2018 Democrats thread

[Reddy]

 

who gives a crap if he's ~authentic~ I voted for him in 2016 because he had demonstrably better policies than Clinton's garbage centrism

THIS is what relitigating the past looks like.

[GoSox05]

I wish he would just officially be in the Democratic party, so I don't have to read another poorly written 1000 word piece about it. 

Although The Hill and Politico would have to lay off half of their staff. 

[Reddy]

 

I wish he would just officially be in the Democratic party, so I don't have to read another poorly written 1000 word piece about it. 

Although The Hill and Politico would have to lay off half of their staff. 

Brother so do I. So does EVERYONE. But his ego is too big for that.

[Dam8610]

19 minutes ago, Reddy said:

And you're saying you're fine with those tactics as long as they support your guy - is that it?

I'm saying turnabout is fair play, you know, like you tried here. Care to answer the original questions?

[Reddy]

 

I'm saying turnabout is fair play, you know, like you tried here. Care to answer the original questions?

Fascinating. So my holding Bernie accountable for the things he's said and the things his supporters say about him being a populist, a man of the people, someone who thinks everyone's voice should be heard without interference from above is hypocrisy, but you having no problem with his democracy-stifling tactics is cool?

It's hypocritical of me to call out Bernie's hypocrisy, while it's not hypocritical for you to defend it? Is that about the gist of this argument?

Lord. At least now I know you don't actually stand for those principles - you simply stand for the man, no matter what he does, says, or tactics he employs.

[GoSox05]

I like how you have taken this to Bernie Sanders hates democracy.  He is just like Stalin or something.

Anyone can run against Sanders in the primary and in the general election.  If they think they can beat him in a election than run for office.

[Reddy]

 

I like how you have taken this to Bernie Sanders hates democracy.  He is just like Stalin or something.

Anyone can run against Sanders in the primary and in the general election.  If they think they can beat him in a election than run for office.

The rationalization on display here is intentionally disingenuous and exhausting. Bernie Sanders could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose supporters.

[StrangeSox]

seem to weirdly be ignoring a guy who both voted for him in 2016 and thinks this is a dumb stunt over here!

 

what would Sanders running in the D primary and then actually accepting the nomination and running as a D really change as far as concerns about democracy go? is there any doubt he'll win the D primary in a landslide, caucus with the D's and vote heavily in favor of progressive policies and for Dem leadership in the Senate?

[GoSox05]

5 minutes ago, Reddy said:

The rationalization on display here is intentionally disingenuous and exhausting. Bernie Sanders could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose supporters.

You seem so determined to compare Sanders to Trump every chance you get. 

Funny, I don't see you mention anything when Chuck Schumer actually praises Trump.

[Brian]

With all this Democratic Soxtalk infighting, Dems will never win in November!!!

[Dam8610]

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Fascinating. So my holding Bernie accountable for the things he's said and the things his supporters say about him being a populist, a man of the people, someone who thinks everyone's voice should be heard without interference from above is hypocrisy, but you having no problem with his democracy-stifling tactics is cool?

It's hypocritical of me to call out Bernie's hypocrisy, while it's not hypocritical for you to defend it? Is that about the gist of this argument?

Lord. At least now I know you don't actually stand for those principles - you simply stand for the man, no matter what he does, says, or tactics he employs.

A politician's answer if I ever saw one. Avoid the actual question, stick to talking points, stay on the attack.

Yes, it is hypocritical for you to call out Bernie for doing the same thing you supported the DNC doing to him. 

What's funny is you are attributing support for his actions to me when I haven't even given a stance on the topic. I will as soon as you are willing to answer my questions. Refresher course:

1) What's more important to you, the Senate majority or screwing Bernie Sanders over?

2) Why do you think it was okay for the DNC to do everything they could to get rid of Bernie as an opponent to their chosen candidate, but it's not okay for Bernie to do everything he can to ensure he keeps his Senate seat and continues to caucus with the Democrats?

This has nothing to do with me or my view on the topic. All I've talked about to this point is the hypocrisy in your stance on this topic.

[Reddy]

 

With all this Democratic Soxtalk infighting, Dems will never win in November!!!

True.

[Reddy]

 

You seem so determined to compare Sanders to Trump every chance you get. 

Funny, I don't see you mention anything when Chuck Schumer actually praises Trump.

I fucking hate that Schumer supports the embassy's move to Jerusalem. Had anyone mentioned it in here I would've said so. 

[Soxbadger]

These arguments really seem to be pointless. If Bernie supporters cant understand why the DNC isnt gung ho about a guy who refuses to commit to their party, there is no amount of words that will change their mind. Its really no different than anything else that involves membership. Lets say there is a Club and the Club is picking a President. Do you think the club will want the President to be a member or someone who only shows up when its convenient for them? Do you think the Club is going to try and persuade other members to support the guy who is a member? These arent really hard questions.

Bernie may have the greatest policies, he may be the best person in the world, but none of that really matters when it comes to the DNC. The DNC has to protect their members, because otherwise what is the point of the DNC. 

[Dam8610]

51 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

These arguments really seem to be pointless. If Bernie supporters cant understand why the DNC isnt gung ho about a guy who refuses to commit to their party, there is no amount of words that will change their mind. Its really no different than anything else that involves membership. Lets say there is a Club and the Club is picking a President. Do you think the club will want the President to be a member or someone who only shows up when its convenient for them? Do you think the Club is going to try and persuade other members to support the guy who is a member? These arent really hard questions.

Bernie may have the greatest policies, he may be the best person in the world, but none of that really matters when it comes to the DNC. The DNC has to protect their members, because otherwise what is the point of the DNC. 

I understand that even if I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with the idea of party over policy or country.

I also understand that it's hypocritical for any Democrat to claim that it's unfair for Bernie to do in the Vermont Senate race the exact same thing the DNC did to him in the presidential race.

[GoSox05]

Democrats Want To Boost School Funding To Address Teacher Walkouts

Lot's of ripping on Dems, but this is a good plan that they should talk about all the time.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Dam8610 said:

I understand that even if I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with the idea of party over policy or country.

I also understand that it's hypocritical for any Democrat to claim that it's unfair for Bernie to do in the Vermont Senate race the exact same thing the DNC did to him in the presidential race.

As to the first part, its just the system we have play in. When the party loses, the policy loses. 

As for the second part, I cant speak for anyone else. But you generally dont become a Senator or high ranking politician if you dont use every advantage you can. In VT it seems that both sides agreed it was mutually beneficial. Which goes back to the party over policy. Why Sanders isnt a Democrat, who knows. But its not hard to understand why VT Dem party would agree to this. If Bernie was not going to run as a Dem under any circumstances, then a potential outcome of having a Democrat running against Bernie, would be that they split votes and a Republican wins.

[Reddy]

 

Democrats Want To Boost School Funding To Address Teacher Walkouts

Lot's of ripping on Dems, but this is a good plan that they should talk about all the time.

This is something they talk about all the time. Along with all the other Better Deal policies you'd most certainly support.

[Jack Parkman]

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

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[southsider2k5]

16 minutes 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

 

#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. 

[Jack Parkman]

23 minutes 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. 

There is a difference between national government and other forms of slavery. In a supposed democracy, the people theoretically choose(in the US through their congresspeople) to have themselves be taxed. Majority rules in that context. That is a voluntary payment, where the other forms are involuntary. Because of how society works, you don't choose how to divy up your labor really. You are owned by your employer. You can be discarded at any moment, unable to provide for yourself and your family. That is modern day slavery. There is only an illusion of choice. you don't really choose where you give your labor. Companies choose you. Your only choice is to work for those that will abuse you the least. 

Who gets to set the price in USD on goods and services? Supply and demand? I argue not. If you think that it actually costs $600 to make a $800 cell phone I have some news for you. Everything is overpriced everywhere. Should you be allowed to make money? Sure. I disagree with gouging prices to  charge 800 dollars for a phone that probably cost $150 to make. $250 would be a reasonable price for that product.  More of the risk should always be with the investors and the people receiving profit than with the consumers. You shouldn't be allowed to pass on expenses to the consumer. If you can't stay profitable? that is your problem. I just think the entire economy is  a house of cards on the brink of collapse. They are squeezing the majority to extract the most profit out of everything. That is unsustainable. It is not a zero sum game. You can make the pie bigger for everyone. Wnen decent paying jobs are disappearing and only crappy ones exist in which one can't provide themselves their own basic needs, then everyone loses. Eventually it will all come crashing down, even for the aristocracy, because they won't have anyone to buy their goods and services anymore. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

There is a difference between national government and other forms of slavery. In a supposed democracy, the people theoretically choose(in the US through their congresspeople) to have themselves be taxed. Majority rules in that context. That is a voluntary payment, where the other forms are involuntary. Because of how society works, you don't choose how to divy up your labor really. You are owned by your employer. You can be discarded at any moment, unable to provide for yourself and your family. That is modern day slavery. There is only an illusion of choice. you don't really choose where you give your labor. Companies choose you. Your only choice is to work for those that will abuse you the least. 

Who gets to set the price in USD on goods and services? Supply and demand? I argue not. If you think that it actually costs $600 to make a $800 cell phone I have some news for you. Everything is overpriced everywhere. Should you be allowed to make money? Sure. I disagree with gouging prices to  charge 800 dollars for a phone that probably cost $150 to make. $250 would be a reasonable price for that product.  More of the risk should always be with the investors and the people receiving profit than with the consumers. You shouldn't be allowed to pass on expenses to the consumer. If you can't stay profitable? that is your problem. I just think the entire economy is  a house of cards on the brink of collapse. They are squeezing the majority to extract the most profit out of everything. That is unsustainable. It is not a zero sum game. You can make the pie bigger for everyone. Wnen decent paying jobs are disappearing and only crappy ones exist in which one can't provide themselves their own basic needs, then everyone loses. Eventually it will all come crashing down, even for the aristocracy, because they won't have anyone to buy their goods and services anymore. 

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.

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes 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.

No, that was agreed to by the people through their representatives to be the punishment for not paying taxes. Different. If you don't want to pay taxes, elect enough people to change the law. There are plenty of people that think paying taxes is a good idea, otherwise it would have been banished long ago through policy. (in theory.....the system isn't working the way it should or was intended anymore) 

Serious question: How does the government create revenue and fund itself without taxes? 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, that was agreed to by the people through their representatives to be the punishment for not paying taxes. Different. If you don't want to pay taxes, elect enough people to change the law. There are plenty of people that think paying taxes is a good idea, otherwise it would have been banished long ago through policy. 

And you can walk away from a job with no penalty at all.  Again if you are using that standard, the government is more of an enslaver.  It amazes me that you can apply such extremist propaganda to the private sector, but don't see the same and worse in our government who quite literally endorsed slavery, and routinely takes away rights from people for things like their person and property.

[Jack Parkman]

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. 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jack Parkman