Jump to content

chasfh

The 116th United States Congress (2019-2021)

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Shelton said:

AOC with some pretty poor reasoning during her 60 minute spot. 

She uses a lot of poor reasoning as do most politicians, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not.  The focus on her is not because of her poor reasoning, but because they are scared ****less of a charismatic liberal who could have a great impact on future congressional and Presidential races.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, screwball said:

THE TRUTH ABOUT ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: The inside story of how, in just one year, Sandy the bartender became a lawmaker who triggers both parties

She was on 60 Minutes last night too.  Becoming quite the political rock star.

The Boss is heavily involved with politics, and has been for quite some time.  She is the Cornhole county democratic party secretary, knows Sherrod Brown very well (canvassed with him on several occasions), and has been to the home of, and knows, Richard Cordray (and his wife, a professor at Capital University), and a proud a member of #theresistance, so I would say she is in tune, and connected.  I'm proud of her for what she's accomplished, but we really don't talk about politics (because I despise all of them).

I was SHOCKED she didn't know who AOC was.  I have a theory, but we'll see.  She watched the 60 Minutes thing (only because I told here about it as she didn't know), as did I.  She liked her.  We'll see how long that lasts.  Probably until the PTB of the democratic party decide they shouldn't like her and AOC gets "Bernied."

I like her.  I don't want us to become a socialist country and we won't.  I like to see a fresh face upsetting the political cesspool.  I could have liked Trump too if he weren't a self obsessed *******.  I was wondering when ******* was finally going to become censored here.  Good move.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shelton said:

AOC with some pretty poor reasoning during her 60 minute spot. 

I didn't watch it and I have no interest in doing so.  She's a flash in the pan who's getting attention because of those who perceive her as a threat, and most of her policies have no chance of going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Euphdude said:

I didn't watch it and I have no interest in doing so.  She's a flash in the pan who's getting attention because of those who perceive her as a threat, and most of her policies have no chance of going anywhere.

Sounds like Trump in 2015.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Sounds like Trump in 2015.  

She's 29 and wouldn't be able to hold to Presidency until the 2024 election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Sounds like Trump in 2015.  

I think the comparison between Trump is apt. Both he and AOC owe whatever political momentum they have to the fact that the media gives them wall-to-wall coverage. And both are good at marketing themselves via Twitter.

All I will say is that there are a lot of Democrats who won in previously red districts who are joining AOC in the backbenches of Congress. And they aren't going to get the attention she does, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

She's 29 and wouldn't be able to hold to Presidency until the 2024 election.

Trump was Trump for 40 years and still fooled everyone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

 I don't want us to become a socialist country and we won't.

But as long you let the GOP frame the question this way, (or as long a there are Dems foolish enough to put it in those terms) you will get no reform. Socialism is not the option. It's reform of a capitalism that is off the rails that is the option. This is where people should read what Warren has been writing about. As long as the right can successfully label any public interest reform of capitalism as socialism they can strangle any progress in its crib.  We have to be raise the quality of the rhetoric about the real changes needed in the US economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

But as long you let the GOP frame the question this way, (or as long a there are Dems foolish enough to put it in those terms) you will get no reform. Socialism is not the option. It's reform of a capitalism that is off the rails that is the option. This is where people should read what Warren has been writing about. As long as the right can successfully label any public interest reform of capitalism as socialism they can strangle any progress in its crib.  We have to be raise the quality of the rhetoric about the real changes needed in the US economy.

Who's framing the question?  FTA above on AOC:

Quote

 

DSA endorsed the insurgent campaign in late April after extensive vetting. Their 103 canvassers knocked on 13,000 doors and led an aggressive get-out-the-vote effort over the next two months.

With Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid, Trump's election, and Ocasio-Cortez's rise, DSA has seen a resurgence in national prominence.

Between 2015 and 2017, a period encompassing the span of Sanders's campaign, the group grew from 8,000 dues-paying members to 25,000. During that time the average age of the group's members dropped from 64 to 30. Its membership surged the day after Trump was elected and again the day after Ocasio-Cortez won her primary. Today, it's 55,000 members strong (but still an insignificant force on the national political stage).

With newly-elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, DSA now has two lawmakers in Congress.

 

DSA is the Democratic Socialists of America.  Don't you remember theCouger trying to sell everyone on that a while back?  It will cure the ills of America don't ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

But as long you let the GOP frame the question this way, (or as long a there are Dems foolish enough to put it in those terms) you will get no reform. Socialism is not the option. It's reform of a capitalism that is off the rails that is the option. This is where people should read what Warren has been writing about. As long as the right can successfully label any public interest reform of capitalism as socialism they can strangle any progress in its crib.  We have to be raise the quality of the rhetoric about the real changes needed in the US economy.

I don't think we will get change from reasonable discussion.  I think someone needs to upset the apple cart and the public can decide what they want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, screwball said:

Who's framing the question?  FTA above on AOC:

DSA is the Democratic Socialists of America.  Don't you remember theCouger trying to sell everyone on that a while back?  It will cure the ills of America don't ya know.

Democratic Socialists != socialists.

No matter how hard people want it to be true, reforming capitalism isn't socialism.   Socialism DESTROYS capitalism, it doesn't reform it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, pfife said:

Democratic Socialists != socialists.

No matter how hard people want it to be true, reforming capitalism isn't socialism.   Socialism DESTROYS capitalism, it doesn't reform it.

 

This is one place we should not look to Europe as the rhetorical model. Socialism has never has the negative connotation there it has here, and  “social democratic” parties have been there for decades and everyone knows what there are. In the US, progressive dems at the national level should avoid using “social democrat” and “democratic socialism” just because they create one more voter education hurdle to overcome. They should probably stick with “progressive” as the primary buzzword. What plays in a local liberal district is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!  If it walks like a duck...

And better buzzwords for the dumb hicks.  Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, screwball said:

LOL!  If it walks like a duck...

Except it doesn't walk like a duck. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, screwball said:

LOL!  If it walks like a duck...

And better buzzwords for the dumb hicks.  Brilliant.

The dems have to sell to the suburbs - is that where the dumb hicks live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Except it doesn't walk like a duck. Not even close.

What is Democratic Socialism? - from the DSA's own website.

Quote

 

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.

 

 
Quote

 

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
 
  1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     
     
     
    • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
      synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
       
       
       
    • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

 

    •  

Looks pretty close to me, but I'm just a dumb hick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

The dems have to sell to the suburbs - is that where the dumb hicks live?

This one does, but I guessing there are many others hiding in the sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, screwball said:

What is Democratic Socialism? - from the DSA's own website.

 
    •  

Looks pretty close to me, but I'm just a dumb hick.

My understanding of what people want out of social democracy is that there are some essential items which are taken out of the profit arena such as healthcare and education, but that capitalists can still be capitalists for most things.  I don't think there is any interest in socializing the production and distribution of cars, tv sets, computers, etc.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I don't think we will get change from reasonable discussion.  I think someone needs to upset the apple cart and the public can decide what they want.  

Depends on what your definition of 'upset the apple cart' is. History argues that evolution is always better for a society than revolution. Most internal revolutions end up being social/cultural/economic setbacks. We think we should like "revolutions" because we were founded on one, but wars for independence are a unique kind of revolution. In the American case  - there was virtually no economic/political/cultural break with the past (the US revolution wasn't even that much about democracy per se, England was well on it's way to parliamentary democracy by the time of the US revolution - it was about local control and representation - i.e. the colonies had no seats in Parliament). OTOH, *Internal* revolutions, that seek to radically overthrow current governments, culture or economics within a country, are nearly always disasters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

My understanding of what people want out of social democracy is that there are some essential items which are taken out of the profit arena such as healthcare and education, but that capitalists can still be capitalists for most things.  I don't think there is any interest in socializing the production and distribution of cars, tv sets, computers, etc.  

I would add one more clause - that control of large capitalist organizations must give public and employee stakeholders a voice in the board room. This is a much different concept than direct government control of management or production. It maintains independence from government and independence of corporate decision making - but it tempers it with a broader view than  the quarterly statement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, screwball said:

What is Democratic Socialism? - from the DSA's own website.

 
    •  

Looks pretty close to me, but I'm just a dumb hick.

It really has nothing to do with where you are from or anything about you specifically. 

 It's more the fact that socialism and democratic socialism are, in fact, different things. I even say that as someone who doesn't particularly care for democratic socialism as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's more the fact that socialism and democratic socialism are, in fact, different things. I even say that as someone who doesn't particularly care for democratic socialism as well.

right - which is why social democrats in the US should use different terminology given the limited information processing ability of the US electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

My understanding of what people want out of social democracy is that there are some essential items which are taken out of the profit arena such as healthcare and education, but that capitalists can still be capitalists for most things.  I don't think there is any interest in socializing the production and distribution of cars, tv sets, computers, etc.  

Right, they want reformed capitalism.   

Socialists don't want capitalism.  Period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Oblong said:

I"m friends with Hansen's wife.  I've met him a few times but nothing other than "hello".  Good people.

My mom was active in Detroit politics at the time and had met him. She also met Kwame before he won and was taken by him. There were some warning signs, but looking back, it was like Trumpism. Kwame is intelligent and educated. He was young and had energy. We also liked Dennis Archer but he just didn't connect with the black population and was viewed as an uncle time. Kwame had that Archer intelligence but the ability to relate with the people of Detroit. We had high hopes for Kwame. Kwame also had his loyal base which was enough to get him re-elected. It was pretty much the same. Everyone was out to get him because he was "yalls boi." My mother had the advantage of working at city hall. The Kwame friends and family plan was every bit a real thing. There was genuine concern to speak out. Everyone knew Tamara Green was a hit job ordered by Kwame. When I voted for Hansen Clarke, that was about the very first election I was eligible to vote in. I really didn't know much about Freeman Hendrix. I just knew he wasn't Kwame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,320
    • Total Posts
      2,855,739
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...