Revenge of the Human Scum

Posted by: pdx rick

Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/05/19 02:37 PM

Quote:
There they are, deep in the wilderness. It might be hard for you to see them. After all they barely exist in the wild. They have gone nearly extinct. If you canít spot them, you might be able to hear their labored breathing, seeing as they are simultaneously gasping for air and on a respirator powered only by their unyielding belief in norms.

It is the much maligned anti-Trump Republicans, expelled from the herd, lurking in the bush, waiting for the moment when they will determine the next president of the United States.

The Bullwark.com


So maybe anti-Trump Republicans are going to decide the 2020 election . . .?

smile

Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/06/19 05:10 AM

I suspect we are seeing the anti-woman poll responses of women: Solidarity is still in short supply among women. Some still see other women primarily as competition, or as incompetent. Qualities people admire in men, they dislike in women.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is. We would probably be a lot better off with women running the government.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/08/19 10:08 PM

I fear 2020, I fear if Dems actually run a self claimed Socialist, or a female candidate claiming to be a Capitalist whilst embracing any and all items on the socialist wish list, run under the Democratic banner, whilst the economy holds we will get another 4 years of Trump. Doesn't matter what I, or anybody else thinks, this is just how the voting will go. If, however, the economy either starts to collapse or does THEN we will still have a chance.

The problem is pretty simple. Americans are dedicated to perception and NOT fact. There is a perception that anything 'socialist' is anathema, pure and simple. I think we have already addressed that one. I know, there are some who will not accept that simple fact, I, yet again, wish I was wrong but this one seems a simple fact.

The socialist thing a known deal - I do not understand why folks can't accept it, stay away from the Socialist stuff, get elected, and THEN have at it! Instead there are those that have decided that Socialist stuff is the way to go and just keep on adding fuel to the Republican cause.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/09/19 12:51 AM

Unless he screws up royally, Biden has it wrapped up. He's not going to run on any socialist platform. He just has to run on "non-criminal" and "non-traitor" and he beats Trump. If he wants to bring in all the Progressives, he should ask Warren to be his VP. A female VP won't scare anybody away.

If he gets a Democratic Congress, there is no end to Trump screw-ups he can fix. I think that could be a useful lesson for Republicans: When you get power, don't overreach because anything you do unilaterally will just be undone the next time you lose power.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/09/19 04:24 AM

Or it may not matter who runs. I have always said the American electorate is as dumb as a box of rocks. Will they prove me true again?

Maybe these people just want a dictator as dumb as they are and will tolerate just about anyone who wants to destroys America all in the name of personal greed and narcissism.

And maybe we deserve 4 more years of Mr Trump. Would it be the wake up call or the death knell?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/09/19 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I fear 2020, I fear if Dems actually run a self claimed Socialist, or a female candidate claiming to be a Capitalist whilst embracing any and all items on the socialist wish list...

...which is exactly why Bloomberg is preparing to enter...erm, buy into the 2020 primary race. Hmm
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/09/19 08:29 PM

So, there does seem a segment of the Democratic left that seems to believe that if you got the bucks you are a criminal and unwanted, on the left, who apparently are going to solve the problem by taxing the wealthy to pauper status. I suspect their various plans are actually unconstitutional but in the fullness of time..........

As far as I can tell the current likely winners, except for Biden, are unlikely to be able to beat Trump. They just keep forgetting that there are a LOT of folks currently working that were not previous to the Trump Administration. I don't, personally, think this has a lot to do with Trump but its the American way, the president gets to claim responsibility for things like jobs - its simply the way it is. This also means that if the president isn't there anymore than neither are their jobs. This may not be all that logical but its a simple fact. Remember, PERCEPTION and NOT fact is the American way. Again, this is the way it is. The problem is that the Dems don't understand this and do not address perception at all - the other side, however, are absolute believers in perception over reality.

The American perception of 'socialists' is just not good. I was going to say that the history of socialist countries was not good but that is not exactly true. The problem is pretty simple. Social endeavor is a moving target in America when trying to describe it. My own thought is that socialism takes place when taxpayer money is used run services for the entire community. This is, probably, wrong in that services currently being supplied, by government, and not considered socialist are things like public schools, public hospitals, police and fire departments, etc. There are small politial groups that do consider that stuff to be 'socialistic', but, I think, not by the general populace. American perception of socialism is pretty simple. Government takes over EVERYTHING and then tells the citizens what they can, and cannot do, to conform to their efforts on THEIR behalf. This is what Communism is about and everything else 'socialist' is in the same basket.

Our problem is that, as a nation, we just don't get it and what the self proclaimed 'socialists' of the democratic party are claiming they want to do is kinda edging into what the nation believes to be Communist and Socialist leaning and on that slippery slope. This will threaten jobs! This gives too much power to the state! It threatens us! Unfortunately this is how America perceives this stuff and they are not going to vote for it. Its unfortunate, but true, that means that, unless there is a serious economic downturn, the current crop of self proclaimed socialists can also not beat Trump.

Biden might be able to beat Trump, some of the outlyers might also be able to Buttegeg (probably spelled wrong) or Senator Klobuchar, or Steyer might be able to. Bloomberg can also probably beat Trump. Bloomberg is another Democrat that has the big bucks and may actually run. He is running because he want Trump gone, pure and simple. The same is true with Steyer who also has the big bucks. These two are really offensive to the pure block of Democratic Socialists and that is a shame. I think what is really happening is that these guys are trying to tell the Dems that if they don't clean up their act, stop the purity thing, and pay attention to business instead of pie in the sky promises, unlikely to pass even a completely Democratic congress, they are going to gift us all with another 4 years of the Trump criminal enterprise administration as well as a completely packed judicial system, the complete destruction of our public school system and national parks, and environmental disaster.

Its going to be an interesting run up to 2020. I sincerely want, and hope, that Trump gets unelected. Since the current Democratic party has not convinced me they really want to win it looks as if Trump has to get himself unelected (with some help from a variety of prosecutors). So far he has done pretty good in this regard, I sincerely hope its gonna be enough. If Steyer or Bloomberg actually run as Democrats we will be treated to the spectacle of the Democrats doing everything in their power to make sure neither wins.

I wish us all good luck............
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/10/19 12:07 AM

You've really fallen for the right wing fear mongering haven't you?

There are no socialists running for the democratic nomination. No one has any socialist plans or schemes. Social democracy is not socialism, is not in any way related to socialism, and will not lead to socialism.

Government subsidized healthcare is not socialism. A wealth tax is not socialism. Subsidized college education is not socialism. A living wage is not socialism. Regulating industry is not socialism. Separation of church and state is not socialism. Lot's of things are not socialism and none of the things any of the candidates are proposing are socialism.

This isn't worth going over again.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/10/19 08:31 PM

Perhaps. Still worth a thought. I consider Bernie exactly what he says - a socialist. I also believe that Warren is a socialist based on many of her "plans". Any services, provided by government are, by definition, "socialist" as far as I am concerned. This includes Libraries, public schools, police and fire departments, etc. The problem, again, is in the word "socialist". The inference is that gov takes over certain things and pays for those things with taxes. I think these are, for the most part, good and, basically, thought of as things gov should be doing. The problem is that nobody ever took the time to define until 'socialist' was completely maligned and demonized. So, most folks don't give it much thought and these are things gov does that are necessary. The problem is that gov is under constant attack for just about everything and now its at fever pitch so there are groups of citizens that are running scared about anything gov might do. It just doesn't matter whether you are talking about "social democracy" or "socialism" the perception is that they are the same thing and really, really, bad for everybody.

I have never, incidentally, said a wealth tax, subsidized college or a living wage is socialism are even vaguely socialist. Regulation is how gov controls stuff going on. It regulates things like schools, police, firemen, libraries, our armies, etc. Its what its there for. The problem is simple, sometimes gov goes too far or not far enough. The reasons are multiple and the solution is that our legislators are supposed to make the rules and understand what the hell they are doing. Currently gov is a joke and our dear leader has been making assaults on gov and regulation. He has, for instance, actually reduced the standards for drinking water thereby putting some at risk. This was done months ago and maybe was mentioned a couple of times and then we all moved on. This is happening all the time.

Oh, I am flat out for separation of church and state including taxing ALL church property. I would even go one step further on taxes. I believe that taxes need to be standardized and that ALL income taxes are taxed at, exactly the same rate regardless of source. Income is income. No deals.

You are right, this is probably a waste of time and done, over, and over, and over. We are in agreement........
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/10/19 09:41 PM

The problem is really that most unaffiliated voters are not politically savvy to even recognize that every service the government offers us is inherently a socialist idea. That's where all sorts of good things like the 40 hour work week, paid sick leave, social security, etc. came from. If you look at the historical data, before each of these programs came to be, they were part of the Socialist Party platform. And they had people in the streets with signs, fighting company goons or police, even dying for the struggle.

But on the other hand, we have had a well-financed right wing claiming socialism in general is bad for everybody for many decades. By now, a substantial number of people believe that government can't do anything well and "is the problem". Of course, for many problems there is no other feasible solution but government regulation. You take away the regulations and the problem gets MUCH worse.

With all this propaganda affecting all the unaffiliated voters, it is insane to run as a socialist, or even a "social democrat" or "democratic socialist". Democrats may vote for you, but you need half the 33% of unaffiliated voters to win. If you want to add government services, run as a Democrat and when you win, add those services!

And no, I am not against socialist programs like free tuition, universal healthcare, etc. I'm just a realist and think you can do a lot more as a winner than as a loser.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/11/19 01:05 AM

Quote:
Any services, provided by government are, by definition, "socialist" as far as I am concerned.


Quote:
I have never, incidentally, said a wealth tax, subsidized college or a living wage is socialism


But wait...if all government services are socialism then all government services are socialism.

And since we have a lot of government services we are already a socialist nation so what's the beef with electing a socialist?

Unless you don't like government services which means you should be voting for Trump because he also doesn't like government services...

But there's no use going over this with you because you simply cannot grasp the difference between textbook socialism and social democracy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/11/19 01:22 AM

Quote:
With all this propaganda affecting all the unaffiliated voters, it is insane to run as a socialist, or even a "social democrat" or "democratic socialist".


As far as I know all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination are running as Democrats. None are running as Democratic Socialists, socialists or social democrats.

Are you saying they should all abandon any progressive ideas they may have and run on whatever platform the DNC says is sufficiently pure to win? Even though all those ideas are supported by a majority of the voters? I say it's better to take a stand and lose than to sell out and win. Or maybe the number two and number three candidates should drop out...because socialisms...and give the single digit candidates a better chance to win because they deserve it more.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/12/19 09:03 AM

Nope, I'm not suggesting any of those things. I just don't want to see some great candidates lose because people believe they are socialists. Republicans are going to be screaming it, because they already are saying it about mainstream Democrats. So don't reinforce it in low-information voter's minds.

I want progressive candidates to give them a story they can get behind: They already know Republicans lie all the time about such stuff. So tell them you are a "progressive Democrat", a candidate who cares about people (even Republicans), an "old-time" FDR-style Democrat. They have to believe good things will happen if you win. Sidestep their racism and xenophobia, and stress unity and America's history as the beacon of freedom to the world. If you want to tell them how Trump has screwed something up, spend most of your time explaining how you plan to fix that.

Classic example: Don't tell them you are coming for their AR-15s. Beto committed political suicide on that one. Tell them we need real solid background checks and systems to get guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental problems. Most people will assume you are not talking about them!

Finally, throw the seniors a bone: Tell them about Moscow Mitch's plan to cut Medicare and Social Security by giving away all their funds to the rich. Tell them you want to repeal Trump's tax cut and use the money to make those programs solvent. Free college tuition does nothing for them, but keeping those checks coming really does.

I'm not saying that's all you do. Universal health care and free state colleges are something you should work on, but beware the ACA-effect. It crippled Obama for 6 years. Sure, fix everything Trump has broken, but don't make the mistake of overreach the Republicans have made the last three years. You need tons of public support for any big changes, and bipartisan votes in Congress would be a very good idea if you want anything to last.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/12/19 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Nope, I'm not suggesting any of those things. I just don't want to see some great candidates lose because people believe they are socialists. Republicans are going to be screaming it, because they already are saying it about mainstream Democrats. So don't reinforce it in low-information voter's minds.



I do agree that to openly announce oneself as something that millions of low information voters recoil against due to decades of conditioning, is probably the very worst campaign tactic imaginable.

But let's face facts: The United States has been dragged so far to the Far Right that Genghis Khan is almost a socialist now.

I'm simply saying that it's way too late to avoid the generic red-baiting that only a Trump supporter would listen to, and that those people would never consider voting for anyone but Trump anyway.

Got some news for you...
The entire Trump Right is ALREADY saying that virtually everyone on the other side are communists.
We're communists, marxists, socialists, terrorists, America haters, but most importantly, we are communists and socialists...
"VERY VERY BAD!"
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/12/19 05:59 PM

Quote:
I want progressive candidates to give them a story they can get behind


Did you hear Liz Warrens story about when she was a little girl her daddy had a heart attack, they lost the family car, almost lost the house, but her mom took a minimum wage job as a lunch lady and managed to keep the house and feed the family.

She wants better healthcare, living wages, cheaper education. She wants things that every other wealthy nation routinely provides to their citizens. Who can't get behind that story?

In every poll progressive policies are favored by voters.

But because Republicans call all this socialism and communism candidates need to talk about increasing military spending, cutting government spending on entitlements, and tax cuts for the wealthy in a pleasant way that won't offend any republicans.

F*ck Republicans and F*ck Fox News.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/13/19 01:58 AM

A minimum wage job as a lunch lady won't even get you a month's rent on a storage locker these days.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/13/19 02:46 AM

Quote:
The entire Trump Right is ALREADY saying that virtually everyone on the other side are communists.


Agreed, and you can't do or say anything to reach them. These are people so dumb they support the guy who's idiotic "must win no matter who it hurts" trade policies lost their family farm. BUT Trump's hardcore supporters are only about 35% or less of the population. The other 30% Democrats are on board, so the important folks to reach are the 35% of unaffiliated voters who can be persuaded. You need a story that appeals to them.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/13/19 03:34 PM

Quote:
You need a story that appeals to them.

You keep asking for stories. I gave you one, there are many. But if these voters are unengaged they aren't listening to any stories at all.

But I don't think these unaffiliated swayable voters exist an any great numbers, just because you aren't a member of either party doesn't mean you never read the news or hear about Donald Trump. Either you like him or you don't. I'm an unaffiliated voter, is there some story Donald Trump might tell that will sway me to vote for him?

No. Because he's lying.

What if I believe that both sides are lying? Is there a lie that will persuade me that the liar is telling the truth? Even when I know that free healthcare, living wages, and free college are never going to happen...just more lies.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/13/19 11:46 PM

The unaffiliated may lean one way or another, but Trump's hard core "believe anything" base is not higher than 35%. The other 65% is either already anti-Trump or could be convinced.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 03:50 AM

President Trump is now officially WORRIED about "Never Trumpers".
As well he should be, because their numbers are going to grow.
With every minute of these hearings, more and more a picture is beginning to emerge, and with every minute, one more Trump zombie is extinguished as they join the ranks as brand new fresh NEVER TRUMPERS.
And Trump can't stop what's coming, just like he has been unable to stop everything else that's been coming.
But we dare not take any of this for granted, despite what we see and know is happening.
A wounded pig becomes a dangerous pig.

If this impeachment is successfully quashed on manufactured conspiracy theories, the outcome literally changes this nation into a full-on kleptocracy.
We will quite literally join Russia, pre-rev Ukraine, Honduras, Nigeria, and any number of nations that end in "stan".

We will quite literally become the global capital of Chaostan.

In other words, this is the part in the mythical fairy tale where the sailors actually start to see the water rushing over the edge of the flat earth, this is the point at which we literally sail off and over the edge.

It sounds cute and trite, but.....
"Here be monsters."

Think of the kind of bedfellows we invite into our national security, our intelligence, our justice and our financial centers as a result of such a turn of events.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
President Trump is now officially WORRIED about "Never Trumpers".
As well he should be, because their numbers are going to grow.
With every minute of these hearings, more and more a picture is beginning to emerge, and with every minute, one more Trump zombie is extinguished as they join the ranks as brand new fresh NEVER TRUMPERS.
And Trump can't stop what's coming, just like he has been unable to stop everything else that's been coming.
But we dare not take any of this for granted, despite what we see and know is happening.
A wounded pig becomes a dangerous pig.

If this impeachment is successfully quashed on manufactured conspiracy theories, the outcome literally changes this nation into a full-on kleptocracy.
We will quite literally join Russia, pre-rev Ukraine, Honduras, Nigeria, and any number of nations that end in "stan".

We will quite literally become the global capital of Chaostan.

In other words, this is the part in the mythical fairy tale where the sailors actually start to see the water rushing over the edge of the flat earth, this is the point at which we literally sail off and over the edge.

It sounds cute and trite, but.....
"Here be monsters."

Think of the kind of bedfellows we invite into our national security, our intelligence, our justice and our financial centers as a result of such a turn of events.



There's two ways to tell the effect of the impeachment hearings. One is to compare today's Trump approval rating to his approval rating once the hearings end or once the trail is over. But keep this as a starting point. 43.9% approval per RCP averages.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Number two is to keep track of Trump's impeachment and removal numbers.

Democrats for impeachment 82%, removal 81%
Republicans for impeachment 12%, removal 11%
Independents for impeachment 36% removal 37%

If you like you can add the do not impeach and the do not remove numbers. But to see the total effect, you have to have a starting point.

Democrats against impeachment 6%, removal 8%
Republicans against impeachment 80%, removal 82%
Independents against impeachment 39%, removal 38%

Questions 15 and 16

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7umtlf80ov/econTabReport.pdf

These are your starting point numbers. Keep them and compare as time goes by. they will show if your opinions on the Never Trumpers and the like are correct or wrong. Numbers are a beautiful way to show how one's theories are true or false. They aren't bias or partisan.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 04:58 PM

OK ... I guess polls would satisfy a personal rationalization for whatever one's bias is, but remember

Originally Posted By: wiki
In 2015, large majorities of American adults, both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%), supported background checks for private sales and at gun shows, according to a Pew Research Center survey. In 2017, strong majorities of American adults, both gun owners (77%) and non-gun owners (87%), supported background checks for private sales and at gun shows, according to a Pew Research Center survey with an error attributable to sampling of +/- 2.8% at the 95% level of confidence. In 2018, after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, nearly all Americans supported universal background checks. 88% of registered voters supported universal background checks, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll with a margin of error +/- 2%. 94% of American voters supported universal background checks, according to a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%.

and so despite an overwhelming (I think this is what Republicans believe rampant means or maybe only 1%) support for universal BGC, no Congress and in particular Republicans have intentionally stopped any legislation which would enact such a law.

So if public support for conviction (if impeached) is in a majority, what would that mean? Could I buy a cup of java with that knowledge?

Let me include a couple of quotes which I believe reflect the attitude of the only jury which makes a difference.

Originally Posted By: Sen Graham
Iíve written the whole process off... I think this is a bunch of B.S.


Originally Posted By: Rep. Landgrebe
Donít confuse me with the facts. Iíve got a closed mind.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 05:09 PM

We'll see what happens, I gave you all a starting point. How you use it or don't use it is up to you. Numbers can take the bias and partisanship out of things and they can also show biases and ultra high partisanship to a degree most wouldn't imagine.

Use these as a stating point or don't That I leave up to you.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 07:37 PM

The only poll which matters is the Senate Republican whip count.

You missed the point of my post. I was pointing out that sometimes it doesn't matter what the polls say, there are other considerations which are more important to those who are writing laws. We have such a case in the current Trump Party. Far more important to placate THE BASE, than suffer the political consequences.

A better poll (which would gauge Senate votes) would be a state by state poll. I can't speak for Democrat senators but as an example the senators from Alabama or S Carolina are firm 110% not guilty and they do not have to see any "evidence".

I am still sitting on my 20% of Senate Republicans who may vote to convict. I don't see any movement and the WH is calling in the chips and intimidating the jurors.

But none of that matters. House Democrats have seen something which they believe is impeachable and are doing their Constitutional duty. I can only control what I do, and maybe, hope to influence others to do what is right.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 07:40 PM

You don't need polls to know that Democrats are for impeachment and Republicans are against. In roughly equal numbers. And polls won't tell you whether the Senate will convict or not.

I say they won't. Because from their side they aren't being pushed into it. The folks who elected them don't want him impeached or removed. They love him. He was chosen by God to prepare the church for the end days. It's pretty comical when you think of it.

You'll note that the Republican defense of Donald Trump borders on the comical as well. Because they don't need to defend him. As far as Republican voters go they will all vote Republican. Same as it ever was.

And I insist that the anti-Trump/anti Republican backlash in 2020 is going to be devastating and may never actually show up in the national polls. But they may...keep your eye on the numbers Pero and I'll continue using magickal means to divine the future.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 08:35 PM

Quote:
anti-Trump/anti Republican backlash
A bit hyperbolic.

For there to be a backlash we would have to see a significant number of those Trump supporters abandoning Mr Trump. Now let me remind you ... I can shoot someone etc etc

There will be Trump supporters who will turn their back on him, but I suspect the real shift will be among independents. 60-40 or 65-35.

Now the problem ... this has to occur in those states which were formerly in the Blue Wall and in battleground states for there to be a Trump defeat (plus a heavy Democrat turnout). Otherwise we may see the same results as 2016.

I can see it now ... a little handed emperor who demands you bend the knee.

Vote and vote often
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 09:15 PM

I am, pretty much, in agreement with you on most of it. I am, however, not sure about the Obamacare thing. The Republicans were able to demonize that one because the Democrats couldn't fight back. I am, even now, not even sure they were actually for it in the first place. I remember when it was being dealt with and the Dems seemed to be fighting like hell to stop it! Half the bill was actually written by the Republicans (I watched the markup on TV and then refused to vote on the bill they actually wrote half of.

Part of the Moscow Mitch promise to stop ANY Obama legislation (was actually shown on TV!). I just think that Obamacare was just one thing but the main thing was the Republican party promise to fight, or stop, ANY legislation by Obama.

The Dems just gotta stop the 'socialist' as it can cost them the election. The so-called tax cut absolutely must be repealed and, whilst at it, the taxes for the 1% should be, at least, tripled. Its kinda interesting. The argument of the the rich is that they are already paying the bulk of the taxes and any more would be unfair - ie. "BULLSH*T!"
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/14/19 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The only poll which matters is the Senate Republican whip count.

You missed the point of my post. I was pointing out that sometimes it doesn't matter what the polls say, there are other considerations which are more important to those who are writing laws. We have such a case in the current Trump Party. Far more important to placate THE BASE, than suffer the political consequences.

A better poll (which would gauge Senate votes) would be a state by state poll. I can't speak for Democrat senators but as an example the senators from Alabama or S Carolina are firm 110% not guilty and they do not have to see any "evidence".

I am still sitting on my 20% of Senate Republicans who may vote to convict. I don't see any movement and the WH is calling in the chips and intimidating the jurors.

But none of that matters. House Democrats have seen something which they believe is impeachable and are doing their Constitutional duty. I can only control what I do, and maybe, hope to influence others to do what is right.



I may have indeed miss the point. But the post I responded to was talking about Never Trumpers along with the rest of the populace, not senators. My take on the senate, today, you could very well have Democrat Jones, Alabama where Trump has a 60% approval and Democrat Manchin, West Virginia, Trump is at 61% there. Both could vote Nay on impeachment and removal. A nay vote certainly would be with the wishes of a good majority of the people in their state. Jones if he voted AYE would doom any reelection chances he has in 2020.

I count 4-5 GOP senators vote AYE for impeachment and removal. Most of the rest are in deep red states that supports Trump and voting Nay would once again be voting the way the people of their state want them too. The last time I looked, our representatives and senators were suppose to represent the people of their district and state first and foremost.

Now this is as of today. That can change. Pressure brought on the senators from the people of their state could convince them to change their vote. Otherwise, it is more or less a party line vote. Why? Wanting Trump gone or to stay is also along party lines. You can break it down, 85% of democrats want Trump impeached and removed, 85% of Republicans don't. Independents are split roughly 35-35 for and against removal with 30% undecided or just plain don't care.

One last thing, when impeachment hearing began on Nixon, 9 May 1974, you had 58% of Democrats favoring impeachment and removal vs 70% of Republicans who were against. independents split much like today. But in 1974 we didn't have the polarization or ultra high partisanship we have today.

So we'll see.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 12:51 AM

Quote:
Independents are split roughly 35-35 for and against removal with 30% undecided or just plain don't care.


That 30% can make all the difference in 2020. That works out to about 10% of voters. If you can convince them Trump is a crook, that 10% makes the election a rout. Even if they go to the polls just because they are tired of this show, that would do it. There are a lot of "Red States" where the Republicans win by 5% or less. But if 10% of the independent voters vote against Trump, you can flip a lot of those states. Just look at the states where Trump won by less than 5% in 2016:

state_____________electoral votes
Michigan 16
Florida 29
Pennsylvania 20
Wisconsin 10
Arizona 11
North Carolina 15

total 101 votes

2016 results: 232 to 306
2016 results with 101 change: 333 to 205
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Independents are split roughly 35-35 for and against removal with 30% undecided or just plain don't care.


That 30% can make all the difference in 2020. That works out to about 10% of voters. If you can convince them Trump is a crook, that 10% makes the election a rout. Even if they go to the polls just because they are tired of this show, that would do it. There are a lot of "Red States" where the Republicans win by 5% or less. But if 10% of the independent voters vote against Trump, you can flip a lot of those states. Just look at the states where Trump won by less than 5% in 2016:

state_____________electoral votes
Michigan 16
Florida 29
Pennsylvania 20
Wisconsin 10
Arizona 11
North Carolina 15

total 101 votes

2016 results: 232 to 306
2016 results with 101 change: 333 to 205

Exactly. You can add my home state of Georgia to that list. Trump wasn't all that popular back in 2016, it was Hillary was more unpopular.

I don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania or Michigan again. Wisconsin I'd rate as pure tossup along with the rest of the states you mentioned. One reason Hillary lost was lack of turnout of the Democratic base. The Democrats had a 6 point edge of the GOP in party affiliation back in November 2016. But only a 3 point edge in those who turned out to vote.

There's a good reason I say if the democrats nominate someone who is attractive to the independent voter, they'll win in a landslide. If they don't, if they nominate someone who is as disliked as much or more than Trump, ALA Hillary in 2016, another 2016 is certainly possible.

Michigan 16 Independents went to Trump 52-36, independents made up 29% of the vote.
Florida 29 Independents went to Trump 47-43, Independents made up 34% of the vote
Pennsylvania 20 independents went to Trump 48-41 Independents made up 20% of the total vote.
Wisconsin 10 Independents went to Trump 50-40, Independents made up 30% of the vote
Arizona 11 Independents went to Trump 47-44, Independents made up 40% of the vote
North Carolina 15 Independents went to Trump 53-37, Independents made up 33% of the vote
I'm adding Georgia to your list Independents went to Trump 52-41, Independents made up 30% of the vote.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president

Independents don't care much for Trump, but cared less for Hillary. So this is why I harp on having a candidate attractive to independents. Not just one's party base. Keep in mind that 12% of independents voted third party rather than choose between two major party candidate they detested. We know they dislike Trump, but we don't know their view on who the Democrats will nominate. Until we know that, 2020 is still undecided, at least in my book.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 03:51 AM

Quote:
our representatives and senators were suppose to represent the people of their district and state first and foremost

wow

let me say that one more time

wow

Originally Posted By: Oath of office of Senate
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


consider the oath vis a vis your statement. If that is your most cogent view of the state of American Congressmen, then we are frakked.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 05:46 AM



Republicans are saying that those who are calling-out Trump for his bribery/extortion is over-turning an election. Hmm

We really should be two countries. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 03:33 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Republicans are saying that those who are calling-out Trump for his bribery/extortion is over-turning an election. Hmm

We really should be two countries. smile


It'd be easy enough, take the northeast and west coast, add a couple of island states around the great lakes, you have one country with the rest making up the other. There may be a couple of states to be argued over like Colorado which is a blue state in the mountain states. But the above divide would do.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
our representatives and senators were suppose to represent the people of their district and state first and foremost

wow

let me say that one more time

wow

Originally Posted By: Oath of office of Senate
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


consider the oath vis a vis your statement. If that is your most cogent view of the state of American Congressmen, then we are frakked.


Consider today our congressmen and senators owe their loyalty to their party and not to the people they supposedly represent. Certainly not to America as a whole. You think Trump has violated the Constitution, you have just about the same number of folks on the other side who says he hasn't. This is in the eye of the beholder type of view or perspective. This brings us right back to the 85% D vs. 85% R.

Fact is politics is always a matter of personal perspectives. Perhaps it's loyalty to party, one will never convince even one of the 85% percenter's to change their minds on Trump. I won't even attempt to.

But I do realize the reality of the situation. A major war between both major parties over Trump. I hope each destroys the other, then perhaps a couple of new political parties will be born that puts all of America's interest ahead of the political party's interest. At least more than just trying to please each's base interest while telling the rest of America to go to Hades in a hand basket.

Of course I'm dreaming, but the flicker of hope hasn't been totally diminished within me.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 04:24 PM

Quote:
There's a good reason I say if the democrats nominate someone who is attractive to the independent voter, they'll win in a landslide. If they don't, if they nominate someone who is as disliked as much or more than Trump, ALA Hillary in 2016, another 2016 is certainly possible.


And who in the list of candidates(besides Trump) is as unpopular to independents as Madam Clinton? You, most likely, imagine it is any progressive candidate. Specifically Warren and Sanders. Neither of those two will attract anti-Trump republicans but neither will depress the Democratic turnout either. That's all it's gonna take for a win.

Maybe it won't be a landslide, but it will be enough to flip the senate and defeat Trump. A wave similar to 2018 will be more than sufficient.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 06:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
There's a good reason I say if the democrats nominate someone who is attractive to the independent voter, they'll win in a landslide. If they don't, if they nominate someone who is as disliked as much or more than Trump, ALA Hillary in 2016, another 2016 is certainly possible.


And who in the list of candidates(besides Trump) is as unpopular to independents as Madam Clinton? You, most likely, imagine it is any progressive candidate. Specifically Warren and Sanders. Neither of those two will attract anti-Trump republicans but neither will depress the Democratic turnout either. That's all it's gonna take for a win.

Maybe it won't be a landslide, but it will be enough to flip the senate and defeat Trump. A wave similar to 2018 will be more than sufficient.

Perhaps, there's a way to figure out which of the candidates independents would be looked on more favorable than others. But this requires the use of polls which you discard immediately. So then, I can't help you.

Now I'm more interested on how this impeachment process will effect independents for the 2020 election than whether or not Trump is removed or stays. I think if the election were held today, the Democrats lose Alabama, pickup Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina. Maine is another possibility as is Iowa. Then there are the two Georgia seats. If everything breaks right, you could be talking of a pickup of 6, maybe 7 seats. If not, perhaps only 2.

Who the Democrats nominate will have a huge say in that along with how independents view the impeachment process. So whatever I say today is nothing more than an educated guess. Take it with a grain of salt.

What's important to me isn't who wins or loses, it is getting my election forecasts right on another site. I'm not a party animal, although I prefer divided government. I hate lurches to the far left or far right. Only if one party controls both chambers of congress and the presidency can those extreme lurches take place.

What I have found is folks who are for certain candidates don't want to hear anything bad or unfavorable about their candidate. They don't want to hear even using numbers that their candidate may not be the best candidate to defeat Trump or any other opponent. That I have come to expect and am able to live with. All they want to hear is that their candidate will win.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 07:11 PM

I don't discard polls, I just don't use them as my primary source of information when predicting the future.

I'm also not dead set on a candidate, I see a possible path for a
progressive candidate to win and I've predicted that she will win. Both in the primaries and against Trump

Quote:
What's important to me isn't who wins or loses, it is getting my election forecasts right


Ditto. Though you seem somewhat reticent to make them until you can be sure you're right.

I have a very specific agenda and it will move forward more quickly if a progressive candidate is elected, but even Trump's re-election will help to move it forward. I consider Biden the biggest impediment to my goals. Biden is also(according to polls) the most likely to win. I'm aware that I might be calling a longshot, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em, not as a thousand random people here or there might see 'em.

Polls are a good reference and I check them now and again to be sure I'm on the right track and so far nothing is indicating that I'm wrong.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 07:28 PM

Bernie is running as a Socialist, pure and simple. He is not a member of the Democratic party and takes great pride in that one.

"Socialist" is a demonized term no matter how its attached or referenced. We have been over this one to exhaustion. Those of us who, months ago, thought using the term was a flat out mistake and gave the Republicans yet another talking point we flat out right.

The simple fact is that "Socialist" is a reference to a system of government wherein the government takes over all means of production. This includes what gets produced, who is in charge, and who decides virtually everything. Socialists have a tendency to want to run everything under the guise of representing "the workers". In other words they want to control EVERYTHING! This is a historical fact.

Its interesting. Warren, for instance, has 'plans'. Most of these plans are not only going the 'help' but 'help' bigtime and gov will control all these 'plans'. Sorry, that one edges very close to your basic, classic, SOCIALISM!

All that being said I remain a supporter of a lot of things considered to be socialist and many that we have now that also qualify. The problem is the word, not the desire to have citizens banding together to deal with social problems. We do it with police, public schools, fire departments right now and there is little difference in those than healthcare, for instance. There are also a number of countries who provide schooling, including higher education. The difference is that higher education is provided for those who qualify and maintain their grades and, for the most part, behave. China, for instance, has quintupled their PHD's in the last few years.

All of this is true. However, the term "Socialist" offends regardless of attached such as "Democratic Socialist". The simple fact is that "Socialist" is the operative word and it offends. Its just the way it is. Its Politics and people should understand there is a genuine difference between "the way it is" rather than "the way it should be" and it matters. "Socialist" is a really good example of that.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 09:17 PM

Quote:
Bernie is running as a Socialist, pure and simple.


Perhaps you could show me a citation to prove this? Bernie is running for president as a Democrat.

He is running for the Senate as an independent, but he has filed to run for the Democratic nomination as a Democrat.
He is a self described social democrat...which is not the same as a socialist...but he is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Bernie has caucused with the Democrats for 30 years or so. His bona fides are pretty bona fide. He is and has always been a progressive.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 09:27 PM

Quote:
The simple fact is that "Socialist" is a reference to a system of government wherein the government takes over all means of production. This includes what gets produced, who is in charge, and who decides virtually everything. Socialists have a tendency to want to run everything under the guise of representing "the workers". In other words they want to control EVERYTHING! This is a historical fact.


Perhaps you could show me some proof of this "historical fact"? I can show you lots of proof that it's pure bullshite. But I won't. because this is YOUR claim and it's up to you to show some proof for it.

Socialism and capitalism are opposing economic systems, they are not governmental systems. Neither one works very well on its own but when combined they become a powerhouse.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 10:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger


Socialism and capitalism are opposing economic systems, they are not governmental systems. Neither one works very well on its own but when combined they become a powerhouse.


I think what most Americans aren't getting is the fact that, when Uncle Sam extends a hand with some of the heavy lifting, the country feels the improvement.
The last time we Americans banded together that way we did not turn socialist. We were capitalists but we got to see the entire South get electrified and watched them get water and sewer, highways, bridges and all other manner of important public works.

All over the nation, idled workers got jobs building and installing these much needed public works. We still use every last one of them today.
We depend upon them.

Now, with us being capitalists, the tendency is to keep the lion's share of the economy as capitalist, and we just add a smidgeon of socialism to the works the way one puts a dab of hot sauce on a Mexican entree in a restaurant.
That's what we did in the New Deal, and nothing else since has ever worked that well, it's just that simple.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/15/19 11:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't discard polls, I just don't use them as my primary source of information when predicting the future.

I'm also not dead set on a candidate, I see a possible path for a
progressive candidate to win and I've predicted that she will win. Both in the primaries and against Trump

Quote:
What's important to me isn't who wins or loses, it is getting my election forecasts right


Ditto. Though you seem somewhat reticent to make them until you can be sure you're right.

I have a very specific agenda and it will move forward more quickly if a progressive candidate is elected, but even Trump's re-election will help to move it forward. I consider Biden the biggest impediment to my goals. Biden is also(according to polls) the most likely to win. I'm aware that I might be calling a longshot, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em, not as a thousand random people here or there might see 'em.

Polls are a good reference and I check them now and again to be sure I'm on the right track and so far nothing is indicating that I'm wrong.



My first forecast isn't due until 1 Dec. Then I do monthly updates. I'm still researching senate and house races along with the presidency which I will rely on the generic Democratic candidate. As far as the Democratic primaries goes, who they nominate will decide whether I vote for their candidate or third party again.

Without being able to gauge impeachment in these races, it would be foolish to put one forth that would be official. Now without impeachment taken into consideration. As of today, numbers wise.

Senate, Alabama goes GOP, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina to the Democrats. A net gain of two as of today. Maine, Iowa and the two Georgia races could end up going democratic, but too early to put them into any category.

House Here's exactly what I have worked up today. It will be updated by 1 Dec to reflect the new numbers available then.

Currently the House of Representative consists of 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, 1 independent seats. The Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats to win back the house. That isnít going to happen. The Democrats have 33 competitive/at risk seats of switching parties to the Republicans 17. The Republicans will have a net gain of 6 seats, the Democrats win MI-3, the independent seat with result of the new House having 230 Democrats, 205 Republicans.

The presidency, as of today without impeachment taken into consideration, I have worked up Generic Democrat 51%, Trump 48%, electoral college, Generic Democrat 333 Trump 205.

We both know Generic Democrat won't be their nominee. I also haven't figured in any third party candidate into the popular vote percentages. So these are early figures, numbers, forecasts that don't hold much weight at the present. But you asked for it.

Now I don't know if you can read this, but here is my final forecast for 2018


https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/per...ber-2018-a.html
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/16/19 12:33 AM

Quote:
So these are early figures, numbers, forecasts that don't hold much weight at the present. But you asked for it.

No, I didn't. I just mentioned your reticence to pick a horse before the race begins. But I see you generally agree with me. It's been months since I made my call and there will be no monthly updates.
I stick by my forecasts.
In 2020 the House will stand, Senate will flip, Trump will lose. If Biden wins he will be defeated by a Republican in 2024. If Warren wins she will be re-elected.

I'm calling a primary win for Warren but admit it might be a longshot, the crystal ball is cracked, the scrying glass foggy, and no one I know really trusts the bones no matter how many times you throw them...
Tarot card readings on Trump aren't pretty.

Impeachment is a non-starter. It's not going to change any minds one way or another because, simply put, minds are already made up. Nobody is up in the air about Trump. It's all going to come down to turnout, and Democrats have plenty to turn out for. Republicans on the other hand...don't.

As far as I'm concerned you can take that to the bank...or at least to the betting window.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/16/19 02:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
So these are early figures, numbers, forecasts that don't hold much weight at the present. But you asked for it.

No, I didn't. I just mentioned your reticence to pick a horse before the race begins. But I see you generally agree with me. It's been months since I made my call and there will be no monthly updates.
I stick by my forecasts.
In 2020 the House will stand, Senate will flip, Trump will lose. If Biden wins he will be defeated by a Republican in 2024. If Warren wins she will be re-elected.

I'm calling a primary win for Warren but admit it might be a longshot, the crystal ball is cracked, the scrying glass foggy, and no one I know really trusts the bones no matter how many times you throw them...
Tarot card readings on Trump aren't pretty.

Impeachment is a non-starter. It's not going to change any minds one way or another because, simply put, minds are already made up. Nobody is up in the air about Trump. It's all going to come down to turnout, and Democrats have plenty to turn out for. Republicans on the other hand...don't.

As far as I'm concerned you can take that to the bank...or at least to the betting window.


Okay, not being a party animal, I really don't have a horse in this race. At least among the big three Democrats.

I'll either vote Democratic in 2020 or third party. Warren had some fairly good momentum 2-4 weeks ago closing in on Biden. But what keeps Biden in the lead is the Democratic Party /primary black vote. Biden is getting 40% of the black vote to Warren's 19%, Sanders 12%. Among Democratic primary white voters it is Warren 30%, Biden and Sanders each with 19%. This is nationwide, which of course nationwide doesn't decide the nominee. Hispanics are closer, 24% for Biden, 20% for Sanders, 16% for Warren.

Hillary won the 2016 nomination on the black primary vote. Few know Sanders edged her out among white Democratic primary voters. You have my 2022 prediction, that is where I leave it.

One thing you have to realize is I don't like either major party, although I'll support candidates from either one I like.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/16/19 06:43 PM

Sorry, Democratic Socialist. He has refused to even join the Democratic Party - he is NOT a Democrat! He has never claimed to be a Democrat but he has claimed to be a plain "socialist".

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...atic-socialist/

The good thing, I guess, is that he has not claimed to be a National Socialist?
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/16/19 06:58 PM

I forgot. My quibble is only, really, over the term "socialist". I literally do not care about the rest of it. I don't like Bernie for a number of reasons but, if he gets the nod I will vote for him! (anybody chosen is my candidate to support as I want Trump gone before we are forced to speak Russian).

As far as "socialist" is concerned I just think its REALLY dumb to claim that term in whatever somebody is claiming. The Dems seem to have an ongoing problem with their messaging. Just the word "socialist" as any part of a self description, for a candidate is, as far as I am concerned, is just plain stupid. Remember, Hitler was a National Socialist. Socialists seem to have a bad habit of going bad over time. I have nothing to cite on the claim, its just a personal thought.

In 2020 claims of "Socialist" or "Socialism" will contribute to more people voting for Trump. Its politically destructive and dangerous to make a claim of socialism or being socialist. We REALLY don't need that especially as long as the economy holds and Trump is seen as providing jobs. Its simply common sense as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/16/19 07:16 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
The good thing, I guess, is that he has not claimed to be a National Socialist?

National Socialists are right-wingers. You will nary hear a word from a righty who will cop to that fact, though. coffee
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 01:01 AM

Quote:
My quibble is only, really, over the term "socialist".

I know that, but there is really nothing we can do about it.

Every single thing that benefits society as a whole is socialism. Everthing that benefits corporations and wealth is capitalism.

You can't have it just one way.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
My quibble is only, really, over the term "socialist".

I know that, but there is really nothing we can do about it.

Every single thing that benefits society as a whole is socialism. Everthing that benefits corporations and wealth is capitalism.

You can't have it just one way.


A female who is filled with hot lust and desire for a guy might still be on the fence about sleeping with him if she thinks word might get out about it resulting in her being slut shamed.

In politics, being accused of being a socialist is like being slut shamed, and the drive to take the emotional charge off the word slut is only succeeding in a narrow sector of society, even in this day and age.

The patterns are similar.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 04:47 PM

JGW, did you read the article you cited? or did you just get as far as Bernie claiming to be a socialist?
Go back and read it all the way through. I can't explain this to you any better than they do.

Quote:
Sanders is technically a social democrat ó he isnít calling for a red revolution, just "a way of making capitalism humane,"



You don't like the word because republicans use it as a slur for anything they disagree with. You know what I say about republicans and what they say...?

Feck 'em. That's what I say.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 05:05 PM

Quote:
One thing you have to realize is I don't like either major party, although I'll support candidates from either one I like.


I don't think anybody here particularly likes either party. Can I just say that I hate one more than I hate the other? I see one as a lost cause and the other as a means to an end.

I think that's the predominant school of thought here.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 05:39 PM

Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST! This is yet another reason not to claim to be a socialist - ANY kind of socialist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/17/19 07:58 PM

There is a vast difference and a lot of similarity between socialists and national socialists: They both have a very strong central government making all major economic decisions for the country, and tend to have high penalties for any individual who goes against their decisions. The difference is who the government considers allies and benefits by those decisions. Socialist's are all about the people, including working classes and the poorest. Nazis are all about the richest people and their corporations.

They are not really opposites in the authoritarian axis: The opposite is Libertarian, where government has almost no say in economic decisions. All three have a big problem, and that is that strong central planning does not work well. The real world is complex. Anything bigger than a small town is too big for humans to make every planning choice correctly. It's a math thing: The number of variables goes up linearly with size, but the number of interactions among them goes up exponentially. The Libertarians just do zero central planning and that's a different kind of mess, with huge economic inefficiency and overlap.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/18/19 04:29 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
There is a vast difference and a lot of similarity between socialists and national socialists: They both have a very strong central government making all major economic decisions for the country, and tend to have high penalties for any individual who goes against their decisions. The difference is who the government considers allies and benefits by those decisions. Socialist's are all about the people, including working classes and the poorest. Nazis are all about the richest people and their corporations.

They are not really opposites in the authoritarian axis: The opposite is Libertarian, where government has almost no say in economic decisions. All three have a big problem, and that is that strong central planning does not work well. The real world is complex. Anything bigger than a small town is too big for humans to make every planning choice correctly. It's a math thing: The number of variables goes up linearly with size, but the number of interactions among them goes up exponentially. The Libertarians just do zero central planning and that's a different kind of mess, with huge economic inefficiency and overlap.


The Libertarians, by virtue of their "let it roll" outlook toward an anything goes approach, always manage to leave the door open for a "laissez-faire" approach to inverted socialism.
Thus via a libertarian economy all those big corps line up and get their subsidies, bailouts, and libertarians are happy to stand by and watch social programs get cut to pay for all that.

But the libertarians refuse to learn the lesson they preach so stoicly:

"Eventually you run out of other people's money".

It doesn't seem important to them if it's the poor people' money, they are only interested in admonishing "thuh poorz" about "running out of the rich people's money".

When those rich people feel the sadz, the libertarians don't mind a bit if they take away more from the poorz.



For all the libertarian scaremongering about socialism, they seem perfectly okay with it if it is inverted.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/18/19 04:45 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST! This is yet another reason not to claim to be a socialist - ANY kind of socialist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism


National socialism is nationalism on steroids, with the word "socialism" intentionally slapped on top to make it look like something it isn't.

Is a Chevy Vega GT a real GT high performance car?
Heh, maybe if you're racing a four year old on his plastic Big Wheel trike.



Oh wait, those aren't four year olds...
But I bet they still could beat a Chevy Vega GT.

And GM convinced enough buyers that it really was sporty that they didn't lose their ass on the car...until they did.
Never mind that the zero to sixty time was measured in months, not seconds.

And that's about what "National Socialism" is to SOCIALISM.
It's a "GT" sticker to make people think it is something it's not, because in 1930's Europe, the word "socialism" sounded pretty good to most Euros, particularly the Weimar weary debt addled Germans who were, at the time, burning large bundles of Reichsmarks because it was cheaper than buying firewood.


National socialism is just fascism with an attractive sounding name.
But it is indeed true that both nazism and pure state socialism are authoritarian in nature.

Social democracy, on the other hand, is capitalism.
It's capitalism done the FDR way, the New Deal way, pretty much.

Thing is, FDR was smart enough to sell it as a very American and very middle class friendly form of capitalism, and he never mentioned the word "socialism" or "social".
He just added the hot sauce and everyone's capitalism tasted a little better, that's all. He didn't even get to add enough of the stuff, but it still helped a great deal.

It helped for well over forty years.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/18/19 09:39 PM

I'm just going to mention that this thread is about the Human Scum(Republicans who don't like Donald Trump) possibly influencing the 2020 election by withholding their votes or voting for the Democrat and thus having revenge on Donald Trump.

But I love talking about socialism in all its various forms because I am a socialist.

I think JGW was joking when he mentioned National Socialists, The National Socialist German Workers Party. It was the very opposite of socialism. Under NAZI rule nearly every aspect of the people's lives were controlled by the government. In a Social Democracy every aspect of the government is controlled by the people.

There is an enormous misunderstanding where socialism is concerned.

It's not the government which owns the means of production, it's the people. Every citizen is a shareholder.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/18/19 11:14 PM

Sounds great, but it never seems to work out that way. There is always some Party with the Party elite, some Central Committee that decides who gets what. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Each individual person may own his share of the means of production, but he isn't free to do anything with it. So it's exactly like not owning anything at all! It may be (mostly) benevolent authoritarianism, but it's still authoritarian. And even if there were no "leaders" it would still be tyranny of the majority.

That's what I don't like about pure socialism. Mix in some capitalist ideas like private property and the rule of law, and individuals have a hell of a lot more freedom.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/18/19 11:59 PM

You can say pretty much the same thing about capitalism.

How long before we have our first trillionaire? How long before one mega corporation owns everything?

I don't think we really have a choice about evolving into a social democracy. It's that or just kick half the population to the curb.

Is capitalism working? I see a world buried in debt and a smattering of uber rich pricks hoarding gold like a storybook dragon.

Capitalism desperately needs a socialist infusion.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/19/19 01:10 AM

Quote:
Mix in some capitalist ideas like private property and the rule of law, and individuals have a hell of a lot more freedom.
Why ever wouldn't a person be able to own his home or car, or own and operate a small business in a social democracy? Where would the rule of law go? That's not a capitalist-specific thing.
In the US of course we even have constitutional restraints. But just a few tweaks will put us in a far better place.

A living wage. Education. Healthcare. None of them are really all that complicated. All of them are political footballs.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/19/19 01:46 AM

I agree entirely. We live in a mixed system. We just need to tweek it a bit. Go back to Harry Truman's time and the top tax rates were something like 95%. The way it's set now, the rich get richer automatically, and the poor have no opportunity to better themselves. That's a recipe for Third World Shite Hole right there. Even some rich people have figured out they don't want to live in a Third World Shite Hole!

But you were talking about Socialism:
Quote:
There is an enormous misunderstanding where socialism is concerned. It's not the government which owns the means of production, it's the people. Every citizen is a shareholder.

You've just made every business owned by everybody, and therefore controlled by the government, of whatever form they agree on. Individuals don't own their own businesses, because they belong to everybody.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Revenge of the Human Scum - 11/19/19 03:11 AM

Being a "shareholder" gets your basic needs taken care of. Food, housing, healthcare, education and employment opportunities that pay a living wage. Why does everyone try to complicate a fairly simple concept? Government collects taxes to pay for basic social services.
It's being done all over the place. And it's working. Other countries have socialized healthcare and they aren't becoming the Soviet Union.
Other countries offer free college tuition and they aren't turning into Venezuela.