Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I appreciate your efforts to reach across the divide.
But seriously, my comment was not meant to be caustic. What you regard as a slight difference is a HUGE difference to those on the right. You saying it is slight casually dismisses the concerns of about 36% of the american population.
I'm not sure where you get the figure of 36%, but that aside, I can't see what it is they're truly concerned about. That is, I don't see their concerns as a critical, life-or-death issue. As long as they have a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, access to healthcare, education, utilities, a decent transportation system and other such basic fundamentals of life in a modern society, what is the complaint?
I think this is a fair question, since there are a lot of people at the lower end of the scale who have to scrape to get by, work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their families in rundown housing. And yet, they see people at the other end who live in the lap of luxury - whining and complaining that they don't have enough luxury. Do you seriously not see what's wrong with this attitude?
I can see where you're coming from as far as an abstract ideological principle is concerned. But that's all it really is. I don't see that this really hurts them in any fundamental or tangible way.
quote:
1. The democrats tried for more than 9 months to get single payer. They couldn't get it passed inside their own caucus with Stupak and Baucus opposed.
2. Republicans and democrats did not agree they would not do that. Democrats drove the process; bypass the usual mechanism of committee meetings and instead made all the major decisions at democrat retreats. Public record. Google it.
3. The republicans had no input into this 'bogus plan'. (We agree its bogus). Not a single republican vote, nor a single republican amendment.
All this really means is that politics is politics, but it should also be noted that the Democrats are not as "left-wing" as you're painting them. All this banter from the right about Obama being a "socialist" has been nothing but meaningless invective, since nothing could be further from the truth. As some have mentioned, Obama is "Bush Lite." That so many Republicans try to paint him as Leon Trotsky is what's really bogus and totally disingenuous, trying to make it appear that there's a "HUGE" difference when it's really nothing at all.
quote:
4. It is commonly, erroneously said that conservatives are against any government involvement in free markets. Thats not true. There is widespread support for the ideas that government standardizes weights and measures, for example. Government sets rules so that meat is not contaminated. In the same way, the government sets professional standards requiring what a doctor, engineer, or lawyer must demonstrate proficiency in. Government rules also control the standardization, packaging, medical testing, and access to drugs.
I think that we both agreed that a large number of conservatives are inconsistent about a lot of things, when they support laws or government programs which go against their stated principles. Liberals can also be prone to the same inconsistency. But I would see that as a reason for both parties to actually sit down and write a coherent platform and a solid set of principles that they can live by consistently. That's the reason I get so frustrated with mealy-mouthed moderates who talk out of both sides of their mouths. They do whatever is political expedient for the moment and leave their principles behind. This is why so many people see no difference between the parties; they don't trust politicians and think they're all a bunch of crooks.
quote:
No republican stands against these provisions. Representing that they do is simply untrue. Representing that republicans are simplistically in favor of 'free markets' deliberately and purposefully misrepresents what republicans stand for.
I don't see it that way. I see it as calling them out and challenging them on their stated principles that they want to "get government off our backs." What they really mean is that they want to decide whose "back" the government should get on. They want to stack the deck in favor of the rich over the middle and lower classes, so that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class stagnates barely above water.
I will give the libertarian wing some credit for at least wanting to foster some consistency in their view (even if I don't agree with it), but I think they're running into roadblocks when it comes to dealing with the religious right and other social conservatives who advocate using government to interfere in the cultural and social life of individuals in our society.
quote:
In particular, regarding obamacare and health insurance - the republican position is/was:
a). That government oversite into what would be required coverage represented an unwarranted intrusion into peoples freedom to choose and insurance plan right for them.
...
n. No meaningful improvement of health would occur. Which has been shown by study after study.
I could go on - but you get the idea.
Yeah, I get it. I still think it would have been much easier just to nationalize all health care, but the political reality is that both parties were fighting against huge, well-financed, entrenched lobbies - the insurance companies, healthcare industry, pharmaceuticals. These are giants who are too big to challenge openly. These are the ones who were calling the shots and setting up the game, and if politicians refused to play ball, they would have been out of a job. This is, by the way, how capitalists tend to "rule," even though you can say that (technically) on paper, they have no actual political power. These people play for keeps, they take no prisoners, and (as I see it) force is the only language they understand. There is no other way to deal with them other than to have a heavy-handed, iron-fisted government to crush them.
I know you like to pass moral judgments on socialists for using force, but what other way is there to deal with that kind of entrenched intransigence from people who have more wealth than any human would need for a thousand lifetimes, yet still arguing that they don't have enough? That's the reason why I don't see much appreciable difference between the two parties, because the Democrats clearly could invoke a moral imperative and show a little backbone and teeth, yet they constantly wimp out.
quote:
You essentially accuse me in arguing of bad faith, unwilling to see that just because you see the differences as minor does not mean that they are.
Frankly, I think your position is unsupportable, as virtually every aspect of american life changes.
Well, maybe you just don't spend enough time among the "little people" to really walk in their shoes and see what the world looks like from their point of view. Maybe you live in a gated community where everyone around you is wealthy, but out here among the Great Unwashed, it's a completely different story.
quote:
Electing a democrat - and you will see more bogus science on climate warming and unworkable mandates for renewable power.
That's something that multiple parties from multiple governments have been pushing. The top leaders of the world signed that Paris climate change accord involving some 155 nations. It has very little to do with what party holds power in the United States, since whoever is elected is going to have to deal with other nations and governments on the matter.
And it's really the Republicans who have been unabashed and ardent globalists all this time, while (some) Democrats have been arguing more for taking care of the home folks first and wanting to protect workers from outsourcing and free trade - things the Republicans have been obsessed over and doing a full-court press on. They can't have it both ways. They can't go "free trade, free trade, free trade" and then suddenly start crying over the consequences of what they've been supporting. They're the ones who wanted to spread industry all around the world and impose the American business model on multiple countries, and one of the consequences of that is greater pollution and environmental damage.
So, when the nations of the world, led by the UN, come back and say "we have to deal with global warming," what's a Republican leadership going to do? Tell them to "fuck off"? Not hardly. They'll likely do the same thing the Democrats would do, since the international political pressure would be too much for them to take.
quote:
You will see more liberal policies on 'safe spaces', and BLM initiatives, and discussion about reparations.
I don't think there's any "safe space" in the world, although I don't see how that would be any different than a gated community or a homeowners' association, which are things favored by conservatives. I have mixed views about the BLM.
As for reparations, I don't see how there's any harm in a discussion about it. Despite our history, all who are here now must try to find a way to live with each other and work with each other for a better society to benefit all. I've heard some Native Americans often say "the land does not belong to us; we belong to the land." I take that to heart.
Those who live here on this land now therefore belong to the land, and are connected to each other through the land. It is on this basis that our obligations are clear, to take care of each other and treat the land with care. You can call it "socialism" if you wish, but I don't believe that Americans can be divided based on race, religion, ethnicity, or culture, since we all belong to the same land and can be unified by it.
We can no longer be blinded or divided by hatred or greed, but through our sharing of the land, we can be whole again and build a better future together.
quote:
You will see continued degredation of relgious freedom.
"Continued"? How so? There may be more religious freedom now than there ever was in the past. True, Christians don't have as much of a free pass to impose their religion on others that they once did, but that was never "religious freedom" by any objective standard.
quote:
You will see diminished support for israel and a heightened BDS movement.
I don't see how you can pin this on the Democrats. It was the Democratic President Truman who recognized and supported Israel.
But there are those on both the left and the right who oppose Israel for various reasons. The left has a tendency of supporting the underdog, and they see the Palestinians as underdogs. All they really want is to find a way so that the Israelis and Palestinians can coexist and have it so that Palestinians can have some semblance of a decent life, without rolling over Israel or anyone else.
But for those on the right who oppose Israel - they're the ones you really have to worry about. I hope you're not going to ask me to explain why, as I think you should know what right-wing factions I'm talking about.
Also, in a general sense, there are those on both the left and right who believe that America should not get involved in all these foreign entanglements and interventions, which is something that our Founders were adamant about. They thought it was wrong to take sides or play favorites with any foreign nation and that it could lead to internal weaknesses within our own government. That idea was a cornerstone in American foreign policy for well over a century before we started to move away from it (for good reasons).
quote:
You can expect further cuts to our military, emboldening China, Russia etc.
Military policy is also tied in with foreign policy, so if we brought all our troops back home and stopped spreading them around overseas, then we could more effectively defend America's home soil without breaking the bank on huge defense budgets. I don't see why you're worried about China or Russia, since you've stated numerous times that they're no longer communist. They are capitalist now, so what's the worry? The Cold War is over, and all these capitalist nations can get along and coexist with each other as one big capitalist family. Isn't that what the capitalists wanted all along?
|
RE: Suggested reading for all liberals - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread