NYT: The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought

[Mikey 16,622]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Obstructionists"?   

Are you referring to the Republican-controlled senate or the Republican-controlled house?

Sounds like you'd prefer a Trump dictatorship.

I think initially they'd liked to have had  normal voting. However, since Harry Reid and the Dems opened the door to nuclear options I expect to see more of that. Like many of life's exercises it will get easier each successive time.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 6/12/2017 at 3:18 PM, AuCivilEng1 said:

Also, What does Make America Great Again actually mean? What time period are we trying to go back to here? 

What did " Hope and Change " mean? Any slogan for that matter.

[homersapien 11,386]

38 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I think initially they'd liked to have had  normal voting. However, since Harry Reid and the Dems opened the door to nuclear options I expect to see more of that. Like many of life's exercises it will get easier each successive time.

If that's a response, you'll need to explain it a little better.

[homersapien 11,386]

16 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

What did " Hope and Change " mean? Any slogan for that matter.

Well, it doesn't allude to a time in the past, which is the issue.  

Hope and change for the future is pretty much a universal aspiration, is it not?

[Mikey 16,622]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

If that's a response, you'll need to explain it a little better.

If you need that explained to you, you need to either get off or go back on your meds.

[AU64 10,122]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

If you need that explained to you, you need to either get off or go back on your meds.

Homer will play games with you if you let him...when he has no logic or facts on his side he demands that you explain yourself further....a manipulator of the first order.

As for Socialism....how many times in our life have we heard the failures explained as "the wrong people were running the system"...rather than acknowledge that the entire principle is guaranteed to fail because of human nature.  Latest victims are the people of Venezuela....and again, that will be blamed on the people in charge rather than the basic faults of the socialistic premise.  

But sounds like they are still teaching the joys of socialism at Auburn, even as they did in my day. 

[Mikey 16,622]

21 hours ago, auburnphan said:

Most Americans have no clue what socialism entails.   They believe that Russia is the symbol of Socialism even though they evolved into a totalitarian society in the 1930's.  Our government misused the word in its fight of the spread of Russia's power....so it will forever be misunderstood by most Americans that have not educated themselves.

That's why Sanders wouldn't have had a prayer of getting votes that went to Trump. Many Clinton voters would have declined to vote for Sanders for the same reason. If there was a "trend" towards socialism among voters in the 2016 election I can't find it.

[Mikey 16,622]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

But sounds like they are still teaching the joys of socialism at Auburn, even as they did in my day. 

As an Agriculture grad, I spent most of my time on Ag Hill. The professors I dealt with there were decidedly anti-socialist.

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, Mikey said:

As an Agriculture grad, I spent most of my time on Ag Hill. The professors I dealt with there were decidedly anti-socialist.

not in the econ school....well, most were Keynesian of course ....bordering on socialist...but not fanatical about it.

as for Bernie....the only reason he was allowed to run by the Dems is that they needed a foil for Hillary who needed an opponent such that Hillary would look moderate...and good by comparison.   They knew the deck was stacked against him and I guess figured they could squish him like a bug any time they wished....but HC's people never realized how bad a candidate she was ....and thus had to resort to the well documented skullduggery to keep him down.

Bernie never was subjected to an anal exam on his politics 'cause everyone knew he could not win with the system the Dems had concocted to keep power in the hands of the party's political class...which did not include him since he as not even a Democrat. ....more like an "associate member" without ownership or voting rights.  He was allowed to enjoy some of the club benefits but it was clear he was not a member of the club and would be kept in his place.

 

[homersapien 11,386]

12 hours ago, Mikey said:

I think initially they'd liked to have had  normal voting. However, since Harry Reid and the Dems opened the door to nuclear options I expect to see more of that. Like many of life's exercises it will get easier each successive time.

Yeah, and I'd like to have "normal voting" in the general election.

That's pretty weak. The Republicans control both houses of Congress. Trump can't even pull his own party together, much less the whole country.

[homersapien 11,386]

3 hours ago, AU64 said:

Homer will play games with you if you let him...when he has no logic or facts on his side he demands that you explain yourself further....a manipulator of the first order.

As for Socialism....how many times in our life have we heard the failures explained as "the wrong people were running the system"...rather than acknowledge that the entire principle is guaranteed to fail because of human nature.  Latest victims are the people of Venezuela....and again, that will be blamed on the people in charge rather than the basic faults of the socialistic premise.  

But sounds like they are still teaching the joys of socialism at Auburn, even as they did in my day. 

Yeah, God forbid you have to explain yourself.  You run on emotions, not logic.

And from your post, it's clear that you still don't understand what democratic socialism even is.  Universal healthcare is not "socialism" as you define it. Virtually every democratic, developed country in the world has it.

[homersapien 11,386]

Obstructionist:

[AuburnNTexas 7,151]

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism are just names there is no government that has done exclusively one or the other. There has to be checks and balances in government or despite the name you get totalitarian,dictatorial government. We have seen the failure of Socialist and Communist governments partly because people need incentives which those governments take away and partly because a ruling class takes over similar to what we have seen in Monarchies. Pure capitalism leads to exploitation of the working class long hours, low pay, child labor.

The US is somewhat Capitalistic but we have checks and balances. Labor laws and regulations to protect the working man, small business loans to allow the less affluent to take part in the process. Labor Unions a necessary evil with all their faults we wouldn't have a lot of the Labor laws we have now if they hadn't have been here. Safety nets like Social Security and welfare programs (these are somewhat socialistic). A Constitution that has checks and balances with the intent of preventing one group from becoming all powerful.  Some European governments incorporate more Socialist ideas into their government than we do but they still are not socialist.

It is a balancing act in recent years we have seen more power in the Executive Branch and the Judicial branch curtailing the power that was allotted to the legislative branch. From Presidents in both parties use of executive orders to Justices on both sides of the political spectrum imposing their political views when they disagree with a law.  Despite all of our failings and despite all of the rhetoric from the press on both the left and the right our country will continue to muddle its way through we will have some highs and some lows. The Right thought Obama was going to destroy the country he didn't, the Left thinks Trump will destroy the country he won't. 

Our founding Fathers actually did a pretty good job of creating a country with all of its weaknesses and insecurities that will survive and prosper. It is a country we can be proud of in that we can have people on both the Left and the Right who can disagree about how to run the country but on both sides they love the country and will find a way to make it work.

As Americans on the left and the right we love our country we will work to make our country great and we always come together in times of crisis. We the American people are what makes America great but not perfect.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

That's why Sanders wouldn't have had a prayer of getting votes that went to Trump. Many Clinton voters would have declined to vote for Sanders for the same reason. If there was a "trend" towards socialism among voters in the 2016 election I can't find it.

There was certainly a trend towards towards more "socialist" policies. The proof is in the fact that Bernie had as much support as he did, and that, as of now, he is the most popular politician in the country. These are all facts, and whether you like it or not. The last time Americans favored what would be thought as "Socialist" policies in this country, this much, was when FDR was pulling the economy out of the depths of hell. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the best direction is to go full blown Soviet Union or even Venezuela. But what Bernie Sanders proposes isn't either. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

14 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

What did " Hope and Change " mean? Any slogan for that matter.

When you say you want to "Make America Great Again", you are implying that it was once great and now it's not. That's how words work, man. The whole point of that question was to figure out why America was so great, but now it isn't. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

7 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

When you say you want to "Make America Great Again", you are implying that it was once great and now it's not. That's how words work, man. The whole point of that question was to figure out why America was so great, but now it isn't. 

Understand Civ1. BTW - like our engineers. Worked with a lot of you guys and gals. One son Civ Eng Auburn Grad.

You did not answer my question in entirety.  

[TexasTiger 12,947]

“We no longer have a party caucus capable of riding this wave. We have 80-year-old leaders and 90-year-old ranking members. This isn’t a party. It’s a giant assisted living center. Complete with field trips, gym, dining room and attendants.”

— A Democratic operative, quoted by Politico.

[DKW 86 7,426]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

“We no longer have a party caucus capable of riding this wave. We have 80-year-old leaders and 90-year-old ranking members. This isn’t a party. It’s a giant assisted living center. Complete with field trips, gym, dining room and attendants.”

— A Democratic operative, quoted by Politico.

Sometimes the truth can be brutal. Old isn't ne essarily bad, but entrenched is always bad. Pelosi et al are indeed entrenched.  Time for new ideas and newer blood.  

[bigbird 60,564]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Sometimes the truth can be brutal. Old isn't ne essarily bad, but entrenched is always bad. Pelosi et al are indeed entrenched.  Time for new ideas and newer blood.  

I know this is intended for the Dems, but its true for both parties

[DKW 86 7,426]

The entrenched definitely covered both parties. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

On 6/14/2017 at 6:57 AM, AU64 said:

Homer will play games with you if you let him...when he has no logic or facts on his side he demands that you explain yourself further....a manipulator of the first order.

As for Socialism....how many times in our life have we heard the failures explained as "the wrong people were running the system"...rather than acknowledge that the entire principle is guaranteed to fail because of human nature.  Latest victims are the people of Venezuela....and again, that will be blamed on the people in charge rather than the basic faults of the socialistic premise.  

But sounds like they are still teaching the joys of socialism at Auburn, even as they did in my day. 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000005417220/food-inequality-in-venezuela-feeding-eight-on-scraps.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

On 6/14/2017 at 10:23 AM, AuCivilEng1 said:

When you say you want to "Make America Great Again", you are implying that it was once great and now it's not. That's how words work, man. The whole point of that question was to figure out why America was so great, but now it isn't. 

Except ... ... it was a campaign slogan, i.e. something to put on t-shirts, ball caps & bumper stickers.  You can parse it all you want but you'd be wasting your time trying to analyze it's meaning.  It's still a campaign slogan & nothing more.  Well, I take that back.  It was actually a successful campaign slogan -- more so than "I'm With Her" or "Feel The Bern." 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Except ... ... it was a campaign slogan, i.e. something to put on t-shirts, ball caps & bumper stickers.  You can parse it all you want but you'd be wasting your time trying to analyze it's meaning.  It's still a campaign slogan & nothing more.  Well, I take that back.  It was actually a successful campaign slogan -- more so than "I'm With Her" or "Feel The Bern." 

What's really great is how it continues to bug the crap out of the Dems, much to my enjoyment.

[homersapien 11,386]

"Making America Great Again" clearly begs the question of when it was great. 

Because America has tended to make social progress in spite of ourselves, any response comes with a moral 'can of worms'.  There is a clear distinction between it and other slogans, such as "Hope and change" or "I like Ike". 

It feeds on a resentment of perceived personal loss from when things were 'better'.

If you really don't understand that, you lack a capacity of understanding nuance if not critical thinking in general.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

On 10/22/2017 at 7:58 PM, Proud Tiger said:

What's really great is how it continues to bug the crap out of the Dems, much to my enjoyment.

That's the driving principle of the current Republican Party. Annoying the "other side."