Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Fogdog said:

If anybody copied and pasted quotes from Hitler to back up their argument about Jews being the cause of all world problems, wouldn't that be endorsing what he said?

Pad posted an article that was critical about sjw to bolster his claim that objecting to hate speech was the cause of Trump's win. He can refute his post. I don't care all that much. I'm just saying he posted an article critical of defending social justice and attributed it as cause of Clinton's loss in the presidential elections. The conclusion of that article was we should kick sjw to the curb.

In case there is any complaint that I'm putting up another straw man argument, this is exactly what I'm referring to:

Click to expand...

nothing against the jews, but they are history's problem.

tracing back through the centuries, israel belongs to the palestinians.

then you have Bebe 'no two state solution on my watch' Netanyahu?

this is why they are frowned upon present-day.

simply put, they get what they deserve.

the gop are the only ones who support them, I wonder why?

Fogdog said:

Come back later after you've cooled off and explain why you would post this shit if you didn't believe it
:

Click to expand...

hes' not your child, why are you speaking down to him?

Damn! are you full of yourself.

Padawanbater2 said:

Well it's clear at this point you're not interested in honest dialogue. So this is the end of our conversation.

Click to expand...

no he's not interested because he wants to change the way you think- like him..that's the problem with Bucky and posse.

you must think like them.

do you guys have your wives ask permission to give you a blow job?

ttystikk said:

Good things take time.

Instant gratification is for children.

Time for you to grow up.

Click to expand...

So why do you feel the need to primary more "gradual progressives" in the Party?

schuylaar said:

hes' not your child, why are you speaking down to him?

Damn! are you full of yourself.

Click to expand...

I love you too.

Padawanbater2 said:

You're advocating the Democratic party should support moderate Democrats who oppose abortion rights in order to win in socially conservative districts.

Click to expand...

I think it's a good question to ask. I wouldn't vote for one and would absolutely hate it if one were to win my district. That said, if an anti-choice candidate won their district's Democratic primary and then an election over a right wing Republican, what do you think Democrats should do if he wants to caucus with them and support key issues like repeal of Citizen's United, unions and single payer health care?

I've been saying all along, that the bar to clear for any support from the Democratic Party is winning the primary. Once voters in a given district have chosen, it would be anti-democratic to deny their choice. As Jerry Brown and Bernie Sanders said, we don't have to agree on everything. To them, they can work with anti-choice Democrats.

I want my rep to be pro-choice. I'd like the whole discussion of homophobia to end with acceptance of LGBTQ rights. I respect the right of people to vote in their own self interest and if a community chose an anti-choice candidate I would expect my representative to learn what areas they have in common. Is that what you mean by support?

This belongs here, on topic;

twostrokenut said:

And you're a socialist, so what? In fact, you are so far to the left you don't realize that he is actually in the center; and far left of conservatives on a fuck ton of issues.

Click to expand...

Google 'Overton Window'.

What Americans think of as centrist is still pretty right wing.

Bernie Sanders is a centrist to the rest of the planet. Only here in 'Murrica is he considered a left winger.

I believe in socialized education, fire and emergency protection and police- with strong accountability. I believe in socialized roads and infrastructure. Most Americans also believe in the very same things- or we wouldn't have public fire and police protection, publicly funded roads, public schools or public utilities.

Publicly funded higher education isn't much of a stretch, and neither is publicly funded medicine. The reason why it's been made a big deal in the media is only because we have a very small group of wildly overpaid and incredibly selfish assholes who are bent on telling the rest of us what we should and shouldn't have- because THEY want to save money on their taxes. After all, YOUR taxes aren't going down, are they?

What this makes me is a centrist. A true socialist would want to nationalize industry. I think that's a bad idea. I do want to tax those industries because i believe corporations owe the country that gives them infrastructure, trained employees and affluent customers. That isn't socialist, either.

The notion that upper classes and corporations should not have to support the country that made it possible for them to profit is authoritarian, autocratic and ultimately aristocratic and as such is a clear and present threat to democracy and the freedom of average citizens.

I'm open to other perspectives, especially if they're as open to discussion about their ideas as i am about mine. If people's political ideas don't hold up under scrutiny then maybe they aren't worth keeping.

I feel my positions are eminently defensible and provide the most prosperity for the largest number of citizens.

I do not believe that the prosperity of millions is worth sacrificing for the outlandish aggrandizement of a few. Charles and David Koch smokers and their ilk might disagree, but they are literally one in a million. The other million need to make a decent living, too!

schuylaar said:

nothing against the jews, but they are history's problem.

tracing back through the centuries, israel belongs to the palestinians.

then you have Bebe 'no two state solution on my watch' Netanyahu?

this is why they are frowned upon present-day.

simply put, they get what they deserve.

the gop are the only ones who support them, I wonder why?

Click to expand...

You and me need to have a little talk about your Jewish history problem.

Just for openers, Palestinians held that land right up until British, American and Russian politicians who did not represent them gave their land to Zionists, who then embarked on a mission to drive the Palestinians off their own lands, a policy which continues to this day.

To conflate such activity with the religion of Judaism is as despicable as Christians murdering native Americans over the last couple of hundred years because it was (their) 'God's will'.

I'll now wait for the usual rabble to accuse me of anti-Semitism.

schuylaar said:

nothing against the jews, but they are history's problem.

tracing back through the centuries, israel belongs to the palestinians.

then you have Bebe 'no two state solution on my watch' Netanyahu?

this is why they are frowned upon present-day.

simply put, they get what they deserve.

the gop are the only ones who support them, I wonder why?

Click to expand...

I agree about Zionists. They are a pox. Not the same thing as Judaism. I don't know why you are so focused on them. It's my guess you just like tugging UB's beard. But still, given the history of antisemitism, your anti-Jew statements look bad on you.

SneekyNinja said:

So why do you feel the need to primary more "gradual progressives" in the Party?

Click to expand...

I'm OK with the Justice Democrats and other liberal Democrats supporting liberal candidates and even "primarying" a conservative Democratic Congressman. It's up to the voters in a district to choose whom they want. Let candidates with different ideas compete for those votes. The more the merrier.

Same goes with conservative Democrats.

Does this mean the Democratic party should give all of them money and equal support? No, they can choose whom to support during a primary.

After the primary, then it's the will of the voters that must be respected.

Fogdog said:

I'm OK with the Justice Democrats and other liberal Democrats supporting liberal candidates and even "primarying" a conservative Democratic Congressman. It's up to the voters in a district to choose whom they want. Let candidates with different ideas compete for those votes. The more the merrier.

Same goes with conservative Democrats.

Does this mean the Democratic party should give all of them money and equal support? No, they can choose whom to support during a primary.

After the primary, then it's the will of the voters that must be respected.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately populism without meaningful support means more GOP time in power.

It also damages our shared goals because promising the single player, living wage, etc RIGHT NOW and when it invariably doesnt happen voters feel let down and think "Yeah sure, you said that last time".

I totally support people's right to choose, the issue is the intricacies of two party system that Justice heads don't seem to understand.

By running a third party or splitting the Democrat vote you don't help the issues because you're dividing away support from the people closest to you ideologically and you let the polar opposite run amok.

For an example, see President 45.

They need to come back on board and change the system from within instead of blasting the people who agree with you but disagree on implementation.

schuylaar said:

nothing against the jews,.but

Click to expand...

LOL

Fogdog said:

I'm OK with the Justice Democrats and other liberal Democrats supporting liberal candidates and even "primarying" a conservative Democratic Congressman. It's up to the voters in a district to choose whom they want. Let candidates with different ideas compete for those votes. The more the merrier.

Same goes with conservative Democrats.

Does this mean the Democratic party should give all of them money and equal support? No, they can choose whom to support during a primary.

After the primary, then it's the will of the voters that must be respected.

Click to expand...

Right. Let the money decide.

Have i called you ethically bankrupt yet today? Let me fix that!

SneekyNinja said:

By running a third party or splitting the Democrat vote you don't help the issues because you're dividing away support from the people closest to you ideologically and you let the polar opposite run amok..

Click to expand...

They just can't seem to figure out that building alliances would get them further than burning everything down. Sad.

ttystikk said:

Right. Let the money decide.

Have i called you ethically bankrupt yet today? Let me fix that!

Click to expand...

Cutting the histrionics, maybe we can like talk?

I think what you propose is a tops down mandate that all Democrats forego legal donations from big donors and corporations. All well and fine if taking the pledge in fact gives the Democratic challenger to a Republican opponent an edge. But this is a theory with no proof that it's true. I'm not saying the idea is false, I'm just saying let's test this idea before jumping in with both feet. If the pledge is a strong draw for votes then candidates who take the pledge will be just fine during a primary against one of your ethically bankrupt people who accept all legal donations. Are you afraid that your theory is wrong? Is that why you'd mandate the pledge rather than test the idea?

The next election could decide whether or not Republicans continue their march against women's rights, suppression of minority votes, tax cuts for the wealthy, access to healthcare for tens of millions of people and food for children living in poverty. For certain, the 2018 Republican will be accepting all legal donations. The general election is not the time to test your theory about the effectiveness of a pledge as a means to draw in voters.

Again, I'm not against what Justice Democrats are doing. I listened to Cenk's video on the home page and find myself mostly in agreement. Even Jusitice Democrats aren't proposing what you are pushing. So, I'm with them. I don't see your ideas being proposed by Sanders either. I'm with him too.

You position makes no sense to me. Why mandate the pledge if it's such a powerful draw for votes? Why go into the main election without testing the idea that poorly funded but corporate money-free campaign finance policy will just naturally beat big money campaigns? Too much is at stake for many in the US for us to lose on a wild bet. So far the only ones I know willing to make that bet have little or nothing to lose. Those who would be most affected aren't talking like you. A few are but not the majority.

SneekyNinja said:

Unfortunately populism without meaningful support means more GOP time in power.

It also damages our shared goals because promising the single player, living wage, etc RIGHT NOW and when it invariably doesnt happen voters feel let down and think "Yeah sure, you said that last time".

I totally support people's right to choose, the issue is the intricacies of two party system that Justice heads don't seem to understand.

By running a third party or splitting the Democrat vote you don't help the issues because you're dividing away support from the people closest to you ideologically and you let the polar opposite run amok.

For an example, see President 45.

They need to come back on board and change the system from within instead of blasting the people who agree with you but disagree on implementation.

Click to expand...

Justice Democrats aren't a third party. The people who are running as Justice Democrats are running as Democrats. If you look at the (10) list of people who have signed on with them, one is seated in the House (California district 17), one is running against a NY City Rep and the others are running in red states. Justice Democrats aren't mandating tops down policy on all Democrats like tty and pad are fulminating about, they ask that in exchange for their support that a candidate sign the pledge. So, it's not the Jusitice Democrats you are talking about when you talk of splitting the party. Just windbags like tty, pad and their thought guide, Kyle Kulinski. In my opinion, Kulinski is a propagandist paid for by the right. Just my opinion but it's backed by some of the very right wing things Kulinski has said.

Fogdog said:

I agree about Zionists. They are a pox. Not the same thing as Judaism. I don't know why you are so focused on them. It's my guess you just like tugging UB's beard. But still, given the history of antisemitism, your anti-Jew statements look bad on you.

Click to expand...

perception is reality.

schuylaar said:

perception is reality.

Click to expand...

Nice that you've finally admitted you're an anti-semite.

Fogdog said:

Justice Democrats aren't a third party. The people who are running as Justice Democrats are running as Democrats. If you look at the (10) list of people who have signed on with them, one is seated in the House (California district 17), one is running against a NY City Rep and the others are running in red states. Justice Democrats aren't mandating tops down policy on all Democrats like tty and pad are fulminating about, they ask that in exchange for their support that a candidate sign the pledge. So, it's not the Jusitice Democrats you are talking about when you talk of splitting the party. Just windbags like tty, pad and their thought guide, Kyle Kulinski. In my opinion, Kulinski is a propagandist paid for by the right. Just my opinion but it's backed by some of the very right wing things Kulinski has said.

Click to expand...

I dunno man, I hope you're right and it's not some kind of infiltration.

schuylaar said:

perception is reality.

Click to expand...

Well, it does look bad on you. I suppose in some quarters, anti-semitism is an attractive feature.

I think these are ugly fuckers but maybe you'd fit right in.

Fogdog said:

Well, it does look bad on you. I suppose in some quarters, anti-semitism is an attractive feature.

I think these are ugly fuckers but maybe you'd fit right in.

Click to expand...

Fucking idiots can't even Nazi salute with the correct arm.