coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:42 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
But in this case, that WASN'T his intention

You do not know anyone's intentions, including Trump.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:42 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Buying in too deeply to one's own propaganda is a common error.
I'm holding myself in with such stringency that I might as well be a girdle.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:43 pm
@ehBeth,
Nothing like Vanity Fair for cutting edge political reporting. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:45 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
I'm holding myself in with such stringency that I might as well be a girdle.

Make sure the girdle consents.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:50 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
he may have misjudged the perception of the Green New Deal beyond the conservative echo chamber.

This damage them. That is, it damages them intellectually and ethically and I'm hoping it does an adequate amount of damage electorally.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:50 pm
@blatham,
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-socialism-republican-democrats-20190303-story.html

Quote:
The annual Conservative Political Action Conference — a reliable index of far-right apprehensions — rolled into Washington last week, proclaiming long and loud the new Republican mantra: If we don’t reelect Donald Trump, neo-Stalinism will befall us!

Speaker after speaker told the assembled faithful what President Trump had intimated in his State of the Union address: Republicans in 2020 plan to run against Democrats as though they were Stalin or (the pre-Trump) Kim Jong Un. White House economist Larry Kudlow urged Republicans to “put socialism on trial.” And Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel advocated an education campaign: “We can't think that the American people understand what socialism is. We have to go out and educate people. We need to talk about Venezuela.”

Wherein lies the Republicans’ problem: The Soviet Union, and its brand of communism — which virtually all Americans had both heard of and disliked — is long gone (replaced, in Russia, by kleptocratic authoritarianism and in China by Leninist capitalism). Moreover, American business (Wall Street in particular) has been soft on China for the last 30 years, and just last week, President Trump even recommended to his North Korean BFF that he’d do well to model his country on Vietnam, which is still under strict Communist control.


Quote:
Not surprisingly, Americans’ definitions of socialism have changed since the Cold War ended. In September of 2018, Gallup asked Americans for their “understanding of the term ‘socialism.’” One-third — 33% — answered that it meant a society with equal standing for everybody, in which benefits and services were free for all. When Gallup had asked Americans the same question in September of 1949, at the height of the Cold War, just 14% gave that answer, while 34% answered that it meant government ownership of all business and control of society. Half that total — 17% — gave that answer in 2018. (Other answers drew far less support.)

That is, the public’s idea of socialism has shifted over the last 70 years from one verging on totalitarianism to one far closer to European social democracy. The disappearance of Soviet communism has clearly contributed to that shift, but so has the transition over that same 70 years to a more aggressive capitalism that has rewarded chiefly the rich.


Quote:
That helps explain why a record number of Americans, and a majority of Democrats, now think of socialism positively, and clearly distinguish democratic socialism from its communist deviation. A 2017 YouGov poll of millennials found that 44% of them said they’d prefer to live in a socialist nation, while 42% preferred one that was capitalist, and 7% one that was communist (alas).

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) delivered a speech at Georgetown University in the fall of 2015, which he’d billed as providing his own definition of socialism, he cited as his precedents Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of Social Security, Lyndon Johnson’s creation of Medicare, and Martin Luther King’s commitment to an egalitarian society. His vision of socialism, he emphasized, was light-years distant from a society in which all private enterprise, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, were taken over by the state.


Quote:
For their part, Republicans desperately hope that they can substitute Venezuela for the Soviet Union. Their problem is that Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and the vast majority of actually existing American socialists look to Sweden, Norway and Denmark, not Venezuela, as their model. As well they should: The Scandinavian social democracies rank highest on indices of social mobility, general wellness and just plain happiness.


Quote:
That won’t deter Republicans, of course. They’ve labeled every Democrat since Al Smith and Franklin Roosevelt as socialists, and every reform from the minimum wage to national parks as socialistic. The absence of Soviet communism and their own century of crying wolf should make instigating a new “Red scare” more difficult than it’s been in the past, though the emergence of actual democratic socialists will doubtless spur the Republicans on.

Accuracy will not impede them. Indeed, Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers released a report last year attacking the socialism of Sanders and AOC by equating it with the most murderous policies of Stalin and Mao. All the more reason for Bernie and AOC to continue to be clear about what they’re for, and what they’re against.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 03:52 pm
@blatham,
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/times/story/2019/feb/17/democratic-socialism-not-your-grandpas-social/488758/

Quote:
for many middle-aged and older Americans, "socialist" sounds a lot like "communist."

That's not true, however, for younger America. According to a 2015 YouGov poll, only 15 percent of Americans over 65 have a positive view of socialism. But for people between the ages of 30 and 64, that positive view rises to 26 percent. For voting age people under 30, it jumps to 36 percent.

According to Forbes, other polls point to why. Last year, many aspects of Ocasio-Cortez's "socialist" economic agenda often found a majority or close-to-majority support. A majority of Americans voiced support for the federal government ensuring health care for all, for free college tuition at public universities, and for the proposition that upper-income people and corporations pay too little in taxes. Even a federal jobs guarantee received 46 percent approval. Polls also continue to show that a majority of voters don't view Republican tax cuts as helping people other than the rich.

"Bottom line: On economic policies, many voters aren't hostile to a lot of democratic socialist ideas, although they surely shun the label "socialist," economist Teresa Ghilarducci wrote in an August Forbes piece. "And Ocasio-Cortez herself is not a purist, but rather someone looking to get these ideas into the national dialogue, perhaps like the Tea Party introduced extreme right-wing ideas such as privatizing Social Security."

As for Ocasio-Cortez herself, she calls Democrats a big tent party. "You know, I'm not trying to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress " She says she is not about "selling an -ism or an ideology," but about "selling our values."

And in an American economy with record-low unemployment — less than 4 percent — what values would those be? They would be values that this so-called "great" economy still isn't relieving: Americans' insecurity in health care, retirement and our own, as well as our children's, future.

Candidates calling for higher pay, reduced inequality and economic security may not be as far left as we think.

Calls for higher minimum wages, stronger labor unions, fair housing and equal pay policies were all part of Harry Truman's policies and his 1948 winning platform, Ghilarducci wrote in Forbes. "Was "give 'em hell, Harry' a Democratic Socialist? No, but he was seeking practical solutions to real problems. President Truman, coming after World War II and facing political unrest and economic uncertainty, was as practical a politician as many on the scene today, seeking solutions for economic inequality and insecurity."



will millennials turn out to vote?
it will definitely make a difference
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:06 pm
@ehBeth,
not a big 538 fan but they've got the same references and results that are showing up - and lotsa links to sources

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-socialism-still-an-effective-political-bogeyman/

___

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-republican-gop-support-favorablity-socialist-approval-1350105

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-have-big-plans-every-age-group-republicans-call-socialism-n977891
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:11 pm
@ehBeth,
Great piece, beth!
Quote:
That is, the public’s idea of socialism has shifted over the last 70 years from one verging on totalitarianism to one far closer to European social democracy. The disappearance of Soviet communism has clearly contributed to that shift, but so has the transition over that same 70 years to a more aggressive capitalism that has rewarded chiefly the rich.
The factor I'd add in here is generational change. My daughter, 33, has no familiarity with The Red Scare other than historical. And for all her age and younger, the old style Republican fear mongering about commies doesn't have any place to land.

Speaking of commies and the Red Scare, the Cohen brothers film, "Hail Caesar!" is totally brilliant. There's a dance number with sailors that is a work of genius in itself.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:12 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
That's not true, however, for younger America.

Well, there you go. Ahead of me at every turn.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:13 pm
@ehBeth,
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/22/trumps_real_2020_foe_demographics_of_the_electorate_139543.html

again lots of links

Quote:
What I consider Trump’s greatest foe is voter demography as outlined in the recent Pew Research Center study, "An Early Look at the 2020 Electorate." That study projects the percentage of eligible voters from each of the nation’s four largest racial and ethnic groups. Unfortunately for Trump, the results do not bode well based on how these same groups voted in 2016.


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

from rcp

Quote:
The study projects that whites will comprise 66.7 percent of eligible voters; Hispanics, 13.3 percent; blacks, 12.5 percent; and Asians, 4.7 percent. The fact that non-whites will comprise roughly one-third of eligible voters would not be a problem for Trump and the Republican Party if they did not overwhelming and consistently vote Democratic. But the ever-increasing Hispanic vote is the GOP’s greatest cause of present and future consternation.

For example, due to Hispanic growth, traditional “ruby red” Arizona, with 10 electoral votes, will be among the most contentious 2020 battleground states. And, though Republicans fondly remember when New Mexico last went “red” -- in 2004, helping re-elect President George W. Bush – it is now solidly blue.


Quote:
the traditionally wide gap between the number of eligible and actual Hispanic voters is dramatically shrinking. It’s no surprise that as the Hispanic population grows, as with any rising ethnic group it becomes increasingly empowered, engaged, and mobilized to vote.


Quote:
Finally, there is the majority white vote that the Pew study projects will form 66.5 percent of eligible voters in 2020. Shown below is how whites’ percentage of the total voting electorate has consistently decreased since 2004 – the last time a Republican president won re-election.

2004: 77 percent
2008: 74 percent
2012: 72 percent
2016: 70 percent
2020: 68 percent?? (My projection based on trends.)

In 2016, Trump won 57 percent of the white vote compared to Clinton’s 37 percent. In 2020, it is anyone’s guess how much Trump will need to increase that 57 percent in order to win re-election because, pre-election, non-white vs. white voter turnout are variables that can only be estimated and modeled.



Quote:
the shrinking white vote could negatively impact Trump’s chances of again winning the three traditionally Democrat-leaning battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with their predominately white populations and combined total of 46 electoral votes. These three states boosted Trump’s total to 304, well over the 270 needed for victory — despite him losing the popular vote to Clinton by 2.9 million votes — 2.1 percent of the total cast.

It is also instructive to remember just how Trump won:

-Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, a 0.7 percent margin of victory.
-Wisconsin by 22,748 votes, a 0.7 percent margin.
-Michigan by 10,704 votes, a 0.3 percent margin.

And already there is trouble brewing for him in Michigan. A recent hypothetical general election matchup poll had all four of the leading Democratic presidential candidates denying him a second term.


Quote:
But, as my Republican friends are fond of saying, “We don’t believe polls” and “Pollsters always miss hidden Trump support.”

I don’t necessarily believe my friends, but this I know, the American electorate is not minting enough new white voters to achieve Trump’s re-election unless he increases his percentage of white voters by a yet unknown number of percentage points in exactly the right combination of states where electoral votes add up to 270.


Quote:
Myra Adams is a media producer and writer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the GOP nominee’s 2008 campaign and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:17 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
That's not true, however, for younger America.



this was where this line of reading started for me - a US panel I heard on CBC yesterday talking about millennials not fearing socialism as their parents do (also the much older generations not fearing it - recognizing the differences between communism and socialism from living through the 1930's and 1940's )
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:21 pm
I think people are coming to know the difference between socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor, enough to vote for a correction to the equation. The biggest blockage is not, in my view, falling for right wing propaganda, but maintaining the right to vote and have the vote count as intended. The Republicans don't make a secret of denying legitimate voters the right to cast ballots and in some instances there are Democrats denying the vote. Ending the suppression is still a part remedy. Without paper ballots, troublemakers will still be able to skew the tally.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I think people are coming to know the difference between socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor, enough to vote for a correction to the equation. The biggest blockage is not, in my view, falling for right wing propaganda, but maintaining the right to vote and have the vote count as intended. The Republicans don't make a secret of denying legitimate voters the right to cast ballots and in some instances there are Democrats denying the vote. Ending the suppression is still a part remedy. Without paper ballots, troublemakers will still be able to skew the tally.

The way to correct for socialism at any level is to reduce socialism to austere levels. People shouldn't starve or die of disease and health problems, but making those things universally accessible also shouldn't be used to stimulate spending/growth and create lucrative jobs.

Socialist programs that pay people enough to own a small residence for minimum expense, pay health care practitioners, educators, etc. enough to eat and ride a bicycle or take transit but not for a car, etc. is not bad, as long as there is always fiscal constraint as a motivation to achieve greater self-sufficiency as well.

The problem is when you stimulate economic growth by and for the sake of increasing interdependency as much as possible. People end up losing traditional skills such as maintaining and repairing their own homes and appliances/vehicles and you end up with a consumerist culture where people don't bother with maintaining/repairing/caring for old things because it's easier to just buy new ones, which generates lots of resource waste while reducing people to weakness and dependency.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 04:44 pm
I agree with the Green New Deal myself. Something has got to change in the US regarding Climate change. I read this morning where farmers have more and more fields which they can't use because of salt water and other climate related issues. Issues such as that effect real people, food prices have already been going up and I imagine it would get worse if farmers in coastal areas are not able to farm. All this rain has been having an effect on middle America too. Also, pollution is affecting our health which cost lives and money and resources to deal with. If environmentalist would advocate for climate change in common everyday language is which every average person can relate to; I think it will go a long way towards getting people to vote for those who favor greener policies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ruined-crops-salty-soil-how-rising-seas-are-poisoning-north-carolinas-farmland/2019/03/01/2e26b83e-28ce-11e9-8eef-0d74f4bf0295_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b6b062cd1c22
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 05:03 pm
I like this article despite its origin site
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/march/03/democrats-and-republicans-move-to-silence-rep-omar-s-criticism-of-israel/?fbclid=IwAR3wDThsg9GvAN54zit6NXMV6weh8eK8_Dic2uzh86YBOWlwqWzeLvSp0Uc

It looks like the embattled representative from Minnesota will end up like Cynthia McKinney, who was thrown out of Congress for the sin of criticizing the official narrative on 9/11.

She is also a fierce critic of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians (she sailed with activists on the Gaza-bound ships Dignity and Spirit of Humanity). McKinney deviated from the official narrative on Libya and she introduced articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush for committing war crimes and violating the Constitution.

Rep. Ilhan Omar was sworn in a little over a month ago and in that time fellow members of Congress and the corporate propaganda media have attacked her for “antisemitism,” that is to say criticism of the apartheid state of Israel, which is a cardinal sin for members of Congress and, for that matter, anybody else.

Both establishment Democrats and Republicans are taking turns bashing her, but the Republicans went further than simply denouncing her with strident soundbites. They have conflated her with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee demanded she apologize for a remark stating there are dual citizens in America doing the work of Israel.

During the Bush regime, there were a number neocons holding dual US-Israel citizenship and they plotted a war that undeniably benefited Israel. These folks include Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, and others.

Back in 2004, two years into the neocon war waged on Iraq, Bill and Kathleen Christison, both former CIA employees, wrote:
The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing US policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said during a town hall Wednesday.

Fair enough question, right? Wrong.
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 05:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
People forget she is a devout Muslim. Devout Muslims hate anything that is not Islamic. Jews are very high on that list.
Quote:
British Activist Warns America About Rep. Ilhan Omar

http://www.independentsentinel.com/british-activist-warns-america-about-rep-ilhan-omar/
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 05:54 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Note also (particulary george) that this is an example of the tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy.
Ahh. The fallacy that isn't really a fallacy.

Hypocrites everywhere in the universe dislike the condemn of hypocrisy.

But that doesn't make such condemnation a fallacy.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2019 05:56 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
There has been a system of abuse of African American and other minorities for years with Justice System. Do you feel we should kill the Justice System and start a new one, or would it not be better to reform it?
Since I am responding to a post a few pages back, the above is in response to AOC objecting to the provisions concerning ICE which were made in the last budget deal.
What abuse are you referring to?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:40:49