2018 Democrats thread

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

#3, what exactly is taxation but owing yourself to the government, especially when the government is actively trying to enslave you into commercial activities for merely being alive such as health insurance or the "rent" they charge you for your property. 

Your government is the biggest enslave of all, by your own standards. 

Then why are the typically "happiest" societies the ones where there are much higher tax rates than the US, much stronger workers' rights, better health care (both outcomes and affordability), better education (outcomes and spending per pupil), less income inequality or wealth disparity, etc.?

The usual list of countries here like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Canada, as well as Australia and NZ.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Incorrect. You have a penalty from walking away from a job......you have no income. You can't provide your own basic needs, until you find a new one. So you become enslaved to the bank by taking out loans until you find a new job. The system is rigged. Do I think government has problems now? Of course. Government is intended to protect the public interest. It doesn't it only protects private interests now. It is not working as intended. Personally I don't think that the means of production should be in the hands of a few in the company. I think the rank and file employees should call the shots. Everyone shares in the success and failure of the company. Employees Elect upper management, similarly to how we elect representatives, senators and presidents. and if they are unhappy, they have the ability to remove them. It is called a Co-op. Look them up. We don't have those sort of rights at work. In fact we have nearly none.  Our rights consist of STFU and do what you're told. 

The private interests complain about government because it puts a check on their greed and exploitation of labor. There has to be a balance between labor and management. You want to keep things similar in structure to where they are now? Sure. Collective bargaining for everyone. Otherwise, co-ops. 

Also, personally I don't think I'm spewing extremist propaganda, but I do think you are. Having labor relations be a two way street isn't extremist. Having it be a 1-way street is. think that if everyone was able to collectively bargain, we would have no need for co-ops because it is a nice alternative. People could choose to be or not be in a union, and not pay the dues. But don't expect to receive any of the benefits of collective bargaining. 

Just because the Mafia was a thing in the past and infiltrated unions doesn't mean that every union will be that corrupt. The mob is pretty much a thing of the past and doesn't have anywhere close to the amount of power it did 30 years ago. 

 

If Ayn Rand was responding, she'd say the entrepreneurs are the risk-takers, who manage the factors of production and make sure the right mixture exists for maximum profitability.

If workers want to form their own co-ops or share in ownership, they need to take some sort of downside financial risk...in order to share in the benefits of success.

[Jack Parkman]

5 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If Ayn Rand was responding, she'd say the entrepreneurs are the risk-takers, who manage the factors of production and make sure the right mixture exists for maximum profitability.

If workers want to form their own co-ops or share in ownership, they need to take some sort of downside financial risk...in order to share in the benefits of success.

That goes without saying, and is implied. People wouldn't lay themselves off though, they'd take a pay cut to make it through a tough time. 

[StrangeSox]

Jack, you'd probably like Debt: The First Five Thousand Years

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Incorrect. You have a penalty from walking away from a job......you have no income. You can't provide your own basic needs, until you find a new one. So you become enslaved to the bank by taking out loans until you find a new job. The system is rigged. Do I think government has problems now? Of course. Government is intended to protect the public interest. It doesn't it only protects private interests now. It is not working as intended. Personally I don't think that the means of production should be in the hands of a few in the company. I think the rank and file employees should call the shots. Everyone shares in the success and failure of the company. Employees Elect upper management, similarly to how we elect representatives, senators and presidents. and if they are unhappy, they have the ability to remove them. It is called a Co-op. Look them up. We don't have those sort of rights at work. In fact we have nearly none.  Our rights consist of STFU and do what you're told. 

The private interests complain about government because it puts a check on their greed and exploitation of labor. There has to be a balance between labor and management. You want to keep things similar in structure to where they are now? Sure. Collective bargaining for everyone. Otherwise, co-ops. 

Also, personally I don't think I'm spewing extremist propaganda, but I do think you are. Having labor relations be a two way street isn't extremist. Having it be a 1-way street is. think that if everyone was able to collectively bargain, we would have no need for co-ops because it is a nice alternative. People could choose to be or not be in a union, and not pay the dues. But don't expect to receive any of the benefits of collective bargaining. 

Just because the Mafia was a thing in the past and infiltrated unions doesn't mean that every union will be that corrupt. The mob is pretty much a thing of the past and doesn't have anywhere close to the amount of power it did 30 years ago. 

 

You are enslaved to the federal government by every single measure you are using here, from cradle to grave. Every single one.

What happens if you walk away from the government? You lose your freedom. In the 21st century you could still live as a subsistence farmer and have zero contact with corporations. You cannot live without the government. They will take every single piece of property and your freedom if you refuse to interact with them.  

[Reddy]

Presented without comment.

[Dam8610]

4 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I don't know where to put this other than here. 

1. I think that too much of the US economy is and always has been, except for a 2.5 decade period in the middle of the 20th century, dependent on exploitation of labor for business profitability. I wonder, what would the US economy look like if everyone was paid fairly?

2. I think that working at least 35 hours per week and not being able to support oneself completely with money left over for recreation too is inhumane and akin to modern day slavery at worst, and indentured servitude at best, with no guarantee of freedom. Our human rights standards worldwide are way too low. 

3. One has to define what freedom actually is. In my book, you are not truly free if you owe money to another person or entity. If you "buy a house" but use a mortgage, you don't actually own the house. You are paying rent to the Bank until the Bank says you can have it. You don't own the house until the loan is satisfied. 

4 If 1-3 are true, then freedom as we think we have it, is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations. We're all slaves whether by debt or by wages.  The sooner we admit that, the better. Then we can start to solve the problem. The only people on the face of the earth who are truly free are the independently wealthy, who don't need to work but choose to. That is true freedom. 

/end rant

 

You're probably a socialist. You should read up on it, what you're saying here are many of the problems socialists have with capitalism. 

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

#3, what exactly is taxation but owing yourself to the government, especially when the government is actively trying to enslave you into commercial activities for merely being alive such as health insurance or the "rent" they charge you for your property. 

Your government is the biggest enslave of all, by your own standards. 

You didn't really just "taxation is theft", did you? I like having things like roads, property rights, enforceable contracts, emergency services, and an educated population. These are some of the many services society offers for which society must pay. Taxation is how the government collects the revenue to pay for those services. Ideally, all taxation would be progressive so that those who benefit from society the most pay the most for it.

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The difference is have no choice when it comes to government.  You obey or face the punishment.  You pay your taxes, or go to jail.  That is the very definition of involuntary that you are using to define "slavery".  There is not even an illusion of choice there.  You are quite literally paying for your very existing to the government.

As someone who deals with these matters regularly, I assure you that "pay your taxes or go to jail" is a myth. The IRS will levy your bank account and wages long before they try to put you in jail, because their goal is to get more revenue for the government, not less. Furthermore, the IRS has a debt forgiveness program for those who truly can't afford to pay the amounts they owe. 26 USC 7122, check it out sometime.

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Then why are the typically "happiest" societies the ones where there are much higher tax rates than the US, much stronger workers' rights, better health care (both outcomes and affordability), better education (outcomes and spending per pupil), less income inequality or wealth disparity, etc.?

The usual list of countries here like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Canada, as well as Australia and NZ.

Because socialism works better for the majority than capitalism. It's logical, considering capitalism's is about greed and taking everything you can, where socialism is about society and making things fair and equitable.

56 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You are enslaved to the federal government by every single measure you are using here, from cradle to grave. Every single one.

What happens if you walk away from the government? You lose your freedom. In the 21st century you could still live as a subsistence farmer and have zero contact with corporations. You cannot live without the government. They will take every single piece of property and your freedom if you refuse to interact with them.  

Wrong again. People renounce their citizenship without consequence all the time. Apparently, they did it at record rates in 2017.

40 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Presented without comment.

Ah, yes he committed the high moral crime of believing minority communities would be better served by improving economic equality than by constantly trading away their economic freedoms for farcical, pyrrhic "victories" on social issues. I believe that high moral crime is defined in Chapter 18, Subchapter M, Section 2016 of the "Reddy Code of Insufferable Democratic Insanity". Could you confirm?

[Reddy]

 

Ah, yes he committed the high moral crime of believing minority communities would be better served by improving economic equality than by constantly trading away their economic freedoms for farcical, pyrrhic "victories" on social issues. I believe that high moral crime is defined in Chapter 18, Subchapter M, Section 2016 of the "Reddy Code of Insufferable Democratic Insanity". Could you confirm?

 

Headline: White Male Progressive Has No Issue with Casual White Supremacy

[Dam8610]

5 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Headline: White Male Progressive Has No Issue with Casual White Supremacy

Headline: White Male Progressive Can't Tell the Difference Between "Less Important" and "Unimportant".

[Reddy]

 

Headline: White Male Progressive Can't Tell the Difference Between "Less Important" and "Unimportant".

Uh, a white man saying the plights of marginalized groups are less important than the bread and butter issues of "ordinary" Americans (implying latinos, gays and women aren't ordinary Americans) is pretty damn problematic when those people make up the base of the Democratic Party. The fact that YOU don't have a problem with it reeeeeally isn't the point, is it?

Is Sanders an intentional white supremacist? Of course not. But he has a serious and perpetual inability to talk about these issues in a way that doesn't marginalize these groups. That's not a way to win their support. He is implicit bias personified.

[greg775]

I'm a vocal Bernie supporter because our country blew it. a.) Healthcare companies are committing crimes every day refusing to pay for medical care. If you go in the hospital, get ready to pay 60 to 70 percent of the bill cause the companies will reject services. Bernie will stop that shit cause we'll have FREE health care.

b.) guns. Bernie will get them off the streets or annoy Republicans until he gets his way.

c.) free college education for millenials. why not make it free? The capitalist system had its chances but the mega rich blew it for regular middle class people. If we can't make a middle class living, then give me Bernie ball -- socialism Bernie style baby.

d.) social security. You just know it's going away and soon. Bernie ball will keep it intact.

[southsider2k5]

There is nothing like a white guy talking down to a white guy about how a white guy talks to minorities. 

[Soxbadger]

I think strategically you need to focus on winning the election and not whatever ideals you may bring to the table. Calling people racists, complaining about KKK, white supremacy, etc did not bring a victory in the last election. Im not sure why anyone thinks that focusing on that is somehow going to move the needle this time. 

If Democrats want to make a serious dent in Republican power, their message needs to be about how Trump failed them. How the Republicans betrayed them. We can disagree on policy, we can disagree on trickle down economy, we can disagree on TPP/NAFTA, etc, whatever. Disagreements are what made this country.

But America first, means that you dont sell your soul to protect a guy who is grifting our country. Putting your son in law at the negotiation table, having your daughter play pseudo ambassador, not divesting ownership, the list goes on. Having people in advisory roles who use the American tax payer dollar as their own vacation fund. I dont care if your Democrat, Republican or Independent, that shit needs to stop.

I dont even have to get into controversial issues, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the FBI, attacks on people.

Reddy I know you work on campaigns. If youre candidate focuses on the paragraph above, hell win. People are tired of all the bullshit, tired of the labels, each party claiming they have the moral high ground. So focus on what everyone agrees is nonsense bullshit. 

 

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I'm a vocal Bernie supporter because our country blew it. a.) Healthcare companies are committing crimes every day refusing to pay for medical care. If you go in the hospital, get ready to pay 60 to 70 percent of the bill cause the companies will reject services. Bernie will stop that shit cause we'll have FREE health care.

b.) guns. Bernie will get them off the streets or annoy Republicans until he gets his way.

c.) free college education for millenials. why not make it free? The capitalist system had its chances but the mega rich blew it for regular middle class people. If we can't make a middle class living, then give me Bernie ball -- socialism Bernie style baby.

d.) social security. You just know it's going away and soon. Bernie ball will keep it intact.

I honestly believe that there are people out there like Greg, who really would be Democrats, but they get worried that if you give Democrats control they are going to go insane on social issues. At some point people need to realize social progress takes a long time and you cant fix it overnight.  Its my belief that the country is becoming more socially progressive every day, but you cant just expect people to accept huge societal social change over night.

3 elections ago we had the first black president. The first woman to run for President came damn close to winning it. There are still people alive who were born before Born vs the Board of Education. 

[Reddy]

 

I think strategically you need to focus on winning the election and not whatever ideals you may bring to the table. Calling people racists, complaining about KKK, white supremacy, etc did not bring a victory in the last election. Im not sure why anyone thinks that focusing on that is somehow going to move the needle this time. 

If Democrats want to make a serious dent in Republican power, their message needs to be about how Trump failed them. How the Republicans betrayed them. We can disagree on policy, we can disagree on trickle down economy, we can disagree on TPP/NAFTA, etc, whatever. Disagreements are what made this country.

But America first, means that you dont sell your soul to protect a guy who is grifting our country. Putting your son in law at the negotiation table, having your daughter play pseudo ambassador, not divesting ownership, the list goes on. Having people in advisory roles who use the American tax payer dollar as their own vacation fund. I dont care if your Democrat, Republican or Independent, that shit needs to stop.

I dont even have to get into controversial issues, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the FBI, attacks on people.

Reddy I know you work on campaigns. If youre candidate focuses on the paragraph above, hell win. People are tired of all the bullshit, tired of the labels, each party claiming they have the moral high ground. So focus on what everyone agrees is nonsense bullshit. 

 

First of all, my candidate is a she. 

Second of all, I don't think any of the things I'm saying in this thread regarding Sanders are good campaign material in a general election. But the things I'm talking about here resonate with the majority of Democratic voters - specifically the base that has a very big problem with the way Bernie talks about minorities, women and LGBT people. For this reason, his potential candidacy is a huge liability.

On the ground, personally, what I talk about is healthcare, jobs, the economy, tax reform, education, sometimes gun control, and jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. Those are the only things that matter in most parts of the country. What I talk about here and how I campaign are two very different things.

[caulfield12]

The problem is that local races in Iowa are going to be more nuanced than that....Obama won Iowa, he wouldn't be president (arguably) if he didn't win the Iowa caucuses in 2008, but Trump somehow won Iowa by almost 10%.

In that election, you have to convince farmers and rural voters that trade policy fights with China (sorghum/soybeans/pork) are actually HURTING Iowa farmers rather than helping them.

Second, health care/health care/health care.

Third, all OR most of the benefits of the GOP tax cuts are being eaten up by rising health care costs and higher gasoline costs (caused by Trump constantly injecting uncertainty into world market and his Iran/Russia policies).

Fourth, protecting Social Security and Medicare from the Paul Ryans of the world.

Fifth, investments in infrastructure, education/vo-tech/job training and retraining.

Sixth, the immigration issue has to be spun in a way of how those immigrants are taking jobs working in processing plants that ALMOST no local/native-born Iowa workers would ever want to do, slaughterhouses, etc.

[Reddy]

 

I honestly believe that there are people out there like Greg, who really would be Democrats, but they get worried that if you give Democrats control they are going to go insane on social issues. At some point people need to realize social progress takes a long time and you cant fix it overnight.  Its my belief that the country is becoming more socially progressive every day, but you cant just expect people to accept huge societal social change over night.

3 elections ago we had the first black president. The first woman to run for President came damn close to winning it. There are still people alive who were born before Born vs the Board of Education. 

I agree with you, but that's a really hard pill to swallow for people like African Americans who are continually harassed and abused and killed by our police. My friend just had a run-in with police last week where they made up fake reasons to search his car and harass him. He got it on video, it's had tens of thousands of views, that same story. I can't imagine the mental anguish and strain and fear that comes with being black in America. To tell them to just "wait it out" is - again - an incredibly privileged perspective.

The problem with talking about these things on this board is that the membership here is 98% white male, so the perspectives are often pretty skewed in that direction and are not indicative of our country - and specifically the Democratic coalition - at all.

[Reddy]

 

The problem is that local races in Iowa are going to be more nuanced than that....Obama won Iowa, he wouldn't be president (arguably) if he didn't win the Iowa caucuses in 2008, but Trump somehow won Iowa by almost 10%.

In that election, you have to convince farmers and rural voters that trade policy fights with China (sorghum/soybeans/pork) are actually HURTING Iowa farmers rather than helping them.

Second, health care/health care/health care.

Third, all OR most of the benefits of the GOP tax cuts are being eaten up by rising health care costs and higher gasoline costs (caused by Trump constantly injecting uncertainty into world market and his Iran/Russia policies).

Fourth, protecting Social Security and Medicare from the Paul Ryans of the world.

Fifth, investments in infrastructure, education/vo-tech/job training and retraining.

Sixth, the immigration issue has to be spun in a way of how those immigrants are taking jobs working in processing plants that ALMOST no local/native-born Iowa workers would ever want to do, slaughterhouses, etc.

This is all accurate.

[caulfield12]

12 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I honestly believe that there are people out there like Greg, who really would be Democrats, but they get worried that if you give Democrats control they are going to go insane on social issues. At some point people need to realize social progress takes a long time and you cant fix it overnight.  Its my belief that the country is becoming more socially progressive every day, but you cant just expect people to accept huge societal social change over night.

3 elections ago we had the first black president. The first woman to run for President came damn close to winning it. There are still people alive who were born before Born vs the Board of Education. 

25% of the country is pulling HARD to the right because they feel threatened...by immigrants, by China, by declining self-esteem or self-importance in the face of women and minorities taking their places in the last 20-30 years, well, even going back to beginning of the Reagan years.

40% of the country (especially college-educated white females and educated immigrants) are pulling hard to the left.

Then you've got 35% in the middle...who are being appealed to by both sides.  Lots of gun owners, lots of people whose insurance costs have skyrocketed (the ACA "Trap"), lots of people turned off by political correctness/constant discussions of racism or bigotry or prejudice in the MSM, lots of people with religious beliefs that aren't as strong as their parents or grandparents but also firm believers in the idea of hard work, a merit-based society and the fact that the government WASTES lots of money and incentivizes people NOT to WORK or even to become illegal immigrants so they can be subsidized by our health care system when they have "anchor babies."  They're all about what is fair/just/right.  30-40% of the things that Trump says (not what he actually does) resonate with them and are even refreshing from THEIR perspective.  This sense of  "genuine authenticity" was the opposite of what they felt they got back in return from career politicians like the Clintons.

Edited May 23, 2018 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

 

There is nothing like a white guy talking down to a white guy about how a white guy talks to minorities. 

I agree. It's always a great thing to see for those of us who want social progress in America. I love when I see my straight white male friends calling out other SWM on their bullshit.

[Soxbadger]

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

First of all, my candidate is a she. 

Second of all, I don't think any of the things I'm saying in this thread regarding Sanders are good campaign material in a general election. But the things I'm talking about here resonate with the majority of Democratic voters - specifically the base that has a very big problem with the way Bernie talks about minorities, women and LGBT people. For this reason, his potential candidacy is a huge liability.

On the ground, personally, what I talk about is healthcare, jobs, the economy, tax reform, education, sometimes gun control, and jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. Those are the only things that matter in most parts of the country. What I talk about here and how I campaign are two very different things.

 

It doesnt matter to me what gender your candidate is. 

And I guess the difference between you and I, is that whatever happened in the last election is the past. If Sanders won the Democratic nomination, Id support him and I would hope that others who may not believe he is their "best" champion, would understand that he is a far "better" champion than the other side. The next Presidential election is going to come down to a few states. The candidate I feel is best able to win those states is the one Id likely go with. At certain times in history ends have to justify the means. I hope that our country can return to some bipartisan normalcy, but until that day, I will play to win.

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

I agree with you, but that's a really hard pill to swallow for people like African Americans who are continually harassed and abused and killed by our police. My friend just had a run-in with police last week where they made up fake reasons to search his car and harass him. He got it on video, it's had tens of thousands of views, that same story. I can't imagine the mental anguish and strain and fear that comes with being black in America. To tell them to just "wait it out" is - again - an incredibly privileged perspective.

The problem with talking about these things on this board is that the membership here is 98% white male, so the perspectives are often pretty skewed in that direction and are not indicative of our country - and specifically the Democratic coalition - at all.

 

Youre right I am privileged, but you would be incorrect in your belief that I cannot understand a run in with police. I have had plenty, I have been the target of fake police nonsense that resulted in something far worse than an hour bad experience. I help people who are being arrested while they are being arrested. I get emergency phone calls while the police are there, and one time I actually believed I was going to be on the phone when someone was going to be shot by the police, while I was screaming at them to calm down. Maybe thats not good enough, maybe my "privileged position" makes me incapable of determining a strategy for permanent change.

But you also have to be a realist. While I would love to imagine a day where I wake up and everyone is cool to everyone else, that just is not going to happen in my lifetime. Ive had clients ask me to "jew" down the side and other equally ignorant things. But youre right, I can never put myself in anyone elses shoes, just like they could never put themselves in mine. All I can say is, if you want any change, you need to win. And maybe it will come faster than you thought, but most of the time it will be slower. Because the reality is at this point its the future generations that I fight for. I dont want them to look back and think that some previous time was the golden ages, I want them to believe that they are living in them.

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Reddy]

All I care about is winning. That's why I don't have litmus tests. I don't believe Bernie and his movement can win, and that's playing out across the country as OR candidates lose again and again and again. They got swept tonight.

You're preaching to the choir. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said Badger, but this particular thread is a Democrat thread, thus why I talk here about intraparty issues which skew further left. I don't talk like this with moderates and Republicans. That'd be suicide.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Uh, a white man saying the plights of marginalized groups are less important than the bread and butter issues of "ordinary" Americans (implying latinos, gays and women aren't ordinary Americans) is pretty damn problematic when those people make up the base of the Democratic Party. The fact that YOU don't have a problem with it reeeeeally isn't the point, is it?

Is Sanders an intentional white supremacist? Of course not. But he has a serious and perpetual inability to talk about these issues in a way that doesn't marginalize these groups. That's not a way to win their support. He is implicit bias personified.

I'm going to start calling you the Verbiage Police. It makes as much sense as calling progressives the Purity Police. If you know he's not a racist and you know the message he's trying to deliver, why nitpick?

[Jack Parkman]

9 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

You're probably a socialist. You should read up on it, what you're saying here are many of the problems socialists have with capitalism. 

I know that already. I think a hybrid would work just fine though. For example, the Sherman antitrust law has been on the books for  around a century but hasn't been enforced since the Carter administration. This has allowed monopolists to get around it by creating what I like to call cartels. The biggest cartel in the country is the Cable/Internet/Cell Phone cartel. There is zero reason why 4-5 companies should get all of the profit from something so essential to modern day life as the internet. I could go on, but I won't. 

[Reddy]

 

I'm going to start calling you the Verbiage Police. It makes as much sense as calling progressives the Purity Police. If you know he's not a racist and you know the message he's trying to deliver, why nitpick?

Because if the way he speaks hurts our mobilization efforts with the BASE of our party, he's a fucking liability as a candidate! How is this hard to grasp?