Jump to content
GBR0988

The Democrat Utopia

Recommended Posts

I’m a long-time reader of the huskerboard forum, but never thought about signing up until I came across the ‘Politics and Religion’ section of the site. I find it both surprising and alarming at how seemingly one-sided the posts are, so I’ve decided to try and shake things up a bit....                  

 

The Democrat Utopia

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19694/5-ways-socialism-itself-turned-venezuela-trash-michael-qazvini

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to have you join in the discussion!

 

Feel like I should clarify that since the election it seems the talking points are a bit more "one sided" as you say.  There are a bunch of folks with other views, but not many come to P&R as much right now.  

 

It's a great place to share ideas and opinions and I look forward to your additions.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Glad to have you join in the discussion!

 

Feel like I should clarify that since the election it seems the talking points are a bit more "one sided" as you say.  There are a bunch of folks with other views, but not many come to P&R as much right now.  

 

It's a great place to share ideas and opinions and I look forward to your additions.  

 

Thanks! Yeah, politics seem more polorized than I can ever remember.

 

I think right-leaning people and conservatives feel like they can’t voice their opinions for fear of their character being called into question. You know, the whole sexist, racist, bigot, homophobe garbage they’re accused of.

 

I’m hoping my posts make them feel more comfortable to voice they’re opionions and open up the discussion. 

 

I hate all the character assassination in politics now. I believe both sides want essentially the same thing, they just believe in different ways of accomplishing their goals.

Edited by GBR0988
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

So GBR - is your point of this article to somehow tie the "socialistic" outcomes in Venezuela to the US in a "what if" scenario?

 

Honestly, it’s more just something I think a lot of the Bernie Bros should read up on. They always seem to point to the more free-market, but still high income-taxed, Scandinavian countries as to what they want. They don’t seem to take into consideration the lower corporate taxes and smaller/more homogeneous population of those countries. Also don’t take into account the low military budget of those countries thanks to the ol’ US of A.

Edited by GBR0988

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GBR0988 said:

Also seems like the Democratic Party is unapologetically moving farther and farther left.

And some of us want them to move much farther left than the tiny bit they have. Both parties have been moving farther and farther right since the 1970's.

 

And why should they apologize for moving left (or right)?

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GBR0988 said:

I’m a long-time reader of the huskerboard forum, but never thought about signing up until I came across the ‘Politics and Religion’ section of the site. I find it both surprising and alarming at how seemingly one-sided the posts are, so I’ve decided to try and shake things up a bit....                  

 

The Democrat Utopia

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19694/5-ways-socialism-itself-turned-venezuela-trash-michael-qazvini

 

I'd argue the issue with Venezuela isn't socialism (or capitalism) but authoritarianism - the same reason why the Soviets were awful. If you're going to criticize socialism as some sort of failed utopia, at least criticize democratic socialism, which is what most of Europe is.

 

Also, socialism doesn't have to be a state takeover of private enterprise, which is another problem with Venezuela.

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats are mostly irrelevant. They've stagnated and become an also-ran party.  Their ideas are old and their candidates are unappealing.  They continue to prop up uninspiring figures like Pelosi & Schumer.

 

Frankly, I can't stand either of the two political parties in America today.  But the Republicans are much better villains to talk about now.  As villains, the Democrats are pretty milquetoast.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'd argue the issue with Venezuela isn't socialism (or capitalism) but authoritarianism - the same reason why the Soviets were awful. If you're going to criticize socialism as some sort of failed utopia, at least criticize democratic socialism, which is what most of Europe is.

 

Also, socialism doesn't have to be a state takeover of private enterprise, which is another problem with Venezuela.

 

According to Webster:

 

Definition of socialism

1:any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 
2a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Edited by GBR0988
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The Democrats are mostly irrelevant. They've stagnated and become an also-ran party.  Their ideas are old and their candidates are unappealing.  They continue to prop up uninspiring figures like Pelosi & Schumer.

 

Frankly, I can't stand either of the two political parties in America today.  But the Republicans are much better villains to talk about now.  As villains, the Democrats are pretty milquetoast.

 

I can agree with most of this. Both the parties seem to just want power. That’s why I look more at ideas. I believe in freedom and I believe that freedom breeds inequality. It’s sad, but true.

 

The Democratic Party is constantly talking about equality of outcome and that bigger government is how to achieve equality. That is one of the reasons I lean more towards conservatism.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GBR0988 said:

The Democratic Party is constantly talking about equality of outcome and that bigger government is how to achieve equality.

 

Those are Republican talking points used in describing the Democrat party.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

 

Those are Republican talking points used in describing the Democrat party.

 

No, they’re true. Did you watch any of the debates this past election? The Democratic Party is all about higher taxes and redistributionism. That’s the foundation of everything Bernie Sanders believes.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GBR0988 said:

 

No, they’re true. Did you watch any of the debates this past election? The Democratic Party is all about higher taxes and redistributionism. That’s the foundation of everything Bernie Sanders believes.

Obama and the Dem controlled Congress made the George W Bush tax cuts permanent, so they can't be all about higher taxes.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I don’t see any self-proclaimed socialists running on a Republican ticket.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GBR0988 said:

 

According to Webster:

 

Definition of socialism

1:any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 
2a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

According the Oxford English dictionary:

Quote

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Edited by RedDenver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Obama and the Dem controlled Congress made the George W Bush tax cuts permanent, so they can't be all about higher taxes.

 

Both parties were playing between the 40 yard lines, until this past race. The Democratic Party is being swooned by Bernie.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this thread is going to be Fox News/Brietbart talking points about Democrats.  Cool.

 

I'll probably spend more time in the Republican Utopia thread, posting actual things that actual Conservatives have said and done, with little or no resistance from other actual Conservatives.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GBR0988 said:

 

Okay, if we use that definition, that’s not freedom. You don’t own your own production or possessions, the community does. I prefer freedom and private property.

You don't own your production either - it's owned by a corporation. And you're ignoring a very important part of that definition: "owned or regulated". In other words, socialism doesn't mean that the state (or community) has to take over private enterprise, which is what I said to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome GBR.  I, too, am a conservative who reads quite a bit on Huskerboard, but doesn't post much.  I've found that, in general, if  you post respectfully, people will do likewise and treat your posts with respect.  I have also found that if you come to the board more looking for a conversation, rather than an argument, you'll have a much better chance of educating people on your ideas, and will also learn from other peoples posts.  Just what I've noticed since joining Huskerboard; not in any way implying that you haven't done this with your first posts.

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You don't own your production either - it's owned by a corporation. And you're ignoring a very important part of that definition: "owned or regulated". In other words, socialism doesn't mean that the state (or community) has to take over private enterprise, which is what I said to start with.

 

When you get a job, you enter into a mutual contract with your employer. They don’t own your production. You do a job for an agreed upon amount, and can quit whenever you want. “Owned or regulated,” both sound like an infringement of freedom to me as long as you’re not directly hurting another person.

Edited by GBR0988
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GBR0988 said:

 

When you get a job, you enter into a mutual contract with your employer. They don’t own your production. You do a job for an agreed upon amount, and can quit whenever you want. “Owned or regulated,” both sound like an infringement of freedom to me as long as you’re not directly hurting another person.

Try making/inventing something for the company you work for and then tell me who owns the fruit of your labor. The company will own what you produce (your production).

 

Just because it "sounds like an infringement of freedom" doesn't make it true. Regulating something may actually give you more or less freedom. Like a regulation that doesn't allow a company to kill you by dumping toxic chemicals into the water you drink is more freedom for you and less freedom for the company. Or a regulation that prevents a bank from ripping you off is more freedom for you and less freedom for the bank.

 

Regardless, my point is that socialism isn't necessarily the state taking over private enterprise.

Edited by RedDenver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The Democrats are mostly irrelevant. They've stagnated and become an also-ran party.  Their ideas are old and their candidates are unappealing.  They continue to prop up uninspiring figures like Pelosi & Schumer.

 

Frankly, I can't stand either of the two political parties in America today.  But the Republicans are much better villains to talk about now.  As villains, the Democrats are pretty milquetoast.

 

How would you feel about a Biden/young Dem ticket for 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

How would you feel about a Biden/young Dem ticket for 2020?

 

Ambivalent. Biden is just meh. I'm Team McMullin 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

How would you feel about a Biden/young Dem ticket for 2020?

Slightly better than Hillary but still disappointed. Biden is really similar to Obama and Hillary policy-wise, and I think we need a bigger change than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

 

Ambivalent. Biden is just meh. I'm Team McMullin 2020.

Is McMullin that much different policy-wise from the rest of the Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ask because it seems to me he continues to send signals he's thinking of running.

 

I'd welcome both him with a younger Dem as a VP or just a good old fashion primary sans Joe with no favorites. I think I'd prefer the latter just because whoever it is will come with new ideas and without baggage. 

 

Diamond Joe is certainly a throwback to Blue Dog Dems. I think he believes in appealing to the center and would lean heavily into that working class that Clinton struggled to connect with that propelled Trump to victory.

 

Basically he's kind of Trump in terms of appeal if he didn't suck as much and was more competent. Appeals to a lot of the same groups & has some of Trumps foot-in-mouth disease, albeit nowhere near as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoogs said:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Evan_McMullin.htm

 

No, but he plays a good #NeverTrumper on Twitter.

 

That doesn't really do him credit, I guess. He's a fantastic and uncompromising anti-Trump voice on Twitter who genuinely takes the GOP to task where actual GOP politicians, even retiring ones, usually do not.

 

Agreed. McMullin is one of the very, very few conservative voices I legitimately admire. I think he'd make a fine president, even though I obviously wouldn't agree with him on fiscal policy. The guy earned his bonafides serving the country in the CIA, and it's worth noting Mormon conservatives are a very VERY different breed than the Trumpism that is currently coursing through the veins of the GOP. I think there's a fair chance he'd be far more moderate on social issues than what we're currently getting from the GOP.

 

He's one of the very few conservatives I could actually see myself enthusiastically supporting in a general. It would probably take the Dems taking a bad turn and nominating a Kanye or something, though.

Edited by dudeguyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm not saying I admire him. I'm saying he has a strong Twitter game.

 

I'd be strongly opposed to what seems like a significant chunk of the policy initiatives he's likely to champion, from defunding Planned Parenthood to dismantling Obamacare, to his position on Welfare, Medicaid, minimum wage, etc. McMullin has really stayed out of the substantive policy-staking spotlight, though, which is probably wise. On the other hand, he's not a raving lunatic with an autocratic bent, so there is that.

 

If he did win in 2020, I think I'd be fascinated to see some of the arguments championing aspects of his agenda.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

To be clear, I'm not saying I admire him. I'm saying he has a strong Twitter game.

 

I'd be strongly opposed to what seems like a significant chunk of the policy initiatives he's likely to champion, from defunding Planned Parenthood to dismantling Obamacare, to his position on Welfare, Medicaid, minimum wage, etc. McMullin has really stayed out of the substantive policy-staking spotlight, though, which is probably wise. On the other hand, he's not a raving lunatic with an autocratic bent, so there is that.

 

If he did win in 2020, I think I'd be fascinated to see some of the arguments championing aspects of his agenda.

 

That's the rub, isn't it? Maybe, assuming he does mount some type of campaign in 2020, his platform is really unpalatable and my interest dwindles immediately. I'd fight either of those proposals if he supported them.

 

Based on an NPR interview I just found, it seems he's working on something called the Centrism Project to encourage/support more centrist politicians to run for office. I'd think most liberals would prefer that to the current state of affairs, because them displacing Tea Partiers would still shift the Overton Window to the left.

 

Mostly, he just seems like a reasonable conservative that's more interested in changing politics for the better than pandering to the worst impulses of his base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GBR0988 said:

 

I can agree with most of this. Both the parties seem to just want power. That’s why I look more at ideas. I believe in freedom and I believe that freedom breeds inequality. It’s sad, but true.

 

The Democratic Party is constantly talking about equality of outcome and that bigger government is how to achieve equality. That is one of the reasons I lean more towards conservatism.

I don't ever hear them talking about equality of outcome and bigger government being the way.  I hear them talking about equality of people regardless of what they do, what they look like, what they believe etc because they are PEOPLE.  They are Americans.  I also hear them saying that we should help our fellow Americans who are suffering.  And that there are some core, common things that regardless of income everyone deserves, like health care, education, the ability to work and earn a livable wage to support your family and etc.

 

Freedom certainly breeds inequality, but don't you think there is a baseline?  That there will still be poor and rich regardless of if everyone can get treatment for their cancer?  That there will still be a difference between the minimum wage fast food chain worker and the career Wall Street type?  

Edited by NM11046
  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GBR,

 

I haven't posted in this yet because I’m on my phone and I wanted to take time with my response. 

 

I was a life long republican till a few years ago when the party left me to become a party of looniness. 

 

The reason why I personally post way more about trump and the republicans in here is because it totally disgusts me what they have become. 

 

Here is a prime example. 

 

Trump rants on and on about the fake media. In doing so, he supports Fox News that employs people like Hannity. 

 

Hannity’s disgusting reaction to the Moore accusations, caused companies like Keurig to pull their adds. 

 

Republican voters actially are going on the internet posting videos of them smashing their Keurig. 

 

Now, how in the hell can a party like that claim to have any form of moral superiority like they claim?  

 

Those same people (including Hannity) would jump all over this if this were a democrat being accused. 

 

I can not stand by and allow those actions of a party to be normalized. 

 

I really wish we were actually talking about  policies and what extent of socialism should be acceptable in America. But, instead, we are stuck discussing a completely inept and incompetent president. 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

GBR,

 

I haven't posted in this yet because I’m on my phone and I wanted to take time with my response. 

 

I was a life long republican till a few years ago when the party left me to become a party of looniness. 

 

The reason why I personally post way more about trump and the republicans in here is because it totally disgusts me what they have become. 

 

Here is a prime example. 

 

Trump rants on and on about the fake media. In doing so, he supports Fox News that employs people like Hannity. 

 

Hannity’s disgusting reaction to the Moore accusations, caused companies like Keurig to pull their adds. 

 

Republican voters actially are going on the internet posting videos of them smashing their Keurig. 

 

Now, how in the hell can a party like that claim to have any form of moral superiority like they claim?  

 

Those same people (including Hannity) would jump all over this if this were a democrat being accused. 

 

I can not stand by and allow those actions of a party to be normalized. 

 

I really wish we were actually talking about  policies and what extent of socialism should be acceptable in America. But, instead, we are stuck discussing a completely inept and incompetent president. 

GBR, I've kind of followed the same path as GBR.   I'm more of a old time Reagan conservative.  I don't recognize the republican party anymore - probably in the same way Reagan no longer recognized the Dem party from which he came.  They have become spineless and have no conservative credibility  left - just look at the current budget.  I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss the repubs but it has become painfully obvious that the party is sick.  The party is sick when it is led by a narcistic guy like Trump and the 'leaders' look the other way. As GBR mentions, instead of rising up to a higher standard, supporters of the party are defending the 'undefendable'.   Whether it be Judge Moore, Trump's tweets, or careless policies.   The Dems are basically MEH to me however, If the repub party can get this far off track, I am more than willing to at least listen, learn and consider the policy discussion of the other party.  I've come to realize that the Repub party is NOT the Way, The Truth, or the Life - only one Person is.   Therefore it is good to keep ears open.

As Knapp noted, I too like how McMullen is honestly speaking candidly   of Trump and the party.   Time for the party to get away from talking points and start having an honest discussion.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

GBR,

 

I haven't posted in this yet because I’m on my phone and I wanted to take time with my response. 

 

I was a life long republican till a few years ago when the party left me to become a party of looniness. 

 

The reason why I personally post way more about trump and the republicans in here is because it totally disgusts me what they have become. 

 

Here is a prime example. 

 

Trump rants on and on about the fake media. In doing so, he supports Fox News that employs people like Hannity. 

 

Hannity’s disgusting reaction to the Moore accusations, caused companies like Keurig to pull their adds. 

 

Republican voters actially are going on the internet posting videos of them smashing their Keurig. 

 

Now, how in the hell can a party like that claim to have any form of moral superiority like they claim?  

 

Those same people (including Hannity) would jump all over this if this were a democrat being accused. 

 

I can not stand by and allow those actions of a party to be normalized. 

 

I really wish we were actually talking about  policies and what extent of socialism should be acceptable in America. But, instead, we are stuck discussing a completely inept and incompetent president. 

 

And he did when Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick et al. brought up their sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton.  And of course, most of those now attacking Roy Moore defended Bill Clinton to the max.  The hypocrisy is the same on both sides, people have just switched arguments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

 

And he did when Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick et al. brought up their sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton.  And of course, most of those now attacking Roy Moore defended Bill Clinton to the max.  The hypocrisy is the same on both sides, people have just switched arguments.  

I can see what you are getting at.  But people were defending Hillary, not Bill.  I've yet to come across an article about how awful Moore's wife must be since she hasn't filed for divorce after these allegations came out.

Edited by funhusker
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

 

And he did when Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick et al. brought up their sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton.  And of course, most of those now attacking Roy Moore defended Bill Clinton to the max.  The hypocrisy is the same on both sides, people have just switched arguments.  

This is pure whataboutism. What Hannity and others are doing is wrong, regardless of what others would or have done.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the hypocrisy is on both sides. In fact, I've seen quite a bit of "we need a full reckoning with the Bill Clinton allegations" in the wake of the Weinstein story. Weinstein was fiercely repudiated. Anthony Weiner was fiercely repudiated. It takes a willful blindness to chalk this all up to "both sides". 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

This is pure whataboutism. What Hannity and others are doing is wrong, regardless of what others would or have done.

Not my intent to be whataboutism.  I wasn't trying to defend Hannity's actions now, I was trying to point out that he's as sleezy now as the Clinton supporters were then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I can see what you are getting at.  But people were defending Hillary, not Bill.  I've yet to come across an article about how awful Moore's wife must be since she hasn't filed for divorce after these allegations came out.

I was talking about when these allegations came out during Bill Clinton's Presidency and James Carville going on talk show's totally trashing his accusers saying  things like "you never know what you'll get when you wave a $50 bill around a trailer court."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

I was talking about when these allegations came out during Bill Clinton's Presidency and James Carville going on talk show's totally trashing his accusers saying  things like "you never know what you'll get when you wave a $50 bill around a trailer court."

That's why no one should ever care what Carville has to say.

 

EDIT: But Hannity has a show on a major network right now, so talking about Carville right now doesn't make sense.

Edited by RedDenver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

I was talking about when these allegations came out during Bill Clinton's Presidency and James Carville going on talk show's totally trashing his accusers saying  things like "you never know what you'll get when you wave a $50 bill around a trailer court."

Sorry, I didn't realize Sean Hannity took a strong position on Bill Clinton in the late 90's when his audience was 50,000 people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Sorry, I didn't realize Sean Hannity took a strong position on Bill Clinton in the late 90's when his audience was 50,000 people...

I'm not sure your reply makes any sense in the context of my quote.  I am not defending Sean Hannity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dbqgolfer said:

I'm not sure your reply makes any sense in the context of my quote.  I am not defending Sean Hannity

Then what are you doing?  BRB brought of Hannity in the context of he would be all over democrats, and you specifically said he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×