Democrats 2020

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's just not worth it, we can agree to disagree.

Okay, if that's what you want. You think my words sound kooky and I think that the ideology that you seem to be promoting is very harmful.

If you ever can give us some data as to how and where pure socialism has ever worked out well, I will listen. I've read many of your lengthy posts. I've never known a single country where it worked out well. We'd be better off following the Swedish model. Corporations in Sweden have always paid less taxes than they do in the US, and the wealthy, from what I've read recently, often pay a lower rate of taxes than the average person, yet the people are generally happier than Americans and they enjoy a much more reliable safety net. I'll take that system over any place that has ever tried to incorporate pure socialism. I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss that. The US is different than Sweden, so we do need more progressive taxation than there is in Sweden, but parts of the Swedish model could benefit us. That assumes that what I've read is fairly correct information.

I don't get my feelings hurt by people who have different opinions from my own. It would be a great positive if we could all agree to disagree without hard feelings, wouldn't it?

Socialism was born in the 19th Century, addressing 19th century issues. We've learned a few things since then, so trying to use the 19th Century playbook in the 21st Century is just folly. A good deal of the 1900 Platform for Eugene Debs has been seen to fruition in the US. And where it hasn't, such as public ownership of utilities, we've gone different directions and in general, things have been good.

The problem with avowed socialists is I don't think they are looking at the right problem. They aren't looking to the future where dangers lurk with innovation in an attempt to automate as much as possible. Automation is the greatest danger to the common man. Now, this shouldn't be cause to stop innovation, however, when computers continue to eliminate people's jobs and industries rely less and less on human interaction, how do we deal with a growing population and potentially decreasing job market?

 

[Copernicus]

Okay, if that's what you want. You think my words sound kooky and I think that the ideology that you seem to be promoting is very harmful.

If you ever can give us some data as to how and where pure socialism has ever worked out well, I will listen. I've read many of your lengthy posts. I've never known a single country where it worked out well. We'd be better off following the Swedish model. Corporations in Sweden have always paid less taxes than they do in the US, and the wealthy, from what I've read recently, often pay a lower rate of taxes than the average person, yet the people are generally happier than Americans and they enjoy a much more reliable safety net. I'll take that system over any place that has ever tried to incorporate pure socialism. I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss that. The US is different than Sweden, so we do need more progressive taxation than there is in Sweden, but parts of the Swedish model could benefit us. That assumes that what I've read is fairly correct information.

I don't get my feelings hurt by people who have different opinions from my own. It would be a great positive if we could all agree to disagree without hard feelings, wouldn't it?

Socialism was born in the 19th Century, addressing 19th century issues. We've learned a few things since then, so trying to use the 19th Century playbook in the 21st Century is just folly. A good deal of the 1900 Platform for Eugene Debs has been seen to fruition in the US. And where it hasn't, such as public ownership of utilities, we've gone different directions and in general, things have been good.

I don't think that Bernie Sanders advocates anything other than the Swedish model of socialism. I'm perfectly happy with that, even though I think that it is hopelessly misguided to associate the label of "socialism" with a presidential campaign. I see little difference between his policies and that of many Democratic candidates. Elizabeth Warren would make a much better candidate, and she doesn't have a problem with the label "Democrat", unlike Bernie.

The problem with avowed socialists is I don't think they are looking at the right problem. They aren't looking to the future where dangers lurk with innovation in an attempt to automate as much as possible. Automation is the greatest danger to the common man. Now, this shouldn't be cause to stop innovation, however, when computers continue to eliminate people's jobs and industries rely less and less on human interaction, how do we deal with a growing population and potentially decreasing job market?

Automation is a topic for another thread, but I really don't see it as a danger to employment. We survived the demise of the buggy whip industry. Robots are making vast improvements to our lives, but nothing they produce will be worth anything if human beings aren't able to buy what they produce. The problem is self-correcting.

 

[just_me]

I don't think the problems with socialism is the idea itself. It is the quality and character of those people incharge of implementing it. You get greedy, power hungry people at the top, then you get disaster at the bottom.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think the problems with socialism is the idea itself. It is the quality and character of those people incharge of implementing it. You get greedy, power hungry people at the top, then you get disaster at the bottom.

What you just said means that there's a problem with the idea of socialism itself. Given that you are always going to get greedy, power hungry people at the top (which is the reason they're at the top), any system which doesn't plan for this and put controls in place to mitigate their ability to fuck up the system for their own personal benefit is a piece of shit system which will always fail. The disasters which result are a problem with the design, not a problem with the implementation.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't think the problems with socialism is the idea itself. It is the quality and character of those people incharge of implementing it. You get greedy, power hungry people at the top, then you get disaster at the bottom.

Exactly. I think perhaps we have a problem with labels. Sure, we have plenty of things that are supported and controlled by government, but that's not the same thing as having a socialist government, where all of the means of production are controlled by government. What just_me just said is exactly what has always happened in countries that attempt to install that type of socialism.

The concept of everyone having the same amount sounds nice if you have the mistaken idea that means we all get to live pleasant, middle class life styles, but that's never worked out well, not even in a small country, like for example, Cuba. The leaders always become corrupt and the people always suffer in poverty.

I'm fine with some of the European models but can we please stop calling them socialist! They are all mixed economies based on capitalism and socialism. Neither of those two economic systems work well without the other. Both require adequate regulation, and that has become a huge problem in the US in recent years.

And, I do agree that using the word socialism isn't helpful during the presidential election. It just enables the other side to demonize the Democratic candidates. Most people don't like or even understand the word.

I simply want someone who can beat Trump. I don't care if that person is very progressive or left of center, or a center left moderate. Right now, the greatest threat to the country is Trump and his enablers. Plus change needs to be gradual, or it becomes chaotic. That is why I can't support Sanders. He claims he can do things that he obviously can't, yet he's suckered in people to think he's credible. I doubt he can win any swing states or add any of the states like mine that are gradually changing. Some progressives are living in a liberal bubble and probably rarely even speak to conservatives. I live in a small city where the majority of white folks are very conservative and the majority of black folks are fairly liberal. None of my black friends are liberal enough to support Sanders in the primaries, but they probably would vote for him if he was the nominee.

Yes. We all hate the electoral college, but it's what we're stuck with so all the bitching in the world isn't going to change that. It would take a constitutional amendment to do that, and that's not gonna happen soon, if ever. The best thing the Democrats can do is nominate someone with wide spread appeal.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think the problems with socialism is the idea itself. It is the quality and character of those people incharge of implementing it. You get greedy, power hungry people at the top, then you get disaster at the bottom.

That explains what you get with capitalism.

The most greedy and corrupt are able to gain power over others.

 

[Elixir]

The most greedy and corrupt are able to gain power over others.

Yup. And that holds regardless of whether the system under which they are operating is tagged socialist, capitalist,. communist, fascist or anything else.
It's not like you can declare socialism and suddenly humans will change their nature.
So far the best that humans have been able to offer is a system where free enterprise is encouraged while being restrained to some extent by the common good, and abusers can be held to task. What's happening now is that abusers have ascended to a level of power where they have been able to all but eradicate the restraints intended to apply to our system. We have to get rid of THEM, not free enterprise.

 

[Copernicus]

Labels like "capitalism" and "socialism" are simplistic. No real world economy can adopt the ideals in pure form. Capitalist systems always require some form of government regulation to work, and socialist systems invariably generate complex black markets that avoid taxes necessary to sustain the government bureaucracy. None of the Democratic candidates are promoting radical changes in the system of government or economic system that we currently have. We use labels like "socialist" and "capitalist" to frame issues, i.e. as marketing themes for political factions, not proposals for fundamental change. See  Framing (social sciences).

In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.

Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.

Generally speaking, Republicans seem to be better than Democrats at framing issues in a way that wins elections. This idea of using the label "socialist" in connection with an election is an excellent example of how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to framing their issues.

John Hickenlooper just jumped into the Democratic race, and he had an early interview with Joe Scarborough, who asked him whether he would consider himself a "capitalist". It was a pure "gotcha" question, but Hickenlooper took the bait. He stumbled all over the place trying to avoid the label. A very bad start to his candidacy. (See Capitalism and the Democratic Party). He should have been prepared.

 

[just_me]

Who do you want on the ticket to run against President Trump in 2020?

I don't know about many of those running for the office, but I do think that of those who are, the ones that walk into that final arena should have the name recognition and the moxie to bring together the new and the old sides of the Democratic party and pull in those outside the party, as well.

I think a Joe Biden/ Elizabeth Warren ticket would probably be the best bet to take the White House. What do you guys think?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A Biden/Warren ticket? Just how long have you been rooting for the Republicans?

 

[Derec]

Uncle Joe would really need to put somebody younger on the ticket. Elizabeth Warren will be 71 by election time. Furthermore, both are from the NE.

 

[untermensche]

The most greedy and corrupt are able to gain power over others.

Yup. And that holds regardless of whether the system under which they are operating is tagged socialist, capitalist,. communist, fascist or anything else.
It's not like you can declare socialism and suddenly humans will change their nature.
So far the best that humans have been able to offer is a system where free enterprise is encouraged while being restrained to some extent by the common good, and abusers can be held to task. What's happening now is that abusers have ascended to a level of power where they have been able to all but eradicate the restraints intended to apply to our system. We have to get rid of THEM, not free enterprise.

It isn't a feature of Anarchism.

 

[thebeave]

I've often wondered if "Uncle Joe" Biden could get the nomination given his creepy fascination with little girls (and big ones too, sometimes).

 

[PyramidHead]

This thread has achieved peak centrism. Let's not make people upset by recognizing the imminent threat to our species and the unfixable problems of capitalism, let's instead talk about how bad labels are and how the basic problem is human nature, thereby ensuring that nothing of substance actually changes in our way of life. We are already living in the hellworld that brought us Trump, and it's the one boomers left for us by eking out platitudes about moderation and civility from their mashed potato brains while being wrong about everything. Fuck liberals and fuck Democrats if they think now is the time to play it safe with a friendly moderate.

 

[just_me]

A Biden/Warren ticket? Just how long have you been rooting for the Republicans?

Old school Democrats are not Republicans. They might, in today's hyperpartisanship be considered Republican light, but how many outside those who come to these web sites to express their opinions have the same mindset as this? It's not the intensity of ones feelings that get people in the White House it is the appeal of the message and I am not sure the present attitudes about politics reach out farther than social media and the ability of the media to exploit them.

I have seen too many flash in the pan Gods and goddesses in the political world rush in with all the intensity of a flash flood, just to break against the rocks of reality and fade away just as quickly to put any undue emphasis on the shiny new bobbles that have recently reared their heads.

 

[just_me]

Uncle Joe would really need to put somebody younger on the ticket. Elizabeth Warren will be 71 by election time. Furthermore, both are from the NE.

Why this fascination with youth and what is wrong with NE? I can't see the any great benefit to youth when the time these people have to influence the country is so short. We are looking at maybe 16 years in the Presidency to effect change if both of them win two terms in office and that will most likely the time it will take to turn this country around, given the damage that President Trump will do by the time he leaves.

 

[just_me]

I've often wondered if "Uncle Joe" Biden could get the nomination given his creepy fascination with little girls (and big ones too, sometimes).

I can't speak to that. If there were any fire in that smoke, then I think with the Me Too movement he would already be making him feeling the heat and I've read nothing about that.

 

[untermensche]

Biden hasn't had an idea in 2 decades.

He is the past.

I would love to see Bernie take on Trump. Maybe with Warren as VP.

 

[just_me]

Biden hasn't had an idea in 2 decades.

He is the past.

I would love to see Bernie take on Trump. Maybe with Warren as VP.

That would be interesting. Have you heard what she is saying about breaking up Facebook, Goggle and the rest?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think Warren would be a good president. I think, however, the whole Pocahontas thing will be an albatross. True or false, the constant harping on this will be a major drag on any ticket.