Democratic Socialism

Posted by: jgw

Democratic Socialism - 05/26/19 06:11 PM

Several months ago we had a kindofa thing over the word "socialism" and the Democratic party. I was on the side that said that using the word 'socialism' in reference to the Democratic party was flat out stupid. The other side tended to like the term in reference to the Democratic party. The Republicans have made 'socialist" a major part of their quest for victory.

Now its time to pay the piper. The Dems stuck to their guns and the word 'socialism' as part of their description. They are paying the price. I just saw a report on a poll where the question was asked "would you vote for a socialist" - seems that only 40% of the electorate would even vaguely vote for such.

The Republicans are VERY good at picking phrases and words. The Democrats are, obviously, completely blind to the same thing. If they are actually going to win they had better start paying attention because WORDS MATTER! This is a known thing! Still, the Dems don't seem to have a clue. On political betting sites (predictit in this case), generally thought to be better at political speculation than so called experts, 2020 is seen, right now, as a tossup. A tossup!

I know, I pick on the Dems. I do it in the hope that they brighten up, come out of their shell, and join up with the WHOLE electorate. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, refused to go onto Fox news. She gave her reasons but refused. What she accomplished was to tell everybody that she was willing to speak to the Choir ONLY! Somebody like that cannot win against Trump - pure and simple.

I have no idea who is really running the Dems but, as far as I can tell, they seem basically determined to lose the election in 2020. The front runner is Joe Biden. Less than 50% of the electorate will vote for candidates over 70 years old. I like Joe but............

On the plus side I am more often wrong than right, in my speculations, and will have, absolutely no problem being wrong on this one.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/26/19 11:08 PM

I'm a mainstream Democrat and I've been saying for a very long time that calling yourself a socialist gets rid of a very large percentage of Democratic voters over 40. Of course, anybody who supports things like interstate highways and Medicare IS somewhat socialist. But for god's sake don't CALL yourself a socialist! That's like saying you are a child molester for some people.

The vast majority of Americans actually do support socialist programs when you ask them about the specific programs. I think that's the key to winning as a Democrat. Say your opponent is insane and wants to get rid of Medicare, Social Security, and so forth.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 01:50 AM

Insistence on using a badly maligned label is pure stupidity if you're in the business of selling. And make no mistake, candidacy for elected office, particularly POTUS, is both a job interview and a sales pitch.
The European fascists understood that the term "socialist" was a good thing at the time in the 1930's.

This is not the 1930's and we're not in Europe.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 02:07 AM

Early on it appeared the excitement was on the left. It faded though. Once again Conservatives tell Democrats what words they can and can not use.

And once again we bow down and play by their rules.

They can be nazis, racists, nationalists, white supremicists, adulterers, rapists, and child molesters and it's all good.

But oh good gracious don't ever use that s word....
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 02:39 AM

Quote:
don't ever use that s word

Not if you want to win the election. It sucks, but it's a fact of life.

Socialist ideas and programs are fine, as long as the majority of voters like them. In particular, I think Democrats can make a great case for single-payer just in terms of job mobility and being competitive with all the other countries that have that. No need to bring up the fact that it is the right thing to do. Just show how it saves a lot of money in the big picture. Most successful socialist programs we have actually make a lot of sense economically. Libertarian ideas like toll roads everywhere would cost a lot more than having the government do it.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 04:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Early on it appeared the excitement was on the left. It faded though. Once again Conservatives tell Democrats what words they can and can not use.

And once again we bow down and play by their rules.

They can be nazis, racists, nationalists, white supremicists, adulterers, rapists, and child molesters and it's all good.

But oh good gracious don't ever use that s word....



Hey, Chesney Communications, a studio in Orange County that gave me my very first on air TV job in 1982, did the VERY FIRST ever TV show about the MRI machine, but back then the medical industry was calling it "NMR" for "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance".

Okay? Nuclear did not mean "nuclear power", it meant that the magnetism caused the nuclei of human cells to RESONATE, thus "nuclear" magnetic resonance imaging, or NMR or NMRI.
The world's first NMR was installed at the AMC Cancer Center in Denver CO.

Within a MONTH the industry changed the name to Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI, because patients WOULD NOT CLIMB INTO a machine that they THOUGHT was "nuclear".

I hope that you understand the analogy I am making here.
I know that we had to reshoot the entire program, with Bob Chesney snorting and fuming the entire time when he wasn't on camera.

His gut told him the whole time that the original name was a sure loser with the public, and he charged AMC double for the reshoot because they insisted on sticking WITH NMR until they experienced a disastrous PR debacle and had to deal with furious no-nukers who were convinced that the cancer hospital was bombarding people with nuclear radiation.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 04:29 AM

Democrats are certainly a nutless bunch. I thought they'd go for a fresh faced guy like Beto but they want the blandest of the milquetoast bland and are jumping on a chance to run yet another out of touch old white guy.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 09:33 AM

Someone reads a poll somewhere and everyone starts reflexively cringing like it's 1955.

Just a reality check.

A self declared socialist septuagenarian with little money and no friends among the corporate media went on to nearly unseat the most well heeled and press pre-selected candidate in 2016.
He's also the front runner in the 2018 primary with more small dollar donations and, yep, some polling among the democratic candidates.

Jeremy Corbin won a stunning victory for labor during Theresa May's snap election in the U.K. after the opposition leaked the 'Labor Manifesto' to the public thru their conservative broadsheets. A very big miscalculation as it allowed people to read the contents of the manifesto with it's socialist proposals and helped the Labor party have the largest pick up of house seats since WW2. The polls and pundits were calling it for conservatives as the manifesto was being published in the run up to elections.

As I see it, it's the libs and neolibs have been primarily responsible for killing any progressive democratic movement in this country since Reagan. More than the far right, it's been these party bosses that routinely killed progressive proposals in the cradle thru the primary system. As they continue to do in this election.

Fun Fact. the ideas being promoted by DSA are very popular with voters. So why aren't they allowed to run in the primaries against an incumbent democrat?

Nawwww.... must be the negative brand recognition of those 40 and up...

Libs and neolibs. Punching left while moving right since 1972.




Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 02:41 PM

Quote:
patients WOULD NOT CLIMB INTO a machine that they THOUGHT was "nuclear".


But they let you shoot them with X-Rays all day long? Which ARE nuclear in the radioactive sense and everybody knows it....

Sorry Jeff, it's just not that great an analogy. As long as you let Republicans control the dialogue you give up more than just a word.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 06:58 PM

Well said! Its like modular reactors (SMR's) They got rid of the 'nuclear' right off the bat. Words DO matter! Some get demonized and Republicans are REALLY expert at demonization. They worked Hillary over for over 30 years and she could never bring herself to even vaguely fight back - that cost her the election. Hopefully that won't happen with the Dems in 2020 but the Republicans have geared up 'socialist' big time.

Dems just don't seem to get it or even try to get it. This is especially true of 'pure' democrats.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/27/19 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
patients WOULD NOT CLIMB INTO a machine that they THOUGHT was "nuclear".


But they let you shoot them with X-Rays all day long? Which ARE nuclear in the radioactive sense and everybody knows it....

Sorry Jeff, it's just not that great an analogy. As long as you let Republicans control the dialogue you give up more than just a word.


Nope sorry, you ask the average person on the street what they think X-rays are, and they will NOT say that they are "nuclear" and furthermore the first thing out of their mouth will be that they've been told it is safe to get "a certain number of X-rays per year" by their doctors.

Well, doctors did not educate people about the MRI machines, they just rolled them out, and when people saw them, they didn't see anything that LOOKED like an X-ray machine, they saw a claustrophobia inducing HOLE, and then they heard the WORD "nuclear".

And if X-rays were called "X-radiation imaging" you'd get the same fear based response.

Sorry but it was such a "poor analogy" that the medical industry CHANGED the name. I didn't change it, the industry did.
MR vs NMR vs MRI

Gamma and X rays are electromagnetic, and therefore indirectly ionizing radiation.

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/28/19 12:08 AM

NMR has been in use since the 1940's, in the form of spectroscopes. A small sample is placed in the strong electromagnet field and then bombarded with radio frequency magnetic waves. The electrons are excited into more energetic states (AKA "orbits" incorrectly) and when they decay back into the original state they give off a very specific wavelength. The various wavelengths tell you exactly what elements are present in the sample, and their amplitudes tell you the concentrations. I actually used one in the 80's to analyze lake bed sediments for a limnology course in college.

MRI put a person in a much bigger electromagnetic field and does the same thing. The difference is that NMR spectroscopes use a detector with non-directionality, while MRIs assemble an image from lots of those electron decay events. This was not practical until we had the processing power to turn millions of 2D images into 3D images, because the detectors can't tell how deep the decay event was, just left/right and up/down. They correlate detections from multiple detectors to come up with a depth, which is the big difference between a 3D image and a flat image like X-ray or ultrasound.

This image processing is the huge difference between NMR and modern MRI technology. Interesting bit of trivia: NMR detects all elements. MRI usually just detects Hydrogen, since we are so very much water.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 02:58 PM

Most patients don't even know what MRI stands for, nor what X-Rays are nor how they are created, we just know that the operators hide behind lead walls and we wear lead aprons during the exams...

Back in the day when "Nuclear Power" was a wonderful thing and everybody wanted to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, they changed some initials because the machine did things a little differently.

Get rid of the socialism word to appease the conservatives. Get rid of abortion to appease the conservatives. Close the borders to appease the conservatives. Keep wages low, keep women in servitude, keep wars raging, all to appease the conservatives.

Because anything else would be driving with the brakes on...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 03:10 PM

Oh...explain "radiation therapy: to me and why they didn't change the name....? And explain why universities still offer degrees in Nuclear Medicine? Aren't studeents afraid to take the courses? Shouldn't they change the name to something less frightening....

And, Jeff, aren't you one of the proponents of Nuclear power saving the planet?

It won't.

But what might save the planet is Democratic Socialism.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 10:49 PM

Mark, I agree that democratic socialism or social democracy is the way of the future. Please, don't make this out to be me scoring a hit for the Right, it isn't.
It's me noticing how advertising works, that's all.

I mean, think about it...why did the Pontiac Aztek (Walter White's car in Breaking Bad) make the list of the ugliest cars ever made and no one bought them (despite them being pretty good cars!) while the Nissan Juke is thought to be "cute" and everyone wants one?



Why is it the Microsoft Surface can outperform the iPad six ways to Sunday but everyone thinks iPads are "cool" and Microsoft "still sux"?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 10:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger


Get rid of the socialism word to appease the conservatives. Get rid of abortion to appease the conservatives. Close the borders to appease the conservatives. Keep wages low, keep women in servitude, keep wars raging, all to appease the conservatives.

Because anything else would be driving with the brakes on...



No, just change the label. We all have admitted that Hitler got people to like "National Socialism", yes? Was Hitler a socialist?
If he had called it "white supremacist authoritarian fascism" would he have been able to sell it?
I don't think so.

So all I am saying is, since people are so knee jerk reactionary about labels, invent a new one!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger

And, Jeff, aren't you one of the proponents of Nuclear power saving the planet?

It won't.





Well I never said that it would save the planet.
I have said that thorium nukes are the way of the future if we ever decide to give nuclear power a chance to help, which it would.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/30/19 11:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
No, just change the label.

I believe I pitched using "Americanism" recently. Let the Regressives try to corrupt that one!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 05/31/19 10:20 PM

That sounds quasi-patriotic. Republicans hold the rights to all things patriotic. They've got a lock on the religious angle too.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/01/19 01:23 PM

It's all about marketing...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/01/19 02:57 PM

Marketing? We can't even sell global climate change with facts, evidence, and 98% of the worlds scientists on board....

Blunt force trauma is the only way to deal with conservative ideology.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/01/19 04:32 PM

I didn't mean honest marketing - that never works. I mean good ol' fashioned right wing salesmanship!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/01/19 05:32 PM

Quote:
I mean good ol' fashioned right wing salesmanship!


You mean lying? Democrats are bad at it.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/01/19 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I mean good ol' fashioned right wing salesmanship!


You mean lying? Democrats are bad at it.


A conscience is a terrible hindrance when it comes to top flight marketing.. eek
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/04/19 01:51 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw


I just saw a report on a poll where the question was asked "would you vote for a socialist" - seems that only 40% of the electorate would even vaguely vote for such.




Wow! 40%!

What a difference a few decades can make. Imagine what the number may do when the majority of people could actually hear and learn what Democratic Socialism might mean for their lives....
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/04/19 09:15 PM

I think post-Trump, candidate promises are going to be worth a bucket of warm spit.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/06/19 05:37 PM

Its so unfortunate. The Republicans are VERY good at controlling their language and usually speak with one voice when using certain words. They have been able to, for instance, to use "socialism", "tarriff", etc. to their benefit and also the denigration of the other side. On top of that this ability also shows that they are united and everybody knows what they stand for, especially their supporter base. Then we have the Dems. What everybody seems to understand is that the Dems actually don't really have stuff that they stand for. For instance, the Dems should use, with one voice, to call "Tarriffs", "TAXES!" - This one is so simple yet, for the Dems just a bother. I heard one guy suggest that Trump should have a name, one single name that all those against Trump, can use (to display agreement as well as a descriptive to label with. He suggested "Un-indicted Donald". The fact that the word doesn't matter so much as everybody using it. I doubt, very much, that those against Trump could sit down and actually agree on the color of the sky. In other words - words matter.

When the Dems have speakers, then they should listen instead of screaming at the speaker. That kind of behavior simple sends the same old message, ie. Dems stand for NOTHING! In a war, between an organized army and a bunch of idiots which can't agree on the time of day the army wins every time. I suspect the answer might be for somebody to address the crowd and point out that they should have come to listen, if not they should leave. We now have, for instance, Universities picking and choosing speakers that appeal to the loudest segment. All in all, right now, the Dems continue to demonstrate their inability to behave, act civilized or define themselves. What they probably need is a talking to, before anybody speaks, pointing out that public demonstrations of Democratic Anarchy is not a real good face to present to the public!

The Secret is to understand that the Left/Democrats have a large tent, and should understand that their best option is to not wash their dirty laundry in public with quite so much vigor. I thought that the large group of them trying to be president, would be a good thing and everybody could present what they stand for and why. Now, however, if some small group doesn't agree they refuse to allow free speech. If they lose to the Right/Republicans, in 2020 its on them. All they will prove, in the end, is that they have all the capacity, and manners, of a spoiled 12 year old.

So, if they really are determined to give Trump a second time around, they should just keep it up...........

I know - more wishful thinking...............
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/06/19 05:48 PM

Will Rodgers said it well back before 1935: "No, I'm not a member of an organized political party—I'm a Democrat."

He also said: "Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/06/19 06:20 PM

This is, exactly, why they are likely to lose the next election. Apparently Trump is not enough reason to join arms and fix that problem. On the face of it the loud extremists are determined to not have their way in this regard and then blame it on the 'centrists'. Hell, they can't even manage to call "tarriffs" "TAX"! Their main noise seems to be anti just about everything with little meat on that bone.

Its fine to be able to disagree but the current crop just don't want to disagree they want to have a battle.

Right now its all about Pelosi and Impeachment. I too think there should be an impeachment but, lacking enough investigatory product to either convince, or shame, the Republicans, and the 2020 election about 1.5 years from now its probably too early to do that. Impeachment, without any Republican support means that Trump will remain. I suspect the wiser course is to hold back so that Impeachment is much closer to election so what the Dems have will be getting more exposure and that the Republican Senators will be forced to explain their stance to the electorate. If the Dems can hold the house, and win the senate then .............

Oh, the other leg would be to present smart candidates that can do the job of winning their elections.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/06/19 09:25 PM

I have no idea what Democrats stand for anymore. Democratic Socialists want to see higher wages, cheaper education, better jobs, guaranteed health insurance. They want to see global climate change addressed, they want environmental regulation, legal weed, immigration reform, and more taxation of wealth. Clean energy, prison reform, faster internet for rural subscribers and free beer. Sensible gun control and sensible abortion laws. They'd like to see Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all expanded and funded like they are more important than our military....because they are. We should have armies of statesmen and diplomats making deals hand over fist and making sure that war never happens again.

It's very odd how they seem to want pretty much the same sh*t as I do.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/07/19 02:01 AM

I think most Democrats are for all those things. I certainly am. I think every possible Democratic Socialist candidate like Bernie all the way to a centrist like Biden would agree. (Well, there's probably some teetotaler somewhere who is against free beer.) Their main difference seems to be who they think should lead. (Presumably themselves!) I'm sure they will come up with a Democratic Platform that will satisfy most all of your desires.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/07/19 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think most Democrats are for all those things. I certainly am.


No offense PIA, but that its simply not the case nor the democratic voting record. Some have a fiction of what they want the democratic party to be. A fiction carefully cultivated by the Party itself. The reality is far different. It's their legislative record and not their rhetoric that should be looked at closely.
The latest business black balling threats for any and all campaign shops that help any primary challenger should be setting off alarm bells for those that want to see those goals Gregor listed achieved. The party has made a choice to make itself a club now and eliminate the possibility of electing any more DSA and progressives. It is now a neoliberal club.
I wish it were not the case but the dominant layer of democratic office holders have been using the language of progress but doing very little legislation to achieve that. Avoiding any efforts that may costs capitalism any.
It's the natural outcome of trying to be a handmaid to corporate interests while keeping their coalitions together. Fovors to capitol, lofty oratory for the voters.
The newest cohort are far different. Hence the business black balling to meet that threat.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/08/19 06:51 PM

I continue to believe that the important thing is getting rid of UN-indicted Donald, everything else can probably be worked out, THAT is the current task, nothing more, nothing less. Once that is done folks can move on. 2020 is a simple binary election. I am also not against impeachment. I watched Laurence Tribe explain that even if the senate does not convict the house still has a few arrows to do. Take a look: https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy

Executive Privilege is out the window, grand jury secrecy - gone, etc. Even better, if the house gets more bad stuff it can all be listed. If the Republican senate doesn't agree then each one of them have to explain why they are supporting Trump in spite of all the house has listed.

I also notice that, while not mentioned by the Dems, the last tax "cut" favored moving offshore (I may have missed it):
https://prospect.org/article/even-cbo-says-gop-tax-reform-will-incentivize-corporate-offshoring

What I am suggesting that when the Republicans do stuff they gotta be called on it, regularly and loudly. One would think that the DNC would have terms and talking points properly labelled and read to go <sigh> The Republicans do this with consistency and it helps them. Often the American insistence that if its "not invented here" its a bad thing. The Democrats seems to have embraced this one with some vigor!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/09/19 03:17 PM

To Be Effective, Socialism Must Adapt to 21st Century Needs


Quote:
Socialism represented a powerful and viable alternative to capitalism from the mid-1800s all the way up to the third quarter of the 20th century, but entered a period of crisis soon thereafter for reasons that continue to be debated today. In your view, what are some of the main political, economic and ideological factors that help explain socialism’s setback in the contemporary era?

Vijay Prashad: The first thing to acknowledge is that “socialism” is not merely a set of ideas or a policy framework or anything like that. Socialism is a political movement, a general way of referring to a situation where the workers gain the upper hand in the class struggle and put in place institutions, policies and social networks that advantage the workers. When the political movement is weak and the workers are on the weaker side of the class struggle, it is impossible to speak confidently of “socialism.” So, we need to study carefully how and why workers — the immense majority of humanity — began to see the reservoirs of their strength get depleted. To my mind, the core issue here is globalization — a set of structural and subjective developments that weakened worker power.

Link

It's more than just a word. And there isn't a word to replace it.
It's the very core of the class struggle. Workers are getting seriously shafted worldwide right now.

Democrats, even "liberal" Democrats and "Progressives" are ashamed to admit that they are on the side of the American worker by using the definitive word that says they are.

The Democratic Party is now wholly owned and operated by the right.

There is a book whose title describes it perfectly..."The Left Hand Of Darkness"

What do you get when you eliminate the very idea of socialism from Democratic Party?

You get Joe motherf**king Biden is what you get. A namby pamby assed old fart who doesn't know if he's for or against women's rights. Or much of anything else. This year's Hillary Clinton. Only worse...Clinton would've been a good president.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/09/19 07:38 PM

Sorry, "Socialism" is well defined. You can mess with this and that but Socialism continues to mean that gov OWNS ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Not a little bit, not just workers, ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Its actually been tried several times and it has failed several times. Government is good at running some 'socially' oriented undertakings for the 'social' good. These are things that are in the interest of the nation and make sense. These are things like Police departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, Mental Health, and physical health. These are things that involve the betterment of everybody. Taking over other stuff, like breweries, clothes production, shoe production, etc. better serve the public when under private stewardship.

Stuff that falls under the social good also needs to be watched like a hawk. Government itself needs to be watched like a hawk and social endeavors even more so. We all know this. If they are not then these things start to fail. We are, right now, going through a complete overhaul of our system of police. There was a southern state, forget which one, actually decided to take Fire Departments to a libertarian extreme. If you needed fire services you signed up and payed a subscription for the fire department to come and save your house. The problem is that if you were not subscribed you had nobody to put out the fire. The additional problem is that homes near the unsubscribed fire also burned down because the first fire was ignored. It, in other words, just didn't work. We used to have functioning orphanages. I used to know folks who were raised in them and they all said it was a great solution. Their main point was that they knew where 'home' was (not an option in the current system of foster care. The problem was that gov figured out a cheaper way to store orphans and the abandoned and, now, we are treated regularly with stories of government failure. Same thing with mental health. We used to have Insane Asylums and they worked. Then gov started to chisel on upkeep, staff, wages, etc. Whenever finances are tight the first things gov does is to cut support for social undertakings. This is a simple fact.

Our own problems with government, for the most part, boils down to having an electorate that is flat out lazy. Australia, for instance, solved that one by making voting mandatory and easy. We, on the other hand live with things like; if the vote represents more than 45% of the voting electorate its a landslide and wonderful. I am told that high schools no longer teach kids much about government/civics and their responsibility to that government. There is a school district, in northern Washington state, where the schools are literally falling down. They did a survey and less than 20% of the parents of the school children actually fail even to vote in school district stuff, except to refuse to fund said system. Then they whine about how bad their system is! I am, incidentally, for mandatory voting laws. The argument that everybody has a right not to vote is just wrong. We ALL have a responsibility to vote! If you can't make up your mind, etc. fine, don't choose anything but submit your ballot (that too sends a message to them in charge). If people don't vote then gov gets to do whatever they damn well please - and they do, and we get to pay for it! A voting public that actually votes tend to mitigate government actions and that's a simple fact. So, right now, those groups that vote win the gov. Those that don't vote win nothing but grief. Those that do vote are the elderly, the rich, Trump true believers, and much of the well educated. Those that do not vote are the poor, the young, and the ignorant. there are more groups but that's it in a nutshell.

I am also for government that tells the citizens what the hell its doing. I have posted this before. For instance, if anybody thinks they understand a 70,000 page system of taxes they are deluded, if anybody claims to understand the Agriculture Department, and what it does for who, they are also deluded. This is true of a huge number of government agencies. Its time gov makes a genuine effort to educate its citizens.

I am for socially responsible actions that make sense, on the part of the government, that is in the interest of its citizens. My point (I think) is that the citizens themselves are the ones supposed to be in charge. In the United States that is simply not always true which is, I believe, one of our major problems.

Any, finally, this entire thing is an exercise in wishful thinking.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/09/19 09:49 PM

Just like I said elsewhere...your definition is bogus. Mine isn't.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/09/19 11:09 PM

Oh my! That's a rant with a bourgeois slant.

You've just got it all wrong. Entirely. Everything. And your bougy solutions are as dodgy as feck too. All we need to do is tweak things in favor of the workers just a little.

Re-distribute a bit of hoarded wealth along the way as the workers of the world unite against their oppressors...

Our Corporate Overlords.

JGW, you don't seem to have a clue what socialists are out there doing these days. You and your silly notions.

Every few months you also forget that there are mixed systems. Capitalism and socialism working hand in hand and side by side in perfect harmony. A Socio-capitalist utopia where class warfare has been abolished is the world I envision. It's such an elegant solution I'm surprised Marx didn't choose it over communism. I think he might have overshot what humanity is actually capable of.

Most of Europe is working towards this arrangement.

Even China is making moves towards sustainability and the health and welfare of their population.

Not the USA though. Feck all that, we need a bigger military.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/10/19 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
It's all about marketing...


Lots of people instinctively recoil if you ask them if they like "Obamacare" but if you present the exact same ideas but you call it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, they suddenly LOVE IT.

Lesson learned yet? Apparently not, and it needs to be.

Americans look at "labels" even if they don't quite understand them.
But, they DO LOOK, so if the label scares them, they recoil.
If you change the name of the label you can probably get away with keeping almost everything you want AND get rid of stuff you don't want, and Americans will applaud and slurp it up with great gusto.

Hence, Madison Avenue is right, fix the label problem!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/10/19 03:37 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Its so unfortunate. The Republicans are VERY good at controlling their language and usually speak with one voice when using certain words.


And they devote billions to controlling the public perception of messaging on the Left, too.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/10/19 10:54 PM

That's why I say it's time to stop kowtowing to them and reclaim our own message.

If we took Loggy's advice and named it Americanism, they would call it the new communism and Americanism would become un-American.

"They" always get to write the definitions.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/10/19 11:30 PM

And speaking of definitions...the Merriam Webster definition of socialism is bogus as f*ck.

In a socialist society there is no division between the government and the people. They are the same entity.

e pluribus unum

The government is the voice of the people.
Ours was supposed to work that way.

Unfortunately whenever fat envelopes full of cash appear it all goes out the window.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/11/19 01:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
That's why I say it's time to stop kowtowing to them and reclaim our own message.

If we took Loggy's advice and named it Americanism, they would call it the new communism and Americanism would become un-American.

"They" always get to write the definitions.


No I don't think that effort would succeed at all. They would be trolled into oblivion faster than Rick Santorum.
Don't you realize that calling it "Americanism" is playing their game and beating them at it? Do you not recognize the simple elegance of calling it Americanism?

Why do you think words like "patriot" and "freedom" are succeeding?
It's not because Republicans stand for them, it's because they marketed those words, they used them all the time, every chance they got.

And the first thing you do when selling Americanism is tell Americans that it will reduce the Despair Quotient in our great nation.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/11/19 01:59 AM

What is "Americanism"?
It's social democracy rebranded.

Americanism reduces the Despair Quotient in this great nation of ours.
Americanism is LESS about Republicans and Democrats, and more about Americans. Americanism supports the greatest voting block in our great country, the American working family.
Americanism harnesses capitalism as a tool to serve working Americans.

It is time to create and use this new word to describe the very things that will help Americans the most, and those things are brought to you by social democracy, which is now called "Americanism".
If you believe in the New Deal and you believe in the power of social democracy to transform the lives of working Americans, you are an Americanist.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/11/19 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
What is "Americanism"?
It's social democracy rebranded.

Americanism reduces the Despair Quotient in this great nation of ours.
Americanism is LESS about Republicans and Democrats, and more about Americans. Americanism supports the greatest voting block in our great country, the American working family.
Americanism harnesses capitalism as a tool to serve working Americans.

It is time to create and use this new word to describe the very things that will help Americans the most, and those things are brought to you by social democracy, which is now called "Americanism".
If you believe in the New Deal and you believe in the power of social democracy to transform the lives of working Americans, you are an Americanist.
ThumbsUp cool
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/11/19 12:20 PM

We have to promote Americanism without relating it to the word socialism, though.

Americanism makes possible the increased well-being of every one of us.

Americanism is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Americanism promotes the general welfare of all citizens though good old American ingenuity and teamwork.

Americanism is the rising tide that lifts all boats.

Americanism takes the best ideas and puts them together to create better outcomes.

Americanism does not tolerate lying and deception.

Americanism holds respect for others in highest regard.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/11/19 02:52 PM

That's all well and good. As long as you don't do anything un-American like raising taxes or helping poor people.

Really. It's not so much lefties calling themselves socialists as the righties calling them socialists.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/12/19 10:16 AM

'It's all sizzle and no steak!!!' -Gary Blair

Yeah, I get that advertising is important. Hell, I paid the rent for three years sellin corn syrup to kids. But doesn't it still come down to mobilizing your base and giving them something to come out and vote for?

When you address material needs you get votes. Corbin in the U.K., Mexico's Obrador, Jesse Jackson's campaign, Sanders unlikely challenge, etc.. A concept that gets little traction here.

Lofty rhetoric has been employed for decades now while it continues to get rougher and rougher to make your nut and hang on to it.

In other words, it's just the same sucky product with a new banana sticker to rid itself of it's own lousy reputation. As though a new rebranding will change the user experience if the product still sucks. No amount of virtue signaling will change that.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/12/19 04:41 PM

Interesting, which message do you want to reclaim? Right now there are a plethora of them. I don't think that there is a single person, currently running for Democratic President that does not have a different message from the other. In other words the left has NO single message but a confusing conglomeration of whatever. In other words, they are working, very hard, to demonstrate their inability to agree on a damned thing and there is, certainly, no specific message.

The talking heads of TV, for instance, are constantly bemoaning the fact that the Democrats have yet to define themselves, except the Biden. The rest just keep hoping that one of their messages gains steam.

I guess the real message goes something like; "whahoo!" (somethings gotta eventually stick?)
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/13/19 12:34 AM

You must long for the days of past neoliberal hegemony in the Democratic party JGW.
The reason your hearing different messages (normal this far out in an election by the way) is there are alternative visions of government emerging. Some from an emergent left that you seem not to be able to discern.
I welcome it. It's looong overdue within the party and forces these republican retreads to deal with true left alternatives.
Fear not though, my politically adolescent online compatriot, the DNC is working overtime to quash any challenges by blacklisting any and all campaign shops that work for a left challenger.
Makes one wonder how long the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party can be a legitimate political party if it has to curtail all debate and primary challenges to maintain power.
Makes the management class with 401's happy but that's not going to be enough in the long run IMO.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/13/19 06:40 PM

What I long for is a Democratic Party that actually behaves as if it really wants to win. This is not happening. This is not personal as I have a lot of company on this one. The Republicans define their points and then most jump on the bandwagon. The Democrats have defined very little and nobody has jumped on any band wagon. I watch interview after interview where people say; "what do the Democrats stand for". We are talking about the party as everybody running has some kind of message but nobody seems to believe that they should have some single answers. My suggestion was to deal with the language used in messages. Things like not claiming to be Socialist, referring to the existing healthcare as "For Profit Healthcare", calling tarriffs "Trump Taxes", etc. I know that none can bring themselves to indulge in such behavior but it would help.

Then there is the Democratic congressional dog and pony show which has been, frankly, embarrassing. They are talking everything to death, threatening much, but little real activity even though they have the right to have at it if they chose. I can go on, and on, and on, about this but I think I have already probably over killed that horse.

My hope is that the a majority of Americans will actually get out and vote against the current administration by voting Democratic . Everyday there is a new offense against law and truth and common sense. Hopefully Trump is unpopular enough that the Democrats will win by simply existing as a foil against our dear leader, the Jackass. Some have suggested, incidentally, that Democrats refer to Trump not as 'president' but "UN-Endicted Donald" which seems fair.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/13/19 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
That's all well and good. As long as you don't do anything un-American like raising taxes or helping poor people.

Really. It's not so much lefties calling themselves socialists as the righties calling them socialists.


I think most of us understand that the Right is controlling the public perception of Left messaging but they're doing it well, and doing it with a tightly controlled scheme reminiscent of advertising between competing brands. They have top flight PR people, neuro-linguistics experts and propaganda masters. We have a bunch of people in pink pussy hats running around being offended...BY EVERYTHING.

The point is, they do the Rope-A-Dope very well, and so should we.
We should do it better. And we ain't.

By the way, did you see Jon Stewart's impassioned speech to the House the other day? I almost broke my "no celeb president" pledge.
It was so great to hear integrity that I damn near wanted to yell "Jon Stewart for Prezzy-dint!" at the top of my lungs.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/14/19 01:00 AM

more please....

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/14/19 05:33 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
more please....



Excellent speech, very well done.
But notice, he invoked FDR throughout, even calling for New Deal 2.0 to confront what he termed FDR's "unfinished work".
No, he did not use our cute little term "Americanism" but he defined "democratic socialism" as being akin to the New Deal.
Yes it was, but by correctly siding with the FDR historical account of it, he's teaching people that the New Deal was American style socialism.

Guess what? I'm just as okay with that as I am with trying a different brand name for marketing purposes. Just keep punching that one main point:
"Socialism American Style means a return to the values of FDR."

Keep pounding that, over and over again, say it loud, say it proud, make people remember that we're about FDR, not "VENEZUELA".
Say it and repeat it until it drowns out the Republican red baiting and fearmongering.

But it has to be done on a mass scale, it has to be repeated the same way that Republicans repeat their gigantic revisionist lies. Beat their lies with the truth, with the historical account.
Beat the Republicans over the head with it till they turn black and blue.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/14/19 12:06 PM

He was good at giving shoutouts to his base early. Identifying who his constituents are.
It looks to me like he's got a good ground game. He's going up against the corporations team. The way this plays out should be revelatory of where the true interests of the Democratic party lie.

Jeff: I know right! I can't recall any democratic presidential candidate invoking the name of FDR in my recent memory. Not to make him such a center piece of your campaigns strategy. Recognizing and addressing the mass of peoples material concerns. Going even further and identifying it's enemy, oligarchy, to boot.
S'funny how that's been absent for so long now in club Dem.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/15/19 07:22 PM

If he was to run, as a Democrat, he would be the first to do that while not being a member of the Democratic Party. When asked about this his replies were a bit sketchy and went something like; "because that is not how I ran", etc. Makes no sense at all. If he doesn't want to run as a Democrat then he should run as something else. Instead he has chosen to be yet another devisive candidate. In 2016 his 'wing' voted for Trump! If Bernie doesn't win the nomination of the party he is not a member of, has not helped, does not like, etc. then I fully expect him to take his true believers and vote for Trump instead. I am basing this on his history. It is, incidentally, easy to be a Democrat - just sign up! (register as a Democrat)

This is, incidentally, just something else I simply do not understand. He doesn't like the Democrats, doesn't like, apparently, the Socialist party (although he claims to be a socialist), doesn't really, as far as I can tell, ANY political party, then .......?

(plus he is simply to damned old!)
Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/15/19 08:47 PM

Quote:
In 2016 his 'wing' voted for Trump!


No, they did not. Bernie's 'wing' was the lefties and I assure you none of them voted for Trump. Some abstained or voted third party. Most just bit the bullet and voted for Clinton. She won by 3 Million votes you know...

Due to my generally leftist views I could have joined the Bernie-Bros. But I honestly liked Hillary Clinton. Still do.
She's a leftie at heart with strong ties to internotional power brokers and billionaire purse strings.

She's a woman who can get things done.

I've still got doubts about whether Bernie would really be able to accomplish any of his agenda without a complicit congress. A scenario that somehow seems unlikely.
However, whoever(whomever?)...whatever...The next president's biggest challenge will be re-assembling a US Government shattered into a million pieces.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/15/19 09:38 PM

Uh oh...
JGW got the lid out on the game of politricks and is gunna find the rules that say Sanders can't be a candidate in the Democratic primary.
Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/15/19 10:47 PM

Bernie's too much of a democrat to be a Democrat!
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/16/19 07:56 PM

"got the lid out"?

I don't think either party can do anything about somebody running under their banners although Bernie is, as far as I am concerned, pushing it.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/17/19 12:58 AM

Yeah. The lid. The one that says Bernie's not a democrat or Manchin is one, etc.

The same lid these sad politico's keep trying to find something that makes Trump disqualified to be president.

All that petty bureaucratic insider rational that keep the lid on who gets what. Who gets to run where and how the money gets divided that's kept such a worthless group of old boomers dry humping the last dollar out of their constituents and campaign donors.

The reason we have no socialist progressive agenda's anymore is because there are no socialist progressives in office. Or hardly any. The ones who are are doing tremendous work.

Did I mention there's a black listing of any and all campaign shops of any future democratic party work if they take part in any campaign work that challenges a sitting Democrat?

"The DCCC's new policy applies to both swing districts, which paved the path to the Democrats' current House majority, and deeply Democratic districts, like those Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley represent. Critics argue that the policy is a transparent attempt to squash candidates who threaten the party's status quo."

How to sell out while punching left

The work of any progress gets brought down and gutted by the democratic party leadership. For a fee.

'Gas, ass or grass. No one rides for free'....
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/17/19 06:02 PM

Ahhhhhhhhh! So, Bernie is really a democrat even though even he says he is not.

I have decided that I simply do not understand what you are talking about. This is, obviously, my problem and not yours. I think you are saying that there is a small group of conspirators that run the Democratic party for their own ends. I like a good conspiracy as well as anybody but ...........
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/17/19 08:11 PM

I could be just saying what I've said, JGW.

It seems simple enough but for some....

But basically I responded to your extreme obtuse notion that there is no way a party could really stop someone from running who really wanted to.

How quaint you are or try to be.

The flip side to economic blockade for progressives
Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/17/19 08:39 PM

Quote:
I have decided that I simply do not understand what you are talking about.


We figured that out.

But don't worry, we'll keep trying to explain it.

Maybe you'll catch on one day. Democrats that don't want what Bernie wants aren't really Democrats.

Except in the spineless jellyfish sense that we've all come to know and love about the Democratic Party.

You always want the Dems to stand up for themselves, they don't, because spineless jellyfish can't stand up

Bernie stands up and puts it right out in the open.

The rich are too rich, the poor are too poor, and it's time we do something about it. You either support that or you don't.

Are you a bougie or are you a prole?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/17/19 09:31 PM

Quote:
Are you a bougie or are you a prole?


Not the real problem. The income inequality that's destroying us is the 1% versus everybody else. The Middle Class has been hollowed out. The economy works much better when there is a vibrant Middle Class with enough money to spend. The working class takes part in that economy.

The other side of income distribution matters too: The poorest of the poor, like homeless people and the mentally ill wandering the streets. We can't have a decent place to live with the streets filled with beggars.

You would think all the Christians in this country would see "the least of these my brothers" as a golden opportunity for salvation (see Matthew 25), but I guess most of them are not really Christians after all.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/18/19 01:53 AM

Underscoring your point, Gregor, is a nice follow up peice of the Sanders speech last week, on what is Democratic Socialism for him, by Matt Taibbi over at the Stone:

"In an odd way, Sanders defines his campaign by the negativity it attracts. Other campaigns that might talk the talk on issues like climate change can’t be taken seriously, Bernie Sanders tells me in a phone call from Washington, D.C., unless they “frontally confront the fossil fuel industry.” If you’re not “embattled,” you’re not real. In this vein he derides the “middle ground” platform of someone like current frontrunner Joe Biden, which Sanders says “antagonizes no one, stands up to no one, and changes nothing.”

Full article

Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/18/19 01:48 PM

“antagonizes no one, stands up to no one, and changes nothing.”

The Democratic Party in a nutshell.
Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/18/19 02:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
[quote]Are you a bougie or are you a prole?


Not the real problem. The income inequality that's destroying us is the 1% versus everybody else.


The income inequality is a bougie creation. They are, after all, the 1%. The rest of the country is going deeply into debt trying to live the bougie lifestyle and keep up with the Kardashians...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/20/19 12:11 PM

Quote:
“Republicans do not believe in socialism, we believe in freedom, and so do you,” he claimed, adding, “We will defend Medicare and Social Security for our great seniors.”
King Kon, Moron-in-Chief
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/21/19 06:31 AM

Not an uncommon set of misinformation. Somebody needs to make it clear: Social Security IS socialist. Medicare IS socialist. Old-time Republicans were right. But the American people love them, and anybody who wants to get rid of them is not going to get reelected, if that's in their platform.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/21/19 12:59 PM

Thanks to Hal Brown and his blog:

Quote:
“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”
- Pat Paulsen, presidential candidate
Posted by: Gregor

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/22/19 01:58 PM

Quote:
Somebody needs to make it clear: Social Security IS socialist. Medicare IS socialist.


I can't seem to get that point across even here. Mixed systems work best. It's almost like racism, racially integrated societies work better than apartheid. But racists simply don't buy into that theory.

It seems to be fear and hatred of any sort of change. Even though if we don't change we are pretty much doomed. Democratic Socialism isn't even a major change.
But even a single black person in the pool just spoils it for everyone else...who is white...and racist.

Perhaps what Democratic Socialists need to do is demonize Capitalism the way Republicans have demonized Socialism.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/23/19 05:06 AM

>demonize Capitalism

No, because a pure socialist system has never resulted in anything but misery. And then revolution, either hard or soft, and a return to a mixed system. One NEEDS the other, just like business needs government to keep the market fair and orderly. I really do not want to live in a libertarian hell, or in an Orwellian totally controlled state.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/23/19 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Gregor
Quote:
Somebody needs to make it clear: Social Security IS socialist. Medicare IS socialist.


I can't seem to get that point across even here. Mixed systems work best. It's almost like racism, racially integrated societies work better than apartheid. But racists simply don't buy into that theory.





No no, you're NOT ALONE.
I've been screeching about the mutt theory in economics forever.
You're 100 percent right. Purity is poison.
It's poisonous to most things we know and love.

Genetic purity leads to profound birth defects.
In music, art, literature, even cuisine, purity leads to stagnation and genre collapse.
In religion it leads to fundamentalist extremism.
And in economics it leads to...much the same.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/24/19 01:30 PM

Uhhh... China?

There's not been any country that I know of that hasn't been viciously attacked by capitalist ruled states for making the grevious error of deciding to organize their government as they saw fit. Your omitting a little bit (to put it mildly) of context.

I believe the Soviets and Red China have the record on raising living standards the most in the shortest time. A feat unmatched by capitalist societies.

There are also socialists (worker run) corporations that have thrived for decades now but get very little discussion.

Take a look around here in the Untited States of Marketstan.
Wages have stalled out. Public spaces and goods have been shrunk by democrats and republicans alike. Debt levels are way up. Households now require two incomes to survive. Wealth inequality is worse than any time in our nations history. Student debt is at an all time high. I could go on but you get the point.

China got 20k miles of high speed public transport during the 2008-2010 great recession. We got Black Rock Financial Management as our newest landlord.




Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/24/19 08:46 PM

I can't look at China and see any signs of a system I'd like our government to emulate...y'know? There's an enormous amount of labor exploitation going on all over Asia.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/25/19 04:08 AM

Quote:
Take a look around here in the Untited States of Marketstan.
Wages have stalled out. Public spaces and goods have been shrunk


The reason is simple: We have swung too far to the capitalist side and let our "General Welfare" (as per the constitution) decay relative to the wealth of the 1%. I've never believed we need more capitalism than we currently have, but we don't need or want an excessive amount of either extreme. Even Warren Buffet has made some statements about the unfairness of paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. So even some of the 1% see the system as rigged, and wished for something fairer.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/27/19 05:51 PM

I've written several replies to this and deleted them. because on the one hand I agree with you...all we need is a few tweaks to our current system and everything will be fine....

But where's the tweaks?

I know the Republican Party is lying to and duping its voters into believing that somehow the richer rich people get the better off poor people will be.

I'm beginning to suspect the Democratic Party is doing something similar and that without some sort of major upheaval Democrats are never gonna get it and are gonna keep right on buying pigs in pokes.

I keep coming home and finding a possum in the sack....then go back and buy another...every election cycle.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/30/19 02:20 PM

"I've never believed we need more capitalism than we currently have, but we don't need or want an excessive amount of either extreme. So even some of the 1% see the system as rigged, and wished for something fairer."

Some will argue what we have is currently way to much of the former and almost none of the latter. I'd have a hard time disproving that claim. Depending on your financial and material security seems to make an impact on where you fall on the scale.
I don't expect the rich to do much of anything to help with the situation any. They're the problem and not the cure.

Trump represented a departure from the status quo. Hillary was the status quo. I see no signs of that dynamic changing for the next general election as a left alternative will not be made available unless Sanders pull's off a miracle.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/30/19 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...all we need is a few tweaks....

But where's the tweaks?


A.O.C. and the Democratic socialist Left?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 06/30/19 07:20 PM

AOC and the democratic socialists only make up about half a dozen votes. All they can really do is make noise and point fingers at what is most wrong with our system.

The same things that have been wrong with our system for a generation or more.

And never seem to get those tweaks...

Minimum wage is $7.25
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/02/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
AOC and the democratic socialists only make up about half a dozen votes.


Every flood begins with a few rain drops...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/04/19 06:58 AM

Still, somebody raising a stink in Congress is a lot better than business as usual. Voters get outraged by some of the stuff that normally goes on, and sometimes their otherwise complacent Congress-critters react to letters and phone calls if they get enough of them. You don't need to move 51% of the population to get some action. You just need to impress those Congressmen with a few thousand contacts all pushing the same issue.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/04/19 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
You don't need to move 51% of the population to get some action. You just need to impress those Congressmen with a few thousand contacts all pushing the same issue.


While I agree with you that democrats need to go for it and do politics that last comment has little evidence to support it.

Oh wait. Gay marriage.

I can think of little else done for the average american in the last 25 years that has had much of a positive impact on peoples economic or political lives in a real, tangible way.

Forget about a green new deal or a 'Fight For 15', Medicare for all, etc etc etc.

Democratic Neoliberalism, to borrow an anology, is like nailing jello to a wall.

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/04/19 04:09 PM

ACA. It has a HUGE impact for people who would otherwise be uninsurable, like me.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/05/19 01:25 PM

For me and many others, the ACA was a republican plan (Romney care anyone?) that went right on compromises that were thought to help get at least some republicans on board (it didn't) while punching left and killing a public option. Or did I mischaracterize?

But yeah, still paying the most while getting the least over all the other developed countries. 50 Million still uninsured. Lots of tasty means testing with varying levels of assistance for varying classes which would never promote resentments and racial tension.

No wonder Medicare 4 All is so unpopular. The very idea of NOT having Dunkin Donuts and Lockheed running our health care industrial sector is cray.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/05/19 04:39 PM

Quote:
The very idea of NOT having Dunkin Donuts and Lockheed running our health care industrial sector is cray.
I don't think that Boeing Health Care plan is gonna fly.

But, to many, the idea of having government in charge of it sounds even crazier...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/06/19 04:01 AM

Simply having ACA versus having nothing means lots of people get to live. The Republican Plan is Go Home and Die. Sure it could be better, lots better, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Just elect more Democrats and it will get better. In particular the gap between the bottom income for ACA and the upper income for Medicare in some states is totally insane. Only the working poor have to Go Home and Die!

It would have made far more sense to completely replace Medicaid with an ACA that reaches all the way to zero income, with the poorest people exempt from copays and deductibles. Instead we have the two systems (ACA and Medicaid) that interface very badly.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/06/19 12:14 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Simply having ACA versus having nothing means lots of people get to live.

It would have made far more sense to completely replace Medicaid with an ACA that reaches all the way to zero income, with the poorest people exempt from copays and deductibles. Instead we have the two systems (ACA and Medicaid) that interface very badly.


Classic lowering of expectations from the center right.
A preference for markets and market forces over public goods and services.
So are you saying your in favor of replacing medicare with a subsidized private health care industry?


Most expensive healthcare, lousy outcomes, shareholder profits assured.

You never answered the question what thousand voters could sway a representative to enact meaningful legislation.

Did you mean a few thousand corporate lobbyists? If so, I would agree. Look no further than the ACA

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/06/19 01:00 PM

Wow PIA, this topic's got me wound up in the morning. Almost beats coffee.
In hindsight, I've found the ACA to be seriously lacking and deeply flawed with the most harmful being the profit motive (which our departed and missed keyboard warrior, JGW, would agree).

So how do you argue in favor of a for profit system that delivers the most expensive services with lousy results that are a necessity for the average person?
If your argument is faultless, would you be willing to extend it to other important areas of our life, such as food, water air and ecosystems?
Oh wait...
Republican, Democrat,..
Were here already.

What is the criteria of argument you use to rationalize these basic and necessary resources we battle over politically?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/06/19 10:23 PM

Y'know...in 2008 Democrats had control. Affordable healthcare was the goal they set. They tried, good god how they tried, to bring some Republicans into the deal to make it a bi-partisan effort.

Republicans hijacked it, called it socialism, took the house in 2010 and Congress has been gridlocked since then.

If the ACA had worked the way it was written and intended it would have been a massive success. It got hobbled when the red states boycotted the Medicaid part of it...Hell it's a success anyway and once we dump Trump we can get back to work on getting people insured.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/07/19 02:32 AM

The problem with bolsheviks is they are perfectly willing to sacrifice some (or a lot) of the proletariat so their revolution can come and bring on the perfect system. The Socialist position seems to be against ACA because then not enough people will die. My position is against all those people dying, and that is precisely why Socialism (with a capital S) will never succeed in America. Most of us feel it is better to live with an imperfect system than to die in hopes of a better one. If we elect the right people, then our system will improve.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

And that refusal of Republicans to work with Democrats on ACA was just the worst example to that date of ultrapartisanship. After all, ACA as voted into law was almost exactly RomneyCare. The Democrats big mistake was not to call it RomneyCare For All and give credit where credit was due.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/07/19 09:36 AM

You didn't answer the question PIA.
That had to be one of the silliest responses to a legitimate question.

How do you defend a conservative think tank's plan that maintains the profit motive, delivers the poorest results and costs the most?

Your odd ramblings about bolsheviks was amusing but I'm not sure what it's relevance was to the question.

If you want to go there then I'm happy to oblidge you in a conversation about socialism vs. capitalism's records of sacrificing working people but it would be nice to explain your logic of defending a crap healthcare plan, concieved by conservative think tanks and carried out by conservative democrats that has resulted in high costs with poor outcomes.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/07/19 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

How do you defend a conservative think tank's plan that maintains the profit motive, delivers the poorest results and costs the most?





You point out the fact that, despite its many flaws and despite the obstruction of Republicans, and even despite Trump's all out effort to kill it, it still delivers better than what was in place prior.

Your refusal to acknowledge the incremental success of the ACA over what we were stuck with previously is duly noted.

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/07/19 08:03 PM

The little fact that people with my disease would be dead right now without ACA tends to cloud my judgement. I'm definitely not saying it's great, or even good, but it is saving people from early death and medical bankruptcy which is all that Obama and the Democrats could get at the time and ever since. How could they have done better? They simply did not have the votes in Congress.

You want a better system? Then vote for Democrats in 2020, because that's the only way "better" is going to happen. Even Centrist business-shill Democrats will make it better. If a third-party candidate gets enough of the progressive vote, Trump wins and everything gets worse. Not near bad enough for a revolution that reforms American politics. Just worse.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/07/19 09:38 PM

Yeah...I might even hold my nose and vote Biden when it comes down to the wire. But only because I don't have to get out of my chair to do it.
I think America's mindset right now is just to oust Trump so we can get the country back on the right track. Democratic Socialism has been waiting in the wings for a chance to seize power, 2020 aint lookin' like it's gonna be that chance. But we will still likely gain a few social democrats in congress as well as lots of them winning seats locally.

I'm okay with incremental gains and even a gaggle of neo-libs beats the hell outa this clown show..........
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/08/19 04:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger


I'm okay with incremental gains and even a gaggle of neo-libs beats the hell outa this clown show..........



Things are bad, worse than bad, but apparently STILL not bad enough for most moderates and independents to finally admit that maybe it is time for a major change.
If Trump wins in 2020 AND we wind up with another Republican trifecta, we will most likely reach the point where things really ARE "THAT BAD".

And we're talking about, "so bad that it really is too late to ever fix it again kind of BAD", so I am sorry to say that human nature is such that a million intellectuals are nothing against 50 million non-intellectuals who just want a moderate in the White House.

Don't you wish that wasn't the case? I sure do, but at age sixty-three all I have to do is think about all the stupid people I've known, and some who I still know, and then I remember that almost 40 percent of the country is even dumber than that, even if they lean a little bit to the Left.

We are so far over to the extreme Right at this point in time that I swear to the whole magnificent bloody lot of you that getting back to slightly left of center is probably going to feel unnervingly like pure socialism to some people, even good people.

It's like being stuck in a darkened room for three weeks and suddenly being pushed outdoors on a sunny day right after you wake up.

By the way, speaking of magnificent bloody lot of you's, I sure do miss Schlack.

But it's sure nice to see JimD the Free Thinker here again.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/08/19 11:00 AM

Obama and the Democrats had majorities in the house, senate and the white house. They could have done whatever it was they wanted. For an example on how it gets done, look at the recent rich man tax cut.
What they did instead was please their corporate donor base, (what were the smart kids calling it? the stakeholders?) and reflexively tried to kiss the arse of the republicans. Both of which were the rational given for killing a public option.
I live in Bills country where rooting for a losing team is a local pathology. I think it's the same pathology as 'Blue no matter who'. Sad people who could just as easily have an 'I'm with her!' bumper sticker.
As long as the center right party can scrape enough victories out of congressional races and the occasional white house victory then I see no reason for them to get off the corporate teat and actually help people. At least not in my lifetime of voting.
'We don't suck as much as the Far Right' may get you votes in 2020. Enough to take the white house maybe. But the center right orientation of the party and it's fealty to corporate cash will mean it will be no solution to a rising populist tide.
But the usual scapegoating will go on. Russian hacking, stupid people voting against their interests, racists running out of the woods to vote, etc... It will never dawn on them to look in the mirror and admit how much they suck.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/08/19 01:11 PM

I got a duly? Is that as good as a doozy? grin


I never said it wasen't better. Simply still sucks as a result of the parties serving preferences and how much it still sucks wind to it's peers.

So far as I can tell it's only reason for argument has been 'what would the donors think!" and "it doesn't suck as bad as it did".

It still sucks and costs alot. All the talk of studying other countries and choosing the best of all of them is so much hooey. That's what incrementalism is. Slowing the roll of progress for the few over the many.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/08/19 05:18 PM

Quote:
They could have done whatever it was they wanted.


They addressed healthcare and improved it. They tried to make it bi-partisan so it would continue to move forward. Republicans refused...the rest is history.

Republicans had both the house the senate and the presidency for two years. What they wanted was tax cuts for the wealthy. They got it but it was based on lies, was far from bi-partisan and will likely be repealed.

You don't get everything you want. You don't necessarily even get to keep what you manage to accomplish.

So we got the ACA. It was never good enough but it was the first thing to get any traction since Hillary Clinton tried to reform healthcare as FLOTUS. The ACA didn't require a public option because those who would buy into it were covered under the Medicaid program. It was a tidy, efficient, businesslike approach to healthcare written by Republicans.

Then they started picking it apart, like a game of Jinga, but certain aspects of it were very very popular and the damned thing refuses to fall apart. It could even be salvaged.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/08/19 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
They could have done whatever it was they wanted.


Whatever they wanted in seventy-two days spread out in two or three day chunks. The so called "two year Democratic supermajority" was a MYTH.

Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 03:03 PM

Quote:
The so called "two year Democratic supermajority" was a MYTH.

The six years of Republican obstruction afterwards were very real though.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
The so called "two year Democratic supermajority" was a MYTH.

The six years of Republican obstruction afterwards were very real though.


Oh HELL YEAH...even that microscopic period pissed them off.
They were outraged that Americans would dare to sweep them off their pedestals in exchange for a bunch of traitorous Murrikuh-hatin libcommie demoncrap libtards.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 05:01 PM

My beef with the 'but the Republicans!!!' narrative is it frames the argument over not upsetting republicans cuz otherwise you can't do anything.

Screw that. Some may be comfortable with that but why not just be a republican and reform that parties brief, progressive founding.

Democrats could also make common cause with the left as other countries' center right parties do. But Nawp, not here in the good ol' USofA. Only here do you see the center right party more often cross party lines and vote with republicans.

Somehow that phenomenom goes unexplored, unquestioned or even defended.

So the way I see it the Democratic party is the one that's supposed to be left (whatever that means at the moment) while supporting progress (but has too many party scabs to be effective).

Or have I exaggerated?

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 05:14 PM

Democrats had the majority in the senate, but they needed 60 votes to pass anything. They had that 60 votes only for very brief periods, and they also had a few Blue Dogs who were reluctant to vote for government involvement in health care for various reasons. The movement of the bill toward the right had to happen to get the votes. Yes, the hold-outs may have been corrupt, but you have to work with what you have.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 07:57 PM

While I don't disagree with working with what you have, coupla things...

You had popular support for a public option. Are you telling me strong public backing has no bearing on our politics? (o.k. , it doesn't but we'll probably disagree over why)

Obviously, there will be districts more far right leaning than center right but how assured are you?
Again, Ojeda might have been hair brained enough to launch an ill conceived presidential run but it's rarely discussed how he had the largest vote point gain of any other democrat in 2018, running on a solid left platform in a state that went heaviest for Trump.
How can you be sure the party isn't selling wolf tickets to their base about the political map?
The DNC scorecard is piss poor for picking winners over losers.

Why are conservative blue dog democrats being protected from more progressive leftists in progressive leftists districts?

The democratic party would have you believe what is possible. I, on the other hand, have stated the Democratic party does little more than manage the lowering of people's expectation with whatever arguments come to hand.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/09/19 11:18 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
While I don't disagree with working with what you have, coupla things...

You had popular support for a public option. Are you telling me strong public backing has no bearing on our politics? (o.k. , it doesn't but we'll probably disagree over why)


Now I have to wonder if you even understand how Congress works.
No...seriously, I'm not joking, because you seem to have forgotten what happened, or you're outright ignoring it like it didn't happen.

Wendell Potter - former CIGNA VP

Quote:
While Pelosi was able to get a bill through the House with a public option provision, she couldn’t control what was happening in the Senate. Although a majority of Senate Democrats supported the public option, the industry knew it only needed one senator who caucused with the Dems to change his mind and kill it.

A senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world, became the industry’s go-to guy. Insurers had spent years investing in Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat-turned-Independent. During the reform debate, the watchdog group Public Campaign Action Fund, (now called EveryVoice), called Lieberman an “insurance puppet,” noting that insurers had contributed nearly half a million dollars to his campaigns over the years.

The Democrats needed Lieberman’s vote to get reform passed, and insurers knew it. Shortly before the Senate was set to vote on the bill, Lieberman said he would vote for the bill only if the public option was stripped out.


You can peddle your outrage and mass torching of the Democrats all you like but in the end it still boils down to the actions of INDIVIDUALS more than the actions of an entire party.
Specifically, with regard to the Public Option, it ALL HINGED ON ONE MAN - Joe Lieberman.

But go ahead and continue to inveigh against the entire party.
In the end it amounts to a case of WHATABOUTISM.
A very sophisticated and carefully planned case of it to be sure, but it is still nevertheless whataboutism when you strip away all the shiny things.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/10/19 01:39 AM

Jeeze Jeff,

I must have hit a nerve. Yeah I'm sure I was posting right along with you at the time here on the Rant when the ACA was being court challenged etc..

Though it's maybe a first time I've been called 'careful and sophisticated', for some reason I can't help but feel like it's a smear.

I don't know what you're taking about with 'whataboutism'. Maybe you could explain it to me?





Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/11/19 12:10 PM

Anyways,

I doubt there's anything unrepairable going on but who knows. Who knows how splits can come about, but it would seem unlikely to be over this row.

public spat at the club

Looks to me like the Party insists on telling the left to 'go eff themselves". Not only have they cut off any future prospects for campaign funds but they've been sidelining their agenda and publicly mocking them.

But thas o.k.
I'm sure it would have been just over the next hill for a centrist 'Green New Deal' amiright?
Ditto on prison and sentencing reform.
And the ACA was actually bending the curve a bit. Not perfect, still the most expensive idea out there with lousy performance metrics but it did bend that curve.

I could go on but I already have eek


Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/11/19 03:49 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Jeeze Jeff,

I must have hit a nerve. Yeah I'm sure I was posting right along with you at the time here on the Rant when the ACA was being court challenged etc..

Though it's maybe a first time I've been called 'careful and sophisticated', for some reason I can't help but feel like it's a smear.

I don't know what you're taking about with 'whataboutism'. Maybe you could explain it to me?


The facts about what happened with the ACA, and its DOA public option, are a matter of record. Since you were indeed right here along with me during the ACA sausage making, your wholesale condemnation of the entire Democratic Party and everyone in it can only amount to a form of whataboutism.

What else can it be? Bothsideserism?
I dunno...whaddya get when whataboutism and bothesideserism get jiggy with it and have a baby?
Well, it looks like we know now.
You get four years of this:


Perhaps you need to consider the fact that a large part of what we're up against consists of three armies, the Ayn Rand Army, the "Army of God" and the Army of the Stupid.
Lordy Lordy, chunkstyle, are you really determined to go head to head with the Army of the Stupid with the Don Quixotes of the political world?

Your rhetorical monologues on knighthood and the elegance of your quest to find Lady Dulcinea are inspiring to be sure however it doesn't change the fact that a pair of 265 pound drunken windmills couldn't care less.







Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/11/19 04:22 PM

The freshmen representatives are being told to chill. These things take time and patience. And political support as well as public sentiment.
I don't like Pelosi and never have but right now we don't need to let a media frantic for red meat push us into doing things we might regret later. Pelosi is only temporarily in charge, chosen for her political savvy to keep the Democratic House in order in these confusing times.

The media will happily turn this into a Democratic Civil War when it's nothing but the Speaker doing her job to keep the caucus in line.

Don't worry about the newbies, they'll be fine, and if they are making their constituents happy they'll maybe even get re-elected. Maybe more like them will get elected. Maybe we'll start to see some actual change. Them noobs need to be building coalitions and quietly urging younger and leftier candidates to enter politics. They need to be doing politics not just taking advantage of a handy soapbox.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/11/19 04:36 PM

Oh, Jeffrey...I didn't need to see that. The three armies...the rich, the religious, and the stupid. This may not be winnable at all.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/11/19 09:03 PM

I'm sorry Jeff
Was there an explanation of you 'whataboutism' in there?

Is there a place in the public record that is the final definitive word on how the deals go down?

I think you and me have very different ideas of what politics was, is and could be.

The Democratic Leadership has been paid to lower those expectations.

IMO, of course. Sorry if it doesn't walk with yours.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/12/19 04:16 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I'm sorry Jeff
Was there an explanation of you 'whataboutism' in there?

Is there a place in the public record that is the final definitive word on how the deals go down?

I think you and me have very different ideas of what politics was, is and could be.

The Democratic Leadership has been paid to lower those expectations.

IMO, of course. Sorry if it doesn't walk with yours.


I think you and I probably have similar ideas of what politics was and is, but I think you devote an inordinate and unrealistic amount of energy into imagining what it should be, and it may be (temporarily) clouding your ability to parse the reality of the thing.

I assure you nearly ALL of us have ideas of what politics COULD BE, and I'm sure most of them are probably pretty good ideas.

But we still face certain realities, and they're every bit as real whether you believe they are or not.

Do you have access to Google? Go to "the Google" and type in
w-h-a-ta-b-o-u-t-i-s-m and hit the ENTER key.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/12/19 09:50 AM

It's a term used to deflect criticism, as far as I can tell. Libs lost their mind with the term after trumps election and tried to make the case that he was employing some kind of russian avoidance technique.
It's used to deflect against criticism of hypocrisy. Is that your beef Jeff?
That I bring up the hypocrisy and undermining of progress by conservative and liberal Dems?
That fighting for that progress means taking on the democratic party and it's leadership?
Because the party is sure fighting back against any progress and has been. At some point you have to ask yourself why?
At some point you realize how much they suck.

Or not.

Either way, I wanted you to explain how I was using it in, what did you say?, a careful and sophisticated way.


Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/12/19 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

Either way, I wanted you to explain how I was using it in, what did you say?, a careful and sophisticated way.




Why are you asking me to repeat a previous post?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 01:00 AM

You wrote:

"your wholesale condemnation of the entire Democratic Party and everyone in it can only amount to a form of whataboutism."

I wanted to have that explained to me. It was dumb when the libs were trying that on Trump. I wanted to see if it was just as dumb with you trying it on me.


Whataboutism....

Is that like 'sowhatism' or 'whateverism'?

Never mind. These conversations always suck your soul and there's nothing worth discussing here. I've had more than my share over the last few years.



Posted by: Ken Condon

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 01:01 AM

Re:You get four years of this:

Beautiful pics Jeffery. May peace be upon those folks.....
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 04:02 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
You wrote:

"your wholesale condemnation of the entire Democratic Party and everyone in it can only amount to a form of whataboutism."

I wanted to have that explained to me. It was dumb when the libs were trying that on Trump. I wanted to see if it was just as dumb with you trying it on me.
Whataboutism....

Is that like 'sowhatism' or 'whateverism'?

Never mind. These conversations always suck your soul and there's nothing worth discussing here. I've had more than my share over the last few years.


I believe the term I used was "TORCHING".
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 01:29 PM

How about we agree on this Jeff.

I'll continue to b!tch about how lame, worthless and spineless the Democratic party is and has been. It shouldn't be long before another opportunity comes along. Border security funding without safeguards for children comes to mind but there's sure to be more.

You can be the official apologist and defender by pointing out how they don't suck as much as republicans or criticize me and my motives.

Does that about describe the current situation we find ourselves in?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 04:16 PM

Well...they don't suck as much as Republicans.

Some of them might not suck at all.

We talked for years about "a viable third party". Back then we imagined it would be a leftist uprising. We got the TEA Party instead and now find ourselves in...
The Twilight Zone
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 04:47 PM

Yeah, they're two cheeks on the same a$$, as far as I'm concerned.

I see the Democratic party thru my lens, others see it thru theirs.

I have been very open about what politics is, for me. I've never hid it.

If other's want to engage in 'were not as bad as Republicans' then I say 'good luck with that in 2020' and let the debate begin.

What annoys me is someone acting like a cop policing what is allowed to be discussed and how.



Peace
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
How about we agree on this Jeff.

I'll continue to b!tch about how lame, worthless and spineless the Democratic party is and has been. It shouldn't be long before another opportunity comes along. Border security funding without safeguards for children comes to mind but there's sure to be more.

You can be the official apologist and defender by pointing out how they don't suck as much as republicans or criticize me and my motives.

Does that about describe the current situation we find ourselves in?


And now you want to make me an apologist and defender, because pragmatism offends you. Brilliant move.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

What annoys me is someone acting like a cop policing what is allowed to be discussed and how.



Peace


Now I'm a cop?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 05:34 PM

From what I can tell, Jeff, you're saying I'm in violation of something called 'whataboutism'.

I've been careful and sophisticated but I'm still doing whataboutism.

Whataboutism is something you should not do apparently. Or I'm doing it the wrong way maybe?


Like I said, this conversation will get soul sucking.

Someone funny I was listening to made the joke that at some point Nancy and Chuck will be making the argument over how they scored a progressive victory over Republicans cuz they got them to use the good Zyclon gas on refugees instead of the longer slower bad Zyclon gas.
Sure, It'll cost more but that's what doing the right thing sometimes take. Were Democrats and we do the right thing even if it costs a little more.

'Whataboutism'?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/13/19 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
From what I can tell, Jeff, you're saying I'm in violation of something called 'whataboutism'.

I've been careful and sophisticated but I'm still doing whataboutism.

Whataboutism is something you should not do apparently. Or I'm doing it the wrong way maybe?


Like I said, this conversation will get soul sucking.

Someone funny I was listening to made the joke that at some point Nancy and Chuck will be making the argument over how they scored a progressive victory over Republicans cuz they got them to use the good Zyclon gas on refugees instead of the longer slower bad Zyclon gas.
Sure, It'll cost more but that's what doing the right thing sometimes take. Were Democrats and we do the right thing even if it costs a little more.

'Whataboutism'?


Is this the part where I am supposed to leap to the defense of Chuck and Nancy now? Or was I supposed to argue about the merits of your funny friend and his Zyklon gas jokes?

After all, this position you promoted me to, in your efforts to make this thread all about me, I appear to be, what was it?

Oh yeah, "the official apologist and defender" of the "worthless and spineless Democratic party" and I am not supposed to criticize your motives, right?

Are you in need of a safe space?
Can we get back to talking about Democratic Socialism now?
Or is this thread still all about me because I had the temerity and the gall to criticize your motives?

You do realize that this is a debate site, yes?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 01:00 AM

I'm not asking you to defend the Democratic party Jeff.

I was asking you to defend your charging me with 'whataboutism' , whatever that means.

Criticize away.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 02:07 PM

Would you boys just settle the f*ck down and end your little flame-war.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I'm not asking you to defend the Democratic party Jeff.

I was asking you to defend your charging me with 'whataboutism' , whatever that means.

Criticize away.


There's no payoff for me in all of this, and you're not satisfied with what I said, so I see no point in continuing this waste of bandwidth.
This is, as Greger pointed out, not some Basement flame war venue.

And I get no satisfaction from flaming, which is indeed what this has devolved into.
You'll just have to pissed off, because there's nothing I can do to satisfy your lost cause.
I consider this closed from this point forward.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 07:19 PM

I have no problem with that.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I have no problem with that.


And you can say whatever you like, but don't expect me to take it seriously when any criticism I make is construed as me being some kind of "cop" who "won't allow you to speak".

That's just a cheap shot and I like to think you're better than that.
Anyone has the right to speak, and anyone else has the right to critique it. That's how it works or so I've been told.
Truth is, I actually AGREE with much of your viewpoints AND criticisms of the two parties however the crux of our disagreement is how to approach the problem.

You're going to have to allow others to disagree with your ideas as to solutions. If you can't sell it to everybody, it's not my fault or "our fault". Those ideas are YOUR ideas, so you have to SELL them.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to get out of this blue uniform and take off my badge. I'm not "Officer Zimmerman".
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 09:45 PM

If you keep on Jeff, I will respond to it.
Your call.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/14/19 09:59 PM

Back to politics,
I was glad to see Sherrod Browns criticism of the democratic party this past week. It was a huge disappointment for many that he didn't back Sanders and has been reported Sanders took it as something of a personal injury.
At this point though, you take what you can get and I'm glad he called out the Democratic parties gaslighting the base over 'electability':

Brown continued, “I called Donald Trump a racist because he was and is. I won the swing state of Ohio by 7 points. Elections aren’t about some electability calculation. They’re about one question. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers or corporations? Are you on the side of consumers or Wall Street? Are you on the side of patients or drug companies? Are you on the side of voters or dark money?”

The Ohio senator also criticized Democrats for courting the white working class Trump supporters, saying, “Dignity of work is not code for targeting white men who voted for Trump. That’s a losing strategy. That’s a betrayal of our values.”

At a time when many Democrats are courting the middle and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is publicly criticizing some of the most progressive members of her caucus, it’s interesting to see a Democratic senator like Brown take a wildly different tact of embracing progressivism rather than running away from it.

Full article from the Stone
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/15/19 12:46 AM

He's no democratic socialist but his heart is in the right place. I'd like to see him as governor one day.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/28/19 09:42 PM

This is an interesting article:

Medicare For All Would Be Difficult

This is about "surprise billing", that happens when an emergency makes you seek medical care outside your medical group or HMO. Some of the bills you get are many times what they would charge someone in their own plan, and you are stuck with them.

Hospitals and doctors have fought tooth and nail to keep this scam intact, but they lost out in California in 2017. Medicare For All would end this, because it would pay anybody the same amount for a service.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/29/19 08:31 PM

Yeah, SCOTUS is not gonna let much new stuff through. Medicare and Social Security can get shored up though, and a lot more states are interested in Medicaid than before. Any new Democratic government is gonna hafta put ACA back together again too.

There are a lot of things that CAN be done.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/30/19 01:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
He's no democratic socialist but his heart is in the right place. I'd like to see him as governor one day.


I would vote for him for POTUS.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/30/19 05:28 PM

Quote:
I would vote for him for POTUS.


So would I, but I'm not a primary voter so I'll never get the chance. He's certainly not my first choice and other than being a nice, well spoken, white christian queer he's got nothing really to bring to the table.

We need someone at least familiar with foriegn policy and the way the state department operated before Trump threw a spanner in the works. I'm sure Mayor Pete could put on his top hat, tuxedo, and his best city hall manners and muddle through but he's still a boy scout politically. But like I said above, I hope he doesn't go away and would like to see his career take off after this.

When I think about the backlash that electing a black president caused I'm a little reticent to believe a gay president would be a good idea at this time.
Turns out we didn't live in a post racist society after all.

**edit**...Nominating a woman didn't go all that well either...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/30/19 05:50 PM

One thing that nobody mentions in the Medicare-for-All discussion, is that Medicare as it now exists is not exactly single-payer! 29% of people signing up for Medicare select a private Advantage plan. 17% buy private MediGap insurance. 15% have Medicaid. 33% have employer or military supplemental coverage. (numbers don't total 100% because some are older than others.)

That's about 90% that have something beyond true single-payer government Medicare! So I think the private insurance companies would still be doing that even with Medicare-for-All. Does Bernie not know this?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 07/30/19 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I would vote for him for POTUS.


So would I, but I'm not a primary voter so I'll never get the chance. He's certainly not my first choice and other than being a nice, well spoken, white christian queer he's got nothing really to bring to the table.


I was talking about Sherrod Brown, sorry for the confusion.
I really do like Pete Buttigieg but like you, I am imagining the Middle East literally exploding in outrage. The moment he would try to attend a meeting there, it is likely the Saudi clerics would issue a fatwah to assassinate the queer infidel abomination, ditto for Putin's Russia, where it is rumored that "no gay people even exist".
Ditto for assassination attempts...must do American Christians a favor by eliminating gay cancer upon the White House - - see Vlad for details.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
One thing that nobody mentions in the Medicare-for-All discussion, is that Medicare as it now exists is not exactly single-payer! 29% of people signing up for Medicare select a private Advantage plan. 17% buy private MediGap insurance. 15% have Medicaid. 33% have employer or military supplemental coverage. (numbers don't total 100% because some are older than others.)

That's about 90% that have something beyond true single-payer government Medicare! So I think the private insurance companies would still be doing that even with Medicare-for-All. Does Bernie not know this?
I think you have hit on the central point that is being overlooked. 64% of the American population already has some version of "socialized medicine" - single payer, like Medicare, Medicaid, FEHB, Tricare, etc.; or government provided, like the VA - so we're really only talking about a third of the population (plus the uninsured). I think it would be possible to do some kind of Medicare-for-all" system to get us all the way there - although it would not be as generous as Bernie supposes.

I think the balance is in a "public option"; government subsidies for the less-than-well-off; and allowing Medigap/Medicare Advantage style products from the marketplace to supplement for others. What is most important for success, I think, is to change the system without people realizing how much has changed. The Public Option will, in the long run, supplant most existing policies - including employer-sponsored insurance - but it can be sold, now, as bringing more people into the "market", and providing "competition".

Medicare is incredibly popular, as the ACA is becoming. The longer people have to get used to what they have, the more they like it - which Obama recognized and why the GOP could never kill it. FDR remained popular for more than a decade and affected politics for most of the 20th Century. Obama's post-presidential popularity continues to grow, I think for the same reason.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 04:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
I am imagining the Middle East literally exploding in outrage.
I disagree and here's why: The US has had many women in traditional conservative Muslim roles represent the United States and nothing untoward happened. It'll be the same for Vice President Buttigieg we he visits. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 04:36 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
I am imagining the Middle East literally exploding in outrage.
I disagree and here's why: The US has had many women in traditional conservative Muslim roles represent the United States and nothing untoward happened. It'll be the same for Vice President Buttigieg we he visits. smile


Don't get me wrong, because for his sake and the sake of all in the LGBTQ community, I would hope that he really would be safe.
My skepticism however rests with the fact that there have been a lot of targeted killings of gay people in the ME and I wonder if we really COULD keep a gay dignitary safe, and the fact that I wonder if we can really trust our own security to not let their personal beliefs could their judgment in doing their jobs.
After all, there were two incidents where DC cops expressed a desire to see Michelle Obama dispensed with.

Oh...I see where he "he says he was just joking."
Yeah, right. rolleyes

And Pete Buttigeig is not a woman.
He's a gifted leader who happens to have an orientation that gets his peers in the ME thrown off the roofs of buildings.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 05:11 PM

I think he'd be fine. The Middle East is a drama queen and Arabs been buggering boys as longs as there's been Arabs and boys. They're not a lick different from self righteous Christians.

They don't like a queer president? They can shove it right up their well reamed wazoos. The only thing in the middle east that anybody gives a rat's ass about is oil. It's a weird ass culture with strange clothing and all sorts of religious taboos that no one but them really take seriously. It's a little past time they stepped out of the 19th century.

But that's just one man's opinion.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 05:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think he'd be fine. The Middle East is a drama queen and Arabs been buggering boys as longs as there's been Arabs and boys. They're not a lick different from self righteous Christians.


"I want to believe", but the fact that they're eager to kill dissident American journalists keeps haunting me. And that's just a writer they didn't like.
Bring them a liberal gay man and I don't think the radical Saudi clerics could resist the chance to try drawing a bead on Mayor President Pete.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 05:25 PM

But...that being said, my original point was that a black president set race relations back fifty years and I'd hate to see homophobia become the next big republican target. It's one of the areas we've actually made some progress as a society.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 05:38 PM

Uh...I understand that all middle easterners are blood thirsty killers and that most of them are terrorists...but I really don't think "they" would attempt to assassinate a gay president for being gay.

Bush killed millions of them. He's still alive

Obama was black. Still alive.

He'd be fine.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 06:28 PM

I keep thinking a Warren/Buttigieg ticket would be pretty sweet.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 06:49 PM

I just don't really see any reason to consider him presidential or even vice presidential material. He's a nice, white, well spoken, gay christian moderate with zero experience at the federal level.
Pretty face?

I just don't get the excitement about him.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 07:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I just don't really see any reason to consider him presidential or even vice presidential material. He's a nice, white, well spoken, gay christian moderate with zero experience at the federal level.
Pretty face?

I just don't get the excitement about him.


...and he likes God and scripture. WI, MI, and PA will love that. smile
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/03/19 11:30 PM

He's extremely thoughtful, intelligent, multilingual, polished, inexperienced, young. I think he needs to be more experienced to take on the Presidency, but as a VP... well, he'd get national experience, exposure, and would be an inspiration for the future. That's my thinking on it. I'd just like someone smart for a change - like Obama was.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/04/19 01:43 AM

Quote:
I'd just like someone smart for a change


Warren.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/04/19 10:16 PM

Remember Banksy's painting that spontaneously half-shredded a few minutes after it was auctioned off for 1.4 million dollars? Art experts say it is now worth double that!

Banksy Shredded a Piece of Art
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/05/19 01:17 PM

Id like some one smart and tough as hell.


Sanders
Posted by: jgw

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/05/19 09:37 PM

We will all have our druthers, one way or another. That being said I just want Trump gone and will vote for ANYBODY that gets the nomination and, hopefully, either disgust with Trump is so great it won't make a difference or the party brightens up, stops the crap, and actually starts to behave in a manner that will allow them to win.

Yet another exercise in professional grade wishful thinking............
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/05/19 10:24 PM

The scales have tipped against Republicans even holding the Senate in 2020. It doesn't matter who they run or on what platform they might stand on. Democrats will win. Whether it's Tarot, the bones, or the cracked crystal ball, every model I'm running right now is showing this.

So is this a time to hold back? To be conservative? To nominate handsy, bumbling, hair-sniffing Uncle Joe? because he reminds us of happier times? I suspect not. It's time to be bold, it's time for the left to move left and proudly claim that ground.

We may be socialists but we're not racists.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 04:38 AM

I think more important, you may be socialists, but even if every lefty wins in the election, you will still have the oil tanker that is the US voters, economy, courts, etc. That's a lot of momentum, so you can't turn on a dime. You probably can't even turn much in 4 years!

For example, all those federal judges with lifetime appointments are not going to suddenly turn into socialists. All those centrist Democratic voters are not going to be very sympathetic to your programs, unless they see some benefit to themselves. Hell, there are plenty of people who already do not approve of government programs that benefit them. Even the unions have not been voting Democratic, much less socialist.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 01:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think more important, you may be socialists, but even if every lefty wins in the election, you will still have the oil tanker that is the US voters, economy, courts, etc. That's a lot of momentum, so you can't turn on a dime. You probably can't even turn much in 4 years!

For example, all those federal judges with lifetime appointments are not going to suddenly turn into socialists. All those centrist Democratic voters are not going to be very sympathetic to your programs, unless they see some benefit to themselves. Hell, there are plenty of people who already do not approve of government programs that benefit them. Even the unions have not been voting Democratic, much less socialist.


I've been accused by some of incrementalism for saying much less.
But I am not in favor of incrementalism, I am just acknowledging that people are notoriously slow to embrace change.
We can nudge them or we can inspire them but we cannot "require" them to do it.
I think we need to become a lot better at inspiring them.
The Donald seems very skilled at "inspiring" his admirers.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 04:53 PM

So then...we should make every effort to elect the most centrist candidates, who will, with the Republicans, resist any change that benefits the working class. Resist any change that addresses global climate change, income inequality or human rights issues? Because it's too hard?

Joe Biden doesn't even approve of legal weed.

Because we probably can't accomplish everything we want we should just forget about it. Might as well vote republican with that logic.

And you don't want to be accused of incrementalism.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 06:25 PM

Quote:
I think we need to become a lot better at inspiring them.
The Donald seems very skilled at "inspiring" his admirers.

Trump is a con man doing what con men do. I'm not looking for that kind of candidate.
Bernie is extremely skilled at inspiring his admirers. Warren is proving to be quite inspirational as well.

Biden actually has no admirers to inspire.

Face it...It's Biden, Warren, or Sanders. If you think the lefties are a bad choice then that puts you in the Biden camp.

Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 07:06 PM

Quote:
Even the unions have not been voting Democratic, much less socialist.


Union workers are often better paid than their counterparts in non-union states. Relatively well off comparatively and often invested in preserving the status quo to stay that way.

And what exactly do you mean when you say socialism?

A living wage, healthcare and education. That's what Democratic Socialists want. That's also what unions want.

But do union members want everyone to have all those goodies? Nope...that would drive up prices. And taxes...

Unions are a thing of the past, just like Joe Biden. A social democracy makes them obsolete because everyone is paid union scale as per government regulation. Everybody gets "union benefits" as per government regulation.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 09:16 PM

Gravel's feelin the Bern...

Bernie 2020
Posted by: Greger

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 10:23 PM

But Gravel's supporters support Gabbard? And Gravel says yeah I support her too... and who are these Gravel Teens and why are they running a campaign for an 86 year...?

I'm not sure if Gravel knows what Gravel is feeling.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
So then...we should make every effort to elect the most centrist candidates, who will, with the Republicans, resist any change that benefits the working class. Resist any change that addresses global climate change, income inequality or human rights issues? Because it's too hard?

Joe Biden doesn't even approve of legal weed.

Because we probably can't accomplish everything we want we should just forget about it. Might as well vote republican with that logic.

And you don't want to be accused of incrementalism.


Now, if you'll just go back and find the spot where I said, "Hey kids, I think we should all just get behind Joe Biden!", you'll have something.
Otherwise all you have is...

(Drum roll + rimshot)

A logical fallacy.
Because I never said that.

What I AM saying is that although I am going to pour every ounce of energy and financial support I can to Bernie or Liz (already donated to Bernie so far) when the primaries come, if we WIND UP with Joe, I will reluctantly vote for him rather than (A) sit home and sulk, (B) write in someone's name, or (C) vote for Trump because THAT'LL teach the bastards!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I think we need to become a lot better at inspiring them.
The Donald seems very skilled at "inspiring" his admirers.

Trump is a con man doing what con men do. I'm not looking for that kind of candidate.
Bernie is extremely skilled at inspiring his admirers. Warren is proving to be quite inspirational as well.

Biden actually has no admirers to inspire.

Face it...It's Biden, Warren, or Sanders. If you think the lefties are a bad choice then that puts you in the Biden camp.



Well fortunately I get to choose whether to get in the box you've prepared for me and I choose not to do so.

Now whattaya gonna do?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Democratic Socialism - 08/06/19 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
and who are these Gravel Teens and why are they running a campaign for an 86 year...?


Who is Mike Gravel