So now it's down to three

[BotanyBoy]

All of those things involve government telling you how you are allowed to make your money -- i.e., not by publishing copyrighted materials or marketing patented inventions without paying royalties, not by printing your own currency, etc. And all government functions that cost money, i.e., pretty much all of them apart from the designation of state birds and flowers, involve the government spending your money for you.

Good point...like I said, socialism is just government in action.

Most people would not call those things "socialism," and for once most people are right. Once again, you weaken any arguments against socialism by defining it so broadly as to include all government functions.

Then what would they call it?

My argument isn't weakened....with the foundation of every definition of the term it's rock solid bubba.

You seem so consistently down on government-as-such most of the time that that was my interpretation.

I'm not down' on government......

I just don't buy your glorified vision of it.

What political-ideological label, if any, would you embrace? (N.B.: You have a political ideology regardless of whether you're willing to name it or not. Anyone has who takes an interest in politics at all, which you do or you would not post in this forum.)

I'm what you, or the folks at pew, call a post modern democrat.




Post-Moderns

13% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

Basic Description: Well-educated and financially comfortable. Post-Moderns are supportive of many aspects of government though they take conservative positions on questions about racial policy and the social safety net. Very liberal on social issues. Post-Moderns were strong supporters of Barack Obama in 2008, but turned out at far lower rates in 2010.

Defining values: Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection. Favor the use of diplomacy rather than military force to ensure peace. Generally positive about immigrants and their contributions to society.

Who they are: The youngest of the typology groups (32% under age 30); a majority are non-Hispanic white (70%) and have at least some college experience (71%). Nearly a third (31%) are unaffiliated with any religious tradition. Half live in either the Northeast (25%) or the West (25%). A majority (58%) lives in the suburbs.

Lifestyle notes: 63% use social networking. One-in-five (20%) regularly listen to NPR, 14% regularly watch The Daily Show, 10% read the New York Times. 31% trade stocks and 53% have a passport.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/typology-group-profiles/

 

[KingOrfeo]

According to this, Clinton is solidly winning the "invisible primary."

But if you want to know any of the reasons why Sanders is in trouble, you can start with the news yesterday that Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown has endorsed Clinton. As Matt Yglesias points out, Brown would be perhaps the most natural endorsement for Sanders in the entire Senate. He is an old-school liberal, pro-union and anti-free trade. Ideologically and personally, he and the senator from Vermont are very close. They have worked together on writing and introducing legislation as recently as earlier this month.

Yet Brown joined 33 of his Senate colleagues who have already endorsed Clinton. From a pragmatic political viewpoint, the move makes sense. Brown has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate for Clinton. He represents that most swinging swing state of Ohio, which makes his being on the ticket very attractive for her and the party. If he stays in the Senate, he’s up for re-election in the 2018. Since getting Democratic voters out to the polls in the midterms is always tough, an endorsement from President Hillary Clinton could be very helpful. Not to mention the money that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee will be more likely to contribute to his campaign.

In terms of the Bernie Sanders campaign for president though, Brown’s endorsement is another sign that Sanders is being beaten in the invisible primary for the Democratic nomination. And winning the invisible primary is still a hugely important step for a Democrat, one that the Vermont senator has either neglected or just flat-out lost.

For anyone unfamiliar with the term “invisible primary,” here is a pretty good explainer. In brief, the invisible primary is the conversation that takes place between different factions and leaders of a party in the year leading up to the start of voting in Iowa. This conversation results in the party starting to coalesce behind a front-runner. If there is more than one strong candidate, this can go all the way up to the convention. If there is only one clear front-runner, the party will start lining up early behind him or her.

This is what has happened with Hillary Clinton. Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight has been keeping track of endorsements with this chart, which makes it starkly clear just how much of a lead Clinton has over Sanders in that area. Something to keep in mind is that many of those endorsers (including Sherrod Brown) are superdelegates, who are free to pledge their support to a candidate regardless of how the voting went in their state’s primary. Two months ago, Bloomberg reported that Clinton had already unofficially locked up commitments from 440 of the approximately 713 superdelegates who will cast ballots at next summer’s Democratic convention.

All of this highlights what was always going to be one of Sanders’s biggest weaknesses in seeking the nomination. Though he has always caucused with Democrats in both the House and Senate during his career, Sanders had always officially been an independent. He even rejected the Democratic Party’s endorsement during two of his campaigns for his Senate seat. Presidential candidates like to claim they are Washington outsiders. Sanders is a party outsider.

In short, Sanders does not have the base of support within the party that Hillary Clinton has been building up since her husband was a popular governor in Arkansas thirty years ago. Were he running as a Republican, that would not matter. The Republican Party is fragmented and fractious, with no real power center. The invisible primary once was a part of its nomination process, but no longer. As proof, FiveThirtyEight has Jeb Bush with the largest number of endorsements from GOP leaders (36, compared to Clinton’s official 385), and his campaign has been taking on water faster than the Lusitania while Donald Trump and Ben Carson sit atop all the polls.

 

[BotanyBoy]

According to www.salon.com Clinton is solidly winning the "invisible primary."

Of course they are, it's salon and Clinton is the establishment democrat off who's tit they swing....they along with CNN and MSN are going to do everything they can to shit on Sanders.

Liberal 1% wants her in office so they can keep on keeping on...Sanders scares the fucking piss out of them.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Of course they are, it's salon and Clinton is the establishment democrat off who's tit they swing . . .

Salon.com is like The Nation, it's the place you're most likely to find some love for Sanders.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Salon.com is like The Nation, it's the place you're most likely to find some love for Sanders.

More like AmericanStinker.

From the readers, not from the people running Salon though....Sanders SCARES them because they know he's coming for their wallets.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sanders scares nobody and isn't coming for anybody's wallets either.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sanders scares nobody and isn't coming for anybody's wallets either.

Really?

So he's going to spend less and cut taxes hua?

Well that's news to me, ya gotta link?

 

[dan_c00000]

Yes, because we all know that there is a "billionaire defense contractor" that get money funneled right to him/her.

It may not be an individual but check out numbers 2, 4, and 12. All former or current presidential candidates.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Really?

So he's going to spend less and cut taxes hua?

Well that's news to me, ya gotta link?

No, he's not going to spend less. If he keeps his word he's going to spend more and put MORE money into people's pockets. And he'll raise some taxes sure but not enough to screw anything up.

No link, I'm simply not an absolute moron.

 

[Iceprincess12]

No, he's not going to spend less. If he keeps his word he's going to spend more and put MORE money into people's pockets. And he'll raise some taxes sure but not enough to screw anything up.

No link, I'm simply not an absolute moron.

Abolute is a bit of a stretch, not by much though.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, he's not going to spend less. If he keeps his word he's going to spend more and put MORE money into people's pockets. And he'll raise some taxes sure but not enough to screw anything up.

No link, I'm simply not an absolute moron.

So he's going to spend more and somehow put MORE money into peoples pockets?

He just handing out checks of money from nowhere?

 

[Sean Renaud]

So he's going to spend more and somehow put MORE money into peoples pockets?

He just handing out checks of money from nowhere?

You do know he can do that right? That that is literally how the world was built?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You do know he can do that right? That that is literally how the world was built?

I'll buy that when I quit having to pay taxes.

I'll believe that's Bern's plan when they start sending ME money not the other way around.

Until then youz full of it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do we have a deficit and/or debt or not? If we have a deficit the government is spending money without taking it from anybody. Well they are taking it from the "future" which is impossible in the real world. Seriously go out to your plants and try to smoke some weed you grew in 2020. Do we have a debt? If so this isn't the first time the country has spent money it doesn't have.

Except for one year the US has been in debt since she was born. In fact lots of countries are that way.

On the other hand even if a country was filled with magical libertarians who really did care for themselves in all ways they STILL might tax the citizens simply to throw the money on a fire and burn it out of circulation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If we have a deficit the government is spending money without taking it from anybody.

Then why do they insist on taking so much from me and my customers?

Well they are taking it from the "future" which is impossible in the real world.

It's not impossible.....just ask a taxpayer.

On the other hand even if a country was filled with magical libertarians who really did care for themselves in all ways they STILL might tax the citizens simply to throw the money on a fire and burn it out of circulation.

Who said anything about that?

And if they did it to YOUR money I wouldn't be standing there going "oh it really doesn't matter that they did that, doesn't effect anything, they are actually putting money IN your pocket."

 

[Sean Renaud]

if you didn't smoke that 2020 weed it is impossible. If you did please tell me the outcome of the Superbowl. The rest of your argument is moot.

 

[BotanyBoy]

if you didn't smoke that 2020 weed it is impossible. If you did please tell me the outcome of the Superbowl. The rest of your argument is moot.

If you can't tell me why they have to take my money even though they don't have to, or explain how taking my money is actually putting it back in my pocket, the rest of my argument is only moot because it shits all over yours.

If they can just magically generate money there is no need for them to tax.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you can't tell me why they have to take my money even though they don't have to, or explain how taking my money is actually putting it back in my pocket, the rest of my argument is only moot because it shits all over yours.

If they can just magically generate money there is no need for them to tax.

They don't have to take the money, they just want to. The two acts have been linked in our society but they are not.

Them spending money that in anyway benefits you does put "money" in your pocket.

Again, taxing would quite probably still exist simply to throw piles of money on a fire so people didn't have it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They don't have to take the money, they just want to. The two acts have been linked in our society but they are not.

Oh kay now we are getting somewhere.

Why do they just want to? To control people?

To keep mom and pop wage slaves instead of doing their own thing right?

What a bunch of fucking ASSHOLES.....HUMAN SCUM.

Them spending money that in anyway benefits you does put "money" in your pocket.

Not if they are still taking it from me....LMFAO.

That only applies if they do that magic money generation thing you're talking about without a need to take my money in the first fucking place.

Again, taxing would quite probably still exist simply to throw piles of money on a fire so people didn't have it.

Because you gotta keep the slaves poor, tired and stupid......can't have them running around making a living for themselves. That make liburhuls mad as all fuckin' hell, mom and pop need to be regulated into the poor house or wal mart slavery right???

LOL no one hates the poor like liburhulz....

 

[Sean Renaud]

They want to for a lot of reason. To control people is an apt statement but reality tells us people need controlling. At a basic level it keeps the current monetary system running smoothly. Or at least as smoothly as it runs. Regardless it could be a lot worse.

They dont' give two shits about Ma and Pa. Not a single shit. Occasionally big business via their government arm does something to them but generally speaking they matter just slightly more than the ladybugs in your yard. Sure you might kill them along with the slugs n shit but you either didn't care or hell might have wanted them eating those damn aphids.

Whether they are still taking from you has nothing to do with if they are putting money in your pocket. Because that particular transaction is about the value you get vs lose. Some people gain a lot and some people don't.

No, if anything Liburulz try desperate to get people out of the poor, tired and stupid. But that's hardly the point here. The point here is without the government doing SOMETHING inflation would get pretty nuts pretty fast. You do realize that women are inflating the value of your labor a lot faster than heart disease is inflating it right? And that's without factoring in technology. That's just the cold hard fact that every human being a woman squats out makes the rest of us worth a little less and it turns out they are exceedingly proficient at it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They want to for a lot of reason. To control people is an apt statement but reality tells us people need controlling. At a basic level it keeps the current monetary system running smoothly. Or at least as smoothly as it runs. Regardless it could be a lot worse.

Not on the level or how it is being applied today.

They dont' give two shits about Ma and Pa. Not a single shit.

Obviously....they regulate them into wal mart and onto welfare. And libs couldn't cheer it any harder.

Whether they are still taking from you has nothing to do with if they are putting money in your pocket.

Bullshit....if they are taking more of my money than I'm getting out of it then they aren't putting any money in my pocket. If you really believe otherwise I got a 10$ bill I'll trade you for 20....all day long.

Because that particular transaction is about the value you get vs lose. Some people gain a lot and some people don't.

Some people gain others get fucked....

No, if anything Liburulz try desperate to get people out of the poor, tired and stupid.

By regulating them into wage slaves and giving them welfare supplements? LOL

How about they start by letting people work for themselves? Maybe then I might believe that lie.

But that's hardly the point here. The point here is without the government doing SOMETHING inflation would get pretty nuts pretty fast.

It's true we do need some regulation.

But we could stand to shed a whole lot and re-apply/streamline some others so they aren't so fucking hostile to everyone but mega corp.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're still msitakenly thinking someone must get fucked but life doesn't work that way. Somedays everybody wins.

 

[werwolf]

It'll be Hillary. I cannot see it conceivably being otherwise. O'Malley is a likely VP target. To the left, but young and without the "socialist" label. Baltimore is going to be a drag on the ticket, but it's not a ticket-killer.

She will win unless two things happen: the FBI bleeds her too much over the course of the next 12 months and the GOP nominates a ticket like Kasich/Rubio. Not impossible, but the second is looking less likely by the day.

 

[werwolf]

My heart tells me to vote for Bernie Sanders. My mind tells me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders is a bridge too far. The electorate is not ready for democratic socialism yet, but it is becoming ready. Polls indicate growing approval, or at least acceptance of the socialist ideal.

I don't think it's ever going to be. Fiscally speaking, you can have unlimited immigration or a huge social net. Not both. If we want to successfully go in the second direction, this requires that we make some huge chances to how the American experiment is going to work.

Bernie Sanders is performing a useful service by telling the voters how well things work in Denmark, and by explaining that what existed in the Soviet Union and what exists in Cuba and North Korea is not the only alternative to American capitalism.

Denmark is Denmark. Cuba is Cuba. The USA is the USA, with 300 million+ people and vast cultural differences between different parts of the nation and a vastly different political system.

Taking ideas from others is a great way of doing things, but they must be morphed into something soluble for the USA. I don't think the unadulterated Danish system is.

That, and one should never seek perfection. If you solve a problem, you'll get a new problem later. Denmark has it's problems as well.

Unfortunately, as far as most Americans are concerned, the U.S. economy under President Obama is not performing well. Although unemployment has declined, so has median income adjusted for inflation. Millions of Americans have gone for years without a raise. Millions have taken pay cuts in order to keep their jobs. Millions are working at jobs that pay less than the jobs they lost. This makes the Democrats vulnerable on economic issues, and makes voters susceptible to the Republican illusion that tax cuts for the rich, paid for by painless, unspecified spending cuts, can revive the economy.

I'll take a sociopathic crook like Lyndon Johnson any day over a man who means well but cannot get anything done, like Obama.

Backbone doesn't help when you're a person who says things like Reagan firing the air traffic controllers was "the most significant foreign policy decision of my lifetime."

I hate Walker in a way I don't do many other people in politics.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're still msitakenly thinking someone must get fucked but life doesn't work that way. Somedays everybody wins.

Oh I know it doesn't....the 1% is 100% winning because they are using the government to fuck us out of our jobs and put us on welfare and 10/hr. You do understand the 1% we all love to hate is only there because 'regulation' put them there and protects them right?

Every time an alphabet agency charges me a couple g's to send another redundant inspector way out here to make sure I'm a good boy, Monsanto wins and they COULDN'T do it without the wonderful regulators in Sacramento helping them.