Hillary Clinton: We can only have "civility" if Dems win back House, Senate
https://conventionofstates.com/news/hillary-clinton-we-can-only-have-civility-if-dems-win-back-house-senate
I didn't realize that the Dems could be civil.
I'd have to agree with her. Civility has gone completely out the window with this administration. The dems taking the House and Senate won't be perfect, but it'll be a moderate step towards civility.
shareIt has gone out the window, but I don't agree Dems winning the House and Senate will help.
Never in my lifetime have I seen things become this UNcivilised and polarised, with each faction pointing at the other as to the cause of it, and therefore feeling justified in behaving in an extremely uncivilised manner.
Look at the OP, a perfect example.
Well at least the left are back to just screaming protest rather then burning cities like they were a year or two ago. I don't really expect to see civility from the left even if they won back power.
shareIf you think the right are screaming any less or are any more civil, you're sadly mistaken. Or too blinded by your partisanship to see clearly.
shareWe don't see buildings burning down every time the right looses ground. Civil means differn't things apparently.
shareWeird, isn't it? For the "right" to lose its mind, you actually have to look at the lunatic fringe that everyone denounces. The left loses its mind and goes a-rioting, and they all scramble to explain that it's a peaceful demonstration, etc.
shareI've already concluded its futile engaging the left on anything. Don't waste your breath on the left trying to convince them of their errors they can't be saved from their naivety. equality of outcomes via socialism blind egalitarianism sounds greate on paper but it always leads to poverty. Capitalism isn't perfect but it has brought the most people out of poverty. I'd rather most of us be well off then all of us poor. While I'm sure it feels good now to fight for economic equality I'm sure that will change when were all starving. Its worth fighting for equality of oppertunity but equality of outcomes is already a failure. Don't bother trying to save the left from themselves. Instead engage people in the middle that are rational our country can't afford good people wasting their time trying to earn respect from the left as they will never respect those that oppose them.
shareExcept you'll find almost no one on the left pushing for equality of outcomes these days crc32. Maybe there are some radicals somewhere that believe in equality of outcome, but I don't know any.
It's no longer the 1970s. Everyone now recognizes the failure of Marxist ideology. The left advocates for equality of OPPORTUNITY. Inequality of outcome is a natural and inevitable function of capitalism.
So you're doing battle with giant straw man to characterize the left as being for equality of outcome.
All the people who advocate for the $15 minimum wage, assuming then everyone gets a living wage? Those people do exist. They've created more automation in the fast food industry. They just might ruin Amazon. One stop shopping made it easy, but I'm sure someone will fill their void once they are no longer competitive.
No, it's not a straw man -- it's mainstream.
How is advocating for a living wage pushing for 'equality of outcome'?
shareI do have to wonder how you arrive at the idea that advocating for a $15 living wage for those at the bottom of the income food chain is somehow a push for "equality of outcome" ?!?!?
Whether you're for or against setting a higher price floor on wages is an economic debate. Basic macro would tell us higher wages reduces the quantity of labor demanded and higher unemployment. Yet this has been difficult to confirm in practice. There's been a lot of research done on minimum wage and the oft cited studies by two well regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find in what has been more or less controlled experiments New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. The centrist view among economists at this time is that a rise in minimum wage does in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.
So included in the current arguments among left-of-center economists are that yes, there are small reductions in employment, but other benefits make it worth it. These benefits include higher morale, lower turnover, and therefore higher productivity.
Nowhere in this debate do I see anything even remotely resembling advocacy for "equality of outcome"?!?! So I have to question where you're even coming up with the idea that this antiquated Marxist/communist economic principle has somehow become "mainstreamed"?
Except you'll find almost no one on the left pushing for equality of outcomes these days crc32. Maybe there are some radicals somewhere that believe in equality of outcome, but I don't know any.
Fighting against perceived Inequality is the basis of your party. We all saw how Bernie sanders took the lead in the early stages of the democrat primaries and are aware of his socialist policies. We all see the funding wealthy leftist did to fun the 1% protests and we all see it on late night TV how even hugo chavez is "doing" the right thing but just got a few things wrong in the lefts view. Even Obama wanted to hike taxes on the wealthy to fund federal programs to spread the wealth, and spearheaded obama care. No one calls it marxism any more and people are starting to shy away from calling it socialism but its the same thing. You leftist want to take some one elses money and give it it to others without paying anything your selves. The charade that your acting so noble by giving other peoples money away. Theres no straw man here this is the core argument of the left.
according to britanica:
Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/left
perhaps your not a leftist perhaps your a more reasonable liberal or a centrist(doubtful) but don't pretend to not know what the left stands far. I used to be a lefty and vacillate between the two parties before stablizing on the center/right. I admit I was young and made my mistakes but I'm wiser to the game the left plays these days. share
"You leftist want to take some one elses money and give it it to others without paying anything your selves."
Huh? Why would you think the left believes itself exempt from paying taxes?
Thats not what I said I said the left will pay less as a percentage while shoving a 36+% tax on the wealthy. Democrats also benifit more from those social programs cause the GOP is the rich white mans party after all in the view of the left.
I actually think these social programs are exacerbating the problem. When you pay people to not work they won't work. They are not lazy and they are definitly not stupid. All I'm saying is be generous with your own money for a change and stop pretending you noble to taking some one elses money.
"the left will pay less as a percentage while shoving a 36+% tax on the wealthy."
Why are you naturally assuming there are no wealthy on the left who would also pay more taxes in the event of an increase on the highest tax brackets? Warren Buffet would disagree with you. He'd be taking on that greater burden too and has long advocated more sensible tax policies. As it stands, the highest tax brackets don't pay anywhere close to 36+% because of all the deductions and loopholes and far lower rates on investment income.
"When you pay people to not work they won't work."
Are you really saying anyone actually opts for the meager 12-15k a year of annual welfare income instead of being gainfully employed if they actually had that choice? What a miserable life that would be seeing how that's barely enough to survive.
Why are you naturally assuming there are no wealthy on the left who would also pay more taxes in the event of an increase on the highest tax brackets?
I'm talking about the trend not the exception.
"Are you really saying anyone actually opts for the meager 12-15k a year of annual welfare income instead of being gainfully employed if they actually had that choice? "
I said they arn't stupid. They won't risk losing their benefits including medical by working. What I'm saying is even welfare is messed up cause it encourages people not to work. For example in my state for every dollar they earn they loose 50 cents of their benifits so its smarter for them not to work. Were talking people who are already living in the lowest class. Upward mobility and encouraging people to work is the best sustainable path out of poverty. This style of living leads to crime as people seek non reported income and grow up in an area where the culture is already pushing that way of life. share
"I'm talking about the trend not the exception."
There are plenty of wealthy liberals. I've never gotten the sense that the upper class is significantly more conservative than liberal. You might need to adjust your stereotype.
Here's Pew Research polling for 2016 party identification splits by income:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
As you can see, Republicans have no special advantage over Dems even at the highest income brackets.
Did you look at the trends you just posted. (These are structured well and measurable at least. In the incomes section those making under $30000 are largly democrat while the republicans hold the majority above 30K with the strange exception of 2% (What ever detailed family income means0at the 150K+ earners. You've kinda proving my point. 2% is clearly the exception i was talking about. Don't ignore the rest of the data because of it.
We were talking about high income earners, not those making under 30k. You're shifting the goalposts. This is what you originally said:
"You leftist want to take some one elses money and give it it to others without paying anything your selves."
I'm pointing out that this is ridiculous because there are many of us on the left in those higher tax brackets who don't like to be taxed any more than anyone else, but also recognize the consequences to any society with extreme disparities of income inequality. My academic background is econ and economists statistically track every country's inequality by a metric known as the Gini coefficient. Countries with a higher Gini, greater wealth disparities, experience poorer growth because it leads to unequal access to education and opportunity. Ideally you'd want a strong and vibrant middle class for economic growth, not a middle class getting squeezed because wealth is trickling only to the top.
Like I was saying, your fears of rising rates on high income earners is unfounded when we already pay far lower rates than the middle class because of how much lower our rates are on our investment income. Remember when we learned Mitt Romney paid a lower rate than his secretary? That's because all his income was investment income. It was also just revealed that Jared Kushner has paid almost no tax over the last few years in spite of reporting $1.7 million annually in salary and investment gains. That's because of the amounts he was able to write off on depreciation of his real estate holdings.
Again, as someone who also benefits from being able to write off from depreciation I can't complain too much. I have no desire to be taxed to the moon. But I do recognize the danger if our tax policies continue to exacerbate existing disparities where the wealthy get all the write offs and tax breaks at the expense of the middle income and lower classes.
Again, as someone who also benefits from being able to write off from depreciation I can't complain too much. I have no desire to be taxed to the moon. But I do recognize the danger if our tax policies continue to exacerbate existing disparities where the wealthy get all the write offs and tax breaks at the expense of the middle income and lower classes.
Ok thats fair I don't support a higher gini index but this out of control spending needs to stop. Both bush and Obama doubled the deficite each. And I'm not sure where trump is going with it but it unsustainable. I'd be more open to a progressive tax if it wasn't such a dead giveaway. share
The debt spending also means rates will have to rise in the future to pay it off. Trump has effectively kicked the can down the road while making it worse by increasing government spending AND lowering taxes during a time of economic expansion instead of paying down the debt.
"I'd be more open to a progressive tax if it wasn't such a dead giveaway."
I'm curious what you mean by "such a dead giveaway"?
Yes I know. I also agree lowering taxes isn't an ideal solution and I'm not really in favor of that. I'm more against runaway spending. Raising taxes and cutting spending is one thing Clinton got right.
shareMany people miss Trump for his unfiltered communication style, America-first policies, economic growth before the pandemic, conservative judicial appointments, and challenging of political norms. They appreciate his emphasis on border security, deregulation, and standing up to China, seeing him as a strong and decisive leader.
sharelol
share[deleted]
You're displaying the same old confusion the right has between socialism and communism. The communist wing of the left barely exists. You'd have an easier time finding KKK members and Nazis on the right.
Socialism is the foundation of every democratic economy that has ever worked. Our economy, the king of capitalism, is still estimated to be over 50% socialist. We are a hybrid, and that is the only way capitalism can work. Since we have the highest percentage of capitalism out of any democracy, the label of capitalism takes precedence even though it's logically false. Since the false label of capitalism takes precedence, so does the false label of socialism when used to describe democratic socialism in countries like Denmark and Sweden as people like Steven Crowder often point out.
In the context of the US, there's no way for capitalism to disappear. However, increased crony capitalism is causing socialism to disappear, which is how we are shifting away from democracy into a plutocracy. Democratic socialism is the counterbalance to plutocratic crony capitalism. But the cronies are running the show, and are buying up all the politicians to convince you that if you go against them you'll be eating rats like Venezuela.
Yea I guess Britanica is confused too. But keep saying that communism and socialism have nothing in common. Your next step is to come up with another term for socialism when its discovered socialism sucks too.
Democratic socialism is the counterbalance to plutocratic crony capitalism.
Tell you what. If that were the case I could take the left and democrats more seriously but for me to even listen to you, you and your party need to stop shitting on my country. America has done a lot of great things for the world and when this policy of ragging on the US and its history permeates through your as well as your disrespect for my religion while pretending islamic violence doesn't exist like your last president did don't expect me to get on board with your party. We can work on equality of oppertunities together but keep your anti religious, forced bigotry label (when all we want to do is protect our economy) anti self defence policies(I survived a car jacking cause I carry a firearm) out of my way. I want to help poor people advance in the marketplace via equality of education but I want to be respected for my views on My God, My Country, my right to self deffence and its hard for me to care about your agenda when the left has no respect for the needs and desires of those of us on the right. Now Hillary demanding no civility for the right untill after they win back congress which I assert we haven't been shown civility. We've been denigrated so much its no wonder an anti PC man like trump got elected. The lefts unwillingness to be respectful in any debates is just pushing the mass of the country further to the right. share
Of course there's something in common. Communism is a form of socialism. But it is a specific form that has rejected capitalism. Not just a degree of capitalism, but essentially all capitalism.
Socialism and capitalism can co-exist because they do different things. Socialism tries to provide equal opportunity, while capitalism attempts to assign a higher or lower value to something based on demand.
Socialism and communism can also co-exist because they do different things. Again, socialism tries to provide equal opportunity, while communism attempts to assign an equal value to things despite demand.
Since demand will always be plus or minus and will never be at a constant equilibrium, communism will never work as well as capitalism. But both require socialism to operate, because without equality of opportunity, we're back to the middle ages where the monarchs rule over the commoners until there's a revolt.
In short, capitalism says a doctor is paid more than a janitor. Communism says they are paid roughly the same. While socialism says everybody has an equal opportunity to be a janitor or a doctor (i.e. no special treatment for monarchs to become doctors).
Instead of just browsing over definitions, actually try to think about what the terms mean and how they are applied.
Instead of just browsing over definitions, actually try to think about what the terms mean and how they are applied.
To me the ideas are the same. Every one should make the same amount and get the same amount out of life and we will keep fighting for ... Oh crap were all in poverty now. I used to be a little commie/socialist (at the time I called it egalitarian) like you when I was in college. It sounded like a great idea till I saw North Korea vs South Korea, China vs taiwan, hell even China vs HongKong(Yes I know hongkong is a part of china now but it used to be under the british), Western Europe vs Eastern Europ. Hell even nordic countries are abandoning a lot of their socialist policies. Point is I know the effects of capitalism and socialism. I like you want a better system but socialism just makes everyone poor sooner or later. I was just like you but I grew out of it, I don't expect you to change your mind but don't think I don't know the difference between the terms. Their similarities are far more powerful then their differences. share
I'll try again.
Socialism says you have the same opportunity to be a doctor or a janitor as everyone else.
Capitalism says a doctor is paid more than a janitor because of demand of skill required.
Communism says they are paid roughly the same.
Socialism says the government should be in control of business and own businesses.
Also websters dictionary says:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
communism, Marxism, labor movement
"my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
communism, Marxism, labor movement
"my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Origin
early 19th century: from French socialisme, from social (see social).
I don't disagree with your statements on Capitalism and communism. I also agree with the concept "you should have the same opportunity to be a doctor or a janitor as everyone else." but if your not smart enough to make the grade enforcing equality at that point. It also doesn't strike me that equality of oppertunity is encouraged by socialism.
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Well there you go. It's not "Socialism says the government should be in control of business and own businesses" then. As the definition, it is the community that has the say. The government is merely instituting what the community wants. If the government institutes what the community does not want, by definition you are moving away from socialism.
What happens is the majority of the people will often choose the government to control and own businesses. If they so choose, and the government controls and own businesses, it is operating under socialism. If a community chooses the government shall not control and own businesses, it is still operating under socialism, but also capitalism.
Again, communism is socialism in the absence of capitalism. And as we've discussed, capitalism does not work without socialism. This ship ain't gonna run without roads, bridges, sidewalks, education, a police force, etc. You cannot remove socialism from a democracy. It is impossible.
Oh what ever. Socialism is government controlled business.
Again, communism is socialism in the absence of capitalism.
Communism is the last phase of marxist theory with socialism being an intermediary step. Unless an all out revolution gets you to communism first. share
"Oh what ever. Socialism is government controlled business."
Government-controlled industries, sure. However, there has never been an example of a functional democratic government without government-controlled industry.
What you are implying is that the more industry a government controls, the more communist it becomes, but you are missing a key ingredient that's required for a socialist economy to become communist.
"Communism is the last phase of marxist theory with socialism being an intermediary step. Unless an all out revolution gets you to communism first."
Marxism is the idea that when the elite class has taken over, the working class will revolt against them and take control. Marxism/communism is the outright rejection of an elite class. Socialism is not. Capitalism is not the only thing that can create an elite class either. It can happen under pure socialism as well since that government will control most of the industry.
There lies the underlying problem. Whoever controls the industry becomes the big dog in the yard who puts the working class under their boot. The working class either goes full Marxist and revolts, or we find an equilibrium between socialism and capitalism so that both classes can coexist, which those of us on the Bernie wing call democratic socialism.
Either way I just don't trust socialism. I don't fully trust capitalism either as the middle class can be squeezed out but capitalism still has a higher success rate. And its not the safety nets of social spending that bother me. Its the cycle of generations of people learning to live off government aid that kills me. Even obama said the best weapon against poverty is work (or something like that) and I don't know if this is a totally government problem. There are some real problems with leftist culture that keeps trying to convice the poor that they are being unfairly held down. And to be honest I don't think a goverment should or can fix the actual cultural problem. The problem needs to be fought in the minds of the left and no government can't fix that. And often times it feels like the left and the democratic party arn't really motivated to getting people out of poverty because they really need that base.
share"Its the cycle of generations of people learning to live off government aid that kills me."
I have yet to see an example of this. I have seen people doing the bare minimum by working a part-time job at Walmart or someplace while being supplemented by welfare, but I have never seen an example of an entire family finding a way to live off the government. If someone can actually show me how it's done, I will concede that point. But as of now it's been mostly right-wing conjecture and hyperbole, unfortunately being used as a means to criticize black people.
Hang around some drug addled impoverished area. You'll see the
cycle. The ones I know personally typically find ways to declare
them selves disabled usually via drug damage. This is a cycle I
want to see broken. I see countless teenagers dropping out of
school like their parents did and mixing government aid with less
then legal acts to make money. I'm very familiar due to my girlfriend and her family. To you this
is opression from the right on the left. To me this is a real
problem that isn't being solved by leftist politics. I'll admit
those on the right are some what callous to the problem but what
did you expect when their being demonized and called biggots every
fucking day by the left. I'm hispanic by the way and I'm talking about the west
side and south sides of san antonio(Hispanic areas). I haven't
been on the east side long enough to really have an opinion of the
african american communities other then to say its generally the
least safe area of the city. I've been shot at so don't bull shit
me that these areas aren't safe.
The way you are describing it, it sounds like it exists in places where living conditions are so bad that you are basically living on scraps to survive, and so they get welfare to pay for those scraps.
I used to work for a private investigation company in Florida where over 90% of our cases involved people claiming disability. Trust me. You don't just get to say you are disabled and then get your check. It doesn't work like that. You may see a lot of people try, but you will not see them consistently get away with it.
The people who successfully abuse the system are in the grey area of having issues themselves, but overstating them to gain extra benefit. I have yet to see a perfectly healthy individual live off the government. There's always some provable issue they have that allows them to do so.
So then we have the discussion that partially capable people should still have to work, but then we get into the other argument that minimum wage is not quite a living wage, and so compensation is needed. That's the vast majority of welfare recipients right there. They are working when they can, or close, and the government fills in the rest, because they are not fully capable like you and me. But not only does the right want welfare to go away, they want minimum wage to disappear as well. Yikes.
The way you are describing it, it sounds like it exists in places where living conditions are so bad that you are basically living on scraps to survive, and so they get welfare to pay for those scraps.
And then they run drugs across the border. My girlfriends son is on disability cause he kept doing that stupid artificial weed that some how jackedup his head and got him declared as having schizophrenia. So when he gets out of jail he's gonna be on disability. Free medicine and shelter.
"So then we have the discussion that partially capable people should still have to work, but then we get into the other argument that minimum wage is not quite a living wage, and so compensation is needed. That's the vast majority of welfare recipients right there. "
"The people who successfully abuse the system are in the grey area of having issues themselves, but overstating them to gain extra benefit. I have yet to see a perfectly healthy individual live off the government. There's always some provable issue they have that allows them to do so. "
The ones I've seen wern't born disabled but became disabled via drugs mostly. When that drug gets you Hepatitus-C and you loose your liver guess what your on disability now. Same goes for my girlfriends jackass sone who fucked him self up on that new syntethic weed that scambled his brain so he won't be working ever not that he ever did. People on welfare congregate in the same apartments they don't have their own places so you can live off the goverment when you lower your standards of living.
Yes I actually advocate that people that have found work should not be penalized for finding gainful employment. If you've seen my other post I don't like that people are encouraged to only work part time for fear of loosing their medicaid and other benifits. I say let them be on it long enough to grow their career paths cause part time work isn't fucking work. share
Why does it matter that your girlfriend's son was disabled by weed? Disabled is disabled. If you are disabled, you can't work, you can't eat, and therefore you can't life.
That's like saying "hey, you did it to yourself, now go die in that corner over there. Bye."
We'd have so many people clogging up emergency rooms that insurance would go up even higher, so we'd all end up paying for it anyways. Welfare is sort of the easy way, because it allows to keep people alive before their bodies deteriorate to the point where they need emergency care... and that gets REALLY expensive.
What's the alternative? How do you prevent self-disabled people from obtaining welfare?
Why does it matter that your girlfriend's son was disabled by weed? Disabled is disabled. If you are disabled, you can't work, you can't eat, and therefore you can't life.
That's like saying "hey, you did it to yourself, now go die in that corner over there. Bye."
Because this culture of bad choices is systemic in this area. I'm not saying he should go die thats that straw man comming out. I said it sucks that this culture of bad choices is gonna cost taxpayers for the rest of his life. Most of my "Judgement" against him is that he's an asshole that's tried to get violent with me on several occasions. You asked how people are gaming the system and I'm telling you the examples I've seen stop trying to make me out to be an uncaring monster. This angry victim culture is killing my community. share
Socialism says you have the same opportunity to be a janitor or a doctor? Nature says you don't because people are not equal. So how can socialism say you do?
Socialism says government decides who gets to be a doctor with licensure laws and medical schools. I am not allowed to be a doctor without one. It didn't used to be the case until the Progressive era. Capitalism allowed anyone to be a doctor but socialism said we only want certain people to be doctors, so the standards of socialists are now "socialized" and people who don't care about these standards must pay a premium for them anyway and offset the cost for the people who do. Personally I think doctors are drug dealers and this is what socialism has enabled because we have no alternative.
this didnt age very well.
shareSeriously? So lets apply the same standard then. Shall we see what Brittanica has to say about the right?
according to britannica:
Right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c. 1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism.
So would it appropriate to tar the right with "fascism" like you're doing by putting the communist label on the left when Brittanica in both cases characterized fascism and communism as "extreme" forms of its ideology?
"but for me to even listen to you, you and your party need to stop shitting on my country."
The problem here is how sensitive you and the right-wing get regarding words. If somebody says anything remotely off-putting about capitalism, you turn into snowflakes. Yes, the left gets fussy about words too, but the left generally has to deal with right-wing legislation that goes along with those words. There's no legislation to remove capitalism, just like there's no legislation to take away your guns. It's all fearmongering, again, by the plutocrats who want to continue running the show.
The only real left-wing legislation that has "shit on your country" are things like abortion rights for women (which does not interfere with capitalism), marriage rights for gays (which does not interfere with capitalism), and health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions (which is more pro-capitalism than the previous system because it gives more customers to private insurers, which is why the idea was founded in a right-wing think tank).
:)
omg
.
The problem here is how sensitive you and the right-wing get regarding words. If somebody says anything remotely off-putting about capitalism, you turn into snowflakes
I'm responding to your nonsense. I've already concluded its useless trying to convince the left. I comment for the benefit of more rational readers.
" but the left generally has to deal with right-wing legislation that goes along with those words. "
thats amazing thats exactly how we feel about you. Like what legislation has the right gotten that harms the left? Is it border protection? It can't be gay marriage cause thats already a thing. Women can still abort at will? Like what has the right done legislatively?
"(which is more pro-capitalism than the previous system because it gives more customers to private insurers, which is why the idea was founded in a right-wing think tank)"
Thats not pro capitalism. Now everyone is poorer includeing the ones trying to buy this "Affordable" health care. Also it drives up cost as demand for healthcare increases to all 300 million US citizens. I was actually for expanding medicare and medicaid instead of this explosion of mandating healthcare for everyone. You want to reform healthcare start by disallowing states from blocking health insurence from other states let the money cross state lines. share
"Like what legislation has the right gotten that harms the left?" Policy is the better term, but most of it has legislative backing.
Legislation/policy that says trans people have to use the bathrooms as the sex they were born as.
Legislation/policy that says an employee can deny service to a customer if it goes against their Christian values.
Legislation/policy that gives a huge tax break to the wealthy and only scraps to the middle class that will run out in a couple years.
Legislation/policy that removes Net Neutrality so that corporations can limit bandwidth to whichever website they choose regardless of demand.
Legislation/policy that sells your privacy rights to ISPs.
Legislation/policy that sells hundreds of billions in weapons to the Saudis to help their war in Yemen.
Legislation/policy that removes kids from their parents and puts them in ill-equipped holding cells.
Legislation/policy that inserts the worst parts of the Trans Pacific Partnership into NAFTA.
Legislation/policy that stops allowing trans people in the military.
Legislation/policy that defunds the Affordable Care Act.
Legislation/policy that defunds Planned Parenthood.
etc. etc. etc...
"Legislation/policy that says trans people have to use the bathrooms as the sex they were born as. "
More like legislation that lets perverted men bulldoze their way same bathroom as my daughter.
"Legislation/policy that says an employee can deny service to a customer if it goes against their Christian values."
More like policy that says you can't compel some one to contribute to art that they don't want too. Was their any law protecting the police officers that wanted a "Blue lives matter cake" when a black walmart employee and her manager refused to bake?
"Legislation/policy that gives a huge tax break to the wealthy and only scraps to the middle class that will run out in a couple years. "
I'm not a flat tax supporter but the top already pay more then their share. In terms of services each American earns and the amount of taxes they pay ito the system only people above the top 15% pay more then they take out of the system. IE If you make 85K a year your at the break even point in terms of what you consume and contribute.
"Legislation/policy that removes Net Neutrality so that corporations can limit bandwidth to whichever website they choose regardless of demand. "
I agree with you on this but you take some and you loose some.
"Legislation/policy that removes kids from their parents and puts them in ill-equipped holding cells. "
As opposed to leaving these kids with their Non parents in an adult detention center. This also woulden't be a problem if illegal immigrants wern't crossing the borders in droves.
"Legislation/policy that stops allowing trans people in the military. "
The legislation is being debated in terms of should the military be on the hook to foot the bill for surgery for transgenders just so they can feel good about themselves. Research shows their suicide rates of transgenders doesn't really go down after surgery thanks to all the hormones being pumped into them.
"Legislation/policy that defunds Planned Parenthood. "
Just pay for your own abortions. Don't compel people that see it as child murder to contribute via taxes. That just not sensitive to them.
I can counter each and every one of those points, but I just want you to know before I do that that you are changing the subject and moving the goalposts.
You were making the argument that the right wing had made no advances that impacted the left: "Like what legislation has the right gotten that harms the left?" Then after I provided them you either say it's not that big of a deal or that it can be countered with lifestyle changes.
Now it's up to you to name left-wing policy or legislation that has changed your life in some way for the worse, especially since you claim it is left-wingers who are shitting on your country.
Now it's up to you to name left-wing policy or legislation that has changed your life in some way for the worse, especially since you claim it is left-wingers who are shitting on your country.
I'm not moving the goal post. Your talking about legislation so am I. And allowing men to bulldoze their way in to my dughters bathroom as if it were a constitutional right is a pretty big fucking intrusion. Just go to the bathroom like every one else why does your whole fucking identity depend on it. Why do I have to compromise and let some grown ass man in my daughters bathroom just cause they can't stand their dick? like its a right or something and everyones a biggot for getting upset about it. Theres no legislation stopping trans people in the military so stop that game aready. Hell we have a member of Navy seal 6 that got clipped. share
"And allowing men to bulldoze their way in to my dughters bathroom as if it were a constitutional right is a pretty big fucking intrusion."
Then you arrest any man who bulldozes into your daughter's bathroom. Google Shawn Stinson and tell me you want that person in your daughter's bathroom.
The only way you are going to prevent such a thing is by telling any bald-headed lesbian they can't use the women's room because they don't look feminine enough. I recall an incident like that happening right after the trans/bathroom issue was brought up.
Some things just aren't preventable. So you set up a penalty for when it happens. You're acting like there's some left-wing law that lets you molest someone in the bathroom and get away with it. Like, what?
I'm saying handle it case by case. You don't make it a blanket policy that a persons sex is completly based off what ever thought they fart out of their head and the door they walk through is constitutionally protected.
This isn't tolerance this is compelled participation. And yes I will tell my daughter sorry were going to another location this bathrooms a little too weird right now.
"You don't make it a blanket policy that a persons sex is completly based off what ever thought they fart out of their head"
The "blanket policy" that a person's gender is based off of their thoughts does not require policy. It is borne from the absence of policy. What you are saying is there should be an increase in government to prevent it. You are calling for government to regulate bathrooms, something conservatives and libertarians should disapprove of.
What's worse is you are taking that stance because of anti-trans bigoted blowhards sounding the horns when the problem is no more of a problem than it was 50 years ago. Just look how agitated you get when discussing it in the context of your daughter. It's the idea of it that hurts you, not that it's actually a problem you need to worry about. This is a common problem among both parties :(
You're clearly lying about Obamacare, first by calling it the Affordable Care Act which is like calling the Iraqi War "Opperation Iraqi Freedom". You can't call Obamacare right wing capitalism and then complain that "legislation/policy to defund it" hurt the left.
Obamacare is pure socialism in that it literally socializes the cost of health care. We are not allowed to discriminate by charging a higher price to rich people or people with lifestyle disease like we did in the past under capitalism.
Obamacare is just right of center. It is not hard right.
On the left: Universal healthcare and Single-Payer where the government controls it all (socialistic).
In the middle: A public option where you have the choice between public insurance (government controlled) and private insurance (non-government controlled).
On the right: Affordable Care Act where private companies maintain control of private insurance, but more insurance is provided due to an increased customer base.
On the hard right: Do nothing.
How the hell can Obamacare be socialism when customers have to pay private companies for it? You have no idea what socialism is just like you had no idea Kavanaugh was a warhawk like Bush, Cheney and McCain.
How can a bank bailout be socialism when... we socialize their losses??? It's the definition. That's how. You think it's not socialism because the government regulates rather than owns? That's pretty sneaky. Maybe if I hire a hit man I am not technically murderer. Obamacare, single payer, public option, universal, those are all just various schemes/weapons of socialism/murder.
Here's your list applied to immigration:
Hard right: some immigration is legal some is illegal
Right: immigration is legal
Centrist: immigration is mandatory
Slightly left of center: we pay their first class airfare
And you would have some warped explanation of how business likes open borders so open borders is actually right wing. It's all your rhetorical trick to avoid ideology. "Nobody is really against immigration except terrorist" or "Democratic socialism: a grab bag of random things I like". That's why the establishment favors socialism. They have a different grab bag than you. Or maybe not:
You are a Warhawk. The first post in this thread is you championing Hillary Clinton for "civility". In every other thread your big thing is to champion the mainstream media and attack alternative media. You helped cause the Iraq war based on lies which you continue to tell. Defense contractors are 100% socialism.
Had? I still have no idea if Kavanauh is a warhawk because liberals never mentioned any of his political views but I don't know where you got that idea that the thought had even occurred to me. The only thing I ever heard was from libertarians who told me he was against the 4th amendment so I assumed he was no good. Liberals tried to change my mind with reverse psychology about fake gang rapes.
"How can a bank bailout be socialism when... we socialize their losses???"
So you're making the argument that an element of socialism saved the day after crony capitalism went awry? Very interesting. I wasn't big on the bank bailouts either. I wanted the crony capitalists to reap what they sow. But instead we bailed them out to keep those institutions running. Instead of worrying about whether it was socialism to bail them out or not, focus on why it happened in the first place. Focus on how derivatives trading got us in trouble, then get back to me.... chump.
"You are a Warhawk. The first post in this thread is you championing Hillary Clinton for "civility.""
Warhawks are hawks of war in foreign countries. Civility is domestic. Not only has Trump adopted Hillary's, McCain's and Cheney's warhawk sensibilities of the Middle East, he's gotten rid of civility here domestically as well. Yet you support him like a chump.
"I still have no idea if Kavanauh is a warhawk because liberals never mentioned any of his political views"
Because you are a tool who only listens to what people tell you. Kavanaugh sided with Bush and Cheney 100% of the time. You only complained about McCain being a warhawk because that's what Trump said. Then Trump pulls the same crap in the Middle East. But you don't care, because you are a chump.
And now we have Saudi Arabia involved in the disappearance of a US citizen, and Trump has no interest in holding them accountable. But you don't care, because you are a chump.
"I still have no idea if Kavanauh is a warhawk because liberals never mentioned any of his political views"
lolz. So you're admitting you depend on liberals to educate you now?
Ok, well I'm liberal, and let me educate you because you are dumb. You don't need to depend on others to educate you. You can actually do it yourself by looking up Kavanaugh's background on your own. He was a Bush admin lawyer involved in writing up all the legal justification the administration had to invade Iraq and commit the worst war atrocities in Abu Graib's torture of civilians.
You are a war monger for supporting him.
No legislation to remove capitalism? In America little girls cannot even sell lemonade on their front lawn.
We have undergone radical left wing centralization of power as progressive intellectuals point to communist China as a model for the world. The trend both long term and short term is to bigger government in both size and scope. Ron Paul famously said "I vote no on everything".
You're upset I don't want to use pronouns when addressing trannies because you are decadent after so much leftward success. Not the utopia you wanted.
And you know this how? Were you that little girl?
shareGoddamn you are one stupid sonofabitch. Lol.
Seriously, you sound like a left-winger posing as a right-winger to make everyone think the right wing really is that stupid.
It's very convenient for you to conflate the Left with rioters. May I associate Racism with the Repubs?
Where were you when Conservatives were Lynching Blacks and Denouncing Jews for being Communist?
The Evil that is the Republican Bowel Movement is something to Rebel against. To let it set in and simmer is to be against Everything This Great Country Stands For.
May I associate Racism with the Repubs?
You and the left already do. Calling conservatives bigots is how you shut down the debate.
"Where were you when Conservatives were Lynching Blacks and Denouncing Jews for being Communist?"
Those lynchings were being done by southern "Democrats" stop trying to rewrite history. And No I wasn't around duing the McCarthy era.What do you think I'm 70?
"The Evil that is the Republican Bowel Movement is something to Rebel against. To let it set in and simmer is to be against Everything This Great Country Stands For. "
Whats so evil about the GOP that only wants the government to stay out of your lives, take fiscal responsibility for your lifes decisions and stop expecting anyone and everyone else to pay for your "charity" and stop burning down towns every time you loose an election. And for gods sakes just get back to work stop hounding conservatives. Stop trying to "fundamentally transform" the united states. Its not broken. share
Unfortunately, democratic leadership like this encourages extremes over time, and it's very attractive to extreme people due to the power & control they seek.
shareThis is a big talking point among T-rumpanzees, as FOX NEWS is pushing "mob rule" as a label for Democrats since they're polling so poorly these days as Election Day closes in. I guess they've forgotten that T-rump told his supporters to beat up his opponents at rallies in 2016, and he would take care of their lawsuits. That was the beginning of the end of civil behavior, thanks to Rethuglikkkans.
shareAnd Republican Maxine Waters didn't help at all with her speech.
sharePlease don't insult Walters by calling her a Republican.
She never told anyone to assault another person and promised to take care of their legal bills afterwards, as T-rump did and was approved by FOX. She did encourage everyone to 'push back' on those in Congress who approved ripping kids away from their mothers and having toddlers locked up in cages. That's what democracy is all about - speaking out and pushing back on inhumane behavior from those in power. Good for her!
And if you're not familiar with the terminology "push back" (which all indicators suggest you are not), I suggest you read T-rump's former staffer Omarosa's book "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House". She explains how they were instructed to 'push back' on mainstream media, protesters, and liberal naysayers in politics and in public. Never heard Republicans complaining about Omarosa, Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway, Scaramucci, Bannon, Sarah Hillbilly Sanders, and all the others 'pushing back'. Only when Maxine Waters said it did it connotate 'violence' to the GOP.
Thanks for reminding me that she is a Democrat. Dems sure are nice people.
shareThat's Mad Maxine to us simple folks :/
And she's crazier than a reindeer stuck in a car wash
crazier than a reindeer stuck in a car wash...
haha thats a good one
Or a one legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen pond.
Take your pick 👍
Yea those jokes are pretty dumb.
shareDon't worry, you're much dumber
shareI gotta go with crc on this one. Those jokes are from the mind of an ignoramus. A reindeer getting stuck in a car wash has nothing to do with craziness. You did describe yourself as simple folk though, so I can see the confusion. One thing I will say about Maxine Waters, she does a good job getting under the skin of simpletons.
shareRemember when Hillary said "Trump not willing to accept election results if he loses is a threat to our democracy" and then she and you dems have done nothing but cry, protest, bitch and moan for two years?
Pepperidge Farm remembers
If your expecting consistency from the left you've already lost. They are the party that believes "the ends justify the means".
shareWait, but wouldn't that be the Republicans in congress who don't like Trump but put up with him because "the ends justify the means"?
shareNo comparison. Dems do everything to win. In the case of trump the GOP just didn't vote for rock bottom. You've already lost if you think voting is a form of playing unfairly or cheating the system. Congress represents the people and so does president The democrats can't do any of that so they highjack the courts and reinterpret the law. Thats cheating the system.
shareI'm not getting your logic crc32. Isn't what McConnell did when he denied Obama a SCOTUS pick for a year the very definition of "hijacking the courts"?
shareFollowing the Joe Biden rule is not hijacking the courts. Railroading every legislation that congress won't enact as being unconstitutional by a left leaning court is and just concluding trying to conclude that kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault with no real evidence then moving the goal post todeclare the allegations alone were enough to keep him off the bench isn't hijacking the court?
shareThere was no "Joe Biden" rule crc32. Joe Biden was neither the majority speaker or majority whip in 1992. He had no power to push a new Senate rule among the democrats. He was just opining off the cuff. There is no evidence any Democrat took what he said seriously. If they did they wouldn't have allowed Republicans to spend Obama's entire first term blocking his nominations with supermajority rules.
Kavanaugh repeatedly lied and perjured himself before the Senate. Should that not be disqualifying in itself?
Joe bidens words joe bidens mouth.
Kavanaugh repeatedly lied and perjured himself before the Senate.
No he didn't. And now yet more accusations you expect the other side must disprove. Thats another of the lefts tactics. Make an outragious claims and put the burden of proof on the other side. share
WTF?
In 1992 Joe Biden was just one of 100 Senators. He had no power to affect the Senate as a whole.
So the standard you're using now is that whatever a Senator says, regardless of whether his party actually decided to enact what he claimed should be done, should be the new standard?!?!!?
That is crazy!
What I'm accepting is your claim when you say attempted sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are unproven beyond a reasonable doubt. However the fact that he lied to congress numerous times really can't be challenged on any basis:
https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies
Nixon ? Gerry-mandering? Trump Reality TV Guy? And Dems do everything to Win? Swift Boat? Good god, man, you are so biased and blind to the truth, you should be a commenter on f0x. Leave these small potatos behind, you have much greener pastures ahead of you.
shareThe lack of civility is literally because the dems are allowing it, to use an excuse to gain total power. That's the kind of scumbags they are. This is exactly what Clinton is saying. We will continue to allow criminals to run rampant until you give us total control and absolute power.
share