ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Pete Buttigieg has a point: Republicans will call any Democratic nominee a socialist
oaklandhater 04:57 PM 07-18-2019
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/o...232797167.html

Pete Buttigieg has a point: Republicans will call any Democratic nominee a socialist

BY MELINDA HENNEBERGER

If we ever stop talking about President Donald Trump’s latest racial stylings — and since he’s correct that “a lot of people love it,” he’ll try to delay that day — we will eventually get back to arguing about whether Democrats would have a better chance of replacing him next year with the kind of moderate nominee who might win over independents, or with a blow-the-doors-off progressive likely to turn out every last Democrat.

I’ve been in the former camp, probably because that’s how I’ve seen it done. Also because I’m the “beer summit” type, still thinking we can sit down and work it out. When former Vice President Joe Biden talks about decency, now that’s my idea of intoxicating. And after the last few years, who needs any more thrill rides?

Recently, though, I’ve become convinced that moderate or progressive — centrist or central planning — is not even the right question.

As Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic presidential contender who was in Kansas City this week, said in an interview: “We’re still a bit trapped by patterns of the ‘90s.”

Wow, you know me.

“While it’s always important to appeal to moderates and turn out the base, we live in a moment now where there’s less of a relationship between ideological centrism and appealing to independents,” the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said.

No argument here.

Why pander to voters who aren’t really even available? So often, independents are undercover or on-the-lam partisans who in the end either support a third-party candidate or fly home to the familiar nest on Election Day.

A Kansas City independent who works as a government consultant described himself to me as a middle-of-the-road voter who above all is looking for civility and willingness to work across the aisle. He might vote for one of the Democrats — which one he’s not sure — but a vote for Trump isn’t out of the question, either. In 2016, he voted for a third-party candidate and yes, he might do that again, too. Conclusion: Democrats, don’t even try pitching to this guy.

Colorado Republican-turned-independent Katherine Redmond is much more politically engaged. She’s the kind of centrist you’d think really might be gettable for the right Democrat. She’d never cast a ballot for Donald Trump — “I can’t as a Christian give him my vote” — but has never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, either.

“For me, Biden is safe as a Democrat. He’s been a part of the fabric, and I’m not looking for fresh blood in this time, but for experience. I want to test-drive this car a few times before I buy it.”

But would even Biden win her support? “I’d like to see him not backtrack so much. You’re the experienced one,” she’d like to tell him, so don’t cave to criticism from relative newcomers. “That’s where he’d have to go for me.”

A true independent, she’s most likely to repeat what she did in 2016 and vote for some third-party person.

I know a fair number of “Never Trump” Republicans, too; we have a lot in common. But not one of those I know personally is planning to vote for the Democratic nominee, even if it is Biden.

When he changed his mind on the Hyde Amendment and said yes, taxpayers should pay for abortions for low-income women, that’s when they started saying they could never support him after all.

And that’s when I started thinking if it hadn’t been that, it would have been some other last straw that would have ultimately, to their chagrin, made Biden or any other national Democrat a non-option.

Buttigieg is also right when he says that the GOP will tag even the most middle-of-the-road Democratic nominee as a scary radical. Democrats found that out, he says, after co-opting the Republican-born plan that became the Affordable Care Act.

“That was the most conservative intervention you can think of, and as soon as it was adopted, they started calling it socialism,” he said.

Why should Democrats feel they have to choose either x or y on the ideological spectrum when the current president “doesn’t even have an ideology? He has a style, not an ideology.”

The fact that Buttigieg has supporters back in Indiana who voted for him, former President Barack Obama, Trump, and Vice President and former Gov. Mike Pence means they’re open to politicians of very different stripes. Clearly, “what they don’t do is look at how your dot” on the political spectrum “matches their dot.”

He’s arguing that means there’s no paddling back to the safe harbor of a Joe Biden or any other moderate: “A lot of people in our part of the country are ready to burn the house down. We can’t promise politics as usual.”

I haven’t ruled out Biden or another moderate. But what I’d say to Democrats is that instead of wearing yourselves out wondering whether to look left or center, pick the one who makes you feel like you can’t wait to vote. This time, believe that the passionate choice will also be the sensible one. This time, as my daughter used to say when she was little, “Soup yourself.”
[Reply]
Baby Lee 12:26 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
I'll wait.
Wait away fuckwad. I'm not sitting around for your interrogatories.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 12:29 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Wait away ****wad. I'm not sitting around for your interrogatories.
Got it. Make a bunch of pulled out your ass comments, run away when questioned on them. Very up to your usual form there babble lee.

/what a troll you are :-)
[Reply]
Baby Lee 12:32 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Got it. Make a bunch of pulled out your ass comments, run away when questioned on them. Very up to your usual form there babble lee.

/what a troll you are :-)
No, I just know who you are. EVERYONE here knows who you are.

You have forfeited the presumption of discourse.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 01:04 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Got it. Make a bunch of pulled out your ass comments, run away when questioned on them. Very up to your usual form there babble lee.

/what a troll you are :-)
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No, I just know who you are. EVERYONE here knows who you are.

You have forfeited the presumption of discourse.
This 100% Everyone knows that Lone will simply repeat talking points regardless of the facts presented.

How does it feel to live in a tiny box Lone?
[Reply]
Carr4MVP 02:27 PM 07-19-2019
That is because every platform the current Democrats stand for is directly opposite the founding values of America.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 02:45 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No, I just know who you are. EVERYONE here knows who you are.

You have forfeited the presumption of discourse.
I'm mocking you because we both knew this is exactly where any conversation with you ends up. You make a claim, refuse to back it up, then run away calling others trolls.

Meanwhile, you are perfectly okay attempting to debate me until you get called on bullshit, as your first few posts show.
[Reply]
NJChiefsFan27 03:02 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
I'm mocking you because we both knew this is exactly where any conversation with you ends up. You make a claim, refuse to back it up, then run away calling others trolls.

Meanwhile, you are perfectly okay attempting to debate me until you get called on bullshit, as your first few posts show.

via GIPHY


[Reply]
patteeu 03:38 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
You think socialists are greedy but the people benefiting from capitalism are not? That's hilarious and of course delusional.
I think what you said was ridiculous. You said that capitalism was "undoubtably" the ideology of the "most selfish" people in society today. There's plenty of room to doubt that.

And yes, I think many socialists are greedy. Just as greedy as capitialists can be.

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are well liked wealth redistribution programs that are as socialist as anything else currently on the table.
Popularity is a poor measure of merit. Programs can be popular until the day they collapse and then how popular will they be?

Even if we decided that these programs were good applications of socialism, that's not an argument for more applications.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:47 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Health care is an example. Show us how smart you are babble lee and explain how health care can be regulated by the free market. The free market requires the ability to walk away from a price (its why even the most zealous libertarian knows monopolies are bad). At what prices does somebody walk away from a life saving medical treatment for themselves or a loved one?
At the price you can't afford it any longer. Or if you have a dependent family that you care about, maybe a little before that.
[Reply]
patteeu 03:49 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Why would anyone have a problem with royalties? Again, WTF is wrong with you?

Its not rent seeking behavior that "capitalist" have rejected since Adam Smith.

Now, don't run away from the questions. You want to state something like socialized medicine demotivates doctors, well show some proof of this. Every single other developed nation has some form of single payer. Show your work their doctors are less trained or less skilled than American doctors.

When you done there, take a stab and explaining how "free market" healthcare can regulate price. I'll wait.

/there aren't unlimited rewards in entertainment.... People good a scoring touchdowns make millions because they people hiring them and making billions. What a chump.
When he gets an intelligent questioner with whom there is some hope for gainful dialog, I'm sure he won't.
[Reply]
NJChiefsFan27 04:00 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I think what you said was ridiculous. You said that capitalism was "undoubtably" the ideology of the "most selfish" people in society today. There's plenty of room to doubt that.

And yes, I think many socialists are greedy. Just as greedy as capitialists can be.
The ideology of socialism involves implementing policies that level the playing field for everybody and providing a framework for a basic standard of living for everybody. It's not really compatible as an ideology with selfishness in the way that capitalism is. People not wanting to live under the burden of student loan debt or crippling medical payments is not greedy - amassing billions of dollars of wealth by underpaying workers and leaving them in poverty is.

Originally Posted by :
Popularity is a poor measure of merit. Programs can be popular until the day they collapse and then how popular will they be?

Even if we decided that these programs were good applications of socialism, that's not an argument for more applications.
These programs have been around for decades and in some cases nearly a century - there is no reason to think they are on the verge of collapsing unless you think we're going to all of a sudden no longer have people to pay into these programs. To the extent that there needs to be adjustments as life expectancy increases, it becomes a math problem, and not one that's difficult to solve.

You can argue all you want about the merits of each idea, but labeling things as socialist as if it's some kind of non starter is nonsense because we already have successful forms of socialism within our society. You guys need to come up with better arguments than disingenuously bringing up Venezuela. It also goes without saying that spending the last ten years calling Obama a socialist undermines a lot of the claims about socialism when somebody like Bernie comes along.
[Reply]
patteeu 04:07 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
The ideology of socialism involves implementing policies that level the playing field for everybody and providing a framework for a basic standard of living for everybody. It's not really compatible as an ideology with selfishness in the way that capitalism is. People not wanting to live under the burden of student loan debt or crippling medical payments is not greedy - amassing billions of dollars of wealth by underpaying workers and leaving them in poverty is.
The vast majority of people who support socialism in our country want to benefit at the expense of others, usually people wealthier than they are. That's greed, and you can't just dismiss it.

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
These programs have been around for decades and in some cases nearly a century - there is no reason to think they are on the verge of collapsing unless you think we're going to all of a sudden no longer have people to pay into these programs. To the extent that there needs to be adjustments as life expectancy increases, it becomes a math problem, and not one that's difficult to solve.

You can argue all you want about the merits of each idea, but labeling things as socialist as if it's some kind of non starter is nonsense because we already have successful forms of socialism within our society. You guys need to come up with better arguments than disingenuously bringing up Venezuela. It also goes without saying that spending the last ten years calling Obama a socialist undermines a lot of the claims about socialism when somebody like Bernie comes along.
I don't know. Labeling things as socialist doesn't work as well as it used to, but it's still worth doing. And we can work on reattaching the appropriate stigma to it at the same time.
[Reply]
vailpass 04:25 PM 07-19-2019
May the Dem nominee feel as free to extol the virtues of communism as some of the limp wrists in this thread. Be an easy 4 more years.
[Reply]
NJChiefsFan27 04:27 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
The vast majority of people who support socialism in our country want to benefit at the expense of others, usually people wealthier than they are. That's greed, and you can't just dismiss it.
The concept of greed revolves around amassing more resources than one needs. That is the essence of capitalism and completely contrary to a socialist agenda. Honestly, you're embarrassing yourself here. And the idea that it's all rooted in self interest more broadly speaking is a claim that you have no way of supporting beyond just believing it to be true because that fits your narrow worldview.

Originally Posted by :
I don't know. Labeling things as socialist doesn't work as well as it used to, but it's still worth doing. And we can work on reattaching the appropriate stigma to it at the same time.
Years of throwing around the word have made it lose considerable meaning. Democrats have correctly identified that it's a broad smear against left wing policies and shouldn't take it seriously as a critique.
[Reply]
patteeu 05:00 PM 07-19-2019
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
The concept of greed revolves around amassing more resources than one needs. That is the essence of capitalism and completely contrary to a socialist agenda. Honestly, you're embarrassing yourself here. And the idea that it's all rooted in self interest more broadly speaking is a claim that you have no way of supporting beyond just believing it to be true because that fits your narrow worldview.
Lol, amassing more resources than one needs isn’t the essence of capitalism.

Greed is also amassing resources that you didn’t earn and don’t deserve. I guess we can call that the essence of socialism.
[Reply]
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
Up