Also: I reject the frame that it’s supposedly easy for people of privilege to hold fast to their principles, and they need to let go of that because so many people are hurting. I think it’s easy for people of privilege to keep saying we need to “go slow” and “be reasonable” and endlessly “compromise” with the enemy. I think it’s easy for people of privilege to kick back in their high, leather chairs, stroke their chins, and ponder how they’re going to make the sausage so that politicians can get their money from Big Donors and not lose all of their voters. As in, focus endlessly on an endless process of kicking the can down the road while people actually ARE suffering.

People in serious poverty, being oppressed daily, running from bombs and bullets daily — they can’t afford to wait for years and years, or decades and decades, while the various Neros in DC play the fiddle and Rome burns. People need help now. Not when it’s safe for the Dems to come out of the bunker. Not when it’s safe for the GOP to repudiate previous presidents. Now.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

You need to own it. You said communist is what you desire but not what was presented during the cold war. That is why I used it. Your memory is failing you

And that was just him.

BT is free to speak his mind but no one else espoused those views.

ZN, it’s far more accurate to just say “no one espoused those views.”

WV and I share the same basic non-school school, as far as political philosophy goes. We’re both eclectic and non-orthodox, but “libertarian socialist” is a pretty good catchall descriptor. Left-libertarian, left-anarchist, etc. etc.

“Communism,” in its true sense — at least as I see it — is just one possible road it might take. One possible “logical progression” after libertarian socialism comes into being. And it’s quite literally the opposite of the Soviet perversion of the word, or the Chinese one. It’s the opposite of totalitarianism. It’s the apotheosis of true democracy, as second nature, in my view. The absence of the state and all classes. Obviously, that means no ruling class, either.

Bnw was basically just red-baiting. He doesn’t believe it’s possible to see “communism” the way I do. Hell, he doesn’t believe anyone can see Obama as “conservative,” which I do as well.

Bottom line: No one here espouses the views bnw suggests with that angry old right-wing slur.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’m not trying to talk anyone into anything, rather I’m letting other Rams fans know that this place isn’t the Communist Corner of Purity since I post here and they could too.

bnw,

Sheesh, man. You should have quit while you were behind. Now you’re edging past JBS/paranoid, red-baiting territory, which was puerile, fascist garbage back in the 1950s. It’s all the worse for age and wasn’t any better in the original German.

You need to own it. You said communist is what you desire but not what was presented during the cold war. That is why I used it. Your memory is failing you.

Own what? Your potted version of “communism”? Sorry. Not gonna do it. And you know that’s not the point anyway. It’s your red-baiting, out of nowhere, for no reason. Because you have no argument so you thought you had to lash out, blindly, and try to mock and bait the people here.

I’m a socialist. A libertarian socialist. And I see the end goal of actual “communism” as a noble one. It means the absence of the state. It goes much, much further than the right’s “minarchism” in that respect. But it gets there via true democracy and the end of all class divisions, all concentrations of wealth, power, access and privilege. It gets there by ending the class system, period.

That’s the opposite of the right’s plan, which would end up with a few billionaire warlords running the show and the most tyrannical ruling class in history.

I also know human beings are natural small “c” communists and always have been. So my desire for the human race is that it evolves enough to live in harmony with the planet and itself. It will never do that as long as the right runs the show. It will always be in opposition to the best we humans can be, and the earth, as long as the right is in charge.

wv wrote:

What is ‘median income’ ?

I mean is that one of those deals where
one family can earn a billion dollars a year
and a bunch of other families can earn 15K a year,
but the ‘median income’ will then be a hundred million dollars, er somethin ?

w
v

WV,

Half above, half below. Two equal halves. At least that’s the theoretical meaning of the term.

Oh, and then there is this:

Yes, Hillary, the Dems and all too many “liberals” are wont to play the “identity politix” game, instead of making lasting and necessary changes via an attack on all hierarchies. This, of course, would achieve radical reductions in inequality — if not flat out eliminate it entirely — which simply can’t be accomplished by diversifying privilege.

That said, Trump and company also play the identity politix game. He just limits that to the color white. Same way of avoiding any real change to the overall power structure. Same way of avoiding solving the issue of inequality itself, the grotesque concentration of wealth, power and privilege, etc.

But the second form is far worse than the first, for obvious (and ugly) reasons. The first deals primarily with granting access to concentrations of wealth, power and privilege to minorities and women. The second seeks to prevent this and keep all of that access tied up in the hands of white people only — and to use stoked up fears of brown and black people to do it.

Again, the far, far better idea is to get rid of all concentrations of wealth, power and privilege, period. Knock down the pyramids (metaphorically speaking). All of them. We should have grown out of them long ago.

waterfield wrote:

“The main thing is to start making progress in every other public office downstream.”

Recently attended a campaign get out the vote meeting for Clinton and the message was just that -namely to urge the voters not to just vote for the top office but vote down the entire ticket. That is the only way to wrestle congressional power away from the Republicans. Real power is “downstream”.

The Dems need to do their part, too, and stop feeling entitled to everyone’s vote. They couldn’t even be bothered to run Democrats in half of the contests, and have lost more than a thousand seats since 2008.

Another key: If they get the majority again, no more compromising with the GOP. The GOP has no interest in that anyway. The Dems need to go big or go home, go all out left-populist, and push that agenda through all on their own. They’re not going to get help from the GOP even if they go small and center-right, which is their wont.

Might as well go full on left-populist, and that’s the ONLY way they’re going to inspire voters to turnout in the midterms.

The status quo is NOT going to work.

And my entire life I have never met anyone who possessed “the truth” on anything when it comes to political vision. I always just see better or worse theories, and clashing assumptions and premises. That’s just how I approach all of this. That’s me.

That’s fine. But if you actually do believe no one possesses the truth, then it’s sensible for you not to lead with the claim that someone else is “searching for a dubious truth,” when all I did was use numbers and draw a logical inference from those numbers and our electoral system.

It’s not “spin” to say what is self-evidently the case. Presidents don’t win because of one particular state. Again, just as that last-second field goal can’t possibly “win the game.” And within those states, they don’t win based on third-party votes which don’t even match those lost to Democratic voters who DIRECTLY voted for Bush. By definition, the voting process is cumulative within each state. By definition, the electoral process is cumulative within the nation as a whole.

Those ARE facts. No spin. Just facts.

zn wrote:

I’ll blame them. Shrug. Not that anyone should or will care if I do.

If you are a progressive Trump is clearly worse than the Clinton. That is if you look at policies. And by worse, it’s significantly worse. Not 6 of one half a dozen of the other– worse.

That’s even at the level of economic policies.

And this is not “opinion.” An objective comparison of policies shows the difference.

And I might add, the ones who will be the most screwed over by Trump do not include anyone posting here.

I can’t remember your take on this, ZN. Did you blame Nader for Bush in 2000? I’m guessing you didn’t, but am not sure.

From my research, the folks who did just don’t have a case. First off, our electoral system doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t allow for one state to ever be definitive. It works on cumulative totals, obviously. Bush won 30 states. Gore won 20. Bush doesn’t get to the 271 without all of them. No one state can be definitive, just as a last-second field goal doesn’t actually “win” the game. All the things leading up to that count, too.

Second: even if we go by the premise that Florida was definitive — it can’t be — some 308,000 registered Dems voted directly for Bush. So Nader’s 24,000 votes from likely Dems is dwarfed by that, obviously. And, again, all 50 states have their variables as well. Counterfactuals can’t be cherry-picked and still have some chance at mattering.

Anyway . . . . if the choice is between Clinton and Trump, I hope Trump loses. But I’m not happy with those choices, at all.

WV,

Agreed. She will continue the war against the poor. But if you compare the Dems to the GOP on that subject, the GOP is historically worse. Trump won’t change that. I think he’ll continue GOP traditions, as Clinton will continue the Dems’.

We need to kick both parties out, because they both suck — on that issue and pretty much everything else. But if we’re JUST talking about the choice between the two wings of the duopoly, the GOP is the greater of the two evils.

And I’m definitely voting for Jill Stein, as I did in 2012.

Yes the draft including females would very much be academic to you. Man made global warming is a steaming pile of BS and I say that as a scientist. The earth is COOLING and has been for nearly 20 years. The global climate is driven by the sun. Paying scoundrels like Al Gore for “carbon credits” and taxing people to do so is ridiculous. I see all the doom and gloom here and I really don’t believe you guys truly believe such nonsense.

How do I favor inequality? If you mean the CEO of a public traded company shouldn’t be paid more than 4 times the average company wage, then yes I guess I do. However you supported that suggestion. Or have you forgotten?

bnw, why do you keep doing that? Why do insist on telling me how I think or feel about an issue? Especially after I’ve just corrected you on your error? I’ll say it one more time: No. It’s NOT academic to me. Get it? Matters of war and peace are extremely important to me. Always have been.

As for global warming. Virtually NO scientist agrees with you that the planet is cooling. Crackpots, yes. Serious scientists, no. You might be able to find one in one hundred. And virtually no scientist believes climate change is driven by the changes in the sun. You might want to study the Greenhouse effect and get back to me.

And the carbon credit idea? That came from the Republicans, from conservatives, and was embraced by the Democrats as a “market-based solution.” Virtually no leftist is in favor of it. We’re in favor of implementing strict laws that make corporate pollution illegal, period. No need to reward people for doing their duty. And we also favor massive investment in clean, green, renewable energy, green, clean agro, transport and cleanup. And work toward ending capitalism, which is THE main cause of our environmental disasters.

We agree on the 4 to 1. But you mocked the idea that inequality was a problem for America, so I based it on that. The two things seem to be in conflict.

Oh, well.

Even the Pope only speaks for 1 billion. Still have to disagree regarding parents vs. non parents. For instance the military draft, as in making females also subject to the draft. I would fight against it as I do not want my daughter forced into something she doesn’t want. For someone without a daughter of draft age the topic is academic. For myself it would not be so.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s not “academic” in the slightest to me. I want peace in the world. No draft for anyone, male or female. I want an end to empire, wars, the surveillance state, nuclear proliferation, weapons proliferation of any kind. I want a safe planet, a verdant planet, a livable planet.

You don’t even acknowledge that we’re polluting ourselves to death and causing massive climate change and heating up the planet. You think that’s all a hoax. That means you don’t want to do what is necessary to bequeath a healthy planet to your own children, much less billions of others, and into the future.

You favor unlimited proliferation of guns, which also endangers your child and everyone else’s. I favor strict controls to ensure the safety of every child.

You love capitalism and have said here that you don’t have any problem with inequality. Inequality actually kills humans, radically decreases their lifespans, and guarantees terrible lives for billions. Capitalism does that. Capitalism guarantees poverty, famine, homelessness and massive pollution and waste.

I could go on and on. In short, I think you favor numerous policies (and an economic system) that make life much, much worse for future generations, and are against doing a host of things that would make life a great deal better for future generations. And you’re a parent.

Detest is a strong word but if that is your opinion of me, OK. I fail to see what is difficult to understand regarding those with children or grandchildren caring more for the future course of this country than those who don’t have children. The children are the future and assuming one is a good parent (apparently that had to be said?) you work your present for their future. People without children really only work for themselves in the now IMO since the effect of bad policy on the next generation does not affect them. Of course skin in the game can be had without being a biological parent such as an adoptive parent, guardian etc.

Bnw,

Are you serious? I didn’t direct the word “detest” at you. I directed it at Trump. I detest him.

As for the rest: I care about all of humanity, deeply, profoundly. Always have. Its history. Its present. Its future. I care about the earth, deeply, profoundly. Always have. Its survival well into the future and beyond. It wouldn’t change a thing (overall) if I had kids.

Of course, I’d have a different relationship to my kids than to the rest of humanity, for a host of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that I’d actually be living with them, and our daily interactions would have direct and immediate impact on each other in a way that can’t possibly happen for a parent in Tennessee and a child of other parents in Malaysia. I’d have a focused love for them unlike the non-focused love of humanity and the planet in general. But I wouldn’t suddenly have greater care toward children who aren’t my own than I do now. I already have that.

As in, yes, you are going to care deeply about your own children in a way that no one else likely ever can, but, in turn, you won’t be caring about other children not your own in the same way, either. By definition. Being a parent doesn’t suddenly equip you with transcendent powers of love and compassion for all the children in the world, or the future. No one needs to be a parent to care about other humans. Your concern will be, however, directed overwhelmingly toward your own children, and their well-being, which means seven billion other human beings aren’t going to be on your daily radar — at least not to the same extent.

My focus IS on that seven billion.

Yes and I don’t think it applies.

Using that quotation in this context amounts to saying that yeah Trump has done bad shit but what rich people haven’t.

No, he’s worse.

His worseness, IMO, cannot be excused or written off or diminished or rationalized or downplayed.

To me people doing that come in 2 types. (1) Trump advocates, and (2) people who don’t realize yet HOW bad he is.

Again, ZN, it’s not just that Trump is odious. His party is too. It’s a package deal, with Pence likely being the actual president behind the scenes.

Just like with Ron Paul . . . if there were some things Trump would do better than Clinton, I’m guessing his own party would make sure they never saw the light of day. Even if Trump is telling the truth about things like NAFTA and wars — and I don’t believe him for a second on that — his own party wouldn’t pass it. A majority would likely vote against it, and a good portion of the Dems as well. So we’d basically be left with nothing but “Bad Trump,” and “Good Trump” would be blocked — if such a thing actually exists, and I don’t think it does. In fact, I’m about at the 99% range of being certain it doesn’t exist.

nittany ram wrote:

Dak wrote:

If journalism was still the Fourth Estate, this story would dominate the news cycle until The Donald specifically addressed his financial connections with Russia. This guy hasn’t even released his tax records.

George Will thinks Trump won’t release his records because they will show financial ties with Russia. Others speculate that Trump is hiding tax fraud. If his records are released, independent tax experts will go over the taxes even more rigorously than the IRS. Stuff the IRS has been missing could come to light and lead to criminal charges. Of course, all this is speculation, but Trump’s excuse of not wanting to release the records during an audit makes no sense. The audit is irrelevant to the release. Other candidates have released their records during audits.

All of that is true. Trump has thousands of lawsuits against him right now, most of them dealing with business fraud, cheating his partners, clients and students. He’s also lied repeatedly about his supposed charitable giving, which he likely claims on his taxes but doesn’t actually exist. The WaPo did an extensive investigation and couldn’t find any evidence that he gave any money to charity.

And another reason for him to hide them: He’s likely not a billionaire, much less a billionaire several times over. He’s been faking it until he makes it for decades, and New Yorkers have long known this. No one in the know sees him as some great titan of business. They see him as a huckster, con-man and used-car salesman. He inherited something like 40 million from daddy, but has managed to bankrupt his companies six times that we know about.

He’s afraid the tax returns will show him for the complete fraud and huckster he’s always been.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.