0
   

Democrats Shirking Social Support Mission for Anti-Trumpism

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2020 05:13 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The bottom line is that if Democrats would seek to come up with social welfare policies that pass conservative filters, they probably could. They would just have to respect conservative concerns such as those I mentioned in earlier posts.


What do crime, drugs and exploitation have to do with food, housing and healthcare?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2020 05:18 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.

It's equatable to gladiator battles and public hangings.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2020 05:58 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
The bottom line is that if Democrats would seek to come up with social welfare policies that pass conservative filters, they probably could. They would just have to respect conservative concerns such as those I mentioned in earlier posts.


What do crime, drugs and exploitation have to do with food, housing and healthcare?

Because you don't want to support criminals with food, housing, and healthcare unless it is part of incarcerating and correcting their criminality.

Seriously, do you think about what you're saying? If you are working at a grocery store, restaurant, other food service, or agriculture; and you are making something around minimum wage; do you want to pay taxes to provide food and housing subsidies to drug dealers who sell an ounce of whatever recreational drug for $100s or $1000s?

If people are willing to give up crime and drug abuse, they should get support if they're struggling with food and housing. If they're not willing to give up those things, though, how can they expect to get support from others who not only work harder for less money, but also don't want to support the vices and crimes being procured?
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2020 06:42 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

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


livinglava wrote:
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'.


livinglava wrote:
I haven't even looked at them, nor do I have to.



It's truly ironic you don't practice what you preach. Another poser on record. Great....
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 11:00 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
The bottom line is that if Democrats would seek to come up with social welfare policies that pass conservative filters, they probably could. They would just have to respect conservative concerns such as those I mentioned in earlier posts.


What do crime, drugs and exploitation have to do with food, housing and healthcare?

Because you don't want to support criminals with food, housing, and healthcare unless it is part of incarcerating and correcting their criminality.

Seriously, do you think about what you're saying? If you are working at a grocery store, restaurant, other food service, or agriculture; and you are making something around minimum wage; do you want to pay taxes to provide food and housing subsidies to drug dealers who sell an ounce of whatever recreational drug for $100s or $1000s?

If people are willing to give up crime and drug abuse, they should get support if they're struggling with food and housing. If they're not willing to give up those things, though, how can they expect to get support from others who not only work harder for less money, but also don't want to support the vices and crimes being procured?

You're tying crime, drugs and exploitation with food, housing and healthcare when there isn't a necessary relationship. They should be dealt with separately.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 03:08 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:

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


livinglava wrote:
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'.


livinglava wrote:
I haven't even looked at them, nor do I have to.



It's truly ironic you don't practice what you preach. Another poser on record. Great....

You don't even have to read the bills to see that the Dems are value-signaling to their base. The 'squad,' as they've been pejoratively referred to, came in already in full anti-Trump mode, and I was actually really happy to see AOC initiating a discourse regarding a Green New Deal until I saw it was more about paying people to have round-table discussions about sustainability than it was about truly making a case for changes.

I read an article around the time of the GND that compared public support for various parts of the plan. Some were fairly popular, such as reforestation, planting trees, etc. but did they try to make a case for a conservatively-priced program to add trees to developed areas? No, because everything they do is about big spending to create more high-paying jobs. They can't propose anything to save the climate that doesn't involve funding new cars, roads, and highways that will simultaneously stimulate more development and thus land-clearing and driving.

How is the Democratic party supposed to be the party of climate reform when they are the party of equality within an unsustainable industrial-consumer economic culture?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 03:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

You're tying crime, drugs and exploitation with food, housing and healthcare when there isn't a necessary relationship. They should be dealt with separately.

When you apply for a job, you have to take a drug test so why not when you apply for unemployment benefits or other assistance?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 04:55 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

You're tying crime, drugs and exploitation with food, housing and healthcare when there isn't a necessary relationship. They should be dealt with separately.

When you apply for a job, you have to take a drug test so why not when you apply for unemployment benefits or other assistance?

Unemployment benefits and other assistance aren't job applications.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 05:05 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

When you apply for a job, you have to take a drug test so why not when you apply for unemployment benefits or other assistance?

I've thought like this once..

People who need to be on assistance life is shitty enough already. No one has walked in their particular shoes and who can tell what **** they are going through at that moment.

While I would hope that a person seeking help would be making all the right decision, it's possible that they are not at the time. They may seek out some moments of escape from their drudgery and we should not be judging them for that.

Instead, offer them help and hope they take it and recover.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2020 05:54 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

livinglava wrote:

When you apply for a job, you have to take a drug test so why not when you apply for unemployment benefits or other assistance?

I've thought like this once..

People who need to be on assistance life is shitty enough already. No one has walked in their particular shoes and who can tell what **** they are going through at that moment.

While I would hope that a person seeking help would be making all the right decision, it's possible that they are not at the time. They may seek out some moments of escape from their drudgery and we should not be judging them for that.

Instead, offer them help and hope they take it and recover.

I thought like other Democrats once upon a time; i.e. I assumed the best about people and I wouldn't allow myself to imagine that there are people who abuse privileges, including the privilege of public assistance.

I think it's because of racism, sexism, and classism that we're afraid to see bad where it occurs. We think that if we see bad in someone who identifies with an oppressed category, we are being racist/sexist/classist by seeing them doing bad at the individual level. For anything that a minority is stereotyped for, there are non-minorities who do the same thing. If people are afraid to criticize minority drug use/dealing, they are ignoring that white/male/rich people do it as well and that the people who use/deal drugs are victims of exploitation as much as they are perpetrators. Every abuser must also be a victim somehow or else how would they have learned to abuse others?

You may be right that people have it rough and deserve a break if they're hungry, but people also deserve to have institutional pressures that stimulate them and others to accept discipline and benefit from it. If your parents never told you to stop being lazy and do your homework, you might have gone through life avoiding all forms of work and making excuses for it. It was only because they got you to accept the discipline that you were able to grow stronger as a person.

Tough love is real love when the motivation is truly to help people help themselves. It's different when you just hate people and call it 'tough love' as an excuse to abuse them. Then again, though, I think it was Chelsea Handler who said that children of abusive alcoholics often come out great; meaning that even though it might not have been the abusive parent's intention to do right by their child when they were drunk/abusive, it still ultimately can have a positive effect on the person, if only to stimulate them to discipline themselves against being like their parent.

Whatever the case, we need to recognize that all people deserve freedom from drugs and crime. Yes, it takes discipline to give up drug use and drug dealing, because one is easy pleasure while the other is easy money; but ultimately it is better for individuals, families, and communities. Why do so many people deny that?
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/22/2020 at 10:24:30