The left has embraced fascism in its purest form

[Laslow]

I don't care about the parties. Right now, they're far more of an impediment than a positive. Tribalism is killing us.

Yes, we need to secure the border. The Dems are responsible for any uptick in problems there because of their longtime rhetoric.

I talk about markets and the economy regularly. It has been my profession for over 22 years. If my conversation on economics and markets has decreased, it's only because I'm sick of trying to discuss them with people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about, and are just repeating talking points out of arrogant ignorance.

I know you scoff at the idea of limited government. To be fair, I don't think anyone is calling to abolish the FDA. I think you can limit the government a great deal without sacrificing crucial regulation. Imagine going before a group of middle class people in Indiana, mechanics, construction workers, nurses, ect, and trying in layman's terms to explain to them why the government should have more of their wages, while half the country pays no income tax. Imagine these people are not looking for a fight and will listen. Why should they give up their choices and be forced into government programs like universal healthcare? Why should they pay for other people's education, healthcare, food, and whatever else the government can dream up to take from them? Caring for the disabled is a given, by why should the government take their money and give it to other able bodied people in a national system that is guaranteed to be wasteful, a quasi one size fits all, and limits options and choice?

 

[Mac1958]

I know you scoff at the idea of limited government. To be fair, I don't think anyone is calling to abolish the FDA. I think you can limit the government a great deal without sacrificing crucial regulation. Imagine going before a group of middle class people in Indiana, mechanics, construction workers, nurses, ect, and trying in layman's terms to explain to them why the government should have more of their wages, while half the country pays no income tax. Imagine these people are not looking for a fight and will listen. Why should they give up their choices and be forced into government programs like universal healthcare? Why should they pay for other people's education, healthcare, food, and whatever else the government can dream up to take from them? Caring for the disabled is a given, by why should the government take their money and give it to other able bodied people in a national system that is guaranteed to be wasteful, a quasi one size fits all, and limits options and choice?

But I don't scoff at the idea of limited government. What I scoff at -- mostly out of pure frustration -- is binary, all or nothing thinking. From either end.

Instead of screaming and poo-throwing, both ends need to understand that a smart goal would be to communicate, collaborate, and find points on the spectrum at which (a) we have a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, and (b) we are not maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential. Exactly where is that point? I don't know. I'd like us to work together and figure it out.

The only way we find that point on the spectrum is if we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[task0778]

The only way we find that point on the spectrum is if we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking. I'm not holding my breath.

Me neither. Government these days has become so divided and hostile that it's hard to visualize much in the way of positive outcomes. How can we expect better when they pass a bipartisan $1.7 trillion Omnibus bill with all kinds of pork crap in it that nobody had the time to go through it 1st? Note that this was not solely on the democrats, they had help from the GOP. I don't worry about creating a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, frankly I don't believe that should be a function of the federal gov't in the 1st place. And we are IMHO maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential.

I fear that the point on the spectrum where we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking will not be reached until after disaster befalls us. As it is now, the government typically waits until the very last minute to do anything and usually it is fiscally irresponsible spending where both sides get something and the debt/deficits grow. We reach the precipice and do something to avoid disaster. One wonders if sooner or later the precipice is reached and nothing gets done. No doubt much screaming and finger-pointing will occur as we fall, but even then political calculations will rule the day rather that critical thinking about what is best for the country. I'm not sure any more whether that day will ever come.

 

[Laslow]

But I don't scoff at the idea of limited government. What I scoff at -- mostly out of pure frustration -- is binary, all or nothing thinking. From either end.

Instead of screaming and poo-throwing, both ends need to understand that a smart goal would be to communicate, collaborate, and find points on the spectrum at which (a) we have a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, and (b) we are not maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential. Exactly where is that point? I don't know. I'd like us to work together and figure it out.

The only way we find that point on the spectrum is if we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking. I'm not holding my breath.

Wow, you might turn out to be a conservative after all. It is too bad Republicans are not conservatives and that conservatism has no shot at getting elected. It is still puzzling why you side with the guys who tell people in Iowa who saved their butts off to get their kids in college why they need to pay for everyone else's kids too. I know you don't claim to know the answers, but approximately, what do you consider a fair and sufficient safety net, and how much would you have working people sacrifice to achieve it? The biggest problems I see are 4 fold. Inefficiency, especially with such a large country, would be a problem. There would be large amounts of waste and extra levels of middle managers. The second problem would be the cookie cutter, one size fits all problem. An example would be having men required to get coverage for prenatal care. The third problem would be elimination of choice and competition. I think it would be accurate to say when competition is eliminated, service becomes demonstrably worse. The final, and biggest problem I can see is limiting human potential. The more other people provide, the less incentive there is to make good choices. It would indirectly reward inactivity while punishing hard work. I'm not sure you can blame the people in the Midwest for wanting the government to leave them alone.

 

[Dragonlady]

Immigration - while employers should be punished for hiring them,there is no excuse for allowing blanket asylum. The system is obviously broken.

Economics- I'm curious to hear how the policies you vote for are supposed to work. The endgame in laymen's terms. It seems having 50% of people paying no income taxes while the other 50% is being asked to pay more and more is problematic. Are your favorite government programs worth the government expansion? It appears to punish success and enable poor choices. The more government grows, the less working people will have, and what is left of the middle class gets punished more. The politicians are rich while those they rule are powerless.

Immigration: Not only did you miss the target, you failed to hit the tree. You didn't even address the issue of immigration.

You have no immigration system. Donald Trump dismanlted all of it. Cut the staffing at embassies around the world so there is nowhere to apply for a visa, or to do the paperwork overseas. He fired the staff in Washington, and closed the intake facilities at the Southern Border and set up prison camps instead.

You have over 11 million jobs that can't be filled. The US Chamber of Commerce has begged the government to fix the immigration system so they can bring in visa workers to fill these jobs. Your food prices are rising because there are no immigrants to pick and process the produce,.

The population is both aging, and shrinking in size. There aren't enough people being born to replace your population. At this point, Republicans won't do anything because they get mileage and lots of votes out of the issue by doing nothing and falsely blaming Democrats for "open borders" which really does not exist.

 

[Dragonlady]

Me neither. Government these days has become so divided and hostile that it's hard to visualize much in the way of positive outcomes. How can we expect better when they pass a bipartisan $1.7 trillion Omnibus bill with all kinds of pork crap in it that nobody had the time to go through it 1st? Note that this was not solely on the democrats, they had help from the GOP. I don't worry about creating a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, frankly I don't believe that should be a function of the federal gov't in the 1st place. And we are IMHO maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential.

I fear that the point on the spectrum where we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking will not be reached until after disaster befalls us. As it is now, the government typically waits until the very last minute to do anything and usually it is fiscally irresponsible spending where both sides get something and the debt/deficits grow. We reach the precipice and do something to avoid disaster. One wonders if sooner or later the precipice is reached and nothing gets done. No doubt much screaming and finger-pointing will occur as we fall, but even then political calculations will rule the day rather that critical thinking about what is best for the country. I'm not sure any more whether that day will ever come.

Government should be providing a stable economic platform upon which people and businesses can rely. The tax code should be balanced between workers, employers and government. Under the tax codes and economic policies started under Reagan, 80% of the wealth of the nation now is being transferred to the top 10%.

This level of inequity, is unsustainable and is pushing the USA towards a permanent 2nd tier economy. 60% of Americans are now one missed paycheck away from financial disaster. Making matters worse, student debt now averages $50,000 with poorest students carrying the highest debts levels. The corporate world has now found a way to shackle poor people trying to escape poverty through higher education, right back into poverty, when they graduate.

A healthy and thriving middle class is necessary for a successful capitalist economy. The American middle class was built by the union movement and The New Deal. Reagan ended both unions and The New Deal. The middle class is shrinking, with more people falling back into poverty than are rising into wealth.

The American PEOPLE need a better deal from their government - higher wages, better schools and infrastructure, and an end to subsidizing corporate wages with middle class tax dollars. No more earned ncome credits, food stamps, or Section 8 for low wage workers. You work 40 hours a week, you get a living wage - no government subsidies.

 

[Mac1958]

Me neither. Government these days has become so divided and hostile that it's hard to visualize much in the way of positive outcomes. How can we expect better when they pass a bipartisan $1.7 trillion Omnibus bill with all kinds of pork crap in it that nobody had the time to go through it 1st? Note that this was not solely on the democrats, they had help from the GOP. I don't worry about creating a safety net that is worthy of the most prosperous country on the planet, frankly I don't believe that should be a function of the federal gov't in the 1st place. And we are IMHO maintaining a government that is so large in cost and scope that it is placing too much drag on our dynamic economy and on human potential.

I fear that the point on the spectrum where we drop the ego, stop screaming and start thinking will not be reached until after disaster befalls us. As it is now, the government typically waits until the very last minute to do anything and usually it is fiscally irresponsible spending where both sides get something and the debt/deficits grow. We reach the precipice and do something to avoid disaster. One wonders if sooner or later the precipice is reached and nothing gets done. No doubt much screaming and finger-pointing will occur as we fall, but even then political calculations will rule the day rather that critical thinking about what is best for the country. I'm not sure any more whether that day will ever come.

Wow, you might turn out to be a conservative after all. It is too bad Republicans are not conservatives and that conservatism has no shot at getting elected. It is still puzzling why you side with the guys who tell people in Iowa who saved their butts off to get their kids in college why they need to pay for everyone else's kids too. I know you don't claim to know the answers, but approximately, what do you consider a fair and sufficient safety net, and how much would you have working people sacrifice to achieve it? The biggest problems I see are 4 fold. Inefficiency, especially with such a large country, would be a problem. There would be large amounts of waste and extra levels of middle managers. The second problem would be the cookie cutter, one size fits all problem. An example would be having men required to get coverage for prenatal care. The third problem would be elimination of choice and competition. I think it would be accurate to say when competition is eliminated, service becomes demonstrably worse. The final, and biggest problem I can see is limiting human potential. The more other people provide, the less incentive there is to make good choices. It would indirectly reward inactivity while punishing hard work. I'm not sure you can blame the people in the Midwest for wanting the government to leave them alone.

Two things:

First, I don't know if you can see my signature, but it says that I'm a one-issue voter now, period. The individual issues are secondary for now. The problems you bring up exist largely because our electoral "system" is set up to both incentivize and reward the very worst impulses and behaviors of its participants. We have to fix it, and the Forward Party is the only party who is serious about doing that. The two "major" parties are demonstrating zero interest in fixing it.

Second, I held my nose with both hands and voted for the Democratic Party presidential candidate in the last two elections for one (1) reason and one (1) reason only: I believe that this orange movement (whatever you'd call it) is a symbol of a sociological crisis (a topic for another thread). It cracks me up when I'm called a lefty here, because I'm not even all that political. This is sociological for me. The partisan bullshit is nothing more than wasteful noise to me.

 

[task0778]

I believe that this orange movement (whatever you'd call it) is a symbol of a sociological crisis

Not sure I understand what you meant by a 'sociological crisis'. But I would respectfully submit that the blue movement (whatever you call the Far Left) is a sociological crisis (my guess) in the making and no less damaging. Certainly the Far (religious) Right is just as damaging, but I don't see them as dangerous as the Left is when it comes to far-reaching permanent changes.

 

[Mac1958]

Not sure I understand what you meant by a 'sociological crisis'. But I would respectfully submit that the blue movement (whatever you call the Far Left) is a sociological crisis (my guess) in the making and no less damaging. Certainly the Far (religious) Right is just as damaging, but I don't see them as dangerous as the Left is when it comes to far-reaching permanent changes.

The Left has played a significant role in this as well.

And both ends ignore their role and point at the other.

 

[BS Filter]

Immigration: Not only did you miss the target, you failed to hit the tree. You didn't even address the issue of immigration.

You have no immigration system. Donald Trump dismanlted all of it. Cut the staffing at embassies around the world so there is nowhere to apply for a visa, or to do the paperwork overseas. He fired the staff in Washington, and closed the intake facilities at the Southern Border and set up prison camps instead.

You have over 11 million jobs that can't be filled. The US Chamber of Commerce has begged the government to fix the immigration system so they can bring in visa workers to fill these jobs. Your food prices are rising because there are no immigrants to pick and process the produce,.

The population is both aging, and shrinking in size. There aren't enough people being born to replace your population. At this point, Republicans won't do anything because they get mileage and lots of votes out of the issue by doing nothing and falsely blaming Democrats for "open borders" which really does not exist.

Yeah, the border is secure, huh. Fucking idiot.

 

[task0778]

The Left has played a significant role in this as well.

And both ends ignore their role and point at the other.

Agreed. But I am wondering about what sociological crisis leads you to vote democrat over republican. Obviously, neither party is a good choice, but many people believe the GOP is the worse choice and I want to understand why. What has Trump/GOP done in his 4 years that leads people to think the country will be worse off in the future? What sociological crisis(es) might that be?

I get that his personality and character are deplorable, but is that really a reason to vote for the other person? What is the other person going to do that leads anyone to believe his agenda is better than Trump's or the GOP's if someone else is their nominee? As a party, which is worse? I don't believe anything that the republicans could or would do in 2025 and beyond would be irreversible. Not so with the democrats, they would abolish the filibuster if they could and when that happens we could end up with a one-party gov't, and guess what? It might eventually be the Far Right in charge, think about what happens if and when the extremists at either end of the political spectrum can run the gov't with a 50+1 majority in both Houses of Congress. I can see the democrats as more likely to do that than the repubs are.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not sure I understand what you meant by a 'sociological crisis'. But I would respectfully submit that the blue movement (whatever you call the Far Left) is a sociological crisis (my guess) in the making and no less damaging. Certainly the Far (religious) Right is just as damaging, but I don't see them as dangerous as the Left is when it comes to far-reaching permanent changes.

The "blue movement" has policies, and agenda and programs to help the American people. Every time Republicans crash the US economy, the "blue movement" b

The MAGA movement has no policies, and no programs other than revenge politics.

Yeah, the border is secure, huh. Fucking idiot.

Ah yes, Trump's National Security Crisis at the Southern Border. Why didn't Trump fix that before he left officie? He made the mess down there and just left it for someone else to clean up. Like covid, Afghanistan, reduced gasoline production, race relations, and right wing terrorism.

 

[Dragonlady]

Agreed. But I am wondering about what sociological crisis leads you to vote democrat over republican. Obviously, neither party is a good choice, but many people believe the GOP is the worse choice and I want to understand why. What has Trump/GOP done in his 4 years that leads people to think the country will be worse off in the future? What sociological crisis(es) might that be?

I get that his personality and character are deplorable, but is that really a reason to vote for the other person? What is the other person going to do that leads anyone to believe his agenda is better than Trump's or the GOP's if someone else is their nominee? As a party, which is worse? I don't believe anything that the republicans could or would do in 2025 and beyond would be irreversible. Not so with the democrats, they would abolish the filibuster if they could and when that happens we could end up with a one-party gov't, and guess what? It might eventually be the Far Right in charge, think about what happens if and when the extremists at either end of the political spectrum can run the gov't with a 50+1 majority in both Houses of Congress. I can see the democrats as more likely to do that than the repubs are.

White nationalism, sexism, racism, and complete and utter fiscal incompetence.

 

[BS Filter]

The "blue movement" has policies, and agenda and programs to help the American people. Every time Republicans crash the US economy, the "blue movement" b

The MAGA movement has no policies, and no programs other than revenge politics.


Ah yes, Trump's National Security Crisis at the Southern Border. Why didn't Trump fix that before he left officie? He made the mess down there and just left it for someone else to clean up. Like covid, Afghanistan, reduced gasoline production, race relations, and right wing terrorism.

You're a sick liar.

 

[Mac1958]

Agreed. But I am wondering about what sociological crisis leads you to vote democrat over republican.

I didn't vote Democrat over Republican in reality. I had to vote against Trumpism (not the individual, the movement), and voting directly against it was/is the only option.

What I have been seeing over the last couple of decades in this country is a mad dash to lower standards and expectations at every opportunity. The Left has done it with the culture and with minorities, and now the Right is doing it with its political leaders. It began with Palin.

Look, you're being civil, and I very much appreciate that. I'm not trying to change your mind, but you've asked a reasonable question. So:

1. Trump, Boebert, MTG, Santos -- these people shouldn't be anywhere near the halls of legislative power. Yes, I have real problems with some Democrats, but this has gone too far. Just as the Left elevated people like Kim freaking Kardashian on the basis of NOTHING, these people have been elevated for the wrong reasons.

2. This right wing media-driven alternate universe has created this generation of mal-informed, paranoid, angry people who exist within their own separate information ecosystem. A country cannot survive like this, and our elected "leaders" have cravenly sold their soul to enable it.

3. Anything that makes people really, truly believe that Donald Trump is a brilliant, patriotic, honest Christian man is perverting minds. And again, I'm not talking about the individual, I'm talking about whatever the hell it is that has done this to so many people.

4. You may have been waiting for this, but this blatant love affair with White Christian Nationalists only confirms my concerns. Trump's supporters will deny it exists, and that only makes me more concerned because that only enables more of it. It's not being hidden very well.

If you asked me the same question tomorrow, I'd probably answer it in a different way. I'm still trying to get my head around this, but I know that I have to vote against it. I refuse to believe that we aren't better than this. We have to be better than this arrogant, ignorant, paranoia. The issues are secondary.

 

[P@triot]

Sad but predictable lie.

Exactly. You lied. I showed you how easy it is to type anything. You cannot support your position with facts, logic, and reason because you're wrong and you know you're wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Dude, fascism is all you have left.

Because fascism is what you people have fully embraced. Leaves us with nothing else to discuss but your commitment to that disturbing totalitarian ideology.

 

[P@triot]

The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They spend 24x7 using violence and trying to intimidate appointed (not elected) officials, to achieve their fucked-up political agenda.

Radical Activists Illegally Protest Outside Amy Coney Barrett's Home

Far-left activists protested once again outside the Virginia home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[P@triot]

Your definition of “freedom” is just the latest version of fascism.

And you've openly expressed your disgust for liberty, choosing instead to embrace true fascism in its purest form.

As an example is gay marriage allowed in your “freedom “?

Homosexuals can do whatever they want. Total freedom. But they don't get to force the church (or the government) to join them. And that's what you fascists hate. That you can't force everyone else to adopt your very disturbing ideology.

 

[P@triot]

Is the right of privacy allowed in your version of “freedom “?

Who eliminated privacy? Barack Obama and the Democrats. More unconstitutional surveillance against the American people (without a warrant) than any administration in US history.