The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[printcraft]

The man said to leave race out of it.

Be colorblind.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janice...diversity-and-inclusion-efforts/#5602680f2c8d

 

[jamil]

There's no way you honestly believe that. Societies generally trend left, on the occasion that they swing right, they swing FAR to the right; to the point of being oppressive. Obama's legacy, love him or hate him, will most certainly gain favorability in the United States.

Generally, I can agree with some of this. Societies do generally trend left, and when they move back right, it's because of a correction of some sort. And those corrections can be quite hard right. A well functioning society will have several smaller corrections. But I disagree that they swing FAR to the right necessarily, and to the point of being oppressive. Bat **** crazy stalianism is just about as far left as one can be on the spectrum, they were oppressive, and when communism fell in the former Soviet Bloc countries, that was indeed a move to the right. Communism to not Communism is a move to the right. Some of those countries traded one form of oppressive totalitarianism to another, for example, the Baltic countries. But for much of Eastern Europe, their move to the right was far less oppressive than what they had. Russia, one could argue, is far less oppressive than it was when they moved to the right.

I think the primary thing your post gets wrong is that it seems to imply that right=oppressive. And that's not true at all. Either extreme gets you totalitarianism/oppression. It's the distance from center, the extremes, not the direction that brings about oppressive regimes.

About Obama's legacy, it depends on who writes the history books. His presidency was the most divisive president in my lifetime until Trump, and that's mostly because of TDS. Trump has governed actually to the left of Bush. Back to Obama, his policies did not respect the Overton Window. The theory goes that in a democratic society leaders generally reflect where a nation is at, because, the people elected them to solve the problems that are most important. And so they tend to enact policies which fall within the window. But Obama added a different dynamic and the media added yet another. 1) Obama presented himself as a moderate. 2) He was a very good communicator. When he gained office he took the country further left than it was prepared to go. He violated Overton's Window, and the result of that is Trump. I think that if Obama had been the moderate as advertised, he likely would have been one of the most popular presidents in history. The right still would not like him. Republicans still would have opposed him. But they wouldn't have been pissed enough to want to burn this mother****er down. I think it's clear enough to say that the media also played a large role in Obama's election and reelection. It didn't help that McCain was the alternative. People liked that hope and change message. They didn't read the fine print on what the change would be.

 

[jamil]

Kut ain't wrong here. Things definitely trend leftward. The 'Right' just slows that as much as they can, occasionally society lashes out at the current 'Left' and gives the 'Right' a few pieces here and there... but there is a steady and constant erosion of freedom and liberty over time, always happening.

Hell, even the 'Right' helps it move leftward on occasion.

1A and 2A will be gone eventually. Ideally they'll still be around in our lifetimes.

Edit: Regarding the Obama line, I have no opinion about that.

It's kinda like Yin and Yang. The left and the right need each other to produce a functioning society that continually tries to improve itself. The left unbridled by the right would adopt crazy laws and produce a society that few people could live in. The right, left alone, would hardly progress at all, because they instinctively resist change. The proper synthesis of the two is a functioning society that solves it's problems to become better than it was. Right now, the left has really overcome, at least temporarily, the right's ability to correct it. Trump was a major correction and the mainstream left has gone absolutely nuts about it.

And that brings up another problem with the left. They keep devising ways to keep the right from holding them back from what they really want to do. I think if the proper synthesis were happening, neither 1A or 2A would be in any real jeopardy.

 

[jamil]

If what you are implying is true, you have just given a pretty solid example of white privilege. So re-read what you wrote, and tell me, do you really believe that? I, for the record, do not believe that we have seen the last person of color ascend to the presidency.

Not that I want to perpetuate race in this discussion but I'd like some clarity on your statement. I'd like you to explain exactly why this is white privilege because there are a number of ways it could go, and I'd like to know which lane you're in.

 

[jamil]

He said "we have seen the last president of color in our lifetimes." Maybe it's a newsflash to you, but everybody that isn't white is a person of color. If one is reluctant to vote for any person of color based on a bad impression, of one particular person of color, then the flaws that ALL people have, one assumes are disqualifying for a person of color, while not for white people with the same flaws. That's White Privilege.... and actually closer to racism if one actually employs that belief.

Okay, this was at the top of the next page so I did not see this. Nevermind on the previous request.

 

[nonobaddog]

Generally, I can agree with some of this. Societies do generally trend left, and when they move back right, it's because of a correction of some sort. And those corrections can be quite hard right. A well functioning society will have several smaller corrections. But I disagree that they swing FAR to the right necessarily, and to the point of being oppressive. Bat **** crazy stalianism is just about as far left as one can be on the spectrum, they were oppressive, and when communism fell in the former Soviet Bloc countries, that was indeed a move to the right. Communism to not Communism is a move to the right. Some of those countries traded one form of oppressive totalitarianism to another, for example, the Baltic countries. But for much of Eastern Europe, their move to the right was far less oppressive than what they had. Russia, one could argue, is far less oppressive than it was when they moved to the right.

I think the primary thing your post gets wrong is that it seems to imply that right=oppressive. And that's not true at all. Either extreme gets you totalitarianism/oppression. It's the distance from center, the extremes, not the direction that brings about oppressive regimes.

East Germany went from an extremely oppressive left under communism to attempted socialism to reunification with the west. Their moves to the right were complete with much, much less oppression and much more economic gain and freedoms.

The left only thinks they know what they want.

 

[jamil]

Ya, that’s definitelt not white privilege. Racism, I can somewhat agree, but white privilege? No.

This was one of the ways I thought he might use to say it's white privilege. I think the reason is "person of color". It doesn't really have a specific meaning anymore. It's not like people wouldn't vote for Dinesh D'Souza because he's a person of color. I think conservatives would vote for him. Non-conservatives wouldn't, but that's because it isn't about race with either side, it's about ideology.

I think the thing that Kut is describing is more accurately stereotyping, which can be racist but isn't necessarily racist. If people think, "well. I voted fer this black feller last time. And he raised muh taxes, and he did all this socialist crap I don't like, I guess I can't vote fer no more Black fellers." If he voted for a "black feller" at all, he's probably not racist. But he's employing bad logic to think that "black fellers" raise taxes and such. Certainly not white privilege though.

 

[Alpo]

East Germany went from an extremely oppressive left under communism to attempted socialism to reunification with the west. Their moves to the right were complete with much, much less oppression and much more economic gain and freedoms.

The left only thinks they know what they want.

It sounds as if you know what's good for them. "Eat your Brussell's Sprouts, imp!"

 

[Hatin Since 87]

It sounds as if you know what's good for them. "Eat your Brussell's Sprouts, imp!"

Impossible. Only the left knows what’s best for us. Bake the cake bigot! If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

 

[nonobaddog]

It sounds as if you know what's good for them. "Eat your Brussell's Sprouts, imp!"

I just look at the historical examples and it isn't pretty. It's like just keep going left until you run out of toilet paper.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;eaRO0s9x-5w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaRO0s9x-5w[/video]

 

[Leadeye]

[video=youtube;eaRO0s9x-5w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaRO0s9x-5w[/video]

Being old and raised in the era when socialism was a dirty word, I can see many democrats not wanting to vote for Bernie simply because he's comfortable with that word being used to describe his political philosophy.

 

[mmpsteve]

The man said to leave race out of it.

Be colorblind.

[video=youtube_share;i7iQbBbMAFE]http://youtu.be/i7iQbBbMAFE[/video]

I like this with the volume up high. And the girls, I could seriously .... get behind. So maybe I'm NOT racist. I liked J. Hendricks too. Hell, I'm integrated!!

.

 

[ghuns]

...I like this with the volume up high. And the girls, I could seriously .... get behind. So maybe I'm NOT racist. I liked J. Hendricks too. Hell, I'm integrated!!

In 1992, I thought I liked two kinds of music; anything metal and Hank Williams Jr.

But when that song and video came out, damn if I didn't love me some En Vogue.

Fun fact: every instrument on the recording of Free Your Mind, except the drums, was recorded by this guy...

Jinx Jones

[video=youtube_share;RqNxMOg5BZE]https://youtu.be/RqNxMOg5BZE[/video]

 

[nonobaddog]

Wow, that guy can play!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Warren has put a price on her Medicare for All plan:

$52,000,000,000,000

That's fifty-two trillion.

Trillion

But middle-class taxes won't go up.

 

[BugI02]

Warren has put a price on her Medicare for All plan:

$52,000,000,000,000

That's fifty-two trillion.

Trillion

But middle-class taxes won't go up.

So, even granting no front end loading and cost spread out over the usual ten years; $5.2trillion per year

Fiscal 2019 budget $4.4trillion but revenues $3.4trillion

Medicare covers about 15% of the US population for about 15% of budget expenditures, so everything else comes to $3.75trillion. So needed budget ~$9trillion per year. That's a doubling of the current budget.

About 22% of current expenditures is deficit financing, a doubling of current taxes would still lead to the same percentage unfunded, but the amount of deficit funding would also double to $2trillion per year

To pay for this without deficit spending, taxes would need to rise by 265% ($9trillion/$3.4trillion). Tax brackets go to:

10% ----> 26.5%

12% ----> 31.8%

22% ----> 58.3%

24% ----> 63.6%

32% ----> 84.8%

35% ----> 92.8%

37% ----> 98.1%

And we aren't even talking about GND or 'free' college, and who thinks the Dems would do all this crap deficit free. Weimar Republic redux

 

[printcraft]

So, even granting no front end loading and cost spread out over the usual ten years; $5.2trillion per year

Fiscal 2019 budget $4.4trillion but revenues $3.4trillion

Medicare covers about 15% of the US population for about 15% of budget expenditures, so everything else comes to $3.75trillion. So needed budget ~$9trillion per year. That's a doubling of the current budget.

About 22% of current expenditures is deficit financing, a doubling of current taxes would still lead to the same percentage unfunded, but the amount of deficit funding would also double to $2trillion per year

To pay for this without deficit spending, taxes would need to rise by 265% ($9trillion/$3.4trillion). Tax brackets go to:

10% ----> 26.5%

12% ----> 31.8%

22% ----> 58.3%

24% ----> 63.6%

32% ----> 84.8%

35% ----> 92.8%

37% ----> 98.1%

And we aren't even talking about GND or 'free' college, and who thinks the Dems would do all this crap deficit free. Weimar Republic redux

Well they are not taking it ALL so... #notcommunism

 

[nonobaddog]

I liked it better when there was a little sanity.

 

[BugI02]

But wasn't Fauxcahontas talking a 2% wealth tax on the 1%

98.1% + 2% = ruh ro