USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an election
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
And THAT, unfortunately, sums it all up.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
In the case of human beings - because they were murdered.
In the case of Congressional Republicans - because it was going to be the SCANDAL!11!! that would allow them to finally nail Obama and the Clintons with one hammer.
In the case of human beings - because they were murdered.
In the case of Congressional Republicans - because it was going to be the SCANDAL!11!! that would allow them to finally nail Obama and the Clintons with one hammer.
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
Of course. Its nice of you to admit it however!
Of course. Its nice of you to admit it however!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
If Club for Growth is against you, you can't be all bad.
Statements like that make me root for a Sanders v Trump general election. It's ironic, since CfG has always disguised itself as a pro-Main Street PAC, but in choices like this (and of course many others over the years) they show their true colors as anti-Main Street and pro-crony capitalist.
The comment stream on the Hill article is fascinating. It really shows how the corporate cons and social cons are fracturing. 'Bout time Kansas woke up and realized the GOP has been playing them for fools since 1978.
I still think the GOP establishment is going to regain control and force a Bush/Walker/Rubio candidacy. If that happens, I hope disaffected Tea Party Republicans take a good long look at what Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have been saying on economics, and for that matter what Bernie said at Liberty even on social/religious issues.
If Club for Growth is against you, you can't be all bad.
Statements like that make me root for a Sanders v Trump general election. It's ironic, since CfG has always disguised itself as a pro-Main Street PAC, but in choices like this (and of course many others over the years) they show their true colors as anti-Main Street and pro-crony capitalist.
The comment stream on the Hill article is fascinating. It really shows how the corporate cons and social cons are fracturing. 'Bout time Kansas woke up and realized the GOP has been playing them for fools since 1978.
I still think the GOP establishment is going to regain control and force a Bush/Walker/Rubio candidacy. If that happens, I hope disaffected Tea Party Republicans take a good long look at what Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have been saying on economics, and for that matter what Bernie said at Liberty even on social/religious issues.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
Please don't list Walker. He's done.
Please don't list Walker. He's done.
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
I was thinking, If Sanders were to win the nomination, obviously, the right is going to scream "socialist" at the top of its collective lungs. How is the Sanders camp going to respond? Will they own it, dismiss it, or just not respond?
I was thinking, If Sanders were to win the nomination, obviously, the right is going to scream "socialist" at the top of its collective lungs. How is the Sanders camp going to respond? Will they own it, dismiss it, or just not respond?
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
I have had that thought too. I was talking with my father (a relatively reasonable 70 y/o conservative) about the republican clown car and the national election. When Sanders came up, his first comment was "but he is a socialist." I could not see my father voting for Trump, but if his other option is "socialist," I think that would make him consider it. I wonder how many of the independents and other available votes would have a similar reaction.
I have had that thought too. I was talking with my father (a relatively reasonable 70 y/o conservative) about the republican clown car and the national election. When Sanders came up, his first comment was "but he is a socialist." I could not see my father voting for Trump, but if his other option is "socialist," I think that would make him consider it. I wonder how many of the independents and other available votes would have a similar reaction.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
This is the problem with the GOP calling every Democrat (including, laughably, Obama) a socialist.
Once you actually have one, all you can do is repeat the same old slogans.
If I'm Bernie I own it and say, "Social security, Medicare, and the United States Armed Forces are all socialism. That seems to work out pretty well." It's also a good time to educate people on the difference between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism -- the Europeans have understood the difference for 150 years and there is no reason in principle why Americans can't learn it too. And for that matter pull out the numbers and show people how real middle class income has stagnated in the US since the 70s, whereas it has continued to rise in the democratic socialist countries which have now blown past us to have the best quality of life in the world. I get that the scare word has been drilled into people's heads by a hundred years of plutocrat propaganda, but people realize that the US has gotten richer but the middle class has gotten poorer and that the current system is rigged against them.
There's no reason why private property, free enterprise, and socialism can't all peacefully co-exist; in fact they do in virtually every developed country in the world -- it's only ever been a question of which is appropriate for which sector of the economy. For example, I would love to see banking and finance regulated as public utilities, though I recognize that is probably too far left for most Americans, at least until the next time the banksters rip us off for a cool 10-20 trillion.
I'd own it and have people like Sanders and Warren out there explaining to middle class and poor voters how our current system simply enriches a parasitical financial class that produces nothing, while the actual producers in the society struggle to make ends meet, and that our current rules create all sorts of perverse incentives to actually destroy our productive capacity so that the Wall Street casino can reap the profits. People who say they'll vote for Sanders and Trump are catching on that the establishment parties aren't their friend and don't have their best interests at heart.
This is the problem with the GOP calling every Democrat (including, laughably, Obama) a socialist.
Once you actually have one, all you can do is repeat the same old slogans.If I'm Bernie I own it and say, "Social security, Medicare, and the United States Armed Forces are all socialism. That seems to work out pretty well." It's also a good time to educate people on the difference between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism -- the Europeans have understood the difference for 150 years and there is no reason in principle why Americans can't learn it too. And for that matter pull out the numbers and show people how real middle class income has stagnated in the US since the 70s, whereas it has continued to rise in the democratic socialist countries which have now blown past us to have the best quality of life in the world. I get that the scare word has been drilled into people's heads by a hundred years of plutocrat propaganda, but people realize that the US has gotten richer but the middle class has gotten poorer and that the current system is rigged against them.
There's no reason why private property, free enterprise, and socialism can't all peacefully co-exist; in fact they do in virtually every developed country in the world -- it's only ever been a question of which is appropriate for which sector of the economy. For example, I would love to see banking and finance regulated as public utilities, though I recognize that is probably too far left for most Americans, at least until the next time the banksters rip us off for a cool 10-20 trillion.
I'd own it and have people like Sanders and Warren out there explaining to middle class and poor voters how our current system simply enriches a parasitical financial class that produces nothing, while the actual producers in the society struggle to make ends meet, and that our current rules create all sorts of perverse incentives to actually destroy our productive capacity so that the Wall Street casino can reap the profits. People who say they'll vote for Sanders and Trump are catching on that the establishment parties aren't their friend and don't have their best interests at heart.
Last edited:
It's not like they're wrong.
If Trump wins the GOP, does the left scream "capitalist"? And they won't be wrong, either.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
Trump is a weird case, because in substance he's THE PROBLEM: a silver spoon heir who manipulates an artificial market solely on marketing, and winds up driving most things he's involved with into the ground, whereupon he uses personal influence, bribery, and legal tricks to escape personally undamaged while others suffer. But at the same time he's running against all of that, glorying in it, and saying he's uniquely qualified to fight the corruption because he's a master of it. It's like Pablo Escobar running on a tough on crime ticket.
It's not like they're wrong.
Trump is a weird case, because in substance he's THE PROBLEM: a silver spoon heir who manipulates an artificial market solely on marketing, and winds up driving most things he's involved with into the ground, whereupon he uses personal influence, bribery, and legal tricks to escape personally undamaged while others suffer. But at the same time he's running against all of that, glorying in it, and saying he's uniquely qualified to fight the corruption because he's a master of it. It's like Pablo Escobar running on a tough on crime ticket.
unofan
Well-known member
If I'm going up against Trump, I call him a bad capitalist. He was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run when he basically scored on a sacrifice fly. NPR had a business analyst on a few weeks ago that noted Trump would actually be richer today if he had simply taken his dad's money and invested in an S&P 500 index fund rather than go through the boom and bust of his real estate and casino businesses.
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
No, they're not wrong--thus the reason for including "own it". The left could scream "Laissez-faire capitalist". That should be a far worse label than socialist, but that's not the world we live in, unfortunately.
It's not like they're wrong.
No, they're not wrong--thus the reason for including "own it". The left could scream "Laissez-faire capitalist". That should be a far worse label than socialist, but that's not the world we live in, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
That's one of the draws of Sanders. I think he actually would take something close to the approach you described.
This is the problem with the GOP calling every Democrat (including, laughably, Obama) a socialist.
If I'm Bernie I own it and say, "Social security, Medicare, and the United States Armed Forces are all socialism. That seems to work out pretty well." It's also a good time to educate people on the difference between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism -- the Europeans have understood the difference for 150 years and there is no reason in principle why Americans can't learn it too. And for that matter pull out the numbers and show people how real middle class income has stagnated in the US since the 70s, whereas it has continued to rise in the democratic socialist countries which have now blown past us to have the best quality of life in the world. I get that the scare word has been drilled into people's heads by a hundred years of plutocrat propaganda, but people realize that the US has gotten richer but the middle class has gotten poorer and that the current system is rigged against them.
There's no reason why private property, free enterprise, and socialism can't all peacefully co-exist; in fact they do in virtually every developed country in the world -- it's only ever been a question of which is appropriate for which sector of the economy. For example, I would love to see banking and finance regulated as public utilities, though I recognize that is probably too far left for most Americans, at least until the next time the banksters rip us off for a cool 10-20 trillion.
I'd own it and have people like Sanders and Warren out there explaining to middle class and poor voters how our current system simply enriches a parasitical financial class that produces nothing, while the actual producers in the society struggle to make ends meet, and that our current rules create all sorts of perverse incentives to actually destroy our productive capacity so that the Wall Street casino can reap the profits. People who say they'll vote for Sanders and Trump are catching on that the establishment parties aren't their friend and don't have their best interests at heart.
That's one of the draws of Sanders. I think he actually would take something close to the approach you described.
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
Social cons should be p issed, and I'm not saying I agree with them on much. But, looking at the modern GOP, the corporate types got all the goodies while the social cons are the ones showing up at the polls and getting out the vote. The only place they have left to make a stand is on illegal immigration which puts them directly opposite of the suits who like to have access to cheap labor. Trump correctly has identified the #1 hot button issue for them. Trump's political instincts are vastly underrated. If he wasn't such a buffoon he'd be really dangerous.
Social cons should be p issed, and I'm not saying I agree with them on much. But, looking at the modern GOP, the corporate types got all the goodies while the social cons are the ones showing up at the polls and getting out the vote. The only place they have left to make a stand is on illegal immigration which puts them directly opposite of the suits who like to have access to cheap labor. Trump correctly has identified the #1 hot button issue for them. Trump's political instincts are vastly underrated. If he wasn't such a buffoon he'd be really dangerous.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
I think he is doing it, albeit somewhat on the DL. He and Warren are both pragmatists, basically saying "I don't care what it's called if it works." They are fighting against the current strain in both parties to first apply a litmus test to an idea, and only afterwards start to look at whether it's effective. Just look at how the Republicans approached Obama for 6 years: if it's from Obama it's evil and must be defeated, even if he says the sky is blue. That was a political calculation where they agreed that under no circumstances could they allow things to get better under Obama because that would help the Democrats. They didn't care that they were hurting the country by doing so, because they really believe that in the long run they were doing us all a favor by fighting evil.
That's what happens when you're sure. Our politicians (and ourselves the voters) could really use a reminder that just because we and all our buddies are sure something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is, and that compromise moves the country forward while partisan litmus tests only paralyze us.
I think he is doing it, albeit somewhat on the DL. He and Warren are both pragmatists, basically saying "I don't care what it's called if it works." They are fighting against the current strain in both parties to first apply a litmus test to an idea, and only afterwards start to look at whether it's effective. Just look at how the Republicans approached Obama for 6 years: if it's from Obama it's evil and must be defeated, even if he says the sky is blue. That was a political calculation where they agreed that under no circumstances could they allow things to get better under Obama because that would help the Democrats. They didn't care that they were hurting the country by doing so, because they really believe that in the long run they were doing us all a favor by fighting evil.
That's what happens when you're sure. Our politicians (and ourselves the voters) could really use a reminder that just because we and all our buddies are sure something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is, and that compromise moves the country forward while partisan litmus tests only paralyze us.
Last edited:
Even as a somewhat schizophrenic conservative, I would vote for Sanders over every Republican so far (one may yet surprise me). Having lived in VT for 7 years, Bernie has aleady represented me in Washington. Would I want him to be my dictator? Heck no. The thing is, for whatever my policy differences with him may be, the man *cares*. He is tireless, passionate, serious, and he has a vision. He is a repected adversary in a field of opportunistic, power hungry putzes. People should at least give Sanders the courtesy of considering voting for him as seriously as he considers his positions.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect
I don't often agree with you, but I think this is all correct. Trump is a classic egomaniac. The only reason he isn't truly dangerous isn't his buffoonery, it's because he has no political ideology. The closest he comes to one is his seething hatred of immigrants, and that seems to be less about a coherent ideology (it isn't, for example, racial) than just a weird personality quirk.
I don't often agree with you, but I think this is all correct. Trump is a classic egomaniac. The only reason he isn't truly dangerous isn't his buffoonery, it's because he has no political ideology. The closest he comes to one is his seething hatred of immigrants, and that seems to be less about a coherent ideology (it isn't, for example, racial) than just a weird personality quirk.
- Status