Christian Liberty
Well-known member
This is the problem with overly simplistic thinking on the left (the right is also guilty in this regard.)
Liberals have it made in the 2016 election
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
This is the problem with overly simplistic thinking on the left (the right is also guilty in this regard.)
PureX
Well-known member
Americans have been so thoroughly lied to for so long by a capitalist dominated system that they actually believe that "market forces" are some magical phenomena that automatically eliminates economic exploitation. When in reality, unregulated markets have economic exploitation it's primary, and in most cases, it's only goal. Commerce us just economic human interaction. And as with all human interaction, it must be regulated by the rule of law. We don't allow poison to be sold as food for the same reason we don't allow rape to be sold as a form of entertainment.
And regarding the 'bigger picture' regulation is still necessary to protect and promote those aspects of commerce that serve us well, while inhibiting those aspects of commerce that is or will do our society harm. So, yes, we do want to maintain living wages for full time workers. We do want to impose tariffs on trade to make sure we don't lose our own economic security to other nations. We do want to promote certain areas of production that will set us up with an advantage in the future even though it may not be profitable at the present time. And we do want to regulate the products available to us for purchase, for safety, authenticity, and social and economic impact.
This is a huge country with 360 million people seeking some way to survive in this 'Darwinist', capitalist economically. And that's going to require a LOT of oversight! With a LOT of laws, and a LOT of bureaucracy to manage it all. But the alternative is economic anarchy and lawlessness which will inevitably become brutal, and ruthless, as lawlessness always does, and always will when the pursuit of wealth is not held in check by some code of standards that protects people from each other.
So I really don't understand where you get the idea that unregulated commerce results in fair commerce, or in commerce that serves the well-being of the people engaged in it. Except, of course, that like all of us, you have been brainwashed to just assume this to be so by the very people who want to use commerce to exploit us to death, for their own fun and profit.
Government should absolutely mandate wage standards that guarantee a living wage to anyone who is willing to work a 40 hour week. Because "market forces" will be trying to force us all into slavery, to maximize profits to the capital investors. Because that's what "free markets" do in a capitalist economy.
No, it's absurd to assume that the life and well-being a fellow citizen is irrelevant compared to maximizing the profits returned to the capital investors of any business. Which is more important to you? The life and well-being of yourself and your fellow citizens, or being able to buy a cheaper widget? What is the logical point of engaging in commerce if it's not serving the well being of the people engaged in it?
Of course they should. It's a necessary form of economic security that EVERYONE needs to have available to them in a culture that forces us all to depend on money to survive. Again, you seem to feel that maximizing your profit is more important than human lives and well-being. And it's not.
Well, that's basically just lunacy. That kind of gross selfish ignorance is a big part of the problem.
I don't think we disagree on this one iota. It's the next bit where we actually run into trouble.
Less government intervention favors large companies. Large banks and investment firms have a natural advantage in the market, in that they have a lot of broad information, which they can use to make trades that other people have a lot less information about. The only thing that can counter that advantage is government regulation. We did it with the stock market, but there's been a lot of (understandable) resistance to doing the same with the bond market.
I get the sense that you may mean something by "corporatism" that isn't quite the ordinary definition. But I'm completely against corporatism.
I think the reason that we bailed out the banks was fairly understandable. Every financial expert in the world was saying that we'd enter a new depression. But I've come around to the idea that we shouldn't have. In the years since the subprime mortgage crisis, we've seen one banking scandal after another settled with deferred prosecution agreements between the banks and the justice departments, and no real indication of any meaningful change. What I think we should have done was let the banks fail, bail out the individual mortgage borrowers, possibly with debt reduction programs, and jail anyone who committed fraud. And then, when the Libor scandal broke, we would have prosecuted those involved, including possibly the banks themselves. Same when HSBC was found laundering money. The culture of impunity that surrounds the big banks is a problem, and we're completely at their mercy.
Saul Alinsky was not even a communist and he actually did a great deal of good for poor people in Chicago . Obama never knew or even met him, and was only ten years old when Alinsky died .
Alinsky is nothing but a right-wing straw man used to smear Democratic politicians with guilt by association . Or actually NON- association .
Alinsky is nothing but a right-wing straw man used to smear Democratic politicians with guilt by association . Or actually NON- association .
Ever since Donald Trump started upsetting the Republican race for the presidential nomination, there is growing speculation that he is not what he seems. Republicans are now accusing him of having deliberately outrageous and controversial views in order to discredit the Republican party - or worse, divide it. Can it be true? Can Donald Trump really be a Democrat in disguise?
the liberals have it made
because
the self righteous religious wackos will stay home
until
that perfect candidate comes along
too bad we live in an imperfect world
because
the self righteous religious wackos will stay home
until
that perfect candidate comes along
too bad we live in an imperfect world
PureX
Well-known member
Well, let's see. The republican party platform is 'never, ever, ever, tax the rich, and we hate Obama, all other democrats, gays, liberals, intellectuals, scientists, all foreigners; especially arabs, … poor people, black people, latino people, atheists, and they even hate very government that they're busy screwing up!'. So I guess it can't be any of that, that's making them look like a bunch of morons, idiots, and hypocrites.
Yes, there is no question that Trump's rhetoric has struck a chord with a large plurality of Republican voters--and that's why he's the current front-runner. The thing is that I'm not convinced that Trump actually holds these views. He has expressed very different views in the past--even in the very recent past.
PureX
Well-known member
Trump is a money-whore. He says whatever it pays him the most to say. That is consistent throughout his entire life. He is not an ideologue. He's just another selfish prick who doesn't care about anyone or anything but Donald Trump.
The fact that all these morality junkies on the far right are so willing to vote for a guy like this is beyond comprehension. Because the guy clearly has no moral compass except what's good for Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, it is equally clear that a man like Obama is not of that ilk. Whether we agree with his political ideas or not, it is clear that Obama is an honest man who loves and honors his family, wants to do a good job for the people of the Unites States, and has behaved with great personal dignity and integrity all his adult life. And yet the Christian right hates him for it! And would vote for Donald Trump in a heartbeat if they were the only two candidates.
It's amazing the insane degree to which hypocrisy, racism, and willful ignorance has completely enveloped the republican party and it's conservative Christian supporters. No political party can survive all that mean-spirited bile without eating it's own sooner or later. And that seems to be what it's doing, now. Eventually republicans will coalesce behind some loser like Cruz, just as they did with Romney, but only because they're too partisan and extreme and irrational to pick a winner, or to vote for any democrat.
If Ted Cruz, or Marco Rube, or some other establishment republican wins, the Republican will stop improving itself. Rand Paul would improve it, but he can't win the nomination; but if Hillary wins the presidency, then we will just have to override her veto.
I can imagine David Brat getting destroyed by a president Ted Cruz for sounding too liberal, or anti-business. Ted would generous to lazy Koch Neocons at best. If Bernie Sanders wins, we will be forced to debate his worthless rhetoric in the White House. If it is a win-win for the average and moderate Republican voters, if a Democrap wins the White House.
Thus, the Democaps should have the White House.
I can imagine David Brat getting destroyed by a president Ted Cruz for sounding too liberal, or anti-business. Ted would generous to lazy Koch Neocons at best. If Bernie Sanders wins, we will be forced to debate his worthless rhetoric in the White House. If it is a win-win for the average and moderate Republican voters, if a Democrap wins the White House.
Thus, the Democaps should have the White House.
Polls don't win caucuses or primaries; they tell us who is going to win caucuses or primaries. Welcome to Politics 402.
The American voter for the most part is a lemming hidden in a human body. We saw the lemming mentality during the Obama campaigns, and now we're seeing it with Donald Trump. Many look at polls and decide who to vote for based on who is popular, not on the respective candidate's ideology. The Establishment knows this, that's why they put so much emphasis on polls.
There's just one flaw with your theory: "The Establishment" doesn't want Donald Drumpf.
I'm with you Glorydaz. I don't want to see "The Corrupt Clintons" back in office.
musterion
Well-known member
The GOP can't have Rubio so it "leaks" that it would rather have Clinton than Trump when it would much rather have Clinton than Cruz. The GOP knows the Left has vote theft down to a science so that's the best deal they can hope for..the GOP has safe, lazy careers when the Left in power (they need do nothing, just sound angry at the right times). Cruz would derail it all, unless he too became corrupted, as all seem to do. But for now, Cruz is the one the Uniparty won't accept. So they're stealth pushing Trump who they know will lose to Clinton.
musterion
Well-known member
Of the two, who do you think has a better chance of actually believing what he says, Trump or Cruz?
musterion
Well-known member
But they'll settle for him because he'll 'deal' with the Left.