0
   

Democrats Shirking Social Support Mission for Anti-Trumpism

 
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2020 09:06 pm
@livinglava,
Helping people should require actually be about helping people, not about what YOU get in return for offering help. Maybe if you weren't so self-centered, you'd see that. But, as you see it, the tit-for-tat paying someone for help soothes your conscience but not actually helping someone in need.

And that is the sad commentary of the Republican way. In order to "help" someone, they must give you some sort of payment in return.

Help is help. Or in your version, prostitution is useful as long as you get yours. So benevolent of you.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 01:52 am
@neptuneblue,
This was addressed to real music but it also applies to you.

https://able2know.org/topic/544154-1#post-6950431
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 10:54 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Helping people should require actually be about helping people, not about what YOU get in return for offering help. Maybe if you weren't so self-centered, you'd see that. But, as you see it, the tit-for-tat paying someone for help soothes your conscience but not actually helping someone in need.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I am talking about making policies that ensure food and housing security while simultaneously ensuring security from crime and drugs; as well as pursuing climate/resource sustainability and protecting private property/savings against inflation/redistribution/socialism.

Idk what any of what you posted above has to do with that.

Quote:
And that is the sad commentary of the Republican way. In order to "help" someone, they must give you some sort of payment in return.

Who has to give whom payment in return for what? What are you talking about?

Quote:
Help is help. Or in your version, prostitution is useful as long as you get yours. So benevolent of you.

Again, what? Prostitution should be eliminated along with drugs and other forms of exploitation. Recreational sex is a waste of time and resources. There are better things for people to do with their time and money.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 10:56 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Recreational sex is a waste of time and resources. There are better things for people to do with their time and money.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow your roll there. You are getting out of hand with comments like this.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 12:14 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Recreational sex is a waste of time and resources. There are better things for people to do with their time and money.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow your roll there. You are getting out of hand with comments like this.

Are you joining a thread about politics to turn it into a debate about values regarding recreational sex?

If so, please don't.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 12:16 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Bipartisanship can be used as ammunition against dissent, in which case it becomes a weapon against democracy.

Bipartisanship, sometimes referred to as nonpartisanship, is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system (especially those of the United States and some other western countries), in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise.



Quote:
Democracy respects dissent and pursues consensus by listening to differing points of view, not seeking ways to overpower them and/or remove obstructions to goals.

1. It's fine to listen to differing points of view.

2. It's actually healthy to listen to differing points of view.

3. Allowing dissenting opinions to express their dissenting opinions is fine.

4. Allowing dissenting opinions to express their dissenting opinions doesn't mean allowing dissenting opinions to have their way.

5. If the dissenting opinions wish to have their way, they will have to persuade the majority of the legislators to vote their way, which would then make them majority opinion instead of the dissenting opinion.

6. And if the dissenting opinion fails to persuade the majority of the legislators to vote their way, then democracy says the dissenting opinions loses. That's how democracy works.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 12:34 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Livinglava is a simple minded fascist, and you've got better things to do with your time than waste it on someone who can't even understand your replies, let alone formulate an articulate response.

1. There is definitely a lot of truth to what you are saying.

2. For now, I'm having fun debating and exposing Livinglava as the disingenuous fraud I know him or her to be.

3. I might end up posting a few more times.

4. I will eventually get bored and stop replying.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 12:34 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

Quote:
Bipartisanship can be used as ammunition against dissent, in which case it becomes a weapon against democracy.

Bipartisanship, sometimes referred to as nonpartisanship, is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system (especially those of the United States and some other western countries), in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise.

What I am saying is that if you have some dissenting individual or minority/party/interest, and there are others who seek to suppress/squelch/ignore that dissent, one method of doing so is to claim there is bipartisan agreement and thus imply that the dissent is irrelevant because there are people in both parties who are dismissive of it.

In other words, majoritarian fascism can be bipartisan/multilateral as well as being a single party working to suppress an opponent party.

Democracy is about listening to dissent and taking all POVs seriously; not suppressing whatever interferes with majoritarian domination.

Quote:
Quote:
Democracy respects dissent and pursues consensus by listening to differing points of view, not seeking ways to overpower them and/or remove obstructions to goals.

1. It's fine to listen to differing points of view.

2. It's actually healthy to listen to differing points of view.

3. Allowing dissenting opinions to express their dissenting opinions is fine.

4. Allowing dissenting opinions to express their dissenting opinions doesn't mean allowing dissenting opinions to have their way.

Not 'have their way,' but to fully take them into account instead of just finding ways to dismiss them by pretending to have listened and then deemed them unworthy.

Just acknowledge that it is a tactic to pretend to listen to other POVs in order to claim the course of action taken has been weighed against alternatives, yet in truth no other alternative was ever seriously considered.

Quote:
5. If the dissenting opinions wish to have their way, they will have to persuade the majority of the legislators to vote their way, which would then make them majority opinion instead of the dissenting opinion.

There's a basic level of reasonability that is required for democracy to work in the way you describe. If people are biased at a fundamentally, they won't really take all POVs into consideration because they have already decided which POVs to respect and which not, e.g. because of economic and/or political interest alignments.

Quote:
6. And if the dissenting opinion fails to persuade the majority of the legislators to vote their way, then democracy says the dissenting opinions loses. That's how democracy works.

And yet if the individuals involved are biased, the outcome is anti-democratic and the resulting simulation of democracy is a facade that obstructs the possibility of real democracy from occurring.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 12:56 pm
@livinglava,
Your OP clearly spells out the problem is Democrats who seem to be making bills contrary to the Greater Good and Republicans are Just, by not even taking up these bills as they're not worthy to even come to the floor.

That simply is not true.

It is your bias and unyeilding viewpoint to keep blaming Democrats. You don't want to work with Democrats because every Democrat is wrong in your view.

And you wonder why you get push-back.

Go eat a chzburger, you'll feel better.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 01:32 pm
@livinglava,
1. We all have views and opinions on just about everything.

2. I'm not just talking about politics. I'm talking about everyday life.

3. We all have our own opinions about movies, tv shows, songs, books, food, entertainment, vacation destinations, cars, night clubs, bars, sports teams, and virtually everything else in life.

4. Just because someone genuinely disagrees with you, doesn't mean they didn't genuinely take into account to what you had to say.

5. Sometimes in life, people simply have to agree to disagree.

6. In politics, the dissenting views cannot force the majority to agree with their dissenting views. Especially If the majority of the legislators genuinely disagree with the dissenting opinions. The majority wins and the dissenting opinions loses. That is true democracy.

7. In politics, I have my own views and opinions, just as you do.

8. I have on many occasions articulated my views and opinions on politics as well as many other topics.

9. One last thing. Have anything I've posted on political topics ever cause you Livinglava to agree with me after originally disagreeing me?

Just curious.
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 01:50 pm
@livinglava,
I notice how you, Livinglava, like to refer to things as not being democracy or as anti-democracy.



The following are some things that can truly be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic:

1. Voter suppression can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

2. Gerrymandering can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

3. The Electoral College can been seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

4. Not doing everything we can do to prevent foreign meddling in our elections can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

5. Not ensuring that all voting machines have paper back-ups can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.


I just want to give you something to think about.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 02:06 pm
@livinglava,
1. Another thing I notice about you Livinglava is your blatant hypocrisy.

2. The way you falsely describe the democrats is really how you should be describing the republicans.

3. That is why you are disingenuous and a complete fraud.

4. I can clearly see the fraud that you are.

5. I'm sure others can see right through you and see you for the fraud you are.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 02:14 pm
@Real Music,
Accurate post Real Music.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 04:28 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Your OP clearly spells out the problem is Democrats who seem to be making bills contrary to the Greater Good and Republicans are Just, by not even taking up these bills as they're not worthy to even come to the floor.

That simply is not true.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the bills being put forth by the house are oriented toward achieving common ground and thus consensus with Republicans or anyone else that dissents from their party-authorized views.

That is a false assumptions. The Democratic party creates a set a views in academic circles and other 'back rooms' and then they strategize about how to tactically implement it, including by choosing multiparty alliances, etc. They simply aren't open to engaging in public discourse in order to seek common ground with dissenters. That would interfere with their union-logic view that people earn the right to dictate policy by working their way up to positions of authority.

To Democrats, organizational structure is a system for determining whose opinion counts (i.e. who gets to lead) and whose doesn't (i.e. who must follow). Those who don't accept the subordinate role as followers are kicked out of the running for leadership positions.

Democracy doesn't work like that. In Democracy, everyone has freedom of speech and there is free discussion among different POVs. You don't have to earn a certain position or status in order to have your POV count more than others'.

Basically we're all supposed to respect each other equally and listen to each others' POVs in order to arrive at common ground we can all consent to, i.e. consensus.

Quote:
It is your bias and unyeilding viewpoint to keep blaming Democrats. You don't want to work with Democrats because every Democrat is wrong in your view.

My point isn't to blame anyone because blaming doesn't solve any problems. I am simply pointing out that Democrats are focusing on issues of blaming/scapegoating, status/inequality, and economic control at the expense of seeking to propose solutions to problems that overcome dissent by taking into account critiques from various POVs.

Quote:
And you wonder why you get push-back.

Justifying push as 'push-back' doesn't make it any less fascist/socialist. Trying to push others into agreement instead of imploring/persuading with reason is pushy bully politics.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 04:33 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

4. Just because someone genuinely disagrees with you, doesn't mean they didn't genuinely take into account to what you had to say.

Of course not, but often people don't seriously listen and then they just tell you that they took your position into account, when in fact it is obvious that they didn't give any credence to it.

Quote:
5. Sometimes in life, people simply have to agree to disagree.

Maybe, but in democracy if people agree to disagree they end up with competing positions and it becomes a war of power over which position gets to rule and which gets subjugated. Subjugation is ultimately not democratic, however, and what is really supposed to happen is that reason-based discussion is supposed to continue until all parties understand each others' POVs and dissent and they are able to consent to some common ground or compromise that is not the product of coercion/capitulation.

Quote:
6. In politics, the dissenting views cannot force the majority to agree with their dissenting views. Especially If the majority of the legislators genuinely disagree with the dissenting opinions. The majority wins and the dissenting opinions loses. That is true democracy.

No, in democracy no one is supposed to agree with anything by force, minority or majority. But we are all supposed to communicate well-enough to understand each others' views and work toward common ground.

Quote:
7. In politics, I have my own views and opinions, just as you do.

8. I have on many occasions articulated my views and opinions on politics as well as many other topics.

9. One last thing. Have anything I've posted on political topics ever cause you Livinglava to agree with me after originally disagreeing me?

Just curious.

I don't remember.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 04:38 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

The following are some things that can truly be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic:

1. Voter suppression can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

2. Gerrymandering can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

3. The Electoral College can been seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

Democracy involves taking dissenting and/or minority views into account in order to prevent a tyranny of the majority. If the electoral institutions support a situation in which a majority can abuse power and ignore dissent, then they have become weapons against democracy in the name of 'democracy.' I put 'democracy' in quotations because majoritarian tyranny against dissent is not real democracy.

Quote:
4. Not doing everything we can do to prevent foreign meddling in our elections can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

There is nothing anti-democratic about people listening to information that comes from non-citizens or from abroad. 'Meddling' is a loaded term. When does spreading information become 'meddling' instead of it just being free speech?

Quote:
5. Not ensuring that all voting machines have paper back-ups can be seen as anti-democracy or anti-democratic.

Or it could be seen as a way of driving up the cost of elections in order to turn elections into a more powerful fiscal stimulus project (not to mention tree-killing paper wasting anti-conservation).

Quote:
I just want to give you something to think about.

Good, I hope you also think about my responses.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 05:46 pm
@livinglava,
Just in case you fail to fully understand my previous post, I am reposting my prior post.
The following is my previous post to you. You are more than welcome to read it again.



Real Music wrote to livinglava
1. Another thing I notice about you Livinglava is your blatant hypocrisy.

2. The way you falsely describe the democrats is really how you should be describing the republicans.

3. That is why you are disingenuous and a complete fraud.

4. I can clearly see the fraud that you are.

5. I'm sure others can see right through you and see you for the fraud you are.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 06:35 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
I am simply pointing out that Democrats are focusing on issues of blaming/scapegoating, status/inequality, and economic control at the expense of seeking to propose solutions to problems that overcome dissent by taking into account critiques from various POVs.


So, what you're saying is, every one of the 50 bills that were presented in this thread are non sequitur just BECAUSE democrats dared to put forward legislation? Why are you against ALL of it? Not ONE meets your criteria?

livinglava wrote:
Trying to push others into agreement instead of imploring/persuading with reason is pushy bully politics.


Odd, that's exactly what I'm saying to you.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2020 07:58 pm
@neptuneblue,
1. livinglava has consistently and repeatedly shown himself or herself to be the biggest hypocrite on this site.

2. For now, I have grown bored of livinglava repeated hypocrisy.
So, I will discontinue replying to livinglava for now.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2020 02:45 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

So, what you're saying is, every one of the 50 bills that were presented in this thread are non sequitur just BECAUSE democrats dared to put forward legislation? Why are you against ALL of it? Not ONE meets your criteria?

I haven't even looked at them, nor do I have to. I know the attitude toward Republicans and Trump especially I read about everyday. I know the disrespect I get when I try to explain Republican ways of thinking.

When the House went to the Democrats, I was hoping it would break the stalemate that started when the Obama administration was challenged to put forth policy ideas that would pass the Republican House. My hope was that a Democrat house might be better at legislating to a Republican President and Senate than Democrats were at working within the margins of what is acceptable to a Republican House.

It has been obvious since before Trump was even elected that the Democratic Party would continue attacking him and refuse to seek common ground. I have all but lost hope from a realistic POV, but from a broader perspective there is nothing else to hope for from democracy than for the two parties to work together to achieve mutual goals that can be respected by people with differing POVs.

Quote:
livinglava wrote:
Trying to push others into agreement instead of imploring/persuading with reason is pushy bully politics.

Odd, that's exactly what I'm saying to you.

Yes, I know Dems justify everything bad they do by saying someone else did it first and they're just following suit. Well, even if it's true, two wrongs don't make a right.
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 3.1 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 05:15:47