Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Yeah, that sounds about right

Yeah, that sounds about right
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2013, 11:07 AM
 
Most youth unhappy with Obama's job performance: poll | Reuters

a plurality of respondents, 46 percent, said they would still vote for Obama for president if they could recast their 2012 ballots, compared with 35 percent who said they would vote for the then-Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.

Some 55 percent of the survey respondents who reported casting ballots in the 2012 presidential election said they had voted for Obama, compared with 33 percent for Romney.
It pretty much sums up my feelings. Obama's really sucked recently and yet, you can't convince me I'd be happier with Romney in the White House.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2013, 08:51 PM
 
The damage is done during his first term; the deceptions, blame-shifting, outright lies, further erosion of rights, same-old same-old with corporate lobbies and shills, culminated with gross incompetence, on a level that trumps even his predecessor (who was a buffoon of legendary proportions). The only thing he's better at is delivering sermons filled with emotion-stirring pontification, designed to dupe entire cross-sections of America into believing that he was working for their benefit, while all the while stuffing the pockets of cronies with no-bid contract money.

Likely most thought that he couldn't make it much worse, and on a personal level, Romney is about as likeable as ulcerative colitis, but they were wrong. He's the most prideful, stubborn, unabashedly arrogant, nation-divider that the office has ever endured. Bluntly said, he's a con-artist of the worst sort, in the guise of a savior, and the glamor he's cast over his intended marks won't be fully recognized by them until long after he's left office, and even then they'll probably deny seeing the worst of his misdeeds, because they won't want to admit how badly they were duped. History won't be kind to him, or Bush, and the country won't recover from what they've collectively done for generations (if ever).

You'll never know how much regret I feel over Hillary not winning that first primary, she and Bill could have really made a difference and healed wounds that BHO only infected and made far worse.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 01:53 AM
 
I still regret not voting for Hillary.

The only thing I take issue with in your statement is I think history will be much kinder to Bush.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 06:40 AM
 
Barry had the mainstream media on his side BIGTIME, and they covered for him, failed to cover his screw-ups, and downright lied right along with the Democrats. They are just as responsible for where we are today. Its a shame so many people are poor judges of character and are so easily fooled. His recent executive orders concerning ACA are unconstitutional and even if the house screams about it, the press will ignore it or make it into a joke. Nothing will get done until Harry Reid is gone and Eric (with)Holder is investigated. Corruption and fraud within the Gov't and the programs is it mis-administering is costing us billions to go along with the documented wasteful stupid spending the various agencies have done.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Most youth unhappy with Obama's job performance: poll | Reuters

It pretty much sums up my feelings. Obama's really sucked recently and yet, you can't convince me I'd be happier with Romney in the White House.
Having that (R) after your name is like wearing Tommy Hilfiger or using last year's smart phone.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I still regret not voting for Hillary.
Why? What would she have done differently than Obama? The way I see it, there is a political calculus at play that has drawn the entire party into its folly.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You'll never know how much regret I feel over Hillary not winning that first primary, she and Bill could have really made a difference and healed wounds that BHO only infected and made far worse.
Hillary's persona is so damn abrasive, though. But I suppose its less likely the Republicans would have been so determined and outspoken in "denying [her] a second term."

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Having that (R) after your name is like wearing Tommy Hilfiger or using last year's smart phone.
I hope you're joking because that is definitely not the problem.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...and yet, you can't convince me I'd be happier with Romney in the White House.
Don't validate the "two party system." When you set the bar for the incumbent as low as merely doing better than the other party, you're reinforcing the two-party system that has lead us to this era's terrible politicians. The question isn't whether you would be happier with the other party, it's whether you would be happier if you had voted for a third party, a vote of no-confidence in the current parties. Your vote wouldn't have changed the outcome of the electoral college, but it would have been a message to both parties that they need to work harder than they have been in order to earn your vote.

It doesn't even matter that the third party offerings have bigger flaws (they won't win either way). All that matters is breaking up the duopoly. This is true even when Ds or Rs field a "good" candidate, but it's especially true in times like now when neither is.

If you want your vote to count for something, vote for a third party. Always. Until the leading parties start hustling to earn their crown again. The reason they're both doing nothing but resting on their laurels is because we aren't making them work for it.

I'm very happy that I voted against both major parties in 2012.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Don't validate the "two party system." When you set the bar for the incumbent as low as merely doing better than the other party, you're reinforcing the two-party system that has lead us to this era's terrible politicians. The question isn't whether you would be happier with the other party, it's whether you would be happier if you had voted for a third party, a vote of no-confidence in the current parties. Your vote wouldn't have changed the outcome of the electoral college, but it would have been a message to both parties that they need to work harder than they have been in order to earn your vote.

It doesn't even matter that the third party offerings have bigger flaws (they won't win either way). All that matters is breaking up the duopoly. This is true even when Ds or Rs field a "good" candidate, but it's especially true in times like now when neither is.

If you want your vote to count for something, vote for a third party. Always. Until the leading parties start hustling to earn their crown again. The reason they're both doing nothing but resting on their laurels is because we aren't making them work for it.

I'm very happy that I voted against both major parties in 2012.
I'm not validating the two-party system, I'm validating the current voting system. Give me run-off and I'll vote my conscience every time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 10:34 AM
 
That's a shame.

He coulda had class. He coulda been a contender. He coulda been somebody, instead of a lame duck, which is what he is, let's face it.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not validating the two-party system, I'm validating the current voting system. Give me run-off and I'll vote my conscience every time.
Why wait? The current two-party deadlock also contributes to preventing any upgrade to the voting system (because it would require a constitutional amendment, which modern partisanism is in no small part responsible for making infeasible, don't you think?). Yet another reward for voting against the two-party stalemate.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 11:27 AM
 
It seems too many people are poor judges of people, and get easily fooled by liars and egotists. The press is 'supposed' to help us decide by finding the dirt on the candidates and reporting it honestly. They sold us a pile of BS. It really shouldn't be a popularity contest, but where ideas can be discussed and philosophies identified. I hate the liberals and the mainstream GOP turds and the lying, incompetent press. It seems we don't get smart, creative problem solvers who can tell us what they want to do in a clear, concise way.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2013, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why? What would she have done differently than Obama? The way I see it, there is a political calculus at play that has drawn the entire party into its folly.
I believe she would have worked harder to unite the two parties. Despite Bill's personal indiscretions, he did a good job of reaching across the aisle and compromising with Republicans, and his guidance would have been invaluable.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hillary's persona is so damn abrasive, though. But I suppose its less likely the Republicans would have been so determined and outspoken in "denying [her] a second term."
I don't think she's quite so vain and arrogant, and would have worked harder to get bipartisan support, rather than simply resorting to an end-around and pissing off all the Republicans and creating so many political enemies.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2013, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why? What would she have done differently than Obama? The way I see it, there is a political calculus at play that has drawn the entire party into its folly.
She voted against the FISA expansion, for one.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2013, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why? What would she have done differently than Obama? The way I see it, there is a political calculus at play that has drawn the entire party into its folly.
I think it's naive to think that there is any single politician that would make much of a difference at this point.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2013, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I still regret not voting for Hillary.

The only thing I take issue with in your statement is I think history will be much kinder to Bush.
I found my "Vote for Hillary" button the other day. I DID get to vote for Hillary here in Texas, as a registered independent. I didn't want that chance to get by me.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2013, 06:13 PM
 
Yeah. I admit, I got caught up in the hype.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 05:04 AM
 
I had an interesting conversation with a Lenin socialist friend of mine, also an academic... We got to talking about his viewpoints. I think there is something to learn from socialism and workers unions in context with this conversation.

I'm learning that there are different forms of socialism, and that it is easy to confuse Stalinism with Leninism, for example. I'm not advocating any particular brand of socialism, but I find the worker movements and revolutions interesting, and I think possibly applicable to us today. Specifically, the idea of workers unions controlling government is something that we may need to think about. Today's workers unions are often corrupt, there would be a number of problems with this if this were to happen today, but I think that if we really want to change this country having 30% of the population (or whatever the number is) involved in the political process is not going to cut it.

Our self-interests are very powerful forces. It is easy to criticize those that don't vote, but on one hand, why should they? Right now it doesn't really matter whether Republicans or Democrats are elected, it doesn't really impact Joe Sixpack significantly, if at all. I think the only way we are really going to change our politics is to make it matter for Joe Sixpack, and to me (non-corrupt) workers unions are probably the best form of representation that Joe Sixpack has. A number of these socialist movements involved strong, independent workers unions and empowering them.

How we can empower workers unions and even should we empower workers unions given their potential for corruption is something I haven't decided yet, but I can't shake the idea that our best hope for change comes in this form, rather than putting more rich/powerful upper class men and women in office, hoping that they will represent the middle and poor classes, and hoping that they won't prove to be corrupt by being unable to resist the temptations for building upon the power they already had prior to being elected.

You might argue that movements like trying to do away with SuperPACs and needing to have significant wealth/power to be elected is sort of a form of what I'm talking about here.

Also, we clearly do not like communism and the government having too much power, and rightfully so, but as corporations and government continue to morph into becoming precisely the same entity with the same interest and the same motivations, maybe we're sort of heading in that direction anyway, and maybe we just don't want to acknowledge this and address this in this way using this sort of language?

Just some random thoughts, don't jump on my balls, I'm just saying stuff and doing a lot of thinking out loud.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I believe she would have worked harder to unite the two parties. Despite Bill's personal indiscretions, he did a good job of reaching across the aisle and compromising with Republicans, and his guidance would have been invaluable.
I think between the two prospects; Hillary and Mitt, Mitt actually would have been the less polarizing figure and had a more established record of reaching across the aisle in Executive leadership as Governor. If one appreciates such a thing. I think the best challenges to a party or politician come from within the party, but that's another thread.

Originally Posted by subego
She voted against the FISA expansion, for one.
Good point. I will say there are positions that are much easier to take as a candidate than as the POTUS such as those taken by candidate Obama vs President Obama on Gitmo, unprovoked military action, not raising the debt ceiling, etc... and we know Bill for example filed Executive Order 12949 expanding FISA for warrantless searches 6 years prior to the largest attack against the US since Pearl Harbor. Of course, it's not necessarily fair to judge Hillary from the actions of Bill and Barack, but I'm inclined to believe she'd have no problems augmenting the powers of the Executive branch or AG for Federal surveillance at whim.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Right now it doesn't really matter whether Republicans or Democrats are elected, it doesn't really impact Joe Sixpack significantly, if at all.
Completely disagree!
We've already seen how poorly thought out Democratic legislation(ACA) has caused so many problems for our economy, jobs, health insurance, and thats just one example. I'm not sure the Democrats have any workable solutions to any of the problems facing our country. They continually want to ban guns, even though its been demonstrated that they do more harm than good. I could go on but lets just start there.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I had an interesting conversation with a Lenin socialist friend of mine, also an academic... We got to talking about his viewpoints. I think there is something to learn from socialism and workers unions in context with this conversation.
True and you're bringing up some important points. The lesson is that Centralized Authority will eventually run amok. If the rise of Leninism is our lesson, we learned the only thing that could be worse than Autocracy is Socialism in its rise to Communism by design. People who believed their lives couldn't get more difficult under Tsarist reign quickly learned to lament the good ol' days and let Cheka serve as an apt illustration of this new form of tyranny. Former Leninists would eventually become his greatest enemies as the only difference of course was the tyrannical actions of one in power being replaced by the tyrannical actions of a centralized authority. Same problems and contrary to Leninist ideology, subservient religious folks weren't the root cause of rising tyranny, the trappings of power in absolute authority be it by divine right or unto a Centralized Authority is. Though in Lenin's defense, he would not have had the lessons of Nazi Germany to prove the point out as it was the Catholic Church that would prove the only entity within Germany willing to challenge Hitler's reign.

Why? Because self-interests as you say, are very powerful forces and can more effectively govern themselves. The answer is to grant less power to Centralized Authority in any of its forms; lending common-folk the ability to realize their own prosperity, free of the inherent distortions of authoritarian rule.

Russian history in a nutshell; Economic failures under Autocratic governance --> State-controlled Industrialization and subsequent oppression --> revolution --> Lenin installed --> continued economic failure, consolidated commercial interest to oligarchy under Socialist governance --> anemic gains in the collective prosperity and working conditions leads to more civil unrest resulting in a failed attempt at economic reforms through NEP (new economic policy) --> cessation of NEP through continued failures --> Communism and continued economic failure --> end of communism and increased privatization of goods and services and while enjoying its greatest economic gains in history, remains hampered by State-controlled oligarchy with leadership vacillating between some hybridization of Socialism and Communism.

I'm learning that there are different forms of socialism, and that it is easy to confuse Stalinism with Leninism, for example. I'm not advocating any particular brand of socialism, but I find the worker movements and revolutions interesting, and I think possibly applicable to us today. Specifically, the idea of workers unions controlling government is something that we may need to think about. Today's workers unions are often corrupt, there would be a number of problems with this if this were to happen today, but I think that if we really want to change this country having 30% of the population (or whatever the number is) involved in the political process is not going to cut it.
Workers' rights and the grievances expressed by the working class in the US today should be in no way whatever compared with the atrocities experienced by those throughout the early 1900's in Russia. For one, America's poor are among the wealthiest people on the globe by every measure available. Growing complacency and dependence upon a Centralized Authority will be this system's undoing.

IMO, this is little more than a fabricated crisis to justify a historically failed governing philosophy that would only prove useful or effective in the papers of academia.

Our self-interests are very powerful forces. It is easy to criticize those that don't vote, but on one hand, why should they? Right now it doesn't really matter whether Republicans or Democrats are elected, it doesn't really impact Joe Sixpack significantly, if at all. I think the only way we are really going to change our politics is to make it matter for Joe Sixpack, and to me (non-corrupt) workers unions are probably the best form of representation that Joe Sixpack has. A number of these socialist movements involved strong, independent workers unions and empowering them.

How we can empower workers unions and even should we empower workers unions given their potential for corruption is something I haven't decided yet, but I can't shake the idea that our best hope for change comes in this form, rather than putting more rich/powerful upper class men and women in office, hoping that they will represent the middle and poor classes, and hoping that they won't prove to be corrupt by being unable to resist the temptations for building upon the power they already had prior to being elected.

You might argue that movements like trying to do away with SuperPACs and needing to have significant wealth/power to be elected is sort of a form of what I'm talking about here.

Also, we clearly do not like communism and the government having too much power, and rightfully so, but as corporations and government continue to morph into becoming precisely the same entity with the same interest and the same motivations, maybe we're sort of heading in that direction anyway, and maybe we just don't want to acknowledge this and address this in this way using this sort of language?
This continued morphing of Government and Corporation is the defining characteristic of Socialism in all its forms. The only solid lesson from history is that Socialism is unsustainable and unless the philosophy is eradicated from the collective vernacular entirely, will only transition to a more oppressive system.

Just some random thoughts, don't jump on my balls, I'm just saying stuff and doing a lot of thinking out loud.
I understand. Please don't consider my post a stomping of balls as I'm only taking what you're thinking to heart and offering my own thoughts out loud as well.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Completely disagree!
We've already seen how poorly thought out Democratic legislation(ACA) has caused so many problems for our economy, jobs, health insurance, and thats just one example. I'm not sure the Democrats have any workable solutions to any of the problems facing our country. They continually want to ban guns, even though its been demonstrated that they do more harm than good. I could go on but lets just start there.
I hope that some day people like you will tire of playing the lacking long-term memory game, or in this case short-term memory if you count the Bush years as short-term.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope that some day people like you will tire of playing the lacking long-term memory game, or in this case short-term memory if you count the Bush years as short-term.
I've been paying attention since WATERGATE. How long have you been paying attention? I see you still relate to people as those fictional stereotypes.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why? Because self-interests as you say, are very powerful forces and can more effectively govern themselves. The answer is to grant less power to Centralized Authority in any of its forms; lending common-folk the ability to realize their own prosperity, free of the inherent distortions of authoritarian rule.
Which is why I'm intentionally cherry-picking the parts of socialism that interest me, leaving out centralized authority and focusing on strong (non-corrupt) workers unions.

There is no system of government that is absolutely pure, so is it wrong of me to think about some weird hybrid? The parts of capitalism that aren't working now is this same sort of centralized authority, just in a different form, but I'm not suggesting that we are headed towards complete abandonment of it, maybe just a restructure of its hybrid makeup?

If it makes sense to think about non-corrupt workers unions in the framework of something other than socialism, so be it, I don't know exactly what they should be called in this context.

Workers' rights and the grievances expressed by the working class in the US today should be in no way whatever compared with the atrocities experienced by those throughout the early 1900's in Russia.
I'm not intending to make direct comparisons.

This continued morphing of Government and Corporation is the defining characteristic of Socialism in all its forms. The only solid lesson from history is that Socialism is unsustainable and unless the philosophy is eradicated from the collective vernacular entirely, will only transition to a more oppressive system.
I'm starting to think that it doesn't make sense to put systems of government into little boxes like this, since systems of government are always hybrids of ideas like I've said, reflecting modern-day civilization and the tools, technology, lifestyles, social values, etc. of the time. In other words, looking at ways to develop non-corrupt workers unions doesn't necessarily have to be a carbon copy of socialist attempts and put in the box of inevitable failure based on historical context. I just brought up the socialist workers unions because they provide the only example I can use as a reference to address the ideas of workers unions, and examples that did yield some positive outcomes put into context.

I understand. Please don't consider my post a stomping of balls as I'm only taking what you're thinking to heart and offering my own thoughts out loud as well.
I appreciate your openness to look at this in an outside-the-box sort of way, rather than cramming down ideology into throats like some would have in a knee-jerk way the moment I trotted out the deadly "s" word. I'm assuming you are open to the idea that the current right/left two party thing and our current systems are failing, and if you wouldn't go that far to say that, are at least open for improvement. I personally believe in the evolution of ideas and that most things can be improved. I mean, it's hard for me to see fast forwarding 200 years into the future and seeing absolutely no changes to our capitalist system.

I also appreciate the idea of learning from history and not repeating its mistakes, which is why I'm not suggesting we do the same things the same ways.
( Last edited by besson3c; Dec 8, 2013 at 05:09 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I've been paying attention since WATERGATE. How long have you been paying attention? I see you still relate to people as those fictional stereotypes.
If you've been truly paying attention, you are simply delusional. Just addressing our most recent history, Bush was a horrible president. We can argue all day about who was the worsest between him and Obama or anybody else, but none of this changes the pretty widely accepted idea that he still sucked ass, and he was a Republican.

Again, my point is not to score little points on the D side here, but simply to point out that we should stop kidding ourselves and think that all of our problems can be solved by just electing another garden variety Democrat or Republican, or thinking that your non-garden varieties could be elected in the first place.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think between the two prospects; Hillary and Mitt, Mitt actually would have been the less polarizing figure and had a more established record of reaching across the aisle in Executive leadership as Governor. If one appreciates such a thing. I think the best challenges to a party or politician come from within the party, but that's another thread.
I can't, with clear conscience, vote for a person who wouldn't, at the very least, approve same-sex civil unions. Regardless of that person's opinions on lifestyle, or if they feel it's morally wrong, they need to have enough compassion within them to realize how cruel it is to continue to deny those couples such a basic freedom.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope that some day people like you will tire of playing the lacking long-term memory game, or in this case short-term memory if you count the Bush years as short-term.
I was convinced that there wasn't anyone who could be more damaging to this country, overall, than Bush, but I was wrong.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2013, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Which is why I'm intentionally cherry-picking the parts of socialism that interest me, leaving out centralized authority and focusing on strong (non-corrupt) workers unions.

There is no system of government that is absolutely pure, so is it wrong of me to think about some weird hybrid? The parts of capitalism that aren't working now is this same sort of centralized authority, just in a different form, but I'm not suggesting that we are headed towards complete abandonment of it, maybe just a restructure of its hybrid makeup?

If it makes sense to think about non-corrupt workers unions in the framework of something other than socialism, so be it, I don't know exactly what they should be called in this context.
I cannot say that you are wrong in your thinking besson3c, because for all I know you're absolutely right and I'm failing to consider a multitude of factors you've just not expressed yet. For example, Workers' Unions could work in a system of 0 business owners. I've just not given you a chance to elaborate on what you mean by non-corrupt.

IMO -- the parts of capitalism that aren't' working are those where self-interests became more about favorable legislation than favorable opportunities. This sort of distortion of human nature can only occur at the hands of a governing authority.

Unless the utopian ideal would have us all working for the State, you'd need some entity to defend the interests of employers to ensure they remain around to support workers. You understand where even a non-corrupt advocate for a sector would lean heavily toward that sector. And if we need to have both Workers' Unions vs Employers' Unions, well then we're just recreating the classic debate between right and left. i.e. every system of governance known to mankind and a full-circle back to status quo on the thought experiment.

I'm not intending to make direct comparisons.
I didn't give you a chance to elaborate on how any of this could be applicable to us today without comparing the conditions necessary for revolution. I gave my perspective on how all that turned out, from Autocracy to Socialism to Communism to a hybrid of the latter-two, perhaps a little prematurely.

I'm starting to think that it doesn't make sense to put systems of government into little boxes like this, since systems of government are always hybrids of ideas like I've said, reflecting modern-day civilization and the tools, technology, lifestyles, social values, etc. of the time. In other words, looking at ways to develop non-corrupt workers unions doesn't necessarily have to be a carbon copy of socialist attempts and put in the box of inevitable failure based on historical context. I just brought up the socialist workers unions because they provide the only example I can use as a reference to address the ideas of workers unions, and examples that did yield some positive outcomes put into context.
But you didn't offer any of the positive outcomes from these real world examples of Leninist/Socialist/Workers' Unions, only what you felt they could be if we could somehow develop them or remove corruption from the equation.

I appreciate your openness to look at this in an outside-the-box sort of way, rather than cramming down ideology into throats like some would have in a knee-jerk way the moment I trotted out the deadly "s" word. I'm assuming you are open to the idea that the current right/left two party thing and our current systems are failing, and if you wouldn't go that far to say that, are at least open for improvement. I personally believe in the evolution of ideas and that most things can be improved. I mean, it's hard for me to see fast forwarding 200 years into the future and seeing absolutely no changes to our capitalist system.

I also appreciate the idea of learning from history and not repeating its mistakes, which is why I'm not suggesting we do the same things the same ways.
I actually do appreciate "outside the box" thinking, but this should not preclude empirical evidence. When the suggestions rely on common factors or advocacies, I cannot help, but consider how they've manifested. In other words, maybe we don't need to change our capitalist system or form Workers' Unions, we need less centralized authority in our capitalist system. IMO, that is truly outside the box. I don't see why we're compelled to repeatedly lean in the direction of a council, union, or collectivist organization to do our bidding. I absolutely agree with you in the power of self-interest. The only real check to government and its elected leaders or business for that matter is Joe six-pack, but when his governing authority becomes an enigma to its own purveyors; 70% of Joe six-packs will eventually stop participating in the political process. The problem for us today IMO, is that government has become too big, too complicated, and too intrusive. The refs are over-officiating the game to the point where too many people don't even want to watch, let alone participate. Unless you immediately challenge this paradigm, you're only throwing more non-corrupt workers' unionscorns at the den of wolves. They will either suit up or be eaten. [/thought-experiment]
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2013, 09:27 PM
 
I'm predictably unhappy with Obama's performance, but I don't think I'd have been any happier with McCain or Romney. I can't think of a single politician that I'd support in the next election without apprehension.

Jindal has been a very good governor here in Louisiana, but is lacking in the necessary charisma, as evidenced by his response to the State of the Union speech in 2009. It's a shame too, because the man is absolutely brilliant.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2013, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I'm predictably unhappy with Obama's performance, but I don't think I'd have been any happier with McCain or Romney. I can't think of a single politician that I'd support in the next election without apprehension.
Personally -- McCain? No. Romney, yes. I think he had the gravitas, executive experience, likability, and enough pressure from his base that he could've been a transformative figure. Transformative as understood prior to the last 5 years of short attention span theatre.

Jindal has been a very good governor here in Louisiana, but is lacking in the necessary charisma, as evidenced by his response to the State of the Union speech in 2009. It's a shame too, because the man is absolutely brilliant.
This was a crushing disappointment. A sort of precedent for Rubio's fumble. And not because I thought Jindal ever had a serious shot at the WH either, but because he's as persuasive an individual as you'd ever hope to deliver such a follow-up. These guys go into this stuff over-coached to the hilt. Someone like that you give bullet-points and tell him to explain them.
ebuddy
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2013, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think between the two prospects; Hillary and Mitt, Mitt actually would have been the less polarizing figure and had a more established record of reaching across the aisle in Executive leadership as Governor. If one appreciates such a thing.
If Mitt reached across the aisle as governor, it was because he was hogtied and outnumbered. Interesting way that MA politics works, balancing the repub gov with dem majority.

That said, I would still never vote for him. He is smarmy.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2