact issues you list above - shortages of food, water, etc. Bernie Sanders is a Communist. If given the power, he will use the same policies the aforesaid countries had in place. So his polices will have those effects.
However, he can't be honest and open about that part, so he'll talk about evil "millionaires and billionaires", and use the same class envy tactics Communists have used since, repeating myself, the philosophy was invented.
In other words, what Bernie SAYS his policies would be are different that what he'd try to get away with.
I was watching the last installment of reilly ace of spies, set in 1924, he was one of the models for james bond, having run the antibolshevik crusade, in the early period, he's been lured to the soviet union by the Trust, the false resistance movement that Dzerzhinsky cooked up, the latter is trying to keep up the pretense, but stalin is insistant on nabbing reilly and rolling up the operation, ultimately stalin prevails, because reilly insisted as a good faith to have the resistance try to assassinate stalin, Dzerzhinsky's aides and future successors, artuzov and trilliser, one was executed in 1936, the other in 1940,
"Inga said...
Don’t know about JAC, but your message is one that the majority of liberals and Democrats soundly reject. Isolation and antagonizing allies never made any country stronger. The FUBAR situation you speak of is one this country has been sucked into under a Trump. The economy would’ve continued to improve under most any president after nearly being on the brink of destruction under Bush."
Isolationist? Antagonizing other countries? How can both of these be true? What a fucking dunce.
Every POTUS antagonizes other nations in some way or other. What has Trump done that has antagonized another country to our detriment?
As far as the economy, there were eight years of the magic negro between Trump and W. The economy didn't take of until Trump. And it didn't just "improve", it hit record levels. Stuff unseen in many decades. And Obama and the Dems said it was impossible.
Blogger Nonapod said...
I imagine that around here it'll be like 90% Trump unless there's some huge contigent of Socialist lurkers I'm unaware of.
More than 1,200 votes later (a pretty good sample size for most polls) it is exactly 90%.
This of course is not any sort of valid public opinion poll; it is a reflection of what is the nature of the audience that Althouse’s curation has effectively selected. Like a MoveOn.org webpage, or a CPAC webpage, or an MSNBC page, or a Breitbart page.
Which is why I pointed out that John Yoo is still teaching at Berkley and has had several columns recently in major national publications (rather than rotting in jail, where he belongs).
First of all, no, he doesn't belong in jail, and anyone who believes that is a stark raving loon. Second of all, pointing out an exception does not prove a rule. No one said that ALL colleges are 100% liberal. So you fail Debate 101. Again.
Maybe you ought to try your hand at something else...
"third party loan servicing companies. So would they need to be bailed out?"
Well, they're not exactly high on the list of popular companies.
It could be done in ways that are minimally destructive or balanced. For instance, making it so only the principle is to be repaid. Or to have education institutions foot some of the bill out of an endowment tax. Which is to say other than the "fairness" question, which isn't a good argument really, it's not a clearly absurd proposal and even has some relatively positive possibilities for society.
Of course, Bernie would choose the worst possible way to do it so that everyone except a chosen few get a raw deal out of it.
“What a fucking dunce.”
Coming from the genius that called JAC, a person who is more accomplished and very obviously more intelligent than a dumb monkey, an “idiot”.
“Of course no one has to click the link to see how your son would vote. But by doing so you really get another example that he's an idiot.”
“Inga said: The economy would’ve continued to improve under most any president after nearly being on the brink of destruction under Bush.”
Nope. Not even close. Government spending was treated as an almost unlimited resource from which Dem politicians, their families, their cronies, and the people who put them in power, took their slices of the pie. It was justified as Keynesian stimulus. Nope. The Keynesian multiplier has been empirically known to be less than one since at least the 1970s, except for possibly very short periods of time at the bottom of a recession, when the country is in a liquidity trap. Very short probably means a month or so, and not eight years. That graft and corruption, at an epic level, during the Obama Administration, was a significant drag on the economy. Moreover, instead of cutting regulations during the Obama Recession, his Administration larded them on, increasing economic inefficiencies. And maybe the most consequential of these were the bars and bans they put in place to prevent or greatly restrict fracking.
Like a MoveOn.org webpage, or a CPAC webpage, or an MSNBC page
For at least two of those, you'd know better than the rest of us...
a person who is more accomplished and very obviously more intelligent than a dumb monkey, an “idiot”.
Appeals to authority. Do you have any views about anything that you've devised on your own?
Chuck said...
"Blogger Nonapod said...
I imagine that around here it'll be like 90% Trump unless there's some huge contigent of Socialist lurkers I'm unaware of.
More than 1,200 votes later (a pretty good sample size for most polls) it is exactly 90%.
This of course is not any sort of valid public opinion poll; it is a reflection of what is the nature of the audience that Althouse’s curation has effectively selected. Like a MoveOn.org webpage, or a CPAC webpage, or an MSNBC page, or a Breitbart page."
Sorry Wehavethemeats John posted about the poll on his facebook post. So it's a much wider audience.
Inga said...
“Admiral Inga: "Most people are very circumspect when discussing politics face to face with friends and neighbors nowadays."
I'll bet yours certainly are.”
I bet your neighbors see you coming and run the other way, mumbling breathlessly “Run run away, pretend you didn’t see him. He looks manic today.”
NOT MANIC:
Inga said...
And Trump posts 22 tweets this weekend, the goddamn President Althouse loves so much.
LOL. What a dumb bitch you are Althouse. I’ve been restraining myself from saying that for a long time. How’s that for lack of restraint?
7/23/18, 3:47 PM
(Just teasing cutie pie. Aware you didn't really mean it)
Sorry Wehavethemeats John posted about the poll on his facebook post. So it's a much wider audience.
Did he link to this post? If so, I gotta act normal for awhile.
"Inga said...
“What a fucking dunce.”
Coming from the genius that called JAC, a person who is more accomplished and very obviously more intelligent than a dumb monkey, an “idiot”.
“Of course no one has to click the link to see how your son would vote. But by doing so you really get another example that he's an idiot.”
He is an idiot. And I said why. And I see you have no comeback to why I called you a dunce. Which is typical. By the way, I clicked through to read "why". Which I posted.
It is common practice to confuse raising taxes vs raising tax rates. (I'm guilty too, on occasion)
What Bernie wants to do is raise tax rates. The overall effect of that, everyone seems to agree, would reduce the actual taxes (govt revenue) collected.
PDJT, Reagan, jfk, coolidge all raised tax revenues by lowering tax rates.
Although we don't tax wealth in the us, pdjt's tax program did manage to increase taxes paid by the wealthy by limiting tax deductions for high property taxes, high mortgages.
Funny, we never hear Bernie praising that, do we?
John Henry
Admiral Inga: "Coming from the genius that called JAC, a person who is more accomplished and very obviously more intelligent than a dumb monkey, an “idiot”."
How much more?
BTW, Carter Page: Russian spy or no?
Using masses of other people's money to wipe away debt - instead of encouraging smart financial decisions is a never ending spiral of debt itself.
I have to wonder if Althouse doesn’t sometimes regret the type of following she has here. When most of one’s posts resonate with Trumpist style conservatives, that’s an inevitable result.
Paddy O said...It could be done in ways that are minimally destructive or balanced. For instance, making it so only the principle is to be repaid. Or to have education institutions foot some of the bill out of an endowment tax. Which is to say other than the "fairness" question, which isn't a good argument really, it's not a clearly absurd proposal and even has some relatively positive possibilities for society.
I actually agree with all that. I think taxing college endowments to at least pay the interest on student loans would perhaps force a lot of colleges to look at their own financial situations and maybe even force some of them to deal with excessive administrative bloat that's helped to drive typical tuition costs to absurd levels.
Admiral Inga: "I have to wonder if Althouse doesn’t sometimes regret the type of following she has here."
There is no question she regretted some of the commenters.
That's why she banned both LLR-lefty Chuck and YOU!
Self-awareness much?
"Inga said...
Don’t know about JAC, but your message is one that the majority of liberals and Democrats soundly reject. Isolation and antagonizing allies never made any country stronger.
I mean what kind of moron accuses someone of being both an isolationist and an antagonizer to other countries?
It's almost as dumb as saying you're 100% for Roe V Wade but only for XX weeks, and not for gender selection.
“That's why she banned both LLR-lefty Chuck and YOU!”
Yet here we are, while the poster who must not be named continues to be deleted every time she comments.
—Isolation and antagonizing allies never made any country stronger.
What "isolation"? More evidence the left wingers make whatever statements they consider the most damaging even though those statements have no relationship to reality.
2/12/20, 11:59 AM—
The Palestinians don’t like the deal. They went to the UN to get a vote and it actually failed.
Besides what isolation? Trade deals or adjustments are getting done.
Admiral Inga: "Yet here we are, while the poster who must not be named continues to be deleted every time she comments."
LOL
You still don't get it. Nor will you ever.
BTW, Carter Page, Russian spy or no?
“I still don't think Sanders is going to be the nominee, but the Democrats face a challenge in actually defeating him. How they do it matters”
Big time. Sliding in Crooked Hillary (or Michele) in a brokered convention would not work well for the Dems. But Mini Mike honestly buying the nomination by spending massive amounts of money in advertising probably would work.
"I have to wonder if Althouse doesn’t sometimes regret the type of following she has here."
She probably didn't like being called a "dumb bitch".
Since I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not voting. But it is really too bad that the average American voter may not be able to recognize that one of the two candidates actually has the potential to wreck the country. The other is doing a pretty okay job already, and no damage that won't go away once he leaves office.
It's not even close.
JAC has basically admitted he votes based on what others will think of him. - KenB
Yeah. Kinda pathetic, really.
Sure vote for Bernie, a lazy commie who will destroy the economy, becaause Trump is a big meanie. I know JAC is probably smart if he got 1/2 of Mom's brain but that is a really dumb way to vote.
JAC isn’t an idiot, and those who say so are wrong. What he is is actually more insidious. He’s an elitist. He has his, why should he care about the people at the bottom of the economic scale. They were left behind during the Obama years; all the economic gains went to folks at JAC’s end of the scale. Of course he’s unhappy with Donald Trump. He doesn’t expect to be one of the people sent off to one of Bernie’s re-education camps, and he might even be right.
’It's interesting he thinks he's owed a response to his attempt to troll the conversation.’
Not to mention the incessant gaslighting.
Via Instapundit:
I'm sure this has nothing to do with Trump and his policies, BTW.
It’s a good time to be an engineer specializing in augmented reality or virtual reality. That’s the conclusion of the latest report by job site Hired, which just released its annual state of software engineers report. To compile its data, Hired reviewed 400,000 interview requests from 10,000 companies made to 98,000 job seekers throughout 2019.
Demand for AR and VR engineers, in the form of job postings on Hired’s site, was 1400 percent higher in 2019 than in 2018. Salaries for engineers in these specialties climbed into the $135,000 to $150,000 range, at least in the largest U.S. tech hubs. Demand for gaming engineers and computer vision engineers is also on the upswing; both climbed 146 percent in 2019.
If Trump is against everything & anything that is considered "socialist", is it safe to assume he wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare? Does he have a plan to sell off the federal highways to private for-profit organizations? Will he dismantle OSHA and let the marketplace work out safety issues for itself? Does he want the USDA to stop monitoring & testing commercial food supplies and instead allow consumers to decide for themselves if it is safe to eat? Does Trump want to sell off the TVA? Stop funding for all public schooling, including State universities and colleges?
Given all his anti-socialism chatter lately, that must be what he is gonna work towards if elected to a second term. 'cause if those socialists policies & programs are allowed to continue then we're gonna run out of toilet paper & folks will be executed in Central Park....or so I'm told.
“Admiral Inga: "Most people are very circumspect when discussing politics face to face with friends and neighbors nowadays."
Didn't your parents ever tell you more than once not to discuss religion or politics?
Trump will have to pick Charles Manson as his running mate to make 2020 even close.
Unconstitutional 'cause he's dead.
Squeaky Fromme for Veep!
@Roughcoat:
Farmer's method of argumentation emits a powerful odor of mendacity.
That's assuming he knows what he's doing.
No Farmer, I can't provide examples of mendacity's odor.
Then how about at least one example of something you believe I'm being mendacious about? Also, notice how none of my disagreements with comments here require me to assume the person making the comment is a terrible, awful person. I'd love to have a debate on the issue, but people like you always want to turn it around into a debate about what kind of a person I am. There's a lesson there for you.
@Rick:
There's no point in discussion with people who misstate others comments in such stupid ways.
Great. Then stop addressing me. And I'll extend you the same courtesy.
It's interesting he thinks he's owed a response to his attempt to troll the conversation.
I don't believe I am owed anything by anyone here. And if you're so concerned about my "attempt to troll," then see my preceding sentence.
The point was that unless he can tell us what policy Chavez supported which led to the current results his own question is irrelevant.
So, me asking someone to backup their claim that electing Sanders will result in Venezuela means that I have to explain a totally different question. Yeah, can't beat that logic. But let me try: I'm not the one who is introducing Venezuela into a discussion of Sanders, dipshit!
By answering it you put yourself in a losing position - because the future cannot be proven - but Farmer will have wasted everyone's time and derailed what otherwise might be an interesting conversation.
Answering "what policy Chavez supported which led to the current results" isn't proving the future; it's explaining the past.
@Curious George:
You asked for examples and when I produce them you go pfffft. WHat a tool.
Sweet of you to say so.
I googled your AP quote, nothing. In any event, none of your likely bullshit quote has anything to do with Trump being a nazi.
Recheck your Googling skills. I pasted the same quote into Google and got the link first hit. But if you're still having trouble, here is the link.
"I have to wonder if Althouse doesn’t sometimes regret the type of following she has here."
She probably didn't like being called a "dumb bitch".
-----------------------------------------------------
She didn't. But she's also not one to hold grudges. On the whole, I've observed over the past 10 years, she continually finds her readers and commenters to be delightful, interesting, hilarious and lovable. Many are very very special to her. I won't name names, I'm sure they know who they are. It's easy to get on her bad side by being maliciously disruptive. Waste her time. Yell at her and act generally abusive and disrespectful.
Want to get your comment read aloud in the privacy of Meadhouse? Make her laugh. Post poetry. Allow her to live free in writing as she allows you.
Provide for the common defense covers highways since they can be used as landing strips.
Does he want the USDA to stop monitoring & testing commercial food supplies and instead allow consumers to decide for themselves if it is safe to eat?
Raw/unpasturized milk. Better cheeses. the USDA under Obama tried to kill the artisan cheese industry.
SS and Medicare need to be revamped. I would have been happy with my 2% that W suggested.
Can TN handle the TVA itself?
Stop funding for all public schooling, including State universities and colleges?
Head Start is a total waste, it's been shown for years. Gains are gone by 3rd grade.
the entire school system needs to be revamped. Year-round schools. No need for summer off anymore. don't get me started on Common Core. At the most- skeleton staff at Dept of Ed. Get rid of Title IX, more women at college than men now. In our state, some public universities have less attendance (gee, abortion and a dying state will do that) and it's a keep teachers employed gig.
J Farmer, you used to be fun. Now all you do is provoke and criticize and never offer up anything of value. Did not/did too is boring. Offer up some of your thoughts on things instead of critiquing everyone else. You seem like a smart guy, why not share some of that?
top funding for all public schooling, including State universities and colleges?
Fund the child, not the school.
Want to get your comment read aloud in the privacy of Meadhouse? Make her laugh. Post poetry. Allow her to live free in writing as she allows you.
Great, thanks for the invite, Meade! I have some poetry I've composed.
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Bernie is an aging, hippie, communist from Vermont
And he's a Jew!
Sorry, probably, needs a little work. I flunked iambic pentameter at that damn JC I went to for 4 years.
On Bernie and Venezuela
Several commnenters made essentially the same point so it's easier to just reply en masse instead of individually.
The litany of left-wing policies that Bernie supports (single-payer healthcare, high regulation of industry, high marginal tax rates, etc.) are already operative in most of the OECD countries, and yet these countries have not turned into Venezuela. So that poses some problems for the argument that these policies must inexorably lead to Venezuela.
Instead of simply applying a broad, blanket statement like "socialism" to Venezuela and thinking you've explained the situation, you have to look at what Venezuela has actually done. This is the question I've been begging people to answer, but obviously "socialism!" is about as deep as they've thought about the question.
For one, Venezuela is almost entirely dependent on oil revenue to fund its government and so is highly exposed to fluctuations in the global oil price. This isn't true of the US. The vast majority of global oil production is produced by state-owned enterprises and yet they have not all gone the way of Venezuela because mere "nationalization" is not enough to explain the problem. Chavez fired thousands of petroleum workers in early 2000 as retribution for a strike. Venezuela also has an insane exchange rate system. There is price fixing, a currency peg, strict capital controls, etc. There was the petrocaribe system. Chavez not only eliminated term limits, he took control of the Supreme Court, closed down unfavorable press outlets, nationalized hundreds of business and foreign assets (not just major national industry), and expropriated productive farmland for use by peasants.
And, of course, this doesn't even begin to consider the fact that a Sanders presidency would, just like Trump's, be stymied by Congress, the Courts, and the various interests of competing factions. The reason I considered anti-Trump people histrionic in their vision of what a Trump presidency would look like was because I believe they failed to consider how robust a system the US has in place for hamstringing any one person from being able to wield too much power.
Jaltcoh's reasons for choosing Bernie over Trump are simply stated:
"Making Trump a two-term president will legitimize the idea that the president should sink to the lowest common denominator through his rhetoric, and try to close off America from other countries through his policies."
Lowest common denominator is of course entirely subjective: Obama's race-baiting against American white working class and cops seems far lower than Trump's rhetoric aimed at foreign and domestic leaders and illegal aliens. Curious that jaltcoh thinks Trump is uniquely bad in this regard, but given his caste, not shocking.
"Closing off America from other countries" is policy, and seems to implicate precisely those areas that a President can most directly affect without Congress. Bernie could quickly implement de facto open borders with blanket amnesties and stopping all border enforcement by Executive Order. Similarly, all gains from renegotiated trade deals with other countries could be cancelled by simply refusing to monitor compliance.
Global enterprises will quickly reverse the capital investment in manufacturing in the US. Even the prospect of Bernie's tax policies making their way through Congress will motivate that, even as the US ceasing enforcement of Trump trade agreements will.
I mean what kind of moron accuses someone of being both an isolationist and an antagonizer to other countries?
What kind of moron thinks that neither England nor France would have been antagonized if the US remained completely isolationist during WWII? What kind of moron thinks it wouldn't antagonize Israel if the US decided to take an isolationist role and let them fend for themselves? What kind of moron honestly beleives that our NATO allies wouldn't be antagonized if we pulled out of the treaty and withdrew all support from our former allies?
*rolls eyes*
We can have a reasonable discussion about the pros&cons of isolationist policies (at least, I can. We have yet to see you treat anyone you disagree with in a "reasonable" manner) but to claim that it is totally impossible to "antagonize" other countries while being an isolationist is absolutely absurd & extremely shallow-thinking on your part.
You forget, SS is coming up on its 100-year anniversary. More women in the workforce now. The needs then aren't the needs now. Women Earning and paying in for most if not all their lives. Maybe rebranding to acknowledge that and funding a different way is the way to go.
"Sorry, probably, needs a little work."
Ha ha. Well, A for effort, Guy!
"Farmer said...
@Curious George:
You asked for examples and when I produce them you go pfffft. WHat a tool.
Sweet of you to say so.
I googled your AP quote, nothing. In any event, none of your likely bullshit quote has anything to do with Trump being a nazi.
Recheck your Googling skills. I pasted the same quote into Google and got the link first hit. But if you're still having trouble, here is the link."
I saw that LA Times link and ignored it because I was looking for an AP story. No Link.. I wanted the link to the actual AP story. And the story has exactly zero actual examples to back up their claims. Nor names or positions.
@ Paddy O...
It could be done in ways that are minimally destructive or balanced. For instance, making it so only the principle is to be repaid. Or to have education institutions foot some of the bill out of an endowment tax. Which is to say other than the "fairness" question, which isn't a good argument really, it's not a clearly absurd proposal and even has some relatively positive possibilities for society.
---
How about we allow people burdened by student loan debt the same escape hatch offered for every other type of debt, ie BANKRUPTCY...
Yes it's going to hurt for awhile, but at the end of the day if you *REALLY* can't afford to pay off your student loans, then you get a fresh start after 10 years or so...
And ultimately, lenders need to bear the burden of possibility, which is inherent in every other type of loan scenario...
By protecting lenders against this risk and arbitrarily saying student loans are the one type of debt that cannot be discharged, you create the exact cluster-f*ck we see today, with skyrocketing college tuition / costs and insane amounts of money (that often can never be fully repaid) being lent out to anyone, regardless of credit worthiness, area of study or potential future income...
@nob490:
J Farmer, you used to be fun. Now all you do is provoke and criticize and never offer up anything of value. Did not/did too is boring. Offer up some of your thoughts on things instead of critiquing everyone else. You seem like a smart guy, why not share some of that?
Because I prefer dialogue to monologue. I have a pretty standard MO here. I will write a comment about what I think, others will respond it, and I will respond to that response. Other times, I read a comment I disagree with, quote it, and say why I disagree with it. The problem is that these comment threads are full of apparent snowflakes who short circuit when someone disagrees with them. And instead of talking about the issue, they want to talk about me. I'm stupid, mendacious, a gadfly, a tool, waste of everyone's time, yada yada yada.
J Farmer it is true, the name calling and all is tedious. Neat how any disagreement means you are "complicit" in something.
Rarely is a legitimate disagreement acknowledged as that, that two people may honestly come to different conclusions. Someone has to have evil intent.
I rarely comment, only because most folks are too busy listening to themselves to actually engage. Oh well. Still a great blog -- the best I have found out there.
Oh, and J Farmer -- you just did respond meaningfully above. That's what I was looking for :)
"You forget, SS is coming up on its 100-year anniversary."
A hundred years of socialism? Right here in the USofA? And we still have toilet paper available on our grocery store shelves?
Something ain't adding up...
Jim at said: “ Yeah. Kinda pathetic, really.”
It is. And when I posted exactly that on his blog he blocked the comment. So it’s even more pathetic than it first seems.
@Curious George:
I saw that LA Times link and ignored it because I was looking for an AP story. No Link.. I wanted the link to the actual AP story.
Notice the byline at the LA Times link, "Associated Press." But if you prefer to read the exact same words on the Associated Press website as opposed to the LA Times website, the link is here
And the story has exactly zero actual examples to back up their claims. Nor names or positions.
Ctrl+F
"statewide director of coalitions, Craig Bachler of Bradenton,"
"Teresa Unrue, a field organizer and graphic designer in Myrtle Beach, S.C.,"
"Annie Marie Delgado of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.,"
"Mark Kevin Lloyd of Lynchburg, Va., who has been paid $36,000 as Trump’s field director in the state"
"Phillip Dann, a field organizer in Massachusetts who recently relocated to Florida,"
"Scott Barrish, who earned $12,250 as Trump’s political director for the Tampa Bay, Fla.,"
Again, let me reiterate that I think this story is a giant nothingburger. But that's because I don't believe in holding candidates responsible for what some of their low-level staff say.
Farmer for the win.
Venezuela is like Peronist Argentina in its irrelevance for the USofA.
Narr
Hey, they put their best army buds in charge. What could go wrong?
@nob490:
Oh, and J Farmer -- you just did respond meaningfully above. That's what I was looking for :)
Happy to oblige ;)
J. Farmer said...
@Clyde:
I like luxuries like toilet paper, food and drinkable water.
Which of Sanders policies, if implemented, would result in a lack of food, water, or toilet paper?
Pretty much all of them. When asked how he would pay the tens of trillions his programs would cost, he replied something to the effect of, "Who knows? Nobody knows!" Bernie never met a government program that he didn't like and want to enlarge, because the government is smarter and wiser than we are and knows better than we do how our money should be spent. If ANY of the Democrats win the election, the stock market will crater; Bernie would just make the deepest hole. The hyperinflation would start soon after he took office.
J. Farmer said...
So, me asking someone to backup their claim that electing Sanders will result in Venezuela means that I have to explain a totally different question. Yeah, can't beat that logic
Farmer advances a test for whether it is reasonable to claim a set of policies will result in economic devastation like Venezuela experienced. But wait a minute, Venezuela fails his test. So unless Venezuela didn't turn into an economic basket case the test doesn't predict economic outcome so he hasn't shown anything.
But Farmer pretends this is a completely different question so he can claim he's made a point.
And, of course, this doesn't even begin to consider the fact that a Sanders presidency would, just like Trump's, be stymied by Congress, the Courts, and the various interests of competing factions.
I tend to disagree with this line of thought. In a world where Bernie Sanders is able to be elected president over Trump, I believe that we would be far past the point that any Congress would either have the desire or the will power to oppose most of his policies. If we're really living in a place where a plurality of people would make such a radical choice, a place where the level of discontentment with the current system is so high that there's a powerful sentiment to change our direction, I think the collective political will of the people and the media would override any resistance from Congress, scaring them into acquiescence.
I don't believe we're yet living in such a world. But I could be wrong.
Because he won a primary the media has to pretend Sanders can win.
Because they have to pretend the dem nominee can win.
So if Berno wins, they'll be all in to get him elected.
Will be some funny shit to watch.
You forget, SS is coming up on its 100-year anniversary."
A hundred years of socialism? Right here in the USofA? And we still have toilet paper available on our grocery store shelves?
Something ain't adding up...
Yup the math but we are stuck with it anyway.
That doesn’t mean we expand it. It’s bad enough the government is covering most student loans. Put the risk backward belongs on the banks and the person going to school and we may actually start rebalancing to things we actually need.
purplepenquin said...
"You forget, SS is coming up on its 100-year anniversary."
A hundred years of socialism? Right here in the USofA? And we still have toilet paper available on our grocery store shelves?
Something ain't adding up...
Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government. Most people are capable of understanding government directing 10% of the economy with 90% free has a different dynamic than 60% controlled feeding off 40% free. But not our lefties! They insist on the one drop rule, .01% is the same as 100%.
Here's how to make it easy (yes, I know: here he goes again): my own [partent pending] Statist Scale, aka "the Coercion Meter." It basically ask, Which candidate is least likely to violate my freedom? Or in other words, which candidate is more likely to leave me the heck alone?
The scale does from 0 (libertarian anarchism) to 10 (outright murderous tyranny). Around 6.5 6o 9 us what what I call the "State-shtupper Zone:" Hillary, Obama, the current run of Democratic presidential candidates, etc. I put Bolshevik Bernie at a 9. It's not exact science so you may grade people differently. As far as I know Trump, while not being as consistently pro-freedom as I'd prefer, certainly is closer to 0 than Grandpa Gulag.
Trump did some trolling earlier saying he hopes Bloomie wins the nom cause Bernie would give him a tough time.
Trump is a ball breaker.
I saw a Marketwatch article that said in first paragraph "... Bernie Sanders, who leans left, did such and such..."
I stopped reading.
sanders showing was unimpressive, with all the headwinds from iowa, he should have done better, so I am a little less concerned.
"Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government"
The strawman is claiming Sanders wants the government to control the entire economy and he will put citizens in gulags if elected...but ymmv.
"Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government."
You would expect that argument from a garden variety progressive, not a cherished conservative from the defunct Isthmus forums.
First of all, no, he doesn't belong in jail, and anyone who believes that is a stark raving loon. Second of all, pointing out an exception does not prove a rule. No one said that ALL colleges are 100% liberal. So you fail Debate 101. Again.
Torture is illegal under U.S. and International Law (the Convention Against Torture was ratified by the U.S. under the Reagan administration). Yoo's definition of torture was contradicted by the statutory definition of torture in both U.S. and international law and included torture methods that the U.S. has long called torture in other countries. It enabled the Bush administration to conduct a systemic torture program (which btw, might still get the case against Khalid Sheik Mohamed and others thrown out). If we can jail the authors of the Nuremberg laws, then certainly Yoo is arguably criminally liable for torture he facilitated.
As for Berkeley, are you seriously contending Berkeley is not a liberal institution? Have a look at the law school's home page and them come back and tell me how wrong I am.
Like narcisco I think there is a ceiling on Bernie.
I think there is one on Trump too, so while I expect a big win I don’t see a landslide, much less a Reagan sized one.
The litany of left-wing policies that Bernie supports (single-payer healthcare, high regulation of industry, high marginal tax rates, etc.) are already operative in most of the OECD countries, and yet these countries have not turned into Venezuela.
I'm not sure this is true. But I'm happy to suppose it is for the same of argument.
Ones economy pre socialism doesn't matter. It can be based on any sort of robust revenue and still be destroyed by the likes of socialism turned communism.
Which I believe any discussion must admit. Bernie isn't a socialist so much as he is a communist.
So, how will his policies turn the USA into a nation like Venezuela, especially since the USA has such a robust economy?
The same way Venezuela did it. The same way it always happens. By becoming a "strong" president. And by strong, I'm using it as a euphemism here.
You see, we have ceded a lot of ground to the executive. Especially during Democrat administrations. It seems not the case now only because Republican presidencies have checks and balances. Those checks and balances tend to get pretty quiet during Democrat administrations.
Bernie wants wealth redistribution. In Seattle, one of the council women gave a speech and told the Boeing employees to rise up and seize the warehouses and factories.
This is where Bernie is. And he will use executive power to punish companies that don't get in line, which is almost all of them. Just like in Venezuela, where it wasn't legal for the President to seize "Best Buy's" electronics and redistribute them to the needy, Bernie doesn't have the right either.
Yet, it happened. Lots of stuff happens like that in tiny ways and we never see it. But with Bernie, he doesn't need to be sneaky. Even if he wins by .0001% this will be called a "mandate!" And he will take power the likes of which we have never seen
Know all those bureaucrats who are opposed to Trump? Why he has so much trouble getting anything done? It's because they agree with Bernie. Not Trump.
And guess how many of Bernie's US Attorneys office will be chomping at the bit to prosecute Trump, his family, and anyone who supported them? If you think the political prosecutions are bad now, just wait until the executive agrees with and supports these US Attorneys
So, it's really twofold
The wielding of executive power in order to enforce the socialist idea of fairness and political prosecutions.
Those two policies will turn us into a state filled with bread lines.
Chris Matthews has been on the verge of tears over discussions that Bernie could win the nom. He seems to truly reject his policies. He's probably just doing some convincing acting.
Matthews hasn't aged well.
The real dirty little secret that gets out every now and then is that our government is actually spending approximately $50-$55,000 I think per family on the poor. I believe that’s near the median income of the United States but I haven’t checked it lately. So where is the money going?
J. Farmer said...
"@Curious George:
I saw that LA Times link and ignored it because I was looking for an AP story. No Link.. I wanted the link to the actual AP story.
Notice the byline at the LA Times link, "Associated Press." But if you prefer to read the exact same words on the Associated Press website as opposed to the LA Times website, the link is here
And the story has exactly zero actual examples to back up their claims. Nor names or positions."
Sorry, I meant your claim that Trump staffers asserted that he would "turn the US into Nazi Germany." I gave you examples of Bernie staffers saying Bernie would have gulags. And still working for Bernie. Actually, being protected from answering questions regarding their statement but threats of police action.
purplepenquin said...
"Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government"
The strawman is claiming Sanders wants the government to control the entire economy and he will put citizens in gulags if elected...but ymmv.
You're half right, he obviously and openly does want to control the entire economy. He recognizes no limiting principles on government believing it appropriate to interfere whenever he dislikes the outcome.
our government is actually spending approximately $50-$55,000 I think per family on the poor. So where is the money going?
Government employees to 'administer' the programs.
I just want to see Sanders face the camera and talk about something without turning red, waving his arms around, and looking like he's about to have a stroke.
Limited blogger: "Because he won a primary the media has to pretend Sanders can win.
Because they have to pretend the dem nominee can win.
So if Berno wins, they'll be all in to get him elected.
Will be some funny shit to watch."
Not to be outdone, our "lifelong republican" "severely conservative" NeverTrumpers over at lefty billionaire Omidyar's directed "The Bulwark" are already out of the gate and making The "Conservative" Case for Bernie Sanders.......precisely as predicted by everyone.
Ken B said...Like narcisco I think there is a ceiling on Bernie.
--
(Hunching over lectern while waving arms upward): Puhple of Americker, it's TIME..we RAISE..THIS..ROOOFF!
(Tunes pump, AOC dances)
A Bloomberg news reporter referred to Sanders as a 'populist', like Trump.
HAHAHAHAHA!
well it's out of character,
https://freebeacon.com/politics/voter-to-msnbc-your-criticism-of-bernie-made-me-vote-for-him/
Blogger purplepenquin said...
If Trump is against everything & anything that is considered "socialist", is it safe to assume he wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare? Does he have a plan to sell off the federal highways to private for-profit organizations?
It's hard to attribute this stuff to stupidity so I will choose malice. According to PP the people are not allowed to fund anything in concert. There would be no public schools or roads. Socialism is a recent invention outside the Catholic Church, which has had religious orders for hundreds of years.
Eugene V Debs is the father of American Socialism.
I began to read and think and dissect the anatomy of the system in which workingmen, however organized, could be shattered and battered and splintered at a single stroke. The writings of Bellamy and Blatchford early appealed to me. The Cooperative Commonwealth of Gronlund also impressed me, but the writings of Kautsky were so clear and conclusive that I readily grasped, not merely his argument, but also caught the spirit of his socialist utterance – and I thank him and all who helped me out of darkness into light.[15]
Additionally, Debs was visited in jail by Milwaukee socialist newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, who in Debs' words "came to Woodstock, as if a providential instrument, and delivered the first impassioned message of Socialism I had ever heard".[15] In his 1926 obituary in Time, it was said that Berger left him a copy of Das Kapital and "prisoner Debs read it slowly, eagerly, ravenously".[16] Debs emerged from jail at the end of his sentence a changed man. He would spend the final three decades of his life proselytizing for the socialist cause.
Ownership of means of production and the labor theory of value.
The LTV is central to Marxist theory, which holds that the working class is exploited under capitalism, and dissociates price and value. Marx did not refer to his own theory of value as a "labour theory of value".[1] Mainstream neoclassical economics tends to reject the need for a LTV, concentrating instead on a theory of price determined by supply and demand.[
We have a free market economy in which free citizens may choose to do things in common to accomplish certain purposes, like roads and schools and even partial pension plans.
Matthews is at a point, he phasers himself like Captain Terrill,
Would not happen with Bernie in the White House
"Feds busted into his house at 6 in the morning and dragged his 15-year-old daughter out on the side of a busy road, in her underwear. For context, this case was about a failure to report a campaign expenditure on an FEC form."
https://townhall.com/columnists/marinamedvin/2020/02/12/exclusive-what-happened-in-the-roger-stone-case-prosecutorial-misconduct-says-defense-lawyer-n2561231
I propose a follow-up poll for Meadehouse:
What, in your view, is or will be the biggest fucking, most epic political disaster in 2020?
a. The Iowa Democrat Caucus
b. Joe Biden's "No Malarkey" bus tour
c. Joe Biden's primary collapse after Nancy's impeachment farce
d. Bernie Sanders and his Bros at the brokered '20 Democrat Convention, when the Democrat super delegates screw him over once again.
e. A Trump tweet
Leading up to 2016 I said that if Hillary won, I'd cry. And if Trump won, I'd laugh my butt off, and then I'd cry.
Now, I don't mind Trump so much.
AB5 is not about that. They talk about it but in reality it’s the opposite
Paddy O said...
-Free college debt relief and a big middle finger to the responsible people who paid it off without government assistance.
Most of government is a big middle finger to responsible people. Saying, "life isn't fair why did I have to be responsible and they don't?"isn't an effective argument. The question is whether debt relief like this would stimulate the economy. It would. All the money paying for loans would go elsewhere.
Which means that all the people getting PAID for those loans lose their income
Or else all the taxpayers have to pay for it, which means those tax dollars are no longer paying for something else?
Go read about the "Broken Window Fallacy". What you're claiming is pure economic ignorance
Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government. Most people are capable of understanding government directing 10% of the economy with 90% free has a different dynamic than 60% controlled feeding off 40% free. But not our lefties! They insist on the one drop rule, .01% is the same as 100%.
2/12/20, 2:25 PM
Yep. It's like the ridiculous argument that I frequently see made by leftists that if you are against socialism, you oppose paved streets. Road building has been seen as a legitimate function of government since the days of the Founders, but leftists don't want to draw any distinctions between legitimate functions and a massive nanny state.
FullMoon said..."Feds busted into his house at 6 in the morning and dragged his 15-year-old daughter out on the side of a busy road, in her underwear.
--
Reminds me of the WI Jon Doe siege where a home alone teen boy was held w/o being able to contact nearby relatives while Weiss and/or his gang searched home.
Saying, "life isn't fair why did I have to be responsible and they don't?"isn't an effective argument.
Hmmm. Left wingers cite fairness as justification for everything they do. Why do they believe fairness is suddenly illegitimate when it doesn't support left wing goals?
Revealing.
I picked the fourth option. Apparently not many of us here.
just a coincidence,
https://babalublog.com/2020/02/12/in-his-praise-for-stalinist-cuba-bernie-sanders-is-no-democrat-renegade-in-fact-hes-a-mainstream-democrat-with-many-many-precursors-heres-the-fully-documented-proof/
1600+ for Trump? Does the poll filter for double plus voting? or is someone pushing the button over nd over. Great web-site - but 1600+ ?
Gonna be strange that the Russians will be helping Trump try to beat Bernie.
How ironic.
Indeed - green eyed monster. The left want government to control everything. They have a plan for that!
Which is actually fascism.
It's hard to attribute this stuff to stupidity so I will choose malice
*rolls eyes*
Seriously dude - you start off with a bullshit remark like that, and I'm supposed to beleive you want to have a good-faith discussion on this issue?
You're an asshole, plain&simple. Knew that the moment you said I wanted to rape & kill Bush's daughters, and am reminded of it with almost every comment you post.
According to PP the people are not allowed to fund anything in concert. There would be no public schools or roads.
Are you being stupid or malicious when you say this about me? Or is it both?
I ain't saying all socialism is evil and thus the gov't needs to stay out of the road-building and school-funding. Rather, Trump (et al) is the one who keeps making the blanket-statement of "SOCIALISM BAD!" - which led to my question: If re-elected, will he work to rid the USA of socialistic programs?
seriously, you can't make this up:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=385811
""Feds busted into his house at 6 in the morning and dragged his 15-year-old daughter out on the side of a busy road, in her underwear"
Sounds like a typical marijuana-bust...which probably would not happen with Bernie in the White House.
Wow, I’m late.
I say Trump, because the incremental impacts of Bernie’s policies (minimum wage, gun control, taxes, single-payer health care) will be broadly and unnecessarily negative, particularly for poor people.
I love Bernie because he's an honest Democrat. Buttigig, BIden, Amy K, and Warren won't be anymore "Moderate" then Bernie. They're just better liars. Bill Clinton ran as a "moderate" and so did Obama. Moderate LBJ was more liberal then Humbert Humphrey. Stop believing in the myth of the moderate Democrat. They all talk moderate, and then vote like Chuck Schumer.
@Rick:
Farmer advances a test for whether it is reasonable to claim a set of policies will result in economic devastation like Venezuela experienced.
You really seem hellbent on making this discussion needlessly complicated. If someone asserts that electing Sanders will turn the US into Venezuela, it’s not out of line for me to ask how they think that will happen. I can then read their argument, consider it, and give a response. But as usual you want to keep getting mired in process. I wrote a long comment about how Venezuela got to its current state and the important differences with the US. Read it and give your thoughts, and I’ll read that and give my response. Then we’ll have an actual discussion going. Instead you’ve written half a dozen comments towards me to say you don’t think I’m worth engaging.
Stock market brushed off any likelihood of Sanders getting anywhere close to WH.
Guess things can change, but looks like the nom is Bloomberg's to lose.
@Curious George:
I gave you examples of Bernie staffers saying Bernie would have gulags.
No you gave an example of a couple staffers saying what they believe not what Sanders believes or would have. A lot of white nationalists, like myself, voted for Trump because we prefer his immigration policies to the alternatives. That doesn’t make Trump a white nationalist.
lol Bilwik
"State-shtupper Zone:"
+ best post ev.
Yep, it's the strawman of claiming a limited pension plan is the same as an entire economy controlled by government.
Social security was criticized in exactly those terms when it was proposed (it’s socialism!)
wait what now:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/12/senate-passes-war-powers-measure-tim-kaine/
If I was allowed to control the investment of my Social Security contributions, I could actually afford to retire.
rcocean,
As a "Democrat" only during prez race, I suspect he would load his administration and judicial appointments etc with more extreme actors/pyro gulag apologists than, for example, Klobusurge.
@nonapod:
I tend to disagree with this line of thought. In a world where Bernie Sanders is able to be elected president over Trump, I believe that we would be far past the point that any Congress would either have the desire or the will power to oppose most of his policies.
You mean if Sanders became president, a Republican-controlled Senate would just roll over and pass whatever laws he wanted?
Bay Area Guy said...
I propose a follow-up poll for Meadehouse:
D, followed by A
Your son is a pathetic virtue-signaler.
Social security was criticized in exactly those terms when it was proposed (it’s socialism!)
That’s probably true, but the bigger problem is that it provided another source of cash for the government to waste, and it’s hard to see it remaining solvent for much longer.
Purple Penguin - the beauty of Social Security is that it displays the tension at the heart of socialism. Socialism assumes as fundamental that the government should control all the money and pay for everything, leaving a little bit to each person “according to their ability to be a part of the elite class”. In America , realizing that soft-headed people (Socialists) think that 100% of society can be taken care of, the people have instituted a quasi socialist program to force people to pay for their own retirement. Graft and corruption immediately set in and we have the mess that we have today. But their intentions/virtue signals were good so we keep the mess. And why is it a mess? Because reality is more 80-20 than anything. It’s an unfortunate fact that 100% of the people are incapable of taking care of themselves. Some are mental, some are lazy, some are criminals, some just live for today. And there’s the tension. There will always be free riders and the people who are not free riders will put up with a small amount of nonsense but when it gets too big Atlas will shrug. Always has. Always will.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@nonapod:
I tend to disagree with this line of thought. In a world where Bernie Sanders is able to be elected president over Trump, I believe that we would be far past the point that any Congress would either have the desire or the will power to oppose most of his policies.
You mean if Sanders became president, a Republican-controlled Senate would just roll over and pass whatever laws he wanted?
If Sanders becomes President, it will be with a Democrat Party controlled House and Senate.
The filibuster will be junked, quickly.
And then they will do whatever they damn well please, probably starting with adding 4 RBG level leftists to the "Supreme Court"
I do think there are unhelpful elements of socialism (more precisely, governmental intrusion on liberty) embedded with social security, even if I’m reluctant to use exclamation points.
The Senate?
"What the fucking fuck?"
Think Sanders wouldn't issue a yuuuge amount of EOs?
"Road building has been seen as a legitimate function of government since the days of the Founders"
Yes - socialism has been a part of our government since the days of our Founders...not only roads, but the Post Office is another great example. As others in this thread have pointed out, it's not a matter of if socialism is good or bad for our country but rather the question is one of "how much or how little"...which is a reasonable discussion to have.
However, the President et al seems to have planted a flag on "Socialism is bad!" - which is either extremely ignorant or intentional fear-mongering. I'm just trying to help clear that up by pointing out our country already has many socialistic programs enacted, and has for quite a long time.
PS - I know a lots of folks on this blog define "lefties" as those who don't support Trump, but please note that I ain't a "lefty" as it is commonly defined and ask you try to refrain from making assumptions about me based on that false assumption.
Tell your son that he is too old to be Spicoli. It is a look, not a good one. Valley girl, mostly. May he grow into adulthood.
Seriously dude - you start off with a bullshit remark like that, and I'm supposed to beleive you want to have a good-faith discussion on this issue?
Of course not. I don't think you are anything but a troll.
JAC admits he votes as a signal. Hardly to respected [sic] IMO.
Whoops, it looks like Ken B is confused. Ken B tried to post this even more confused comment on my blog post (though I rejected the comment so it never got posted):
Basically you admit you vote based on how others will think of you.
My post said nothing about "how others will think of" me. I talked about the "message" reelecting or rejecting Trump would send to the world and to people in the future looking at history. If you want to call that message a "signal," fine, but the signal has huge consequences in the real world. It isn't bad to take those consequences into account when deciding who to vote for. The idea that we should ignore what "signal" or message we're sending is misguided. I know it's possible to put too much emphasis on signaling — but merely labeling something a "signal" isn't a good argument for giving it no importance. After all, posting online comments about how you're not going to vote as a "signal" is itself a signal!
If Sanders becomes President, it will be with a Democrat Party controlled House and Senate.
Why?
Curious George said...
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Curious George:
All are still employed by Sanders.
Count me considerably unimpressed.
Thanks for confirming why we should be unimpressed by you, The vidoe came out of these people advocating for gulags.
If video had come out of Trump paid campaign staff pushing "white nationalist" "send the Mexicans home, doesn't matter how long they've been here, or if they're US Citizens" drivel, the staff member would have been fired.
The only reason for Bernie NOT to fire the people is because he agrees with them, or wants people who agree with them to think that Sanders does agree with them,
Therefore, Sanders owns it
p.s. Even if true, that ignores the fact that Sanders, like Trump, would face opposition not only from the opposition but also within his own party. There are plenty of Democrats who would have a vested interest in seeing Sanders fail.
how much opposition did Obama face in his party, you can probably count on one hand,
John Althouse Cohen said...
My post said nothing about "how others will think of" me. I talked about the "message" reelecting or rejecting Trump would send to the world and to people in the future looking at history.
Ah yes. Heaven forbid we send the "message" that the US Government should value the well being of lower income Americans who didn't go to college!
Or that the US Gov't should value American citizens more than it values other people.
Or that Iran shouldn't nuke Israel.
Or that using the gov't to spy on your political opponents, and lying to the FISA Court to pull that off, is wrong
Or that laws (like immigration laws) are important
Or that it's not ok for the family members of the VP, or other politicians, to get payoffs in exchange for corrupt acts by the politician
Those are the "messages" you're opposed to?
I see why you claim it's not "virtue" that you're signalling
Thanks for confirming why we should be unimpressed by you
I’ll live.
how much opposition did Obama face in his party, you can probably count on one hand,
For one, Obama was not nearly as polarizing within the party as Sanders. Also, Obama was basically a neoliberal moderate a la Bill Clinton. And Obama couldn’t even get his party to coalesce around the so called “public option.”
Socialism assumes as fundamental that the government should control all the money and pay for everything
If that is how you define "socialism", then what do you consider to be "communism"?
For 4 straight years (longer?), all I've heard from Farmer is immigration immigration immigration.
But now if I understand correctly, Bernie is a perfectly viable choice for President.
Not sure if I will vote in the next election, but I have yet to be convinced that I should give my vote to the Donald.
"the signal has huge consequences in the real world. It isn't bad to take those consequences into account"
--
The signal of concern being?
A hundred years of socialism? Right here in the USofA? And we still have toilet paper available on our grocery store shelves? Something ain't adding up...
Good LORD, I hate this utterly disingenuous trope.
Because government programs exist, it doesn't mean the government is "socialist". Otherwise, you could make the argument that there isn't any such thing as a place that isn't socialist, because every single country has government programs. There is anarchy or socialism, and no in between. This is a dumb argument. Using the above, the existence of police or fire departments automatically labels a government as socialist. It does no such thing.
Social Security was MEANT as a retirement account - you put money in, and when you retire, you get it back. It was NEVER MEANT to be a socialist policy. As for any other government program, they're meant to be temporary, NOT permanent, such as welfare, food stamps, etc.
When a government is socialist, it means that people's very lives are tied to that government via aid, pay, housing, etc. There is very little (if any) free enterprise. The governments in Europe are mostly not socialist, though they lean that way more than the US does.
All of that said - do I believe that the Dem candidates WANT us to be a socialist country? Yes, I do. If given unbridled power, they'd move us in that direction. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them in that regard. The idea that any of them are even viable as candidates is proof that history is no longer taught in schools at any level, otherwise buffoons would be laughed off the stage. In a sane world, at least.
If video had come out of Trump paid campaign staff pushing "white nationalist" "send the Mexicans home, doesn't matter how long they've been here, or if they're US Citizens" drivel, the staff member would have been fired.
Does it HAVE to be video? A link was just provided about paid campaign staff for Trump posting racist crap on their social media. Are you sure the folks who did that were fired? 'cause the link provided by J. Farmer didn't say they were...
now do xinjiang and the western Caucasus,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/02/un-issues-blacklist-of-companies-doing-business-with-jewish-communities-in-israels-judea-and-samaria-region/
The strawman is claiming Sanders wants the government to control the entire economy and he will put citizens in gulags if elected
Apparently you don't know what the term "straw man" means. Try google.
That aside - the man honeymooned in the USSR. He has been tied to flat-out communists (not just socialists) for all of his life. He's surrounded himself with the same type of people. His operatives have ADMITTED that the plan is to put citizens in gulags. Try doing a little internet research and you'll see video clips of these people saying that.
Gee, why would anyone think Bernie would do that? Stick your head in the sand all you want, but the man is a Pinko to the core. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning mind.
PP
Roads are not socialist, they are the result of the government doing what we hire it to do. The government works, or once worked, for us. Perhaps you have never driven on socialist roads but I would recommend you do so in a rental.
Nonapod @12:23PM, re Sanders: "I just don't think he would intentionally create gulags."
Well of course not. No one wants to intentionally create gulags. They're forced to, with heartbreaking reluctance, because of the wreakers, reactionaries, bitter clingers, white supremacists, racists, revisionists, etc, etc, who insist on getting in the way of the Bright Future Ahead!
It's for the people, Nonapod! Yes, we may have to break a few eggs (and heads) to make this omelet, but it will be all worth it in the end!
The fact that anyone in this country outside of an insane asylum could even consider for a moment supporting a man whose entire career consists of espousing a political philosophy (however disguised) that resulted in something like 100 million innocent dead over the last century or so, is a sad comment on the education and critical thinking skills we've passed on to them.
Kay: "Not sure if I will vote in the next election, but I have yet to be convinced that I should give my vote to the Donald."
What will it take?
A couple new wars?
How about some new job losses?
Would a stock market drop convince you to vote for Trump?
A weaker military?
Putting back all those regulations that were removed?
A Merritt Garland nomination?
Don't leave us in suspense. Let us know what you are looking for.
exactly after lenin was shot by a crazed social revolutionary, one had to go scorched earth, same with the castro brothers, mao, pol pot et al, it just works out that way, bill ayers who found he had no talent for direct action, figured 25 million assorted kulaks would suffice, now it's be close to 60 million, or as some one called them 'deplorables'
Roads are not socialist, they are the result of the government doing what we hire it to do.
"It ain't socialism if I personally approve of the gov't doing it"
J. Farmer is getting a lot of mileage out of his signature high school debating team move.
Even if true, that ignores the fact that Sanders, like Trump, would face opposition not only from the opposition but also within his own party
It's funny you mention the opposition. It's one thing that Trump had to undergo an impeachment. In honesty, he was strengthened by that. But do you think a left wing president would fact the type of interference that government agencies such as the NSC, CIA, the Justice Department and the courts would hold down a Bernie administration as much as they've interfered with Trump? I'm so old, I remember a president who proclaimed that "I won", and that he could use a pen and a phone to do what he needs to get done.
Congress doesn't quite have the teeth it once did. It has mostly passed it's authority along to executive branch agencies, who'll make policy without Congress' help. And since the people who work in these branches are ALREADY lefties, it's not a far stretch that Bernie's energy department could end all fracking, close all refineries and demand that all electricity be produced by windmills and solar panels, effectively turning the country into the Soviet-style Republic that you seem so sure he can't.
Trump will be running unopposed by November ;-)
@Farmer,
You gonna vote for Trump or Bernie, if you had to pick, right now?
Word of wisdom from Meade @1:54 PM.
I know who I turn to for a smile or an insight, and who I skip over.
@I Callahan:
Good LORD, I hate this utterly disingenuous trope.
Because government programs exist, it doesn't mean the government is "socialist".
You put your finger directly on the problem with an elastic term like "socialist." Is Social Security "socialist?" Well, it depends on how you define "socialism." I've previous given the anecdote of Ludwig von Mises referring to Mitlon Friedman's Chicago School as "a bunch of socialists."
In the 1930s, opponents of Social Security criticized it as "socialism." The libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation asserts: "From its very beginning, Social Security has always been nothing more than a standard socialist program, one that uses government force to take money from people to whom it belongs (i.e., younger people) and gives it to people to whom it does not belong (i.e., older people)."
@Bay Area Guy:
@Farmer,
You gonna vote for Trump or Bernie, if you had to pick, right now?
Same as I voted in the poll: Trump.
If you starve a child one of his organs will fail. Farmer insists we identify which organ and which foregone morsel before he will concede that withholding the child's food is a destructive policy.
In Canada we have rationed, single payer healthcare. My aunt had to wait too long for tests and died of a treatable disease. But I cannot tell you which of the ruling party's platform planks killed her.
maybe so,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/could-mayor-pete-secretly-be-more-radical-than-bernie_3236329.html
...a political philosophy (however disguised) that resulted in something like 100 million innocent dead over the last century or so...
Just curious - how many innocent dead in the past century or so would you put on the shoulders of capitalism?
@Phidippus:
J. Farmer is getting a lot of mileage out of his signature high school debating team move.
Yep, quoting what people say, writing what I think about it, and asking that they do the same. It's such a nefarious tactic. But perhaps you have confused me with someone who wants to change anyone's mind about anything. I don't. I participate here for my own edification, not for anyone else's.
Quoting bagoH20 @ 11:22, because it bears repeating:
"If you needed someone to run a large powerful organization with a huge budget and many thousands of employees, would you choose Trump or Bernie? Which do you think our enemies take more serious"?
You cannot be a serious person and contemplate a vote for Bernie. His platform is ruinous.
sophistry in the extreme
https://twitchy.com/doug-3137/2020/02/12/the-absolute-hubris-max-boot-advises-dems-to-do-the-smart-thing-with-their-candidates-and-its-not-going-over-well/
Don't leave us in suspense. Let us know what you are looking for.
More posts about Chuck. That’s all I need to be happy, and I know there’s an endless supply coming our way.
@Farmer,
Ok, so you're voting for Trump, but arguing that Sanders' future socialist policies won't be as bad as the Nazis or Commies, but will be: (a) checked by the other branches and (b) closer to Sweden, than Venezuela.
Ok, got it. Too many future contingent hypotheticals there to really argue.
I don't want our country to become like Venezuela or Sweden, ergo, I don't want Bernie (or his socialist bros) to get anywhere near the levers of power.
"It ain't socialism if I personally approve of the gov't doing it"
That is correct. And one mans socialism is anothers Bismarckian realpolitik.
After all, it was often, or even mostly the "right" that created most modern welfare states. Francisco Franco turned Spain into a welfare state.
Spain is a case in point. In the end the very bloody political wars, and the actual wars, were more akin to wars of religion than anything else. From a policy point of view, a practical desiderata, they made very little sense. The left in particular was lost in absurdity. I forget who said it - "A Spanish Liberal is one who hates Spanish Conservatives, and vice versa."
No side in politics wants to see clearly in this respect. Often enough the political warfare is entirely beside the point, where symbolism overrides reality. Such as the case with "health care". Even the words are misleading. Yet so many dig trenches on this battlefield.
@Ken B:
Farmer insists we identify which organ and which foregone morsel before he will concede that withholding the child's food is a destructive policy.
When someone says, "If X occurs, Y will be the result," it is not out of line to ask a person why they believe that. The point I have made is that there are plenty of countries with single-payer healthcare, high regulation of industry, high marginal tax rates, high government spending, etc. that have not turned into Venezuela. That doesn't mean that they are good ideas, only that it does not make sense to criticize them by saying that they will inexorably lead to Venezuela. Countries within the OECD all have mixed economies and yet there is quite a bit of variance in things like standard of living, civil liberties, etc. There is more to explaining the outcomes of a country than merely their economic policies. There is also nature and nurture, for example.
Kay: "More posts about Chuck. That’s all I need to be happy, and I know there’s an endless supply coming our way."
Touché.
However, that does not answer the question.
It's worth asking whether Bernie or Trump has the longer coattails. My guess is Trump.
You mean if Sanders became president, a Republican-controlled Senate would just roll over and pass whatever laws he wanted?
Critics seem to apply their own assumptions about how things must work in order to justify their criticism. Apparently they believe the assertion in dispute is that entire economic meltdown will occur within Sanders' term, otherwise the criticism above is meaningless. But this is nonsense. It took 20 years for Venezuela to destroy itself so America's decline will naturally take much longer. As someone once said "there is a great deal of ruin in a nation".
But once the momentum toward a government solution begins there is no return. So Obamacare's failure doesn't lead to repealing Obamacare, it leads to Medicare For All. Even pauses in leftward movement are shortly resumed. Hillarycare fails, but 20 years later Obamacare wins. Because leftists control the bureaucracy (especially it's propaganda arm in academia) there's always another day, always another plan, always another step down the Road to Serfdom. As each step fails to achieve its goals our central planners will conclude the "system is broken" and can only be fixed with yet another step left.
The bigger problem than Sanders specifically is that half the Dem party believes central control will turn out fine despite it failing everywhere it's been tried. Further this number is growing due to largely unopposed academic and left-media support. So where Sanders used to be so far left he was outside the mainstream he's now the middle of the Dem party. Some day not long from now left wingers will be telling us Sanders was a centrist (or even conservative) as they claim about Obama now.
Further contra the critics there is no serious opposition to Sanders' ideology within the Dem party, there is only disagreement about how open to be in their tactics: race to the finish line vs incrementalism. Opposition to Sanders will come from ambition but that doesn't necessarily create opposition to his ideology, in fact it's more likely to result in attacks from his left as he experienced on guns and immigration.
@Bay Area Guy:
I don't want our country to become like Venezuela or Sweden, ergo, I don't want Bernie (or his socialist bros) to get anywhere near the levers of power.
Fair enough. I don't want that either. Even if it were possible. Unfortunately, mass immigration is already inexorably changing the country. Non-white births already outpace white births, and K-12 is majority non-white.
it's not a far stretch that Bernie's energy department could end all fracking, close all refineries and demand that all electricity be produced by windmills and solar panels, effectively turning the country into the Soviet-style Republic that you seem so sure he can't.
I agree that Bernie and the Democrats could outlaw fracking. I believe they could use police force to shut the industry down. But it wouldn't last very long. Forget how Republicans and conservatives would react...what do you think happens in the cities when air conditioning no longer works, the lights go out a couple of times a week and electricity bills triple? How many cities would burn before a Democrat filed impeachment papers?
@ J Farmer 2/12/20, 3:35 PM
You mean if Sanders became president, a Republican-controlled Senate would just roll over and pass whatever laws he wanted?
You mean that your argument for Bernie is that we should vote for him because his policies will not actually be instituted? Why not just vote for the guy who won't even TRY to vote in the policies.
Often when a new president is elected there is the coattail effect. The house is already D and the Senate is barely R. A few flips there and it is a one-party government. I think we got Obamacare last time that happened. Worked out well for everyone. Can't even rely on the courts to understand that a fee is a fee and not a tax.
The problem with government programs is that once started they are amazingly hard to stop. Too much institutional investment. "We can't cut program X because think of all the babies that would starve and what about all the government employees that would lose their jobs?" So, yeah, dragging our feet on every government takeover is our best course of action, not relying on the chance that the house would be divided.
Regarding Venezuela, that is a stand-in for socialist countries. You set your underpants gnome scenario using that country, but that was not the only one referenced prior. It was just the one I snarked at in my reply. So to say we would not be Venezuela is sort of a strawman approach. In that specific case, we are limited by our system so as to not quite collapse so epically, but the theory is still sound in that the more the government takes over a part of the economy, the fewer choices and the lower the quality becomes. The value of the product and level of service is now based, not on needs of the consumer but on the opinions of the politicians and bureaucrats who have little skin in the game except being elected, and that election may depend more on the rent seekers than the consumer. Second, When the government gets into the defined benefit game, it is subject to the problem of revenue flow. In poor economic times, it is constrained by the fact that it has no revenue generating capability and thus the needs of the increasing poor had to be paid for by the decreasing productive people because the government is unable to reduce benefits. It is the political third rail. A politician cannot advocate cuts without risking his own future so the can is kicked down the road. Additionally, when there IS a surplus, that is either spent on pet projects or is used to increase benefits as the receivers demand greater benefits and politicians give them as a way to curry votes. You see that now in the impending medicare and SS crisis. It is also apparent in the underfunded pension plans throughout the country. And you want to make MORE of those systems.
end part 1
Begin part 2
The problems are endemic to the system. 1. There is an inherent bend toward buying votes with benefits. 2. there is an inherent inability to cut back on benefits when needed due to political suicide. 3. Government has no money of its own so it has to take from producers to give to non-producers, and when the balance shifts too far it becomes unsustainable. It is an absolute law of economics like gravity is to physics. Sure, jumping off a cliff might be exhilarating at first, and for the whole time you are falling you are actually not experiencing any pain or problems. But eventually you will reach bottom, and there is no avoiding that.
And Venezuela IS a cautionary tale. Even now it is a very resource rich nation, and was a very wealthy nation once upon a time, but the promises made could not be maintained. The failure was two-fold. Over extension of promises that did not allow for rainyday funds and downturns, and the takeover of the oil industry that prevented it from being flexible enough to adjust to the market. Maybe an additional factor is the prevention of other forms of economic growth using other great natural resources and abilities to offset downturns in one area. And before you say That is not going to happen here,just remember Social Security IS happening now. Slave half our economy to the same system (health care, college, housing, food, etc.) and then it won't be a minor problem, it will be a crushing problem.
End
@Rick:
I'm actually prone to agree with a lot of what you wrote there, but let me put a few other things on the table:
1) How does the preferences of voters figure into your calculation?
2) What can actually be done about it?
3) Given your description, what real difference does this or any future election really make?
4) How does the fact that within 30 years the country will be majority minority affect this?
There is so much that matters only as articles of faith.
Consider Trumps (quite modest) regulatory reforms. Granted there has been relatively little complaining on this score, because it is hard to get worked up about what few understand, and the MSM Wurlitzer, because of its unprecedented intensity, needs to be fed with simpler ammunition.
The other bit that nobody gets into is that there has long been an academic consensus (Cass Sunstein was appointed by Obama for this reason) that the US regulatory regime is bloated, textually-legalistically obsessed (not based on results), to the point of madness. And yet real reform was impossible within the political system, partly because the whole little-understood thing was a symbolic battlefield.
The reason why Cass Sunstein was appointed was that he had, it was thought, a rhetorical formula to make the ideologically odious medicine go down, not because he was unique as a "reformer". But Sunstein could not sell his medicine.
Gahrie said...
I agree that Bernie and the Democrats could outlaw fracking. I believe they could use police force to shut the industry down. But it wouldn't last very long. Forget how Republicans and conservatives would react...what do you think happens in the cities when air conditioning no longer works, the lights go out a couple of times a week and electricity bills triple? How many cities would burn before a Democrat filed impeachment papers?
You mean like California during fire season?
You mean if Sanders became president, a Republican-controlled Senate would just roll over and pass whatever laws he wanted?
Assuming the Republicans actually held onto the Senate at all, yes, in a world where Bernie Sanders becomes President, I believe he would basically get most of what he wanted. I think there would be some pushback, sure, but not a majority. I think there's just enough soft (R) Senators who would cave. Bernie would have the media and Hollywood with him. He would get his Medicare for All. He may even get his wealth taxes.
I say this because I think for Bernie to even win there would have to be a great desire for radical change that would permiate everywhere. There would have to be a great anger and unhappieness with the status quo.
To be clear, I don't believe that level of anger and unhappieness exist in this country at the moment, so I don't believe we'll see a President Bernie (thankfully).
Farmer
Part of the problem is that Sweden is not socialist. Denmark is not socialist. They are capitalist countries with a generous welfare state. Venezuela is actually socialist. Sweden is irrelevant to the discussion whether America should become socialist.
A good example of a bad policy is one I mentioned, nationalizing all power generation. That is like nationalizing all oil, which did not go well for Venezuela.
@Farmer,
Unfortunately, mass immigration is already inexorably changing the country. Non-white births already outpace white births, and K-12 is majority non-white.
Right. You think Trump is soft on immigration, and that the country is already doomed.
And, that is where you err (in my opinion).
I think Trump has been outstanding on immigration, and the country is not doomed. Many LEGAL immigrants assimilate just fine. I oppose, first and foremost, the hordes of ILLEGAL immigrants, because I think "cheap labor" is generally not so hot for our country.
Not sure if it has been covered in the 361 comments so far, but:
JAC said, "There’s something larger at stake, which is the need to send a message to the world and to history: “Whoops, we screwed up in 2016."
In other words, "the world and history" have a claim on us: in fact, they have priority over 60M+ fellow citizens, who simply screwed up.
Just goes to show, even for nice liberals like JAC, who prefer the imagined enlightenment of "the world" and "history" over the benighted, backward nation they actually live in, progressivism comes down to contempt and condescension: f*** the deplorables.
@Wa St Blogger:
You mean that your argument for Bernie is that we should vote for him because his policies will not actually be instituted? Why not just vote for the guy who won't even TRY to vote in the policies.
I have made no argument that anyone should vote for Bernie. And I've already said that. barring something catastrophic on his part, I plan to vote for Trump. My point is that even if Bernie were to become president, I don't think the results would be cataclysmic. I think a lot of the opposition is histrionic. I thought the same things about Trump, Obama, and Bush, even though I was never a real supporter of the latter two.
And you want to make MORE of those systems.
No, I am actually quite ambivalent on the welfare state. I support it in some capacity and don't have any ideological or doctrinaire opposition to it. But I'm also much less enthusiastic about its potential to help people than people on the left. If this were a majority Anglo-Protestant nation, I'd probably be more supportive, but given that we now live in a multi-racial polyglot, I know the benefits will not be evenly distributed among the population.
And Venezuela IS a cautionary tale. Even now it is a very resource rich nation, and was a very wealthy nation once upon a time, but the promises made could not be maintained
Venezuela was also an extremely unequal society, with most of its wealth concentrated in small hands. But there is also a demographic problem in Venezuela that you did not mention It is unlikely that its indigenous American population will ever reach parity with its European population.
Remember, my motto is "America is doomed," so I don't really need much convincing that we have dark days ahead of us.
France nationalized electric generation, and 40-50 years ago put in a mostly-nuclear system that finally got around the old French strategic problem of lacking coal.
Solved, logically. And pollution problems solved as well long before anyone cared to make a big deal of them.
It worked for France, then.
@Bay Area Guy:
I think Trump has been outstanding on immigration, and the country is not doomed
Trump: “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”
That's insane.
Read Trump’s Blind Spot on Immigration at the pro-Trump site American Greatness. Trump's DHS has increased the cap on H2B visas in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The administration has also expressed some support for increasing visas for foreign high-tech workers. That's a cheap labor racket.
Many LEGAL immigrants assimilate just fine.
See regression to the mean. Also, the amount of foreign-born citizens is the highest its been in over a century. Also, the 1965 immigration law drastically changed how immigration into the US works. So comparing the assimilation of, say, Italian and Irish people is not the same as comparing the assimilation of Latinos and Africans and Asians.
Trump needs to win and win big in order to send a message that normal people are sick and tired of the disgusting attacks on Trump, his family, his friends and everyone who voted for him.
The latest bs surrounding Roger Stone is a good example.
Farmer has endless patience. I don't think your Trumpian comrades are ever going to lose their chicken little model of the Bernie Sanders universe
Moon, if you repeatedly have to keep telling yourself and others that you are normal it's a sign that you're definitely not.
J Farmer
No, I am actually quite ambivalent on the welfare state.
I had that impression of you from your past comments, but sometimes it is hard to keep track of a person's ideology with all the other things crowding my brain. So I addressed your arguments and thought maybe I had gotten you confused with someone else who was less progressive. You wrote that you would vote for Trump and other comments, while I was composing my opus. I'll refrain from the "so you want more..." language.
I do challenge your contention that race is a key factor in socialism. The Ds certainly try to lure immigrants and minorities into the fold, but I am hopeful Trump will actually break that cycle because I don't think immigrants and minorities are inherently socialistic.
There is so much that matters only as articles of faith. Consider Trumps ...
The main benefit from Trump is not making things worse - any positive outcome is largely beside the point. Dems compete with each other to see how much money they can give away. Obama was considered a watershed because his "stimulus" package was 4 times the previous efforts (never let a crisis go to waste). Now every Dem candidate is competing to offer something new for "free". Every program is a another chunk out of the free economy into government control. Every such occurrence is more evidence to every American that it's better to work for government telling people how to live than it is to help increase production. After all that production stuff is hard. Why be the only sucker who works when everyone you support lives better than you anyway?
And ultimately this how socialists think about the issue, listen especially to complaints from the college educated. They want minimum wage high enough to support a household with other necessities guaranteed. Do you know how hard it is for even minimally competent people to only make minimum wage? In most places even kids move off it after 3 months. But a high minimum wage means they can be quasi-employed (say, as teaching adjuncts, or part time NGO administrators) and remain immersed in the high-status college lifestyle forever. They want don't want to have to work largely because they know they have no skills or abilities despite spending 4 years 'learning'. But they love school and if they can keep the gravy train running they never have to leave. In their mind socialism is about making life easy and worry free so they don't need to be productive.
“ I picked the fourth option. Apparently not many of us here.”
There’s me.
J Farmer
That's insane.
Maybe, maybe not. Integrating cultures is harder the further their core experiences are from each other, so there are limits to how fast you want to shock the system with different cultures. There needs to be time to come to a new normal before adding more into the mix. Too much at once and we end up with culture clashes. And in our environment, with one major party wanting to accentuate differences it is a concern. People get along better when they share cultural identities, not when they don't. D ideology about cultural appropriation is hogwash. People are ALWAYS more comfortable around similar people because that means you are not always walking on eggshells wondering who you might offend unknowingly. But then most D ideas are stupid. Look fine on paper but don't pass the reality test.
@Wa St Blogger:
I had that impression of you from your past comments, but sometimes it is hard to keep track of a person's ideology with all the other things crowding my brain.
Very true, and certainly nothing I hold against you.
I do challenge your contention that race is a key factor in socialism. The Ds certainly try to lure immigrants and minorities into the fold, but I am hopeful Trump will actually break that cycle because I don't think immigrants and minorities are inherently socialistic.
My point in bringing up race is to say that if you were able to wave a magic wand and import the entire structure of Denmark's government into Somalia that Somalians would start acting like Danes. A Japanese welfare state will function very differently than a Nigerian one.
I don't think immigrants and minorities are inherently socialistic.
It's not inherent but there are links. Due to both slavery and Jim Crow black Americans are uniquely susceptible to arguments they are owed by the government. Both groups are disproportionately poor and less educated. Even those who understand the long term implications are more likely than wealthier groups to value cash-now greater than the long-term.
What a "weird" outcome of your poll. Now have the guts to to take a poll of Trump vs all the other Democrat candidates.
@Wa St Blogger:
People get along better when they share cultural identities, not when they don't. D ideology about cultural appropriation is hogwash. People are ALWAYS more comfortable around similar people because that means you are not always walking on eggshells wondering who you might offend unknowingly.
As an ethno-nationalist, that's pretty much the cornerstone of my worldview.
Too much at once and we end up with culture clashes.
Precisely. We're seeing that now. Look at all the ethnic bean counting we're doing regarding corporate boards, professorships in the hard sciences, Academy Award and Grammy nominations, prison population, arrests, etc. etc. etc. Where do you think these trends will go as we become even more ethnically mixed with each passing year?
"A Japanese welfare state will function very differently than a Nigerian one.
"
Indeed. For there would only be industrious ethnic Japanese as providers and recipients. You or I can live in Japan our whole lives but will not be Japanese. A Japanese can live in the US for a month and be an Americanl
Both groups are disproportionately poor and less educated.
And less intelligent.
>>The strawman is claiming Sanders wants the government to control the entire economy and he will put citizens in gulags if elected...but ymmv.
Not straw, but rather actual Bernie quote:
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."
He thinks there are too many "choices" in the market. It's not a great leap to suggest he thinks somebody needs to limit choices, and that somebody would be a government entity.
If you are controlling how many brands of small stuff like shoes and deodorants there are in the market, I'd say that suggests total government control of the economy.
I agree the gulag bit is hype. I hope, as I would be a charter member of the nearest gulag.
Sebastian said...
Not sure if it has been covered in the 361 comments so far, but:
JAC said, "There’s something larger at stake, which is the need to send a message to the world and to history: “Whoops, we screwed up in 2016."
In other words, "the world and history" have a claim on us: in fact, they have priority over 60M+ fellow citizens, who simply screwed up.
Just goes to show, even for nice liberals like JAC, who prefer the imagined enlightenment of "the world" and "history" over the benighted, backward nation they actually live in, progressivism comes down to contempt and condescension: f*** the deplorables.
Reposted for emphasis.
J. Farmer said: "My point in bringing up race is to say that if you were able to wave a magic wand and import the entire structure of Denmark's government into Somalia that Somalians would start acting like Danes."
Really? Do you really think that? Where do you think the "entire structure of Denmark's government" came from? Was it not from the Danes?
There were people in Somalia before there were people in Denmark. Somalia still hasn't figured it out. Are there any signs that they ever will? (Rhetorical question.)
If you really think it's as simple as that, that is a very revealing thing about your thinking: That social arrangements determine human propensities, rather than the other way around.
It is oddly consistent with your playing the devil's advocate on behalf of Comrade Sanders, above. The belief that human nature ("consciousness", in Marx' terms) is determined by the social environment is, I would argue, the key misunderstanding behind Marxist/Socialist utopianism, and all the evil that followed from it.
Tell me if I'm wrong, and try to do so if you can without assigning me a homework assignment for you to grade. Just show me the part that I missed.
Phip: Someone made a mistake, possibly Farmer. I'm sure Farmer's point is actually: Somalians would not start acting like Danes. He actually agrees with all of your points.
A good example of a bad policy is one I mentioned, nationalizing all power generation. That is like nationalizing all oil, which did not go well for Venezuela.—
Or enshrining it in your constitution like Mexico.
JAC said, "There’s something larger at stake, which is the need to send a message to the world and to history: “Whoops, we screwed up in 2016."
I remember when Adlai Stevenson lost the election to Eisenhower, I was upset. I thought, "If the world could vote in our election. it would vote for Stevenson." I was 18 and that is an 18 year old sentiment. By 1960, I voted for Nixon. I had taken an Economics course.
Somebody needs to take an economics class but I'm not sure there are any more not taught by Marxists.
Via Rantburg: Washington Examiner] House Democrats are backing legislation that would gut abortion restrictions just over one week after President Trump called on Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban.
If the bill Democrats will review in a hearing Wednesday, the Women's Health Protection Act, were to become law, then no states would be able to pass bans based on gestational stage such as the one Trump is calling for. The bill isn't likely to get traction in the Republican-controlled Senate but is meant to draw attention to red-state laws regulating abortion.
Seeing Red said...
The real dirty little secret that gets out every now and then is that our government is actually spending approximately $50-$55,000 I think per family on the poor. I believe that’s near the median income of the United States but I haven’t checked it lately. So where is the money going?
Hunter Biden has multiple vehicles worth over 100k and multiple houses he lives in worth over 1 mill.
7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country border the DC.
66% of the federal budget is a check to an individual.
Howard said...
Moon, if you repeatedly have to keep telling yourself and others that you are normal it's a sign that you're definitely not.
I am not normal. Never have been. Was given nickname of FullMoon by an Indian in Humbolt County as a child because of relationship of full moon to erratic behavior.
I am an eccentric, used to be a crazy. I can act normal when situation demands but generally not for extended periods of time..
I acknowledge and embrace my insanity..
Post a Comment