The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Instead of the usual left vs. right discussions on this forum, I thought it would be fun to have a left vs. left conversation for a change.

Last week, there was a special election for the OH-11 Congressional district.  The former US Representative for that district, Marcia Fudge, was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  This is a heavily gerrymandered district that includes Cleveland and Akron.  And when I say "heavily gerrymandered," I'm not exaggerating:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Ohio_US_Congressional_District_11_%28since_2013%29.tif/lossless-page1-400px-Ohio_US_Congressional_District_11_%28since_2013%29.tif.png)

This is a strongly Democratic district, with the Democratic presidential candidate receiving between 79-82% of the vote in all 5 elections since 2000.

---

Many of you may not know the name Nina Turner.  She is a Cleveland native and former state senator in the Ohio legislature who rose to prominence as a Bernie Sanders surrogate in 2016.  After Bernie lost the 2016 primary, Turner was vocally opposed to Hillary Clinton in the general election.  She refused to give Hillary her endorsement, and did some campaigning with 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Turner was a campaign co-chair for Bernie again in 2020.  After Bernie's second presidential primary loss in 2020, Turner joined a group called Movement for a People's Party with the hopes of starting a new third party (the "People's Party").  During the 2020 general election, Turner was interviewed by the Atlantic; in that interview, she compared voting for either of the two major-party candidates (Biden and Trump) as akin to "eating a bowl of shit" and said that while voting for Trump was like eating a full bowl of shit, voting for Biden was like eating half a bowl of shit.

After Rep. Fudge was confirmed as HUD Secretary, Turner decided to run to fill Fudge's seat.  There were over a dozen candidates running in the Democratic primary for that seat, but Turner had the largest profile and name recognition by far; in June, she was polling at 50% with a 35-point lead over her nearest challenger, Cuyahoga County Democratic Party Chair Shontel Brown.  Turner's fundraising dwarfed all her competition by several million dollars, as she was receiving endorsements from high-profile progressives like Bernie and AOC.  It looked to be an easy victory.

But then several high-profile Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Jim Clyburn endorsed Shontel Brown and the polls tightened.  In the last few weeks of the race, there was a wave of outside spending on ads highlighting Turner's "bowl of shit" comment about Biden.  Brown ended up winning the primary by a bit over 5 points.

---

Now that the background is done:  there is a group of people on the left who have some serious resentment towards the Democratic Party.  They absolutely despise Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Biden, and they believe a majority of the rest of the left does, too.  So they continually make these "bowl of shit"-style comments, thinking that it will play well... but ultimately, the only people those comments impress are people who hate Democrats (usually, but not always, Republicans).

I mention all of this because even in the aftermath of this embarassing and pathetic L that Turner snatched (with a huge lead in name recognition and money!) due to her clownish comments and general third-party footsies, you still have people on the left who are continuing to double down, saying that Turner was right to compare voting for Biden to eating shit.  These kind of antics do absolutely nothing to advance progressive policy, and serve only as a signal to other Democrat-haters that they hate the same people you do.

As long as the Berniecrats continue to platform those kinds of bombthrowers, they will continue to lose Democratic Party primaries.

Lawrence O'Donnell actually has a very good view on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRNnIMDkUY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRNnIMDkUY)

Lawrence's quote:

I think that the only way to drive the democratic party left is for progressives to vote against them at every opportunity until they have no other choice than to start appealing to the left. Biden was a "less evil than Trump" vote, but by no means is Biden any different than someone like a Jeb Bush would have been policy wise.

To note, this was an open primary and a huge majority of republicans voted on the democratic ticket against Nina Turner. The largest single spender on ads was the Democratic Majority for Israel, who spent 1.2 million in negative advertising against nina turner. I'm not sure this was so much a democrat vs. democrat election as much as an "anyone but the progressive" election.

It is a very dangerous strategy that the democratic party is running by alienating the left. The republicans would not dare to alienate their base. They're practically falling all over themselves to appeal to the populist right. The only reason we don't have a Trump term right now is that he as a person is so incredibly incompetent and stupid that he couldn't shut up for a minute and let the medical experts drive Covid policy.

You see it all over, republicans are co-opting populist stances. When (not if) they have a "populist" candidate that isn't a complete moron, they will wipe the floor with the "center-right" democratic party.

If only the democrats fought as hard for incredibly popular ideas like universal healthcare instead of trying to kill it every chance they get, they'd be in a much better place.

I think that progressives that push issues are good.  ...even if they're far left, the ideas eventually become mainstream enough to be adopted into reasonable policy.  That's true from the right, probably, too.  You need hard-line activist types to enact change.  I'm all for bringing in more issue-based candidates into the party from the fringes, in order to make those views mainstream and I think that ranked-choice is the safest and healthiest way to get there, while also weeding out crazy people.

That said, I fundamentally disagree with Biden and Trump are the same or even that Biden would be like Jeb Bush.  That's bullshit.  We've seen this lie time and time again.

That's not even a knock on Jeb Bush, but he's from a completely different political ideology than Biden.  So, yes, they are both moderates within their respective camps and might sometimes compromise here and there, but ultimately will be following the general cultural and ideological guidelines from their party.

This is true for all levels of government, but especially true for President, which gives you an extra party vote in the senate for ties, lets you appoint a bunch of people, including judges.

I heard this exact same bullshit about Al Gore and GW Bush from Nader-nerds back in the day -- all parties were the same.  Patriot Act and a few wars later and Global Warming being called fake for a decade changed some tunes.

More bullshit with Trump/Hillary and Jill Stein.  Can you look back and really think that Trump and Hillary were going to have similar administrations?  ...look at COVID for fuck's sake.

I'm all for shooting to become more progressive, but you do that from within.  Yes, both parties are too militarily hawkish and I'd love a third choice, but If you threaten to take the ball and go home, you'll get what you got with Bush and again with Trump.  Again and again.

Biden and Jeb would be different culturally for sure. Economically, they're the same. And a large percentage of people aren't voting for cultural issues.

You bring up the patriot act and wars and how Bush was different than Gore would have been. But I would say that Obama was no different with regards to the patriot act than Bush was. The proof is in the pudding. More drone strikes under Obama. Obama did nothing to deliver on things like closing down the Guantanamo prison. Culturally sure, Obama was different than Bush, and way different than Trump. But as far as the patriot act goes, what's the difference?

Progressives pony'd up behind Gore, and lost, they pony'd up behind Obama and "won" even tho he passes very little the progressive left was happy about, they reluctantly voted for Hillary and lost and then turned out for Biden because the alternative was Trump. At some point, they'll intentionally stop voting for the center.

You can call it taking your ball and going home, but I tell my kid that if he's playing with a bully and a cheat and that he's not enjoying the game, then he should do just that. Stop playing.

At the very least you'll have progressives vote for none of the above. But if you keep alienating your base then you'll end up having them vote for the other guy out of spite. Fuck you is a very motivating feeling. And what Trump and Covid has taught us is that there's a population out there that will cut off its own nose to spite its face. It's naive to think otherwise.

We'll see how it plays out with this infrastructure bill. The "bi-partisan" compromise that just passed the senate won't get progressive votes in the house if it doesn't have the reconciliation also coming along with it. It's another case of the centrist democrats saying "fuck you" to progressive priorities and instead playing nice with the right wing.

The bi-partisan bill is different.

This is designed and negotiated to come alongside a reconciliation bill.  That's already the deal.  In fact, pretty sure the reconciliation part has to come first...or at least get moving and agreed to. 

This is a dog and pony show so that Manchin, Sinema, and the Biden Administration can say "hey look we can be bipartisan" and Republicans who want to get reelected in purple districts can say "see, I don't obstruct EVERYTHING, just most things".

I'm not sure it's fair to compare Obama to Bush, since they weren't running against each other, but

1) I concede that the Democratic party is hawkish....and most "centrist" Democrats, which are most of them, are into nation building and guns and armies all around the world.
2) In the actual choice that we got: Bush v Gore, we chose Bush.  The Patriot Act was pushed under him, as a handcuff to the war that was built on bullshit.  Al Gore was against the Patriot Act and I don't think we'd have gone to war with Iraq over oil reserves, for the Inconvenient Truth guy.  So, yeah...I think it would've been a lot different.

Now, maybe Gore would be different in office than he advertised himself to be.  But he was a pro environment guy against the Patriot Act.  I don't have a crystal ball to say how he'd actually govern, but he doesn't seem the same to me.

One other thing that I thought about:

We can't really focus on one issue, like the Patriot Act.  I mean, you can, but you're essentially saying that if the party doesn't cave to my position on this one issue (and you're in the right on that issue), then I'm voting against them as a protest, but you end up losing on that issue anyway, as well as a ton of other issues.

I agree with the sentiment that the party needs to seriously consider the ideas of the left, but you get there through electing those people, not by electing the other side.  And it's counter-productive.  If the left pushes a moderate candidate out, the next candidate is likely to be more moderate to eat into the middle, hoping the left comes along after screwing themselves last time.  It's how we got Biden.

This comes down to ranked-choice voting -- it will give idea-candidates a better platform and those ideas will be adopted into the party at large.

Let's not attach the word "obstruct" to a single side, they both do it. And to say otherwise is pure hypocrisy. All you have to do is look at what those nutball Democrats are doing in Texas. That is obstruction pure and simple. I think I heard that the Texas Supreme Court is allowing them to withhold their pay and arrest them. And rightfully so.

There is a difference between threatening not to show up at the polls and BS third-party wankery.  Third parties are a dead end that lead only to your most hated political opponents consolidating power, period.

That's an interesting comment, given that Nina Turner has been one of the loudest voices complaining about closed primaries and insisting that they should be open!  When it's Bernie Sanders harvesting votes from independents and "populist Republicans," open primaries are good, but now that she's lost they're bad?  Gimme a break.

The largest single spender on ads was Nina Turner's campaign.  Which makes sense, because SHE had the most money in the race:

(https://i.redd.it/rywi3uyeqqf71.jpg)

Right-wing "populism" is indistinguishable from fascism.  The so-called "populists" you are citing run explicitly on banning Muslims and stopping the invasion of dusky-hued people speaking Spanish.  I can't believe you would think Trump's Republican Party is some sort of blueprint for political action.

They fought for the ACA (the single largest downward transfer of wealth in American history) and all they did was get shit on.
If they get a public option, you'll shit on them for that, too.
Any positive thing that Obama or Biden has done is worthless in your eyes; they're just the same as Bush but with a rainbow flag, right?

First off, Jeb Bush cannot win a national election in the Republican Party; that much should be obvious.  You might as well be discussing Colin Powell or Bill Weld.

A better comparison would be Dubya or Trump, but you can't make that comparison because the facts on the ground instantly prove the premise false.  Dubya and Trump DIDN'T govern "economically the same" as Obama and Biden.

The entire Republican Party is voting on cultural issues!  When was the last time you heard a conservative complaining about something that WASN'T the culture war?

Even the conservatives on this forum have made the reasons for their support of Trump crystal clear: owning the libs.

This is literally the example I pick to refute arguments like this.

When Obama took office in January 2009, one of his first moves was to start the process of closing GTMO (as he promised during his campaign).  His reward for this morally correct step was... to have Senators disparaging him as "putting Americans in danger" by transferring these prisoners to Supermax facilities on the mainland.  The resolution of this was for the Senate - a Senate with 58 votes in the Democratic caucus, mind you - to vote 90-6 (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2009/05/20/senate-blocks-funds-for-guantanamo-closure) to BLOCK Obama from closing GTMO.  And because you know this shoe is dropping: yes, Bernie voted to block the closure of GTMO.

The first lesson that the idealistic young President Obama learned is that everyone, from left to right to center, will line up to stab him in the back just for trying to fulfill a morally imperative campaign promise.

I don't want to hear anything from Bernie supporters about how Obama didn't do enough.  Your man is part of the reason why.

In 2000, we were told by Ralph Nader and the "no lesser evil" left that if we rejected Gore, Bush would be so bad that the American people would rise up and vote for a truly progressive option.  Instead, we got a huge tax cut for the rich, 2 wars, nominee John Kerry, a Bush re-election, two new conservatives on the Supreme Court, and a destroyed economy.  The culmination of this was Barack Obama, whom y'all hate.  Mission accomplished?

Next, we were told by Jill Stein and the Bernie-or-Busters that if we stay home and let Trump win, in 2020 the people will clamor for a true progressive like Bernie and we will get Medicare For All.  Instead, we got another huge tax cut for the rich, our government stealing children from immigrants legally applying for asylum, three new conservatives on the Supreme Court, and half a million dead Americans from COVID.  Oh, and Bernie somehow did even worse in 2020, probably due to the moderate candidates unfairly dropping out of the race when they saw they had no chance (unlike Bernie in 2016), which led to President Joe Biden.

So my question is: how is this "withholding your vote" strategy working out?  Does the election of Obama and Biden feel like putting Bush and Trump in the WH was all worth it?  Because from where I'm standing, things are indisputably worse than if we had elected Gore and Hillary and pressured them from the left while in office.

1st i just modified your post to shrink that image, it was distorting stuff

So just some random thoughts to your post because quote/re-quote is annoying to read.

- 3rd parties are only read as long as people don't vote for them, I agree with dave .. ranked choice voting gives voters more options

- nina turner was for open primaries, i am as well .. i'm not complaining about it, but it is an observation that the right wing parties made it a point to rally against the progressive

- it's not surprising that turner had the larger spend, she had way more donors and a much larger background and base in the district

- right wing populism is fascism, I agree. But it doesn't matter, people are unironically embracing fascism. How is it hard to see Trumpism as a blueprint? He literally won the presidency and had majorities in both houses of congress? That blueprint used by someone smarter than Trump will win if the Democrats keep catering to the corporate center and ignoring the grass roots. It's not like Trump didn't start his campaign calling mexicans criminals and rapists. That was out front. People that voted for him either don't care, or they applaud that.

- The problems I have with the ACA are a few.  It's a republican plan that caters to the insurance industry. The democrats had majorities in both chambers and could have passed a public option or a full blown medicare expansion. Instead they negotiated against themselves and still got 0 republican votes. The other thing that bugs me about it is that I have a feeling that what improvements there were from the ACA and there were some improvements, acted as a pressure release valve. So now we're in a situation where there isn't enough pressure to fix healthcare the way it should be, so we're stuck with the highest cost healthcare with the worst results in the developed world. And it's "good enough" for people to not prioritize. It's corporate halfassery of the highest order.

- I mentioned people, I didn't mention republicans voting on cultural issues. I think the evangelical wing of the republican party is unreachable and should be discounted entirely and ignored from the left. They've divorced themselves from any logic or facts and if they want to vote on social issues alone, i could care less.

- I don't agree with everything Sanders has done or stands for. I like most of his positions. I'm not dogmatic in that i follow a singular person.  And I agree with alot of stuff Obama did and I even agree with some of the stuff Trump did/tried to do. Even tho I cannot reiterate how much of a moron that guy is.

- We'll see in 2024 how ignoring the left will work out for Biden. Then we'll see in 2028 if the democratic center has learned its lesson yet.

Dave, I'm glad to see you pushing back on this.  During the primary it seemed like you were getting third-party curious.

Thanks, I didn't know SMF can do that innately.

I don't understand what the bold part means... typo?
Ranked Choice Voting would be nice, but so would a pony.  The system we have is the system we have.

You ARE complaining about it!  Otherwise, why even bring it up?

When "right-wing populists" cross over and vote for Bernie in an open primary that's good, but when right-wing corporatists cross over and vote against Turner, that's bad.  Which speaks to another issue:

So even though Turner had more money (largely donated from outside the district), y'all are still complaining about "evil money" because she managed to lose anyway.

This is what I'm talking about.  When it comes to elections, you guys have no moral compass other than "What helps Berniecrats win?"

Are caucuses undemocratic and terrible?  No, because Berniecrats do better in them.
Should we get money out of politics?  Not if it's individual donations, because Berniecrats get more of them.
Is overturning the will of primary voters (via superdelegates) bad?  Not if Bernie needs them to beat Hillary.
Should ideologically similar candidates drop out and let the strongest candidate consolidate votes?  Yes if it's Elizabeth Warren, but if anyone else does it, it's rigging the primary.
Should deep red states matter in a Democratic primary?  Yes if they are white electorates like KS or OK, no if they are black electorates like SC or MS.
Should prominent DC politicians interfere in Congressional primaries?  Yes if it's Bernie and AOC, no if it's Hillary and Clyburn.

...blah blah blah.  Non-stop whining about anything that is not in your favor.  Try winning more votes!  If y'all weren't so obsessed with shitting on Obama/Hillary/Biden, you could win Democrats on policy.

Obama Democrats had a bigger WH win and bigger Congressional majorities, but you don't see that as a blueprint.
Biden Democrats won the WH and both houses of Congress (by beating an incumbent Trump) and you don't seem to think much of that, either.

You are making an explicit argument for accelerationism: the idea that we shouldn't make things a little better because then people aren't as angry.

Quite simply: fuck that strategy.  Every life improved matters, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the well-being of millions in the hopes of some hypothetical motivated future electorate.  Against my own will, we were forced to try this strategy in 2000 and 2016.  Both times were pathetic and miserable failures.

We are seeing right now, today what the "Let Republicans win so things get worse and the people rise up" strategy does: you get a Joe Biden.  Did the left learn its lesson?

The irony of Bernie Sanders as the avatar of progressivism is that he's such a terrible politician that it's handcuffing the movement.  If it were Warren, or Sherrod Brown, or almost literally anyone else, there would not be this focus on trashing Democrats that is endemic to a Senator that runs as an Independent.  It's the only song Bernie knows how to play, and while it might work in one of the smallest (and whitest) states in the Union, it's absolute poison at a larger scale.

So while a lot of the policies Bernie espouses are popular, his unique perspective on politics torpedoes any chance of greater success.

P.S. It's fine with me if you don't like to quote/re-quote.  I do it to keep my own points focused.

I'm not a Bernie Stan just FYI, but I prefer his policies to the "mainstream" democratic policies. I think the democrats are in bed with the wrong people and they ignore the populist left.

I honestly don't care about open primaries, my point wasn't to complain about the result. You have to play the game with the rules as they stand. But you can still identify cause-effect of things.  I also don't really care for caucuses, I think they're a coercive process.

In a perfect world, I much prefer direct proportional representation that are found in most EU countries. But we have the 2 party system we have. The only way to show displeasure with one party is to vote for the other. So if people aren't happy with the Democratic party the only way to demonstrate that is to vote for the Republicans.

My point (that you're glossing over) is that if the democrats don't take advantage of the energy on the left and allow instead the republicans to appropriate issues like universal healthcare from a right-wing perspective. They're going to be in for landslide losses.

Let me be very clear. I'm voting 50-60% based on universal healthcare. As unlikely as it sounds,  should a Republican candidate provide that path, I will vote Republican even though I disagree with a lot of stuff on their platform otherwise. I don't owe the Democrats anything. They need to convince me that I want to vote for them. Biden didn't do that for me. He moved no needles. He got votes I think because people were voting against Trump. Not because of some policy he proposed.

Not only is that untrue, it's actively counterproductive.  If you're a Democratic politician, and you see general election voters choosing more conservative politicians, the appropriate response is to move right, not left.

The reason why GOP politicians continue to move right (even in the face of increasingly leftist general election voters) is because they are terrified of losing a GOP primary.  But because leftists have generally been terrible at winning Democratic primaries (due in no small part to ridiculous own-goals like Turner has committed), that dynamic is not in play among Democrats.

This is pure fantasy, man.  The Republican Party does not support universal healthcare, and will not for the foreseeable future.  Why would you possibly believe Republican politicians (or voters!) would support universal healthcare after decades of opposing safety net programs?  The idea of Lazy [Brown?] People getting benefits that they don't deserve is more than enough motivation to keep current Republican voters opposing healthcare reform for the rest of their lives, no matter how much it would benefit them personally.  (I can think of at least one specific example that is familiar to both of us.)

You may be thinking that Trump's transparent lies during the 2016 campaign about supporting universal healthcare indicate some larger demand for socialist healthcare among the GOP electorate... but you shouldn't, as those lies were targeted at peeling off disaffected Bernie voters.  (The only action Trump's GOP took on healthcare was coming 1 vote away from returning us to the 2007 status quo.)  GOP voters don't genuinely care about universal healthcare any more than they genuinely cared about deficit scolds.  They wanted someone to kick out the Muslims, to prevent all the invading Mexicans from forcing you to learn Spanish, to stop the gays from making your daughter marry a woman, to make those uppity and ungrateful athletes stand up and salute the flag.

Please tell me you don't actually buy that "they voted for Trump because of economic anxiety" BS.

Let me just add something on the subject of a smarter version of Trump capturing socialist voters with populist rhetoric:

It's meaningless to agree on the problems in society.  The only change of value comes from agreeing on solutions.  There's a political cartoon that captures this perfectly:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Esxl109XcAMu2Zl?format=jpg&name=small)

So when we talk about things like the anti-corporate populist right, we need to be clear that the populist right is "anti-corporate" in that they think Big Tech should not be allowed to kick white supremacists off of social media for inciting an insurrection.  They don't agree with you at all about increasing corporate taxes, breaking up the banks, reducing corporate influence on politics, etc.  Their solutions on how to deal with the problem of corporations are not at all similar to yours.

This is the inevitable failure point of horseshoe politics: while the far left and far right can come together in shared hatred for Joe Biden and the Democrats, they can never agree on what should go in his place when he's gone.

Then in your view the solution for the disenchanted progressives is to all vote for a 3rd party, no matter how futile. Just all go Green or DSA. How are democrats going to win an election once that takes place?

The matter stands, the Left has a not insignificant amount of people that are disenchanted with the democratic status quo. Democrats can ignore that disenchantment to their electoral peril.

It is not.  My solution is for progressives to stop focusing on the personality politics of trashing well-known Democrats, because that strategy is a loser (no matter how much the DSA and Jacobin types may enjoy it).  Progressives can work within the Democratic Party and fight for progressive policies WITHOUT all the BS of performatively shitting on every Democrat not named FDR (or boosting "Democrats" like Tulsi Gabbard who trash mainstream Dems, but from the right).

This threat would carry more weight if progressives voted.  But they don't, which is why Bernie's electoral theory of "Drive more young progressives to the polls" failed to result in a nomination.  And paradoxically, when this is pointed out, the response of these same progressives is to say, "Well then I won't vote, or I'll vote third-party!"  Which... is what we have expected from them all along, because they aren't reliable voters!

They aren't even reliable voters for people like Bernie Sanders and Nina Turner, whom they supposedly love.  This is why Bernie has these huge rallies in districts he goes on to lose.

edit: I understand that there is a "chicken or the egg" element here: does the Democratic Party fail to pay heed to progressive voters because they don't vote, or do progressive voters fail to vote because the Democratic Party fails to pay heed to them?  However, I would say the performance of Bernie's presidential campaigns is evidence to support the former claim.

That all being said, I still support progressive policy within the Democratic Party.  Not because I think it will earn votes from Berniecrats - I don't - but because it's the right kind of policy to pursue.  So this whole dynamic of "You'd better do what we say or we won't vote for you" is not even relevant to me... I'm not doing it for their votes, because they don't vote and I don't see them as winnable.  I'm doing it for the electorate.

IMO you incorrectly believe that the "progressives" in the Democratic Party make up the majority of the Democratic Party, they do not.  The "progressives" in the Democratic Party are in effect a 3rd party.  If the Democratic Party catered to everything the progressives want the party would lose half its membership to the Republican or Independent Parties.  The Democrats have already alienated many middle class citizens in their party, like myself, who see the progressives as a group that just wants to give handouts.  I believe in helping the needy, I believe in a higher national minimum wage, etc.; but I also believe you have to put effort in to succeed at life.  My opinion of the progressives is that they believe you should get a trophy just for showing up.

LOL I hope you're finding your Extreme Left vs. Moderate Left conversation fun, I know I am.

Of course if you give everyone what they want, you'll lose a large group of voters.  But the same is true of giving progressives nothing that they want.

I self-label as a progressive and I completely disagree with your assessment of how my mind works.  I don't want handouts.  But I do believe that there is value in the collective and that you can't get rich alone.  All this "I got here with hard work" is bullshit.  It's partially true, but you worked hard within a system where lots of other people worked hard and didn't get to share in those riches.

I am for Universal Health Care, Schools, etc.  Things that benefit everyone -- broadband, travel systems, etc -- it's beneficial to society as a whole to have those things run by the collective.  It's not a handout.

I don't think your worth of health care when you're sick comes down to how much money you make.  Your ability to get treatment should be the same if you're a janitor or a board executive or an old person or an infant.

But I don't consider myself extreme at all or for any of that to be an extreme position.

I always find it hilarious to be referred to as the "moderate left."

I have a coworker who thinks I'm a neoliberal corporate shill because I do not recognize the Democratic Party as the greatest threat to progressive policy in America.

“Privileged classes do not give up their privileges voluntarily.” — Martin Luther King

The democratic party is not moderate left, it is center right.  The republican party has moved all the way to fascist.  There is no left party in America. 

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/democrats-immigration.jpg)

Nice meme, but false.  Democrats immigration policy is inline with most of Europe— committed to barely follow the minimum standards of the 1951 Treaty on Refugees.  Republicans policy is to punish refugees by permanently separating them from their children.

The democrats are right of center on heath care ALONG WITH maternity leave, minimum wage, taxes, education, public transportation, gun control, crime and punishment, labor unions, paid sick leave, retirement, environment, abortion, death penalty, military spending, law enforcement spending, etc.

Any Democratic politician who proposed that the 14th Amendment was never meant to confer birthright citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants, and that steps should be taken to correct that oversight, would be a pariah and outcast within the Democratic Party.  Birthright citizenship for children born on American soil regardless of the parents' immigration status is absolutely inviolable within the Democratic Party.  That alone puts the Dems far to the left of European liberal parties on immigration.

edit: But maybe I'm wrong.  Do you have an example of a policy of similar intent and scope to, say, DACA, but in a European country?

LMFAO, you never cease to amaze me with the ridiculous shit you say.

I know we talk in hyperbole a lot, but this isn't a crazy statement.

There is no functioning moderate Republican party.  They staged an insurrection to overthrow the government and have failed to try and go after anyone responsible.  Anyone who does (there are like 3 of them) is a traitor within their ranks.  They are quite literally, without any irony or joking -- a threat to the very basic concepts of having a democratic government.

They literally (not even me saying it for funsies; they actually don't have one) a party platform of ideas.  Their entire written, stated platform was to support President Trump.

Their numbers are shrinking and they're combating it with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and laws that allow them to purge ballots, discard votes, and ultimately overturn elections.  Our government already is heavily skewed against the people who actually vote -- with gerrymandering, electoral college, court packing, etc. ...yet the GOP continues to make it worse.  They are not representative of their constituents and are fighting against the very core of democratic rule.


It's not really an opinion -- they are absolute becoming fascists.  No bones about it.

I may be old and grumpy, but I can say, with no reservation, that the far right in this country is about as close to true fascism as I would've ever guessed a political party in a democratic country could go.

Now...get the fuck off my lawn.

Well crap, since you and Dave both feel that way, I'm going to have to give this more thought than I really wanted to.  LOL   You two are the biggest check and balance system that I have for my own views here on TDMMC.  Is it possible that the term fascist has become a little diluted over the decades?  Because when I think fascism, I think of Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany. 

I don't think so.  Mussolini and the Nazis were fascists, too.  But they were also killers, genociders, ethnic cleansers, and a bunch of other terrible shit.  They just used fascism to get and hold power.

I don't like the hyperbole of calling the GOP Nazis.  That is unhelpful.  It also downplays how bad Nazis are.

But, when you look at the definition of fascism: authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

Authorian Ultranationalism - No doubt.
Dictatorial Power - Trump literally did a power grab after losing a democratic election.
Forcible Suppression of Opposition - Gerrymandering, voter-suppression
Regimentation of Society - I'll leave this one up to you, since I think it's more gray area, but the culture war against Mexicans/Black people/Trans/Atheists, I would argue would fall into this.

I believe it's not only possible, but highly likely. Between social context and misinformation, I'm surprised that anyone gets the definitions right any more...especially for terms that often require interpretation.

As for Nazi Germany...I lived for 2 years in the former SS barracks in Berlin, complete with the Teutonic eagles painted on the walls. I'll stop three blocks short of calling America a fascist country at this point, but when I hear the majority of GOP leadership talk these days, I can't help thinking that fascism is what they actually want.

Now...what are you folks still doing on my lawn?

I don't think you need to have 100% of the same symptoms to diagnose something so close to similar it doesn't matter.  And I agree with you, I think it's unhelpful to compare the GOP to nazi's, the historical parallels for Trump were always way more on the Mussolini side than anything dealing with genocide or anti-semitism. The hallmarks of fascism are unfortunately all over the place for the GOP. Especially the Cauthon / Desantis / Greene / Boebert / Gaetz wing of the GOP which seems to be driving the party.

No, not at all.

In the general, third parties are off the table, short of not voting for someone in an active scandal or something.  I will vote for the candidate between the two most electable choices that most mirrors my views.

I've voted third party a couple of times in my life, but it was always in primaries or MAYBE in a situation where the outcome was already decided prior to me voting, so I threw a "protest" vote to hopefully move the candidate my direction for the general.

With the recent Dem field, I didn't have a perfect candidate.  The one that I just couldn't see myself supporting was Michael Bloomberg.  I honestly did feel like he would be such a walk backwards for progression of the party that it would be a net negative.  Now, I talk a big game about that now, but who knows -- I'd probably fall in line to vote for him against Trump if it really came down to it.  ...but I damn sure wouldn't be happy about it.

And Biden was my 2nd to last choice of the field.  I've always thought Biden was a decent guy and a good politician, but I thought he was too old and not a bold enough response to 4 years of Trump.  I never for a second said or thought that I wouldn't vote for Biden, though.

However, I have been impressed with Biden.  I've been wrong about the guy so far.

He doesn't tailor to me specifically and tell me what I want to hear all the time, but I think he has a very measured tone that's good for actually making things happen.  The right candidate for me would probably get obstructed all the time.  I think that the fights that Biden doesn't pick are politically smart for him.

You see this alot with socialism in fact. The videos you can look up of mad conservatives yelling about not wanting socialism to mess with their Medicare or social security. It's just a serious of face palm videos one after another.

Even this gem from Elise Stefanik:
https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1421115026300186634


It's like they advertise their ignorance

I don't really put Desantis in league with those guys.

I think that Greene is a legitimate crazy person.  ...like certifiably needs psychiatric care.  She reminds me so much of someone in my family that went off the deep end.
Boebert is kinda in line with that but I think she's mean spirited and hateful and less crazy.
Gaetz is an opportunist who is kind of a dummy, but has just had it easy and been around money.
Cawthore is kinda a Gaetz/Boebert love-child, but maybe smarter and an opportunist.


I think Desantis really is just an opportunist.  He doesn't care about politics or ideology and sees a path to being powerful, so he's doing things that will ensure that for him.  All of the crazy shit that Desantis is doing -- he knows it's dumb to not have kids wear masks in school.  He knows that shit.  He just doesn't care, because it plays well to the rest of the country.  He is betting that he's going to win Florida anyway, but that this kind of lib-owning will play well in GOP primaries and he'll get the nomination, then try to run as a more moderate Trump.  His game plan is different than those others.

Watch this to understand Trump

 https://youtu.be/1M6CXhUS-x8

Yeah, socialism is right there with fascism as far as people not understanding the definition. Just my opinion, but I think it is because most don't learn these terms from any formal education, but just when someone as ignorant as they are uses the term incorrectly.

Elise Stefanik is one of those people. Let's celebrate socialism...and then reject it. Sweet mercy...people actually voted for that moron.



The only qualification necessary for that would be for your candidate to be a Democrat.  :-\

Hoodie said it.

Oh Jeez, you are right.  I'm a dumbass sometimes.  I don't know how I messed that up and thought it was Spider.  I will go back and delete my comment. 

As usual, you and Dave provided food for thought by presenting a perspective that I wouldn't have looked at on my own.  Good discussion for sure!

That is crazy that the Nazi shit was still on the walls in Berlin.  Never been to Germany but I guess I assumed that they would have tried to eradicate the vast majority of the reminders of Hitler's regime by then.   Closest thing to that I have is that I hit Baghdad not too awfully long after we occupied what became known as "the Green Zone" and everywhere you turned there was something singing the praises of Saddam.  From the posters, to the monuments, to the architecture, to the palaces, etc.  That was kind of weird to be around that for a few months before most of it was destroyed or gotten rid of in one form or another. 

I know what fascism is.  Here are the 14 characteristics

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

I could see the argument that Trump is more accurately compared to Mussolini than Hitler, but for one exception:

Trump's policy of stealing children from immigrants and deporting their parents.

I do think that this is one of the most evil practices I've heard of from any Western democracy.  It's worse than torturing suspected terrorists, and by a wide margin.  It's not even remotely justifiable, and it was done specifically and explicitly to harm immigrants in hopes of deterring them from arriving.

And notably, it was executed at the southern border, almost exclusively on Latinos; an ethnic group that Trump repeatedly slandered.  So there certainly is a racial component in this atrocity.

So the idea that Republicans and Democrats are "the same except for woke virtue signaling" is disgusting.  It's an idiotic talking point from holier-than-thou purity leftists that is actively harmful to millions.

It didn't take you guys long to get off of the left vs left thing to start bashing republicans again.

You may self label as a progressive, but I don't think you espouse the same wants/temperament of the Progressive Congresspeople.  I'm for all the things you mention above (with maybe the exception of Universal Health Care-I know we need a better system, but don't think Universal is the right method); and the two current bills that have passed the Senate $1 Trillion for infrastructure, and $3.5 Trillion for Social issues addresses most of these issues.  These are huge spending bills, one was past bi-partisanly by the Senate.  However, the Progressives won't let either bill go forward because they want more.  Now moderate Democrats are threatening the Progressives to let the infrastructure bill go forward or else.  The infighting amongst Democrats gives the Republicans the opportunity to back away from the table and tell the public "look we went along with the President, it's the Democrats that can't pass a bill when they have control of both Houses of Congress and the Oval Office.  This can backfire into lost Democratic seats at the next election.

+1

I agree, the Far Right is filled with terrible people.

That seems a little simplistic, kind of like saying "that lake isn't deep enough to launch a boat...it's only ankle deep on the ducks."

I have to ask though... Are you a big supporter of the Trump method of ensuring party unity? "Agree with everything I say or I will end your political career."

That was inevitable.  But the left vs. left thing was entertaining for a little while anyway. 

(https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/40a/3b9/b22ae3001f142a69a0b671243386797f15-29-president-trump-american-flag-cpac-20.rsquare.w700.jpg)

(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2019/07/04/ebf6d53b-f883-42b3-abd9-5350efe373e4/thumbnail/640x360/6cbd8b988286a96f2a42ed125c037dbf/0704-ctm-bordercrisis-villarreal-1885776-640x360.jpg)

(https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/ec3/9a8/4cf2c881ff756b27d55a898c0c1f413a17-GettyImages-1228707812.rsquare.w700.jpg)

(https://cdn-japantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/np_file_65624.jpeg)

(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F161213162857-donald-trump-cabinet.jpg)


(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170122130139-trump-declares-running-war-with-media-00023111-full-169.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CvBtbTbiePU/maxresdefault.jpg)

(https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GettyImages-1216826630.jpg?w=400)

(https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2016/12/01/5d271479-e1cb-414f-9eab-be1c6a96e141/2016-12-01t205420z-1867090108-rc19a6b074b0-rtrmadp-3-usa-trump.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdROxO5HGMWHiudFt5jcFn_5EOZKrHADcJhjotZy3s3CUHZQwQBgt3WBkXWz_szIQ4Alk&usqp=CAU)

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/03/15/National-Politics/Images/arts.png?t=20170517)

(https://i.insider.com/57f6e1989bd978492f8b523c?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F359e4bc0-d48b-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd.jpg?crop=3500%2C2333%2C0%2C0)

(https://d1i4t8bqe7zgj6.cloudfront.net/10-14-2020/t_e82680becd4848ddb9c0930bf1bda9d5_name_trump_election.jpg)

This is not accurate.  The $3.5T reconciliation bill has NOT yet passed the Senate, and House progressives (and notably: Pelosi herself) are saying that they will not vote for the bipartisan bill until the reconciliation bill has been passed by the Senate.  Progressives WANT the $3.5T bill to be passed by the Senate before the House moves forward, but you're saying they're against it.

Speaking only for myself, I am pointing out how terrible Republicans are in order to challenge the claim made by others on the left that "Democrats and Republicans are the same except for cultural issues."

That is extremely far from the truth.  Republicans are dramatically worse than Democrats on virtually every issue, and attempts from the anti-Democrat left (like, say, Nina Turner) to downplay that difference are delusional.  But they need that narrative to try to push third-parties.

In 2000, Nader was correct in saying there barely was much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.  And a Hillary Clinton administration would not have been meaningfully different from a Jeb Bush one — both would have been a center-right government.  A McCain administration would have been marginally different than an Obama one.

However, today there is a huge difference between Democrats and the party beholden to Trumpism.  But the democrats are still a center right party that barely throws a bone to progressives while protecting the billionaire class.

So either you believe that Al Gore would also have invaded Iraq, or you believe that the invasion of Iraq was not a significant event.
This is before we address other policies like "total rejection of climate change," "massive tax cuts for the wealthy," or "authorization of torture"... on all of which you and Ralph Nader propose the Gore Administration would have acted identically to the Dubya Adminstration.

Completely unhinged delusion.

Again: if you're going to cite Jeb Bush, why not compare a Hillary Clinton Administration to a Colin Powell Administration or a Bill Weld Administration?  If we're going to install some completely unrealistic fantasy as the Republican nominee, no point in doing half-measures.

BTW, does this fantasy cut both ways?  That is to say, do I get to compare the Jeb Bush Administration to the Elizabeth Warren Administration?  I have a pretty good imagination, too.

Only if you believe that a McCain Administration would have implemented the very same policies that he fought against as a Senator during the Obama Administration.  (And, um, that McCain would have nominated Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court.)

This is the equivalent of believing that President Bernie Sanders would have also enacted the Trump tax cuts and nominated Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett.  Absolutely ridiculous nonsense.

I think you're not seeing the big picture.  This is just political circle-jerking so that both moderate Republicans and Democrats can be seen as breaking rank and win their purple districts.

The dems (all of them) want more than the GOP (all of them) is willing to give.

A few Democrats, mainly Manchin and Sinema (and Biden, to a lesser extent) want to get SOMETHING passed in a bipartisan matter, so that they can run on working with the other side.  Biden also campaigned on it.  They're taking all of the really easy stuff and passing it in the $1 trillion bill.  But the bill isn't really paid for with taxes on the wealthy, doesn't include a lot of stuff that the Dems want (this doesn't matter, as it's all about passing a bipartisan bill of anything).  This is good for a lot of the GOP also, because they can go back home and campaign on not being an obstructionist and getting something done, while also claiming to fight against the Dems big bill.

The Dems want more and they don't need republicans to get it, so they're just going to do the rest in a 50 vote reconciliation bill, which will absolutely receive 0 votes for Republicans.  Even if a Republican were to like the reconciliation bill, there's no need to vote for it politically, because they don't have to.

There is "infighting"...if you want to call it that, because you have Manchin and Bernie in the same party and every member has exactly the same amount of power because a single NO vote sinks the whole thing.  The 3.5 trillion is a starting point DESIGNED to become smaller.  This way, Manchin can say that he wants less money, Bernie can concede and they can pass a 2.5 trillion bill which was probably the plan all along.

Since Pelosi is in charge, she needs the liberal wing to vote for the traditional bill and she needs the moderates to vote for the reconciliation bill, the only play is to hold up one until they are both agreed to.  Else, someone can get their traditional bill and then walk away from the table.  It's really the only political play.

Granted, this whole thing could blow up, but it would be bad for both wings of the Democratic party, because nothing is worse than failing.  Passing bills hurts you politically, believe it or not.  ...your opponents will bash you.  But failing to pass bills is even worse.

Regardless of what happens, Dems are going to lose seats.  It's just the natural swing, not to mention the new census info.  So, the only time to pass this is now.  I have faith that they'll get it done.  It would be pure stubbornness if they can't make it work and they would pay a huge political price for it.

Watching the draft-dodger kissing the flag that he doesn't give two shits about is enough to make me sick...

The one good thing that I took from him doing that was that it made it very clear and obvious what a complete phoney he was.  Probably a large percentage of presidents were just as fake in their various displays, but they were at least smart enough not to be so obvious about it.  Although the single digit IQ crowd were probably eating it up....."That is a Amurica lovin' Lord Lovin' fine amurican right there."   Dude is probably about as religious as me.  And I'm an atheist!   

I am not so cynical.  I am not a fan of President Bush, but I have never doubted the tributes he made to veterans was anything but genuine. 

Oh, I completely agree with you about Bush.  I questioned many of the things he did, but I have every faith that his love of veterans is very genuine.  I was referring specifically  to the picture of Trump hugging the flag.  I do stick to my comment of "Probably a large percentage of presidents were just as fake in their various displays" but I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that any presidents were 100% fake in everything they took publicity photos about. 

That is the difference between Trump and other politicians.  I never agreed with Regan's trickle down economics, but I tend to believe he genuinely believed it was the best for the country.  Before Trump I generally thought Republican policy decisions were misguided but well-intended.  Trump has exposed that is not true, often they are willfully evil.

The right thinks the same thing about the left. It all depends on what side you sit on. You think your enemy is evil and your enemy thinks the same about you.

I don't really get how the right would consider the left EVIL, per se.

Maybe in some cases.  If you believe the rhetoric that the left loves criminals and hates police, I can see how you might say that is evil.
And if you think abortion is literally murder, then sure -- evil.

But like, we want to save the environment.  What's evil about that?  Even if you think we're misguided, it's not evil.
And we want to have health care for everyone.
And we want people to wear masks to stop viruses from spreading.  Even if you believe these are not effective and have other harms, they certainly aren't evil.


But what the left accuses the right of are more traditional evils -- greed, racism, not loving thy neighbor.

I'm the least religious person you're gonna find, but on paper, if you're going through biblical stuff, aside from dogma (like the worship part), the left seems to be more in line with Christian teachings, like loving the poor and the sick and all that.

Yeah, the "so why are you on the wrong side of the good-vs-evil equation" talk I had with my family didn't go so well...

The left supports the fake climate change scam which only exists to take money from strong, patriotic American companies and weaken them.  This money is then funneled to illegal immigrants so they can lay around and have babies while talking on their Obamaphones.  Meanwhile, you will barely be able to afford to put food on your family, because you will be paying $20/gallon for gas.

Similarly, the left wants to remove your freedom by having the government take over the health care system, just like Soviet Russia or Cuba.  This will be used primarily to facilitate mass abortion, but will also be used to kill our honored elders via death panels.

Lastly, the left will settle for nothing less than complete domination of your life.  They will muzzle your freedom of speech with masks, then restrict where you can go and how many you can gather with.  The godless left wants to prevent you from gathering at church and singing loud praises of the King of Kings.

etc.
This isn't even hard.  Turn on Fox News sometime.

Just as a by the way, I don't really believe in evil.  And I don't believe in evil in politics.  I think people are self-serving and looking out for their own.  Sometimes that seems cold -- but I think that most of the individuals on the right and the left think they're working for good.  I do think that some of the most powerful people at the top (of politics and business) are opportunists and are able to block out human suffering for money or power.

I think that the personality traits that make you seek power in the first place are sometimes close to those that might make you a sociopath.  ...not always.

I think the word "evil" is loaded.  But if you are willing to take action you know to be morally wrong explicitly to maintain power, how else should that be described?

And when I'm talking about "taking morally wrong actions," what I'm NOT talking about is casting a legal vote for a flawed candidate.  I'm not on that Nader/Stein BS.  What I'm talking about is stuff like vocally supporting foreign interference in our elections if it helps Republicans win, or invading our Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying the new president.

If I'm trying to be completely fair, I think that many people think the ends justify the means.  How you get power to achieve what they think is morally right doesn't matter.

Once you get to "ends justify the means," all bets are off.
It's indistinguishable from "I do whatever I want because what I want is best."

What is is.

The bible isn't anti-abortion either. Just fyi it says absolutely nothing about abortion. In fact, it specifies that life begins with the first breath. I'm a recovering catholic and I know that.

Matthew 19:24
"And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Doesn't stop the wealth worship, never will.  Christianity started as a religion of the downtrodden, and was usurped by the powerful to reinforce and justify their power.

---

It looks like some of the Bernie-aligned left see the need for a strategy change, though I don't think they've quite got it:

Progressives eye shift in strategy after high-profile losses (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/568082-progressives-eye-shift-in-strategy-after-high-profile-losses)

Progressives are looking to change up their ground game after losing several high-profile races they expected to win.

Following Nina Turner’s defeat in an Ohio special House election, left-wing Democrats have privately acknowledged that aspects of their strategies have not served them well politically. While some suggest only modest revisions are needed at this point, others are considering more robust changes to their internal operations to avoid future bruises.  [...]

“Nina’s race shows — and perhaps some others — that we’ve got to up our game,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, the leading group that backed Turner’s bid in the state’s 11th Congressional District. “That means upping our phone game, upping our canvas game, upping our text game.”

I don't think GOTV was the issue with Turner's campaign (although she did do a terrible job, spending only $5k on GOTV (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/nina-turner-ohio-special-election/) out of the millions in her war chest).  Nor do I think she lost on policy.  She lost because, in a primary for the Democratic Party, held in the darkest blue of districts, she was (accurately) portrayed as transparently disloyal to the Democratic Party.

I don’t want someone loyal to the party.  Party over principal is what caused the GOP to give Trump free reign.

You want to have health care for everyone and force everyone to pay for it
You want to save the environment and hurt American businesses in the process (Keystone pipeline)
You want to ban guns
You want to control free speech and expression because someone might be offended
You want to base things on people's feelings rather than facts

Shall I continue?

Yes.


I don't WANT to hurt American business, but we have to protect the environment and if that comes at the cost of people making less money, then also yes.


No.  I'm probably more moderate on guns than you give me credit for.


No, not at all.  I'm a big proponent of free speech, in terms of protection from prosecution, but I also believe in consequences brought on to you by society. 


I don't know what this means.


Yes.

Why is it one person's responsibility to subsidize someone else?

Actually, we don't have to do shit. But what makes you think that we can actually control the environment?

If you want to ban anything covered by 2A that's currently legal to own then you aren't moderate.

So let's use me for an example. I'm pretty much retired. I have everything I need. What are these consequences you speak of?

It means that when a persons feelings get hurt when someone says "retard" (or any other words that are perfectly valid according to the actual definition), you want to ban the word. I'm not sure why people don't understand that words don't matter.

It's part of the social contract.  I think that society runs better when we band together to address certain basic needs, and among them is healthcare.  But also, education, food and shelter safety nets, etc.


I trust general scientific consensus on that issue.


These amendments are vague and up to interpretation about what specifically is protected, in my opinion.  So, perhaps my view of what is covered in the constitution differs from yours, but rights have limitations that ebb and flow with changes in the world, we know that.
 

People will think you're a dick.  
 

I never considered banning the word retard.

Consider that there exists a middle ground between "I will abandon all my principles to maintain power at any cost" and "I will stab my allies in the back in service of promoting a third-party with no hope to win."

One could, for example, earnestly try to win a primary but NOT be a petulant sore loser in defeat, pathetically whining about (((evil money))) or a "rigged primary" as you back a useless third-party spoiler.

I agree. Just look at Bernie Sanders, who earnestly tried to win a primary against Hillary Clinton and then when he lost, he tirelessly campaigned for her against Trump. He did something like 39 events in the last 2 months of her campaign. Only to be blamed (by her) for her loss and to then get shit on for the next four years by the neera tandens of the world.  Good call Spider, some people really shouldn't be petulant sore losers in defeat.

That's your opinion. Maybe the best course of action would be to tax everyone the same percentage rate. Then anyone that supports all these social programs is free to donate any percentage over and above their standard rate to the social welfare programs their opinions support. The liberals should put their money where their mouth is instead of trying to force their opinions on everyone.

Please explain the "general scientific consensus" on how to reverse climate change.

If you don't mind, please explain how your statement applies to the 1st amendment.
 
That's not entirely correct. A loud and vocal minority may think I'm a dick. Also, I don't consider people thinking "I'm a dick" that as a consequence. The older I get, the less I care what people think. 

However, when people say "We all have the freedom of speech, but our words still have consequences." The impression I get is that they're condoning violence as those consequences. In many discussions on reddit, many people have flat out said that it's perfectly reasonable to beat the shit out of someone who you perceive as a racist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, or any other misuse of the term "phobe". Basically, it's ok to assault anyone that hurts my feelings or disagrees with me.
 
But some people have. That was just an example. There are plenty of things in society that are being canceled for no reason other than it hurts someone's feelings. It's pure nonsense.

I wasn't really even talking about Bernie, but since you bring him up: he did pull (https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-defeat-donald-trump-2016-rigged-primary-dnc-nbc-kasie-hunt-1446116) the old Trumpian some people say that "if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump."

I don't dispute that Bernie did a bunch of campaign events for Hillary in 2016, and that was a good and helpful thing for him to do.  However, if I run around a house pouring gas everywhere while saying "We need to burn down this dilapidated old house," and then later after I change my mind, a bunch of my buddies who I paid to help me pour gas everywhere start setting the house on fire, the fact that I was the #1 person manning the hoses to put out the fire is somewhat mitigated.

But I do draw a bright line of distinction between what Bernie does and what Nina Turner does.  Bernie is irresponsible, but I believe it's because the only method of campaigning he ever learned is "Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad, vote for me instead."  Nina knows better; she's just a cynical backstabber.  Bernie doesn't run as an independent in the general because he knows it would hand the election to the GOP, but Nina would absolutely do so if she thought she could get the slightest amount of traction, with no concern whatsoever about the outcome.

Of course it's my opinion.  That's what we're doing -- sharing opinions.  I don't think a flat tax is reflective of what the super wealthy benefit from society, as opposed to the poor.  A progressive tax system is more fair ethically, but also it's more financially viable and better for society as a whole.


Well, I'm not a scientist with a lifetime of study in the field, so I'm not super-qualified to give a detailed scientific breakdown, but more than just "climate change", it's the environment, as a whole.  And the term "reverse" is a little bit loaded.  But in general, the understanding is that certain things we do contribute to increased global climate volatility.  Businesses don't care, because their end goal is to make money, so they do those things anyway, so it's the job of government to ensure that they don't.  This is true of climate, but is also true with dumping poison in the waterway or anything else environmentally harmful.


Sure.  Rights have limits.  You have argued against this in some cases, but this law has been help up by the courts over and over again.  BUT, those limits ebb and flow based on culture and technology.  So, with speech, you can't threaten to kill someone.  That isn't free speech.  You can't incite a riot.  You can't induce panic by yelling "fire" and causing a stampede.  You can't just walk around naked.  There are laws.  And those laws change based on society.

In terms of the "right to bear arms", it's not really specific what arms mean.  Does it mean any weapon ever invented?  I would argue no.  Can a civilian own a nuke if they have the means to acquire it?  Of course not.  Can they own a rocket launcher?  Can they own a grenade?  Can they own a machine gun?  Can they own a pistol?  Can they own a knife over however many inches?   Are these right guaranteed no matter what?  If you have a restraining order?  If you have a history of mental illness?  If you're underage?  If you've not had a background check?  If you've been convicted of violent crime?  Your answer may be "yes" to all of these, but to me, the answer isn't "yes" across the board and that's a discussion I'm willing to have.  Different parts of the country, different societal truths, different technologies call for an ebb and flow of those rights.  So, my belief is that we have to do our best to understand the intentions of the law and apply it to today -- rather than to try to make black and white interpretations of laws written when the highest form of warfare was a musket.


If you don't care what people think, then you shouldn't have a problem.  When I talk about consequences, I think that you should largely be fully protected by the 1st amendment in terms of being arrested or facing government backlash for your opinions or actions.  HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that people have to employ you, hire you, like you, etc.  Those are the consequences.  If you have shitty positions and your employer doesn't like the way it makes the company look you lose your job because the group makes it happen.  I'm not necessarily FOR that, but it's a reality of capitalism.  The customer is always right is a core concept, if you understand the intended meaning of that phrase.


It doesn't mean that at all and that's not the impression that you should get.  What it means is that if Gina Corano wants to have a shitty worldview and say provacative shit about vaccines and the holocaust and election lies, then fans are going to think she's a cunt and Disney is going to send her packing.  And that happened.  She didn't get a call from Uncle Sam.  She got a call from the Mouse.  That's capitalism.


I'm not "some people" and would rather discuss my positions that positions that someone else in the world might have that isn't here espousing them.

Why the same percentage rate?  Why not tax everyone the same amount of actual dollars?
Why should I have to pay more actual dollars in taxes just because I made more money than the next guy?  Stop punishing my success.

Just like the grimiest woke liberal, you believe that rich people should pay more taxes.  You're just in denial about it.

Good idea, even better. Every federal taxpayers rate is $2400.00 a year. Feel free to donate more to your social safety net of choice if you so desire.

So based on the number of adults in the US (not all of whom are federal taxpayers, but whatever), you believe that the entire federal budget should be under $623 billion.

The budget of the Department of Defense for FY 2020 was $721.5 billion.  Feel free to donate more to your military of choice?

I mean if you're going to throw out sarcastic ridiculous things, I will too.

Anyhow, good we have a deal. I'll be more than happy to donate to my physical protection from foreign aggression. But I'll provide my own food and shelter. The more I think about it, just like cable companies should offer A la carte packages. Aside from a base tax rate for everyone across the board, the government should offer these safety net programs as an option for the people who will take advantage of them. You pay only pay taxes for the government services you choose to utilize.

The sarcastic and ridiculous things I'm throwing out are your beliefs, not mine.  I have no problem taxing the wealthy at a 90% top marginal tax rate, just as we did under noted Communist Dwight Eisenhower.  My set of beliefs are quite internally consistent, thank you.

Meanwhile, you're so dedicated to the idea of protecting the rich that you are currently arguing that the entire federal government should receive 15% less funding than we presently provide the military alone.  Whatever it takes to make sure that Elon Musk doesn't pay a cent more than he should!

You're the only one stuck defending absurd positions, here.

Eisenhower was a Communist? I missed that part in history class. Your self described "radical" agenda is a far cry away from being consistent.

It's funny how you left wing radicals flip on a dime. I thought you guys wanted to slash military spending? I thought you guys were against carpet bombing Brown and Asian people in far off lands. Your puzzle pieces don't fit, go play with a Barbie doll or something.

Why would ANYONE pay a cent more in taxes they are legally required? Anyone that doesn't use any legal means necessary to lower their tax burden is an idiot. Do you Spider? Do you take all the exemptions and tax breaks that apply to your situation? 

There is nothing absurd about wanting to keep the property you have. Instead of having it taken away from you through no fault of your own and given to other people.

The top marginal income tax rate during his administration was 90%.  When Democrats today propose raising the top income tax to less than half of that, they are called Communists.

I do... but not to give those taxes back to the rich.  I want to spend that money (and more!) on domestic programs.

Irrelevant.  You and yours want to change the law to reduce his legal tax burden, which has nothing to do with how existing law is followed and enforced.

We're not talking about YOUR taxes (which I want to reduce), nor are we talking about mine.  You're out here simping for billionaires, trying to make sure THEY keep the property THEY have.

If Elon Musk was on this forum insisting that he should keep his money, I'd at least understand it: it's motivated self-interest.  Fortunately for him, he doesn't need to because America has an army of wealth worshippers that will do the insisting for him.

Nobody in a free country should have 90% of their property taken. Seems like you're at Taco Bell trying to order a Whopper. Maybe you're in the wrong place.

You seem to think that spending more is better. I fundamentally disagree.

No, I want to reduce my tax burden as much as possible while paying my equal share. I have no interest in Musk, Gates, or Buffet taxes, that's their business.

Simping for billionaires? Shit, I'm trying to keep my tax burden as low as possible and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Since you have no idea what I own you can't say that you're trying to lower my taxes. Let's just say that I'm retired in my 40s. Billionaires are going to keep their property one way or the other. 

That's because all throughout history people without money have been jealous of wealthy people and want to redistribute the wealth. No different from a bum breaking in your house, eating your food, drinking your beer, and fucking your old lady. He didn't earn any of it and he doesn't deserve any of it. If you want to give him yours, that's between you and him. He can't have mine without a fight.

Wait, I thought you said Eisenhower wasn't a Communist.  Maybe you mean that America wasn't a free country under Eisenhower?

Given that I'm merely talking about reinstating previous policy, I think the better analogy is that you're at McDonald's insisting that All Day Breakfast is against everything McDonald's stands for.

But you have plenty of interest in poor people getting food stamps from the government.  Why?
A dollar not received from the rich and a dollar given to the poor have the same impact on our budget: -$1.
So why do you look the other way on one but fight tooth and nail against the other?

Throughout history, the rich have exploited the labor of those with less power, passing that unearned wealth onto their lazy failsons and faildaughters who haven't done a single thing to earn their position in society.  But the bigger problem in your eyes is a poor person eating food that they didn't work hard enough for, instead of starving like they rightfully should.

I think your plan might work better if you win an election or something instead of arguing semantics on an obscure football related website. However, until you have a constitutional amendment that authorizes taxing property instead of income, your fruitless dream of confiscating all the money from the evil rich people won't happen. At least not in our lifetime. Anyhow, good luck in your quest. Keep us all up to date with your progress lol.....

It doesn't matter what you raise the tax rate to. The rich are going to find a way to shelter it. Personally, I think a federal sales tax would be better than the income tax system currently in place.

This is usually the type of vague answer that people give. I haven't seen very many viable solutions to the issue. Most of them are ridiculous and silly. If companies break laws that are currently on the books, prosecute them.

Most of those things you listed are regulated and entirely legal to own. Also, I am entirely free to walk around naked yelling "fire" to cause a stampede. There are consequences to those actions in the form of laws. But there is nothing stopping me from the action itself. Same with firearms, generally it's illegal to shoot someone. So the first amendment and second amendment are already on equal footing as far as what is and isn't acceptable in society. Banning firearms would amount to removing someone's vocal cords to prevent them from yelling fire. Crime is going to happen regardless and infringing on my rights isn't going to change that fact. The overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners a law abiding citizens.

That's all fine and good. I'm sure she'll find employment elsewhere and if not, she probably has millions of dollars to hold her over. I'm talking about how it relates to regular everyday citizens like me and you.  People are often assaulted because they hurt someone's feelings. Hell, how many people have been assaulted for wearing red Trump hats?

Hypothetical situation. Say random citizen#1 is walking down down the street saying lots of objectionable shit. Then random citizen #2 and #3 attempt to assault citizen #1. In the process of the assault, citizen #1 pulls a gun and shoots random citizen #2 and #3. Who goes to jail and why?

Ok, does that mean that all words are okay to use? You might not want to ban the word retard but I get the impression the you are the type of person that doesn't agree with the word being casually thrown around. I might be wrong though.

As an update:

Nina Turner ran again yesterday, in a rematch of last year's special election primary (that was the original cause of this thread).  This time, the now-incumbent Shontel Brown beat her by over 30 points.

In her concession speech, Turner implied (https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/05/nina-turner-hints-at-presidential-run-in-congressional-concession-speech.html) that she will be running for President in 2024, naming off several early presidential primary states as voters that "have something to say" about what she should do.

She can't even win a House primary in her home state and she's trying to run for president.  Totally delusional.