Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Clinton failed to win over many progressive voters because she didn't have strong policy positions on the things that mattered the most to them, like campaign finance reform or universal healthcare. The same cannot be said for Bernie Sanders or the policy positions he espoused during the primary. Of course he shares in the blame of not creating a message that resonated with minority communities, but on policy, I don't think you can argue his positions wouldn't benefit them.
Click to expand...

I voted for Sanders in the primary. Because of the policy positions you mention. He lost anyway. It was his job to convince the voters that a vote for him was in their self interest. They thought otherwise. I moved on. As did Sanders.

I thought Trump was abysmal on policy issues. I hope you do too. You didn't vote for Clinton. I did. Evidently the weakness of Trump on policy issues wasn't enough for you or a majority of people in important swing states. It was Clinton's job to win your and their votes. She did not.

Election polling indicates that strong policy positions like the ones you name aren't all that important to a lot of people. At least not the policies I think are important too. Maybe it was Trump's racist policies that won him the election. There is actually a lot of good analysis that concludes racism and sexism was a factor in Trump's win in November. Not excusing Clinton for her failure in the election though. Just saying that there were a lot of factors in play and strong position on healthcare wasn't all that important. Other economic policy positions weren't all that important either.

Do you want to argue about the merits of Democracy and what people "should" consider when they vote? It was Bernie's job to win the primary and he didn't.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You've held that his position on universal healthcare is in fact "wildly risky", that the American people don't support it despite the poll numbers. I don't think adopting a system of universal coverage is all that risky, every other major country on Earth has one, so I'd say it's pretty standard. But Sanders is a Jewish atheist/agnostic, that matters to someone whose religious. I believe a majority of African Americans hold some form of religion, many of them Southern Baptists. Hence the suggestion from the DNC leadership to smear him in WV for it to garner more votes for Clinton. It wouldn't have even been brought up if there were no basis for it to begin with. Keep in mind, African Americans in CA were primarily responsible for the passing of Proposition 8.
Click to expand...
If people want universal access to healthcare why did they vote in a congress that was so opposed to it? (Insert your opinion polls now). Yes, people say they want it. Then when shown the bill, they reject it. Like what happened in Colorado last year. I can't say that I understand why, I just know that every time single payer healthcare comes up, it has always been proposed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress unite to kill the legislation and then Democrats get pummeled in the following election. It's happened three times since WW2. Four if you include the ACA.

Sanders himself says that the issue will eventually win but he's not saying it's politically possible today:

“But you’re seeing more and more movement toward ‘Medicare for All.’ When the people are saying we need healthcare for everyone, as more and more Americans come on board, it will become politically possible.

He's come out and said that healthcare isn't a litmus test for a given congressman or candidate either. I see the quotes from him in a recent article as also acknowledging that the issue is most important to progressives. Progressives are much smaller in number than conservatives in this country, by the way.

“Is this a litmus test? No, you have to look at where candidates are on many issues,” Sanders said.

“Do I think they can win without supporting single-payer? I’m skeptical. Among the people who consider themselves progressive, who vote in the primaries, there’s clearly movement toward Medicare for All.”

More people say they are conservative than say they are liberal

35% conservative
25% liberal
40% in the middle.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
He's attempting to paint Sanders supporters as social conservatives so he has to try to frame the narrative in a way that makes it seem like his only support comes from economically well off white guys. Everything I've posted the past few pages completely refutes that argument. He keeps replying with reasons why he believes Sanders policies perpetuate systemic racism, and I keep asking him why he says he supports him if he believes that, I wouldn't support a politician if I believed their policies perpetuate systemic racism, but he hasn't answered that yet..
Click to expand...
and never will..he can't break out of his circle jerk.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I've said it many times, it was Clinton's job to convince Sanders voters to vote for her. I first cast blame for losing the election on her. She wasn't a good candidate and as Sanders said, people are tired of political correctness. "They were exhausted after 8 years of Obama". That said, 12% who voted for Sanders also voted for Trump. Some argue that their votes turned the election but I'm not going there.

Can you explain from your perspective why Sanders did not get more than 20% of the African American vote and only 35% of the Hispanic American vote? I'll be disappointed if you say it was because rigged. I hope you don't break that direction.
Click to expand...
when at 7-11's all across southflorida i've asked this very same question. the answer i received from black populace was 'i don't know him'.
 
Green Bud Smurfy

Green Bud Smurfy

Active Member
ttystikk said:
The German Democratic Republic was EAST GERMANY. How Democratic do you think they were?

Stop trying to hide behind a label that was meant from the very beginning to be misleading.

I've been watching what you say. Some of it is on point. This, however, is way off base. The Nazis were the archetypal fascist organization.

Whatever you do, don't believe THEIR propaganda, bro.

The largest group of terrorists in America today, by far, are white right wing conservatives. Fact.
Click to expand...
Wow. You really think the term "fascist" is exclusive to right-wing loonies?

The definition of fascism can be found here (Marriam-Webster Dictionary): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.


We already compared two types of fascists: Nazis and Marxists (who happen to be on the left) and found many UNDENIABLE SIMILARITIES. Such as:
- no free speech - fascist
- no elections - fascist
- no economic freedom - fascist
- Identity politics ( Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that the classes of people are reduced to two classes, that of the “(selfish, greedy) haves vs. (honorable) have nots”. As for the Nazis, they had a Jew problem)

IN CONTRARY,
Right wing / conservatism is supposed to be founded on the ideas of PERSONAL liberty and PERSONAL property rights. Part of the philosophy behind that is because the founding fathers believed that "all men were created equal" and have the inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness" (granted that "happiness" isn't murdering people; that's where the line is drawn between a libertarian society and anarchy). Martin Luther King, a strong Republican, said that we ought to judge a man on his character and not by his skin.

SUMMARY:
Right wing libertarians have an INDIVIDUALIST philosophy, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FASCISM. because conservatives are supposed to see people as INDIVIDUALS. (as in: not judging people into groups) The libertarian philosophy is the total opposite of identity politics that Marxism relies on (have's vs. have nots).

STOP CONFUSING CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS WITH NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE AT ALL!!!!!
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Wow. You really think the term "fascist" is exclusive to right-wing loonies?

The definition of fascism can be found here (Marriam-Webster Dictionary): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.


We already compared two types of fascists: Nazis and Marxists (who happen to be on the left) and found many UNDENIABLE SIMILARITIES. Such as:
- no free speech - fascist
- no elections - fascist
- no economic freedom - fascist
- Identity politics ( Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that the classes of people are reduced to two classes, that of the “(selfish, greedy) haves vs. (honorable) have nots”. As for the Nazis, they had a Jew problem)

IN CONTRARY,
Right wing / conservatism is supposed to be founded on the ideas of PERSONAL liberty and PERSONAL property rights. Part of the philosophy behind that is because the founding fathers believed that "all men were created equal" and have the inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness" (granted that "happiness" isn't murdering people; that's where the line is drawn between a libertarian society and anarchy). Martin Luther King, a strong Republican, said that we ought to judge a man on his character and not by his skin.

SUMMARY:
Right wing libertarians have an INDIVIDUALIST philosophy, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FASCISM. because conservatives are supposed to see people as INDIVIDUALS. (as in: not judging people into groups) The libertarian philosophy is the total opposite of identity politics that Marxism relies on (have's vs. have nots).

STOP CONFUSING CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS WITH NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE AT ALL!!!!!
Click to expand...
hows your mom doing eli?
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Wow. You really think the term "fascist" is exclusive to right-wing loonies?

The definition of fascism can be found here (Marriam-Webster Dictionary): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.


We already compared two types of fascists: Nazis and Marxists (who happen to be on the left) and found many UNDENIABLE SIMILARITIES. Such as:
- no free speech - fascist
- no elections - fascist
- no economic freedom - fascist
- Identity politics ( Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that the classes of people are reduced to two classes, that of the “(selfish, greedy) haves vs. (honorable) have nots”. As for the Nazis, they had a Jew problem)

IN CONTRARY,
Right wing / conservatism is supposed to be founded on the ideas of PERSONAL liberty and PERSONAL property rights. Part of the philosophy behind that is because the founding fathers believed that "all men were created equal" and have the inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness" (granted that "happiness" isn't murdering people; that's where the line is drawn between a libertarian society and anarchy). Martin Luther King, a strong Republican, said that we ought to judge a man on his character and not by his skin.

SUMMARY:
Right wing libertarians have an INDIVIDUALIST philosophy, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FASCISM. because conservatives are supposed to see people as INDIVIDUALS. (as in: not judging people into groups) The libertarian philosophy is the total opposite of identity politics that Marxism relies on (have's vs. have nots).

STOP CONFUSING CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS WITH NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE AT ALL!!!!!
Click to expand...
Do you support a woman's right to choose?

Do you support gay marriage?
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
the kid is anti gay because... jesus.

im not even kidding
Click to expand...
Figured as much.

I can respect a conservative that is consistent with the whole "small govt" theory, but the problem is that the vast majority aren't consistent. They want to pick and choose where they want less govt, but see no problem with trying to legislate their version of morality by banning same sex marriage, outlawing abortion, etc
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Figured as much.

I can respect a conservative that is consistent with the whole "small govt" theory, but the problem is that the vast majority aren't consistent. They want to pick and choose where they want less govt, but see no problem with trying to legislate their version of morality by banning same sex marriage, outlawing abortion, etc
Click to expand...
hes just an upset adult virgin trump supporter
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Wow. You really think the term "fascist" is exclusive to right-wing loonies?

The definition of fascism can be found here (Marriam-Webster Dictionary): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.


We already compared two types of fascists: Nazis and Marxists (who happen to be on the left) and found many UNDENIABLE SIMILARITIES. Such as:
- no free speech - fascist
- no elections - fascist
- no economic freedom - fascist
- Identity politics ( Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that the classes of people are reduced to two classes, that of the “(selfish, greedy) haves vs. (honorable) have nots”. As for the Nazis, they had a Jew problem)

IN CONTRARY,
Right wing / conservatism is supposed to be founded on the ideas of PERSONAL liberty and PERSONAL property rights. Part of the philosophy behind that is because the founding fathers believed that "all men were created equal" and have the inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness" (granted that "happiness" isn't murdering people; that's where the line is drawn between a libertarian society and anarchy). Martin Luther King, a strong Republican, said that we ought to judge a man on his character and not by his skin.

SUMMARY:
Right wing libertarians have an INDIVIDUALIST philosophy, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FASCISM. because conservatives are supposed to see people as INDIVIDUALS. (as in: not judging people into groups) The libertarian philosophy is the total opposite of identity politics that Marxism relies on (have's vs. have nots).

STOP CONFUSING CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS WITH NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE AT ALL!!!!!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nazis aren't Libertarians.

Who was saying that?

You have Marxists confused with something else but

Nazis are not Libertarians.

I'm not aware of any successful society that was based on libertarian ideals. Can you give me an example of any country, time or place where people lived in a Libertarian society?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Figured as much.

I can respect a conservative that is consistent with the whole "small govt" theory, but the problem is that the vast majority aren't consistent. They want to pick and choose where they want less govt, but see no problem with trying to legislate their version of morality by banning same sex marriage, outlawing abortion, etc
Click to expand...
Are you the one who got him angry because you called Libertarians, Nazis?

LOL. He seemed pretty angry about it. I can't recall anybody saying that.
 
Green Bud Smurfy

Green Bud Smurfy

Active Member
st0wandgrow said:
Figured as much.

I can respect a conservative that is consistent with the whole "small govt" theory, but the problem is that the vast majority aren't consistent. They want to pick and choose where they want less govt, but see no problem with trying to legislate their version of morality by banning same sex marriage, outlawing abortion, etc
Click to expand...
I'm not against same sex marriage ---- legally. If you look at scripture, Jesus would say the same: see Peter 5:1-3

Personally I don't believe in it or encourage it.

Abortion? I can still be a consistent pro-life libertarian. It really comes down to this: it comes down to whether or not you believe the baby developing in the womb counts as a human being. I happen to believe that a baby IS a human being and therefore killing it (out of an accident/convenience -- 99%+ of abortions) would be murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top