- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,228
- Reaction score
- 4,458
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This just reinforces my belief that the Democratic Party is trending even further left than at any time in history. And that's not good for the Dems.
The further left the Democratic Party goes the more Americans will vote for someone else. The majority of Americans - some 60%, prefer capitalism over socialism.
So trot your socialist prize bull up there for prez in 2020 and watch it go down in flames.
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
I'm not sure I'd call 'upper middle class' at best, wealthy or powerful, nevermind pressures created from her father passing away.
I don't see anything fundamentally dishonest about the way she represented her background.
Wealthy no, powerful depends. But I called neither.
Yeah there is some dishonesty there. The Bronx just like the South Side of Chicago infers a rough and tough sort of existence. It’s worn like a badge of honor.
It irks people from there for people to claim false membership.
Like when people from the surrounding area claim they are South Side or they even claim they’re from Chicago when they live in the suburbs.
Most of the time it’s just good natured ribbing, a lot of pomp and pageantry, but when someone is trying to use it as bona fides the BS gets called out. As it should. You didn’t live that life don’t claim you did. It’s disrespectful to those whose life’s experiences your trying to claim as your own when you have taken no part. Have no clue about what people have gone through.
And no, having empathy for people isn’t the same as living it.
This one will get a pass. But let it have been a white boy who tried to pass this off and you’d have the entire press corp on his ass. Not to mention all the pundits and pulpit pimps crying of cultural appropriation...
That’s not a song for poor whitey, it’s just the truth of the matter.
This just reinforces my belief that the Democratic Party is trending even further left than at any time in history. And that's not good for the Dems.
The further left the Democratic Party goes the more Americans will vote for someone else. The majority of Americans - some 60%, prefer capitalism over socialism.
So trot your socialist prize bull up there for prez in 2020 and watch it go down in flames.
Dunno about that; she was from the Bronx, and her early childhood (she moved when she was 5) may have been difficult, as well as the time after her father passed away when she and her mother were apparently going through financial distress.
Bottom line, that she lived in a good suburb for a period of time doesn't mean she never struggled at any point of her life; I don't see how one can look at that singular factoid and automatically assume that she's always had it easy, and this is no different if she were white and male.
By the way, I don't think the MSM is in actuality all that happy about her or her success given its obvious sympathies with the establishment Dem wing; I suspect that she'll continue to be given the Bernie treatment as they tight rope between acknowledging her accomplishments, and minimizing them as they already have.
And high taxes that take away options from people on how they want to spend their money otherwise, i.e. Denmark.
OK. :lol:
Well, then I'm from Roseland. I've lived there, and since it's now apart of what's called the "Wild 100's" and one of the worst neighborhoods in the city, I guess I can consider myself Bad Bad Leroy Brown...impdaddy:
Doesn't matter that I lived there a short period of time in my youth or that it wasn't nowhere near the neighborhood it is now.
I would never say that of course, I mean I've let people know I lived there, but have always qualified it.
I'm not saying she hasn't struggled but there is a narrative there that doesn't fit the facts. Even if it is factual, it doesn't convey the truth of the matter. That's what half of this "Fake News' BS is all about. I call it journalistic impressionism. The picture looks right, but it's off the mark. It isn't too concerned with accentuating the factual details so much as it is concerned with creating an emotional response to the story.
Using my own story as an example. Let me get into politics saying I'm from the Wild 100's and see what happens. I'd be laughed out of the city.
I can't say I disagree with you. I believe they're acting as they always have with her, sensationalizing an upset. Sure the powers that be aren't happy, I mean, what, they covered her twice and begrudgingly at that before she actually won? We can see the way they back-seated Bernie's treatment at the hands of the DNC during his POTUS run that they've got no particular love for her kind. Sure they like to sensationalize him as they will her, but they'll only go so far. She's spouting the right slogans now enough to make her a B list celeb. Impeach Trump, Abolish ICE -- that's all music to the establishment's ears.
I can't imagine the Dem's in Congress are happy about it. They've lost a man in leadership with the seniority to push their agenda ahead or push back against Trump's and/or the GOP's. She'll be given some BS committees and told to know her place and they'll trot her out as needed. But it's not actually a win for the Dems in my opinion.
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
I think it's a win in that it's another very important step forward to the platform of social democracy the Dems need to succeed. It clearly isn't enough to stand against Trump; the Dems must also stand _for_ something, and this has been made repeatedly clear to them, including per their own focus groups and studies
"Democratic Socialism" is a term coined by Bernie Sanders supporters to mean precisely what they want it to mean...
I can't argue with your assessment for the most part. I do believe to the left is where the DNC is headed. Or at least that's where the youth want it to head. Corporate Dems aren't going to give up their power easily and it will be a long drawn out battle. Perhaps an outsider will come in like Trump did and turn the apple cart over allowing for serious momentum but it would be premature to think any meaningful handing over of power will be likely seen for the next 10 years at least. As you stated, it is a long game they'll be playing.
Well, the polish is bound to rub off. She got elected, now the thing to see is if she will get reelected. What's more, will she get reelected with her soul intact. 2 years isn't a very long time and as we see, most of it is spent on getting reelected more so than actually doing any meaningful sort of governing. Will that turn her into just another member of the establishment? Can she remain independent, fresh, new, and inspiring? Does she have the fortitude to make the right choices when they come up, and vote against her caucus or will she toe the party line like a good soldier? The youth if anything admirable can be said about them do demand genuineness. They can smell an imposter a mile away and will cast her off like yesterdays trash if she doesn't meet expectations.
Trump should have been the single greatest gift to the GOP. The GOP however, as forever seems to be the case as of late, is blowing their opportunity. This doesn't really effect them as I will explain...
It’s primary night in New York and tonight we have a stunner out of Congressional district 14.
Per CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/poli...ez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html
Joe Crowley is the 4th ranked democrat in the house, he was considered to be Nancy Pelosi’s choice of who should replace her as house speaker if Democrats manage to retake the house this November. Yet here we have the number 4 Democrat of the house, the chair of the Queens County Democrats, and a 10 term incumbent being beaten by a first time candidate who ran to joe Crowley’s political left and won.
It may have more to do with local politics but this primary should be a wake up call to National Democrats. The Progressive wing of the Democratic party is Energized and is not going to accept the paltry status quo of the party establishment.
"Democratic Socialism" is a term coined by Bernie Sanders supporters to mean precisely what they want it to mean.
In Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, these parties are actually called SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC parties (e.g., the SPD in Germany). Not Democratic Socialist, which is more of an oxymoron, and tends to lower the IQ of the room when it is spoken. I would listen to the arguments of better standards of living more readily if they would get it right once in a while.
Having a social safety net doesn't make you socialist, nor does it injure capitalism one iota. The United States is very, very far from some sort of capitalists' paradise. We are heavily regulated, and have been so since the 1930s (and even earlier to some extent, e.g., anti-trust laws and so forth).
If the democratic base is energized this November, the republicans will lose the house and possibly the senate
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
Norway and Denmark are market economies and are listed in the top 10 Countries to do business in. They are pro-profit and Capitalist
Even though Sanders and his supporters like to use Scandanavian Counties as a example, the Nordic model is not what they have planned for the US
Sanders and Ocasio, if they had their way would nationalize large sectors of the US economy, starting with Healthcare. Sanders wants to break up the banks, and impose unprecedented regulatory control over the financial sector
Their example would more of a South / Central American style of Socialism and it would be a complete disaster
Ocasio tweeted out recently that Democracy, not Socialism was the fault of what's currently occuring in Venezuela. She's a utter imbecile if she truly believes that
Norway and Denmark have nationalised healthcare. In fact, every developed nation in the world does, except for America. It is the proven superior method. Not perfect, but far better than the privatised American system.
Increased regulation of the banks could have prevented the 2008 global financial crisis. Regulation is not a bad thing. The checks and balances in the US political system is a form of regulation.
First, European Nations and Canada have the advantage of not having to fund a military large enough to check first Soviet aggression and now Russian aggression into Western Europe.
Since 1949, the US has spent over 30 Trillion dollars on defense and to this day Nations like Canada still can't seem to meet their agreed upon 2 Percent of GDP defense spending. I wonder how awesome their Singlepayer systems would be if they were forced to fund their own defense ?
American tax payers have essentially been subsidizing their Singlepayer systems and have been doing it for decades.
Next, if anyone wants to know how they or their children would be treated under a American single payer system, they can look no further than how the VA treats our Veterans
Vets were allowed to languish on hidden waiting list for years without treatment and to this day no one's been held accountable
This is what people would lose under a American single payer system. Accountability and recourse.
Authortarianism isnt Progressive and neither is Socialism. It's down right archaic
Finally, it was Govt regulations that caused the 2008 Financial crisis. Banks were forced to abandon lending standards under the threat of DOJ prosection. These standards hat had kept the industry stable and solvent for decades
Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards for loans they purchased and bought Trillions of dollars of substandard risky loans that were then turned into AAA rated MBSs and sold to capital markets all over the world
When it was all said and done, the GSEs were insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt and Banks were stuck holding worthless agency MBSs that were purchased by the Fed as a part of QE.
That two percent is a future spending agreement, not a current spending agreement. Best not to repeat what comes out of Trump's mouth; it's very rarely correct.
You talk about accountability and recourse in healthcare. You can't vote a CEO out of his role for doing a bad job, but you can a politician.
This is all true...except for subsidizing single payer systems. Single payer systems and government provided healthcare was first instituted in Germany in the 1800's. The UK which meets it's NATO demands has a government health care system.Considering the US has been responsible for 90% of NATOs funding and military capability since 1949, 2% is nothing, and still our NATO partners can't meet it
Like I said, the US taxpayer has been subsidizing the single payer systems in Western Europe and Canada for decades.
The Truman doctrine set the stage for American foreign policy from 1949 to 1989, and even after the Berlin Wall fell we continued to fund a military large enough to check Russian aggression into Western Europe
Our NATO partners we're more than willing to allow the US to fund their defense
And there will be no recourse under a American single payer system, or accountability.
Once socialized healthcare is implemented in the US, oversight will become impossible. No matter how poorly run it is, how expensive it becomes or how much damage it does to our economy, it will be seen as a success by Left wing ideologues who care more about the implementation of their agenda than average Americans
This is all true...except for subsidizing single payer systems. Single payer systems and government provided healthcare was first instituted in Germany in the 1800's. The UK which meets it's NATO demands has a government health care system.
A single payer system is literally the government taking out the insurance middle man...it's the collection of money and the processing of payment. What's damaging our economy is the US paying much more in healthcare than other wealthy countries. We already insure the most costly, most risky population in the country....old people.
If after the war our Western European allies were forced to match the Soviets militarily funding and capability without us, they would have not been able to afford a single payer system.
So yes, the American tax payer has been subdizing their and Canada's Singlepayer system for decades and our NATO allies not only support massive US defense spending , they exploit it
We're not nationalizing healthcare, we would be nationalizing health insurance. The people that literally take all of our money and then turn around and pay the hospital.As for drug prices, we don't have to Nationalize 1/6 of our economy to address rising drug cost. Proponents of single payer seem to have forgotten Vermonts failed attempt to implement a single payer system that was signed into law in 2011
Not true at all.Green mountain care was basically shelved after the State realized that the tax increases needed to fund their single payer system would have collapsed the State and local economy
They also has a lot of exemptions in their plan for multi state companies.Vermont would have had to basically double their 1 billion dollars in annual revenue to fund Green mountain care. Massive tax increases on small businesses and the middle class would be far more detrimental to the economy than rising drug cost