Author Topic: Election 2012  (Read 231855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 11204
  • Gender: Male
  • Addicted to the pain
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2590 on: July 06, 2012, 09:20:06 AM »
The real danger for the US is that they waste so much of their political energy on these Pyrrhic battles, and what really needs to be done and decided falls by the wayside.

rumborak

Human nature again.

Real issues involve pressure.  Potential for change.  Really hard thinking.  Don't want to do that.  But you also need to feel important.  Like you accomplished something.  Like you've done something really hard.

Solution?  Devote all your energy to a cause or campaign that uses a reduced version of your intellectual abilities so you can feel like you've done all these things.  Instead of campaigning for real reform, you expend energy fighting for an issue of lesser importance but also lesser difficulty.
Take a chance you may die
Over and over again

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2591 on: July 06, 2012, 10:56:57 AM »
First of all: Socialism =/= Communism,

Of course, although Marx said socialism was just a transition to communism. I'm not sure what to make of Obama's current ideology. I believe he's a socialist at the bare minimum ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"), but his willingness to appoint people like Van Jones makes me wonder if he harbors more radical views.

it's quite a stretch to claim that Ayres, Alinsky and Dohrn are communists.

I'm not what to call Alinsky exactly, but Ayers and Dohrn were most certainly communists in their Weather Underground days. Ayers expressed communist sympathies as late as 1995.

I would say they are proponents of certain socialist ideas, and most of the US are actually in favor of them.

This may or may not be true. Polls show that Americans are sharply divided over healthcare and very opposed to the stimulus and bailouts.

That being said, none of them are going to ever be proponents of dismantling private property for the means of production.

What do you make of the bailouts? The resounding message from the government was that we (meaning the American people) had some kind of collective responsibility to prop up these failing businesses. That's public ownership of the means of production, is it not?

Furthermore, I want to point out that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is arguably one of the most fierce anarcho-capitalists out there, and he earned his Ph.D in Philosophy under prominent Marxist Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt. So this guilt by association BS is not acceptable.

That's one guy. It seems like almost everyone Obama associates with has ties to radical socialism. Tell me jsem, would it be "BS" if I pointed out that everyone in Bush's company was a hawkish neocon? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Of course, I don't single out Obama as others are accusing me of. He's part of a broader picture of a totalitarian government encroaching on our liberties, both social and economic.

Offline Rathma

  • Posts: 620
  • oh no she didnt
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2592 on: July 06, 2012, 11:11:11 AM »
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2593 on: July 06, 2012, 11:54:34 AM »
That's one guy. It seems like almost everyone Obama associates with has ties to radical socialism.

Que?

I think your political compass is missing a whole corner if you think the people Obama's contacts are radical socialists. For crying out loud, I have yet to ever hear "The Internationale" in the United States. That's radical socialism.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline ohgar

  • Wha?
  • Posts: 139
  • Gender: Male
  • Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2594 on: July 06, 2012, 12:12:18 PM »
The resounding message from the government was that we (meaning the American people) had some kind of collective responsibility to prop up these failing businesses. That's public ownership of the means of production, is it not?

Nope. Giving taxpayer money to big corporations is the extreme opposite of socialism.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 12:20:27 PM by ohgar »
Iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli vendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2595 on: July 06, 2012, 12:31:36 PM »
First of all: Socialism =/= Communism,

Of course, although Marx said socialism was just a transition to communism. I'm not sure what to make of Obama's current ideology. I believe he's a socialist at the bare minimum ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"), but his willingness to appoint people like Van Jones makes me wonder if he harbors more radical views.
Ok, seems like you've made your mind up. Spreading the wealth around is a thought among MANY people, and that is a socialistic idea - I'll give you that. Appointing some guy like Van Jones as a political move was to bring in environmentalists to his camp as well, even though he's in bed with big oil as well. He doesn't want to alienate any voter block so he lets them have a voice in his administration even if it's just a front.

it's quite a stretch to claim that Ayres, Alinsky and Dohrn are communists.

I'm not what to call Alinsky exactly, but Ayers and Dohrn were most certainly communists in their Weather Underground days. Ayers expressed communist sympathies as late as 1995.
Ok, fine. I'll let you have that one, it's irrelevant to me anyway. It's realpolitik after all.

I would say they are proponents of certain socialist ideas, and most of the US are actually in favor of them.

This may or may not be true. Polls show that Americans are sharply divided over healthcare and very opposed to the stimulus and bailouts.
Yeah, they are sharply divided about healthcare. But no one is talking about repealing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or other socialist ideas. The most ironic thing I heard during the healthcare debates a few years ago was some town hall meeting where some old fella shouted "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE". So there it is. Instead of calling it socialized medicine, you call it Medicare for all.

And stimulus? It's a Keynesian idea. Most economists today share the view that the economy must be stimulated during recessions through tax breaks and spending increases by the government and somewhat ignoring the deficit.

That being said, none of them are going to ever be proponents of dismantling private property for the means of production.

What do you make of the bailouts? The resounding message from the government was that we (meaning the American people) had some kind of collective responsibility to prop up these failing businesses. That's public ownership of the means of production, is it not?
I don't know what to make of myself, if I'm a minarchist or an ancap. Can't really make up my mind about that, so that ought to clear up any confusion about that.

As to the bailouts, you could make that stretch to say that it's public ownership, but it's not in the way a Marxist would want it at all, labor being in control of the production. When the government takes over an entity it does not empower labor - it saves the executives who ran the ship to the ground.

Furthermore, I want to point out that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is arguably one of the most fierce anarcho-capitalists out there, and he earned his Ph.D in Philosophy under prominent Marxist Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt. So this guilt by association BS is not acceptable.

That's one guy. It seems like almost everyone Obama associates with has ties to radical socialism. Tell me jsem, would it be "BS" if I pointed out that everyone in Bush's company was a hawkish neocon? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Of course, I don't single out Obama as others are accusing me of. He's part of a broader picture of a totalitarian government encroaching on our liberties, both social and economic.
I have to say that I was wrong in expressing myself like that about guilt by association - I use it a lot myself, you've arrived at a different conclusion than me though - because he hasn't fought at ALL for socialist ideals, he's just busy getting himself reelected like any politician.

As for Bush? Dick Cheney was the biggest neocon in the administration anyway, and from I understand he kinda ran shop more than he should have. Bush's personal opinions I don't know about.

But if you're going to bring up Obama's associates where's Jack Lew's ties to radical socialism? Tim Geithner?
If Obama were a radical socialist, he would've stayed as far away as possible from these guys. Joe Leiberman was his MENTOR in the Senate. So I can bring that up to counter the claims of socialism. He's just like all other politicians really, he does what benefits him and makes backroom deals everywhere. It's how you get to be president.
He's part of a broader picture of a totalitarian government encroaching on our liberties, both social and economic.
I would agree 100% with this.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 04:38:57 PM by jsem »

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2596 on: July 06, 2012, 12:36:52 PM »
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?

That Obama is not a socialist, I guess.

That took 75 pages.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2597 on: July 06, 2012, 12:39:12 PM »
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?

That Obama is not a socialist, I guess.

That took 75 pages.

Obama doesn't go by the philosophy of each man for himself. Of course he's a socialist. He's not only a socialist, he's a radical socialist.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2598 on: July 06, 2012, 01:08:51 PM »
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?
Learned? This has been about the election all along, there was never anything to learn.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2599 on: July 06, 2012, 01:12:48 PM »
Here's the real lesson: ideology is stupid. The politicians and electorate alike either have to learn to vote based on more personalized policy preferences rather than that of the party, or I'm going to build a supercomputer capable of running the nation for them.
 
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2600 on: July 06, 2012, 02:41:03 PM »
See, as has been brought up in multiple threads, multiple times, the problem is that people like MondayMorningLunatic aren't making a distinction between the Soviet Union and modern democratic socialism.

Every developed nation on the planet is 'mixed market' at this point, each with some balance of capitalism and socialism. Both of those philosophies don't work on their own. It takes a balance of the two.

Yes, Obama has some socialist policies. So did literally every other president over the past hundred years, at least. Democrat and Republican alike. Again, Obama is at about the same point on the political compass as Reagan. The US is just so radically right wing compared to the rest of the world, that any policy that's remotely progressive looks radically to the left. Heck, on many issues, Obama is to the right of our (Canada's) current very conservative Prime Minister.

Having a social safety net and providing health care to poor people isn't radical. It's basic human decency. Expanding medicare and enacting some stimulus spending when the economy is struggling isn't going to lead to a Soviet style dictatorship.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2601 on: July 06, 2012, 02:43:54 PM »
See, as has been brought up in multiple threads, multiple times, the problem is that people like MondayMorningLunatic aren't making a distinction between the Soviet Union and modern democratic socialism.

Every developed nation on the planet is 'mixed market' at this point, each with some balance of capitalism and socialism. Both of those philosophies don't work on their own. It takes a balance of the two.

Yes, Obama has some socialist policies. So did literally every other president over the past hundred years, at least. Democrat and Republican alike. Again, Obama is at about the same point on the political compass as Reagan. The US is just so radically right wing compared to the rest of the world, that any policy that's remotely progressive looks radically to the left. Heck, on many issues, Obama is to the right of our (Canada's) current very conservative Prime Minister.

Having a social safety net and providing health care to poor people isn't radical. It's basic human decency. Expanding medicare and enacting some stimulus spending when the economy is struggling isn't going to lead to a Soviet style dictatorship.

Not every country in the world; we're at around the same spot as Pakistan.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2602 on: July 06, 2012, 02:47:49 PM »
We could say "The US is just so radically right wing compared to the rest of the developed world".

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2603 on: July 06, 2012, 02:49:34 PM »
Oh no, I was just trying to capitalize on the point that we're not so different from "those radical Muslims" we so fear and despise. Scarily so.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2604 on: July 06, 2012, 04:29:42 PM »
Nope. Giving taxpayer money to big corporations is the extreme opposite of socialism.

Says Michael Moore. This video summarizes my feelings succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXWoU0YqsU0

One thing that this is most certainly NOT is free market capitalism. Any champion of the free market would have let General Motors, Citibank, et al. fail.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2605 on: July 06, 2012, 04:35:38 PM »
No one is saying it's free market capitalism either. AFAIK.

And Peter Schiff has always struck me the wrong way for some reason, he does well at times - but some times not so much. There are much better voices for liberty out there. Hopefully Tom Woods gets his own show soon.

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2606 on: July 06, 2012, 04:55:12 PM »
Nope. Giving taxpayer money to big corporations is the extreme opposite of socialism.

Says Michael Moore. This video summarizes my feelings succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXWoU0YqsU0

One thing that this is most certainly NOT is free market capitalism. Any champion of the free market would have let General Motors, Citibank, et al. fail.
Which would have lost a huge number of jobs, and could have dealt an extremely damaging blow to the global economy.
A completely unregulated free market with no government intervention ever is a terrible, terrible idea.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2607 on: July 07, 2012, 02:35:31 PM »
I think it would have been monumentally stupid to let GM go under.

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2608 on: July 08, 2012, 11:09:01 AM »
It's funny how people try and have it both ways. The same people who bitch about the government being in bed with corporations are the same ones who turn around and support corporate welfare and protectionism. Orwell had a term for this...

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2609 on: July 08, 2012, 11:55:26 AM »
It still would've been monumentally stupid to let GM go under. Although I would love to see your face if they had.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 4002
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2610 on: July 08, 2012, 11:56:22 AM »
It's less about saving the corporations and more about reducing the impact of their failures on the rest of the economy.  You can gussy that statement up all you want, but mot everything in the world is limited to black-and-white, either-or and freedom-or-oppression.  To believe so is to be horribly myopic.

To be fair, I think we largely botched the bank bailouts, though the GM bailout seems to have worked... depending upon who you talk to of course.

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2611 on: July 08, 2012, 12:12:10 PM »
It still would've been monumentally stupid to let GM go under. Although I would love to see your face if they had.

You say businesses inevitably become corrupt, but refuse to let them tank when their corruption drives them into the ground. Hypocrisy ROFL.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 4002
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2612 on: July 08, 2012, 12:15:10 PM »
It still would've been monumentally stupid to let GM go under. Although I would love to see your face if they had.

You say businesses inevitably become corrupt, but refuse to let them tank when their corruption drives them into the ground. Hypocrisy ROFL.
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression?  I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2613 on: July 08, 2012, 12:16:50 PM »
No, libertarian values are about refusing to admit that government intervention in the economy might sometimes be a good thing, even when it is.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2614 on: July 08, 2012, 12:25:20 PM »
And seeing everything as black-and-white and freedom-or-oppression. If something doesn't work 100% of the time, it's a terrible encroachment on our natural rights and must be killed with fire.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2615 on: July 08, 2012, 12:42:49 PM »
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression?  I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?

By spending more money that it doesn't have and propping up failed businesses, in turn impeding the creation of more competent businesses, the government will exacerbate the recession and create more unemployment in the future.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2616 on: July 08, 2012, 01:19:51 PM »
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression?  I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?

By spending more money that it doesn't have and propping up failed businesses, in turn impeding the creation of more competent businesses, the government will exacerbate the recession and create more unemployment in the future.

Except proper funding increases and grows the economy, which allows for actual government revenue to increase, while still letting people get richer, and thus grow the economy on their own.

It's funny how people try and have it both ways. The same people who bitch about the government being in bed with corporations are the same ones who turn around and support corporate welfare and protectionism. Orwell had a term for this...

It's pretty simple really. If you believe government is supposed to support and advance the public good, then the government bailing out a company because of it's huge, huge public impact is within that role of government. However, corrupt government policies which benefit private entities [over the public interests, no longer adheres to this view of government. There isn't any doublethink, it's an application of the liberal definition of governance that this country was build on.

Which isn't to say that what our government actually did was good.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:09:09 PM by Scheavo »

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2617 on: July 08, 2012, 01:47:02 PM »
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2618 on: July 08, 2012, 02:04:04 PM »
No, libertarian values are about refusing to admit that government intervention in the economy might sometimes be a good thing, even when it is.
Depends what you mean. Some people would see libertarian values being a rejection of the initiation of force.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2619 on: July 09, 2012, 01:53:03 PM »
It's funny how people try and have it both ways. The same people who bitch about the government being in bed with corporations are the same ones who turn around and support corporate welfare and protectionism. Orwell had a term for this...
Reluctantly adopting the least damaging course of action is not the same as embracing what the action stands for. 

Personally, I advocated forcing them into a controlled bankruptcy, with funds to keep them afloat coming later.  As it turned out, I think it actually worked out OK (although their union troubles remain).  They were loaned money, most of which they've paid back.  People make it sound like we nationalized GM, which is asinine. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2620 on: July 09, 2012, 03:31:37 PM »
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?

Meh. I think action was proper, due to it's larger economic consequences, I just wish we could've been more general to the car industry, and not just the big guys on the field.

What I mean is, there's a difference between GM lobbying for tax breaks and loopholes that allow them to have an advantage, and the government deciding GM needs bailing out because of it's economic consequences. The latter can still be corrupt, but it's not inherently so.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2621 on: July 09, 2012, 03:43:32 PM »
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?

Meh. I think action was proper, due to it's larger economic consequences, I just wish we could've been more general to the car industry, and not just the big guys on the field.

What I mean is, there's a difference between GM lobbying for tax breaks and loopholes that allow them to have an advantage, and the government deciding GM needs bailing out because of it's economic consequences. The latter can still be corrupt, but it's not inherently so.

Okay, I can see that. And yes, if not for the huge economic ramifications of doing otherwise (at the present moment, at least), I would completely agree.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2622 on: July 09, 2012, 04:09:47 PM »
What a horrible ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2UjLX3N2mo&feature=plcp

But I'll still side with Gary Johnson now that Ron Paul's out of the picture.

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5144
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2623 on: July 09, 2012, 04:10:07 PM »
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?

Meh. I think action was proper, due to it's larger economic consequences, I just wish we could've been more general to the car industry, and not just the big guys on the field.

What I mean is, there's a difference between GM lobbying for tax breaks and loopholes that allow them to have an advantage, and the government deciding GM needs bailing out because of it's economic consequences. The latter can still be corrupt, but it's not inherently so.

This isn't Scheavo. Ban.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #2624 on: July 09, 2012, 04:49:14 PM »
What about that strikes you as not me?