-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:46:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 523080 times)
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #375 on: November 12, 2015, 12:21:14 PM »

It's not the government's job to take care of anyone.  Only because they can't.  Neither one of those statements are opinion.  It's reality.  And it's being proven.

For example.. if I save someone's life, by pushing them out of the way of a moving car -- but I get injured as a result, am I owed something?  Was that why I did it?  I did it out of duty -- I acted without thinking, most likely... not an expectation of reward.

Food for thought.
I guess the government's job is whatever we define it to be. My definition differs from yours.

While true, I would NOT give government a "job" they cannot do.  Not one as important as caring for our Vets.
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #376 on: November 12, 2015, 07:05:26 PM »

Great debate Tuesday night.  Bad day for the opposition, cuz we actually got to learn about Republican Candidates -- rather than the Mediacrat opinion of Republican Candidates.

To not have to sit through a liberal-media gang-bang (with Democrats pretending to be moderators) was a refreshing change for the adults.  Adults discussing big, grown-up issues and solutions -- rather than the tween'er tabloid, BS-playdough the Left doodles around with.  Put the kids to bed, fix a drink(s) and be an adult for a bit.  If only for a bit...
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #377 on: November 12, 2015, 07:31:46 PM »

Ted Cruz



The very mention of Lincoln's name -- sorry, Cruz's name -- causes the owning-class to shriek in terror.  Ted Cruz has been a tough candidate, and his stock is only rising.  The Republican Party just can't get rid of him.  And the Left... well, they're hoping to hell they don't have to.  They're hoping Jeb's Republicans can keep him sidelined just a little longer.

Like me (I'm only guessing, never met him) but Ted loves to be hated.  Well, by that I mean it's vindication that he's on the right track.  Like the old adage -- I want to be judged by who my enemies are.  You know... there's very little guidance in this world... 'cept from your enemies.

Anyway... Ted Cruz continues to have a lot of big debate moments.  Tee-hee.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 07:40:09 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #378 on: November 13, 2015, 07:17:45 AM »

Where do you think Cruz will end up?

Do you think he would be a VP candidate or post-election (I am getting ahead of myself) maybe a cabinet post?

Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #379 on: November 14, 2015, 09:06:15 AM »

Ted Cruz



The very mention of Lincoln's name -- sorry, Cruz's name -- causes the owning-class to shriek in terror.  Ted Cruz has been a tough candidate, and his stock is only rising.  The Republican Party just can't get rid of him.  And the Left... well, they're hoping to hell they don't have to.  They're hoping Jeb's Republicans can keep him sidelined just a little longer.

Like me (I'm only guessing, never met him) but Ted loves to be hated.  Well, by that I mean it's vindication that he's on the right track.  Like the old adage -- I want to be judged by who my enemies are.  You know... there's very little guidance in this world... 'cept from your enemies.

Anyway... Ted Cruz continues to have a lot of big debate moments.  Tee-hee.



Dear God, please let Ted Cruz be the Republican nominee!

Where do you think Cruz will end up?

Do you think he would be a VP candidate or post-election (I am getting ahead of myself) maybe a cabinet post?



He would never take a cabinet post after now being a Senator. His next job will either be President (*shudder*) or, if he decides to vacate his Senate seat, professional political asshole who writes books where he stands in front of the American flag with his arms crossed and a stern look on his face (a job also shared by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ann Coulter, etc). He would never accept even such a prestigious position as Secretary of State. Mark my words.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #380 on: November 14, 2015, 09:35:03 AM »

sweetdudejim - our last two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry were both failed presidential candidates.  It is "where they go." It is a high profile and powerful position as you are supposed to be the "eyes and ears" of the President, in a way.  He could get any number of cabinet posts. There is still nearly a year to go.

If he loses, the party will still need to throw him a bone. If you do the job, well, the high profile status keeps you in the loop as a future candidate. He is young. He has time to "mark time" until is his "turn."

     
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #381 on: November 14, 2015, 10:02:59 AM »

filledelplage - one thing that may well complicate things in this case, however, is that Sen. Cruz has made a career of making enemies within as well as outside of his party. It seems he's only slightly more palatable to the party's leadership than Trump or Carson, which to me implies that his prospects would be dimmer than the typical ex-candidate's. A Sen.-to-Sec. Clinton or Kerry fall well within the establishment they shared with their president. A Sen.-to-Sec. Cruz likely would fall outside of that (all of this, of course, assuming an establishment candidate were to end up getting the nomination and the presidency).

Sen. Cruz getting a cabinet position under an establishment candidate is pretty unlikely. I think he'd balk at a position, and I think those in position to offer it would balk at him.

There is of course the possibility that his kind of Republican becomes increasingly mainstream for that party. (I think if that would happen, it would just turn into the same kind of mainstream that happens every time a party has its little revolution, though. It's inevitable: you can't remain a rebel when you're the institution.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #382 on: November 14, 2015, 10:23:02 AM »

filledelplage - one thing that may well complicate things in this case, however, is that Sen. Cruz has made a career of making enemies within as well as outside of his party. It seems he's only slightly more palatable to the party's leadership than Trump or Carson, which to me implies that his prospects would be dimmer than the typical ex-candidate's. A Sen.-to-Sec. Clinton or Kerry fall well within the establishment they shared with their president. A Sen.-to-Sec. Cruz likely would fall outside of that (all of this, of course, assuming an establishment candidate were to end up getting the nomination and the presidency).

Sen. Cruz getting a cabinet position under an establishment candidate is pretty unlikely. I think he'd balk at a position, and I think those in position to offer it would balk at him.

There is of course the possibility that his kind of Republican becomes increasingly mainstream for that party. (I think if that would happen, it would just turn into the same kind of mainstream that happens every time a party has its little revolution, though. It's inevitable: you can't remain a rebel when you're the institution.)
Yes, Captain - you are correct about a lot of this.  Those are very good points you've raised.  But, this is not a "conventional" election season.  What is "outside" the norm, if it brings in a new "constituency" - in making enemies, pushes the party boundaries.  I am less familiar with Cruz than those who have come "from nowhere."  Sometimes those who are not "party liners" still become a force to be reckoned with. 

Yes, it is relative and as you say maybe more "palatable"  to the leadership, than a Trump, Carson or even, Florina. But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options.  And there are a lot of Republicans from whom to choose.   It is still pretty much wide open.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #383 on: November 14, 2015, 10:25:04 AM »

I find it interesting that the two leading Republican are the ones with the least amount of experience.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #384 on: November 14, 2015, 10:30:12 AM »

sweetdudejim - our last two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry were both failed presidential candidates.  It is "where they go." It is a high profile and powerful position as you are supposed to be the "eyes and ears" of the President, in a way.  He could get any number of cabinet posts. There is still nearly a year to go.

If he loses, the party will still need to throw him a bone. If you do the job, well, the high profile status keeps you in the loop as a future candidate. He is young. He has time to "mark time" until is his "turn."

     
I think what he does depends on how quickly he wants lots of money. If he wants it now - Fox News and Best-sellers. If he can wait - then a cabinet post will earn him more potential future money and more potential cred for a future run, of course dependent on outcome.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #385 on: November 14, 2015, 10:36:46 AM »


A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options. 

It's strange. What you say may be true. But I'd say a lot more Democrats (and I say this from polls and opinion pieces from mainstream publications and anecdotal interactions online and in person with lots of Democrats who are not as left as I) have felt that Obama has been too conservative on fiscal and non-social domestic policy. Out of the gate, with the corporate bail-outs, he's been disappointingly Wall Streety for a lot of Democrats.
Simultaneously, throughout his presidency, Republicans have spoken of him as extremely left/socialist. It's a strange dual-perception.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #386 on: November 14, 2015, 10:39:42 AM »

But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #387 on: November 14, 2015, 10:42:10 AM »


A lot of Democrats are sick of the borderline socialist agenda of the party and are looking for options. 

It's strange. What you say may be true. But I'd say a lot more Democrats (and I say this from polls and opinion pieces from mainstream publications and anecdotal interactions online and in person with lots of Democrats who are not as left as I) have felt that Obama has been too conservative on fiscal and non-social domestic policy. Out of the gate, with the corporate bail-outs, he's been disappointingly Wall Streety for a lot of Democrats.
Simultaneously, throughout his presidency, Republicans have spoken of him as extremely left/socialist. It's a strange dual-perception.


Agreed: everyone I know who self-describes as liberal believes the Democratic party--president included--is centrist or center-right, and that the Republican party is fringe right, with its Tea Party types being batshit crazy right. And those who consider themselves conservative tend to believe the Republicans are centrist, with Democrats being very liberal, with the Sanderses or Warrens being full-on socialists. Dual perception indeed.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #388 on: November 14, 2015, 11:01:58 AM »

But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.
Sanders is a wild card for the Dems. And, he just picked up an endorsement from the Postal Workers' Union.  Depending on how the "kingmakers" in the party want this to go down, he could be the VP nominee, if he keeps bringing in endorsements that translate to poll workers, money and media.  Second is the FBI investigation of Clinton. 

It is certainly interesting. People are so sick of the establishment candidates who feel they are "promoted and groomed from within" and, even if they don't have political experience, have other kinds of experience or maybe a skill set that we might need more than a career politician.

And Emily's point of the bail out...like the cash-for-clunkers program, who did that help?  Did it help the car makers more than the drivers? 

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #389 on: November 14, 2015, 11:17:12 AM »

But the party never wants to disenfranchise the "new constituency"  that a candidate might bring along with him or her.  Those are still votes, and funding sources, from the political candidate fundraising, post-election, or post-primary loss or dropping out of the race altogether, that the party will want to maintain as a block, and divert to another Republican candidate and not the Dems. They want their workers and they want their voting block to remain solid and undiluted.  It means pay-back to the candidate, even if they have to "hold their noses" to do it.

I don't fully disagree, except on the actual point of argument, that Sen. Cruz would be that person. Again, all just assuming that we're talking about an establishment candidate who wins (so Gov. Bush or Sen. Rubio being the most realistic in that camp), that candidate would absolutely try to feign whatever the grass roots is pushing, try to incorporate factions. But that president would also need to be wary of a self-serving cabinet member who doesn't really serve the president, but himself. That's the senator's reputation to date. It's hard to imagine him deferring to the president, to the establishment, to serve in such a cabinet. My guess would be that were an establishment Republican to win, s/he'd use language familiar to fans of Trump or Cruz, and to name some cabinet members who can be identified as similar, but that's about it.

Your comment about Democrats is correct, but actually so is the exact opposite, hence the popularity of Sen. Sanders. And honestly the Democrats wouldn't behave any differently than the Republicans if they win the presidency. A President Clinton would not appoint Sen. Sanders to the cabinet. She's do what she's doing now, which is pretending to be far-left, pretending to be populist. But she wouldn't actually appoint him, or Sen. Warren, or anyone further left than them. Because major parties just don't do that.
Sanders is a wild card for the Dems. And, he just picked up an endorsement from the Postal Workers' Union.  Depending on how the "kingmakers" in the party want this to go down, he could be the VP nominee, if he keeps bringing in endorsements that translate to poll workers, money and media.  Second is the FBI investigation of Clinton. 

It is certainly interesting. People are so sick of the establishment candidates who feel they are "promoted and groomed from within" and, even if they don't have political experience, have other kinds of experience or maybe a skill set that we might need more than a career politician.

And Emily's point of the bail out...like the cash-for-clunkers program, who did that help?  Did it help the car makers more than the drivers? 

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   
You see, from my, and a lot of Democrats perspective, it would've been better to send those funds to the demand side, not the supply side. Suggestions ranged from using the funds for public works projects with a focus on projects that bring income to lesser skilled workers, to workers in industries that were in a particular slump, and to smaller businesses around the country rather than to a few giant corporations (infrastructure repair, which we need anyway, was the most popular suggestion and would've fit the bill on all three counts);to providing better and longer unemployment compensation for those who lost work during the 2008 debacle; to extensive assistance to those facing foreclosure. Instead, the funds went directly to the supply side - the big corporations and banks. Had the funds gone to the demand side, it would've filtered to supply as it was spent on goods and services that are desired by demand (the way the economy is supposed to work). As it was, it was an unearned (even negatively earned) give away to Wall Street.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #390 on: November 14, 2015, 11:19:56 AM »

filledeplage, I guess I put less faith than you in the parties doing much beyond lip service based on "what the people want." I think the people are at best a peripheral concern to the two parties.

I'd bet you neither Sanders nor Cruz will be a VP or cabinet member. Let's talk in a year!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #391 on: November 14, 2015, 11:26:21 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #392 on: November 14, 2015, 11:31:11 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #393 on: November 14, 2015, 11:34:41 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink



I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #394 on: November 14, 2015, 11:41:20 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink


all of these are the same or subsets of the same. And, yes, not really to do with socialism.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #395 on: November 14, 2015, 11:47:34 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?   

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #396 on: November 14, 2015, 11:48:58 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink
all of these are the same or subsets of the same. And, yes, not really to do with socialism.
Socialism is both political and economic.

Purple is my favorite color!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 11:49:51 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #397 on: November 14, 2015, 11:53:12 AM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

No, it's not that difficult -- you defined it pretty well above and it is a pretty definitive definition. Not sure what you mean about it not having a single definition.

Quote
Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

Wealth redistribution is not socialism neither by your definition nor any official definition of the term. If that were the definition then just about every leader in first world countries since the industrial revolution has been a raging socialist.

Like you say, socialism is about the common ownership of means of production. Moving wealth around has nothing to do with ownership.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 12:03:57 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #398 on: November 14, 2015, 11:54:04 AM »


Socialism is both political and economic.



Politics and economics are essentially interchangeable words. Why are you separating them here and what do you mean by this?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #399 on: November 14, 2015, 12:17:42 PM »

Does he look like a socialist whose platforms help Wall St. more than Main St.?  

I'm not sure I understand. If he helps Wall St. then he wouldn't look like a socialist.
To the environmentalists - he is a savior, getting the inefficient cars off the road.

To the people - he is a great guy because they wanted a new car anyway.

To the car makers and those who hold stock (Wall St.) in those companies, he is lining their pockets.

Party on the taxpayers. Wink


I'm still confused. What does this have to do with socialism?
Socialism is both a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement.

And, there can be any number of varieties of socialism and no single definition.  Hard to define but you usually know it when you see it.

Looking back at the beginning of his administration and cash-for-clunkers, this "giveaway" at taxpayers expense was the first swing at "wealth redistribution" I think.  

It gave carmakers a bailout and car owners an incentive to dump what they were driving.  That's the way I see it.

I guess the problem with this definition in this instance, unlike when it was originally used for p**n, is that there will be a really wide variation on people's opinion on whether they are seeing it.
If the above example is socialism then, everything and anything done by the government is socialism. So, then, unless one is an anarchist, one is a socialist,
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 12:18:35 PM by Emily » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.646 seconds with 22 queries.