• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Democratic Socialist Scores Upset in New York Primary

Here is what I consider excessive or impractical:
  • Housing as a Human Right
  • A Federal Jobs Guarantee
  • Abolish ICE
  • Higher Education for All
I'm also doubtful about Medicare for All. .../QUOTE]
OK, now what do you find impractical about any of that?
America used to offer free higher education to anyone who wanted it. State schools used to free to people from that state. If you wanted to pay more for a degree from a private school, that was an option.

Lots of other industrialized Western nations are able to provide free higher education to anyone who wants it. Denmark even pays Danes a salary to go to school so that they can afford to live.
I don't see why everybody must go to college. There ought to be good career paths that do not require college. But I agree that college should not be outlandishly expensive.

We had something akin to a federal jobs guarantee during the FDR era. That's part of the reason we were able to climb out of the Great Depression.
FDR was too cautious about it to have a very big effect. But it did work a little.

ICE is nothing more than a modern Gestapo.
But the ICE has a legitimate function. Military atrocities and police brutality do not mean that all military and police forces ought to be disbanded.

Guaranteed housing should be a basic human right. What do you think is served by allowing a portion of the citizenry to live on the streets?
Every good conservative knows the answer: it is a completely just punishment for their sins, and it would be wrong to interfere with it.

More seriously, homeless shelters and tiny houses are not outlandishly expensive, and well-behaved homeless people ought to have a chance to have a roof over their heads.
 
I don't see why everybody must go to college. There ought to be good career paths that do not require college. But I agree that college should not be outlandishly expensive.

We had something akin to a federal jobs guarantee during the FDR era. That's part of the reason we were able to climb out of the Great Depression.
FDR was too cautious about it to have a very big effect. But it did work a little.

ICE is nothing more than a modern Gestapo.
But the ICE has a legitimate function. Military atrocities and police brutality do not mean that all military and police forces ought to be disbanded.

Guaranteed housing should be a basic human right. What do you think is served by allowing a portion of the citizenry to live on the streets?
Every good conservative knows the answer: it is a completely just punishment for their sins, and it would be wrong to interfere with it.

More seriously, homeless shelters and tiny houses are not outlandishly expensive, and well-behaved homeless people ought to have a chance to have a roof over their heads.
Well behaved?
In what way? You realize that even criminals get housing and food?
 
Here is what I consider excessive or impractical:
  • Housing as a Human Right
  • A Federal Jobs Guarantee
  • Abolish ICE
  • Higher Education for All
I'm also doubtful about Medicare for All.

I think the way to consider these items is this: leaving money out of it for the moment, do we possess the real resources to

Provide housing - is there enough housing stock and construction/housing infrastructure to house everyone if we wanted to

Same for Medicare for all

Jobs for all - is there enough work that needs to be done to keep everyone productively occupied?

Because if these goals are materially achievable, then any financial restraints are self imposed i.e. political.

As for ICE, I haven't followed it closely, but IIRC it's only 20 years old. If ICE is too repressive, it could be abolished and another agency created or made responsible for its duties.
 
I don't see why everybody must go to college. There ought to be good career paths that do not require college. But I agree that college should not be outlandishly expensive.


FDR was too cautious about it to have a very big effect. But it did work a little.


But the ICE has a legitimate function. Military atrocities and police brutality do not mean that all military and police forces ought to be disbanded.

Guaranteed housing should be a basic human right. What do you think is served by allowing a portion of the citizenry to live on the streets?
Every good conservative knows the answer: it is a completely just punishment for their sins, and it would be wrong to interfere with it.

More seriously, homeless shelters and tiny houses are not outlandishly expensive, and well-behaved homeless people ought to have a chance to have a roof over their heads.
Well behaved?
In what way? You realize that even criminals get housing and food?

Homeless people are a diverse lot, but many are mentally ill, and many of them will wander back out onto the street and off to wherever. However, this nation should endeavor to end the problem and it's shameful that we don't. The main conservative response would be "Why do they get to live somewhere for free and why should I have to pay for it!"

Anyway, I like the fact that a real leftist will be elected to something in the federal government. Her policy outlines are goals, not demands made at the point of a gun, but conservatives are already acting like reds have stormed the Capital Building and are holding Sean Hannity, Ivanka Trump, and Ronald Reagan's corpse hostage. It's sickening/funny that they look at those goals and become angry and terrified.

Ohmygod, they want... they want a better life for the vast majority of Americans! Noooooooooooo!!!
 
I don't see why everybody must go to college. There ought to be good career paths that do not require college. But I agree that college should not be outlandishly expensive.


FDR was too cautious about it to have a very big effect. But it did work a little.


But the ICE has a legitimate function. Military atrocities and police brutality do not mean that all military and police forces ought to be disbanded.

Guaranteed housing should be a basic human right. What do you think is served by allowing a portion of the citizenry to live on the streets?
Every good conservative knows the answer: it is a completely just punishment for their sins, and it would be wrong to interfere with it.

More seriously, homeless shelters and tiny houses are not outlandishly expensive, and well-behaved homeless people ought to have a chance to have a roof over their heads.
Well behaved?
In what way? You realize that even criminals get housing and food?

Yes, but maybe he wants to be able to decide who lives like an animal and who lives like a human so that he can feel superior?
 
I don't see why everybody must go to college. There ought to be good career paths that do not require college. But I agree that college should not be outlandishly expensive.

We had something akin to a federal jobs guarantee during the FDR era. That's part of the reason we were able to climb out of the Great Depression.
FDR was too cautious about it to have a very big effect. But it did work a little.

ICE is nothing more than a modern Gestapo.
But the ICE has a legitimate function. Military atrocities and police brutality do not mean that all military and police forces ought to be disbanded.

Guaranteed housing should be a basic human right. What do you think is served by allowing a portion of the citizenry to live on the streets?
Every good conservative knows the answer: it is a completely just punishment for their sins, and it would be wrong to interfere with it.

More seriously, homeless shelters and tiny houses are not outlandishly expensive, and well-behaved homeless people ought to have a chance to have a roof over their heads.

No one is talking about sending everyone to college, just making it free for anyone who wants to, but can't afford a private college. This is exactly what every state had prior to Reagan. From the time of the founding fathers to Reagan, every state maintained a state university system that offered free college to anyone from that state (using the University of Virginia as a model if I remember correctly).

It wasn't "outlandishly expensive" then and it wouldn't be so now, nor is it so in the various European nations that offer the same.

Germany even goes one step further and provides really good vocational training for those who don't want to go to university, and takes steps to make sure they earn a decent wage once they get into the work force. Consequently, their skilled labor is a fuckton more skilled than ours is, and they can afford to buy whatever shit the factory owners are producing.

Saying that FDR didn't go far enough doesn't explain why you think we would be better off if part of the population included able-bodied adults who want to work but can't.

And which legitimate function is that? Jailing journalists? Jailing women to get them to recant sex abuse allegations? Ethnic cleansing operations? Toddler concentration camps? There's nothing ICE is doing that can't be done better by other law enforcement agencies, and simply allowing them to exist and continue to operate is a threat to our freedom.
 
It wasn't just Ocasio. Many liberal Democrats beat conservative Democrats on that same day:



How many more decades will it take to undo the damage Bill Clinton did?
 
Want to know why Ocasio won?

70% of her income came from donations of $200 or less. The next closest primary candidate (not Crowley) had 9% of his income from small donors.

That's a sign that she was generating interest among voters more than big campaign donors.

Bernie showed the path to electoral victory: appeal to voters instead of donors.
 
Dg3eh5rU0AE0ehm.jpg

Dg3eh5sVMAApO6g.jpg
 
I think that the system failing millenials could be really caused to a large degree that we as a species are overpopulated (with dwindling resources) and also that the baby boomers are doing great on the property ladder and there is not affordable housing left for millennials. Especially in "left wing" bastions. Must cause some serious cognitive dissonance.

Replace yeast with fossil fuel and especially petroleum for this analogy:

3. Overshoot and Collapse

In the last model, the population found its steady state in a smooth manner; the rate of change decreased as the carrying capacity was approached. But this is not always the case; sometimes the population's growth rate does not decline fast enough as the carrying capacity is reached, leading to overshoot, which is usually followed by a collapse. One way of interpreting this is that the population does not process information about its condition fast enough to change its growth rate. For instance, if humans do not communicate the nature of the problem of population growth and do not communicate ways to solve the problem, we will likely overshoot our carrying capacity and a catastrophic population collapse is likely to follow.

Yeast growing in grape juice provide a good example of overshoot and collapse behavior. The yeast go after the sugar in the juice and in the process of metabolizing that sugar, they produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. As they consume the sugar, they also reproduce and their reproductive rate is dependent on the availability of food. Within a few days, at room temperature, the yeast population soars and the juice is bubbling from the release of so much CO2. But, the alcohol is a pollutant as far as the yeast are concerned and as their population rises, so does the level of alcohol. If there is enough sugar in the juice, the yeast will eventually produce so much alcohol that they start to die off rapidly and as the sugar reservoir is depleted, their reproductive rates plummet, leading to a total collapse of the population. So, in turning the juice into wine, the gluttonous, know-no-restraint yeast do themselves in.

This kind of a system is a bit more complex than the previous ones since we need to install another reservoir, representing the resources or some other kind of limiting quantity. Here, we will simply call this new reservoir Resources, and imagine that it represents things like energy and mineral resources, which can be thought of as finite resources (at least to begin with; we can explore the concept of recycling in a bit). The structure of this system, and the equations and graphs that define it are shown in the figure below; note that once again, it includes a graph in the Death Pct converter, but in this case, the Death Pct is a function of the amount of resources per capita.
 
I think that the system failing millenials could be really caused to a large degree that we as a species are overpopulated (with dwindling resources)

You are, of course, free to think that; But the evidence indicates that you are very badly wrong to do so.

Global economic product per capita has been steadily increasing, and we have more than sufficient global resources for a population of double today's - a figure that we are unlikely to ever reach.

But some dudes in the 1970s had a massive freak out about population after spending too much time gazing at their navels after reading Thomas Malthus, and totally missed the fact that the contraceptive pill had just been introduced, and that wealthy women have, on average, fewer than two kids each.

Your second thought:
the baby boomers are doing great on the property ladder and there is not affordable housing left for millennials
...has slightly more merit; But still misses the real problem - The economic system has been MASSIVELY skewed away from providing wages and towards providing profits since the 1980s, and so despite the cake getting bigger, the crumbs that go to the non-wealthy are getting smaller.

Human population dynamics are nothing at all like those of yeast cells.
 

(Warning: foul language in the video)

Alex Jones: Ocasio-Cortez is a communist!
Also Alex Jones: Ocasio-Cortez is taking orders from the big banks!

Either mister Jones is confused about what the word "communist" means, and/or he is confused about the definition of the word "bank."

First, it's insane to suggest someone is both a communist and a tool of big banks, but one of the things that made her story worth national notice is that unlike most other Democratic politicians, she refuses PAC money and the majority of her donations are $200 or less.

Mind you, this man is one of the leading lights of the conservolibertarian movement. His Orangeness (all praise upon him), who is the smartest president we've ever had listens to Alex Jones religiously.
 
These days? Hey, that quote is from 2012. Come on, she can't possibly be expected to think the same way as back then.

The quote might be from 2012, but she is running for Congress now. I see no evidence she changed her position on Israel. Or Hamas.
 
Back
Top Bottom