Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Please support or retract your statement that "makers and takers" is commonly used among the members of the GOP.
    Fox News Resurrects “Makers vs. Takers” Narrative To Predict Civil War

    Fox News is again using its own bogus narrative to stoke fears of a civil war in the U.S. between “makers” and “takers,” after repeatedly pushing the argument that people who receive government benefits are “takers” and pitting them against “makers.”
    But the concept of society being divided into “makers” and “takers” is a manufactured distinction, one that Fox has pushed aggressively.
    The following support traces it back to Romney, the republican presidential nominee, and how it was picked up by right wing media - the GOP's propoganda arm. That doesn't mean it didn't come from somewhere else - I already provided another example.

    There's a whole page of examples here.

    Here too:

    ---------

    Just for info here's my original statement from post 43:

    Ok, not yours. The conservative propaganda arm. "Makers" and "takers" is commonly used.
    No mention of the GOP...which I said. I've provided it's origins in the popular media nonetheless following from the highest ranks of the GOP. My original statement is supported above.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say that socialism can occur with a wide variety of underlying ideologies so there is no one underlying ideology of socialism. There certainly was not one mentioned in the definition I provided. If you want to argue that there is a central underlying ideology to socialism, you will need to support it with a link to a definition of socialism.





    Nope. My argument is that socialism is not inherently divisive nor requires there to be out-groups. The definition I provided, which is the ONLY definition that has been provided in our debate, doesn't indicate that out groups must exist. It seems to indicate that everyone is on the same level, in fact. Here it is again.

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






    Which has no relevance to whether socialism itself requires a transition.





    Of course it is possible. Except for that which is impossible, anything is possible. So unless you can support that the hypothetical scenario I forwarded is impossible, it MUST be considered possible. Since you refrained from addressing it directly in favor of a general statement, I will re-paste it.

    Hypothetically there's an area of land where no one lives. A group of people arrive and decide to form a community. They all agree that a socialist economic system would be best so they set up a socialist society. So there you go - a socialist society can arise without transitioning from a different society. This fits the ONLY definition of socialism provided in this debate and there is nothing forwarded in this debate that supports that this cannot happen of if it did, it would not technically qualify as a socialist society.

    So I have supported that it's possible for a socialist society to arise without transitioning from a different society.




    First off, you are moving the goal post. The argument I was addressing is that the THEORY of socialism requires out-groups. I have supported that this is not so. If you want to accept this and move on to another point, fine. In fact, I'll operate on the notion that you have conceded this particular point and have moved on from whether socialism is inherently divisive to whether Democrats are more divisive.

    If you don't continue to argue about the theory of socialism, I will consider this point conceded.

    So moving on.

    First off, don't bother throwing the word "Marxist" around. When someone attacks Democrats or Socialists from a right-wing perspective using the word "Marxist" I don't trust their understanding of Marxism well enough to make a solid argument with it.

    And the goal of social justice is not inherently wrong, especially when it's needed. I mean freeing the slaves during the civil war was social justice. Granting women the right to vote is social justice. Legalizing gay marriage is social justice. And yes, in all instances there WERE groups that were oppressed on some level and granting them social justice was clearly the right reaction to a real problem. And there is no proposal from Bernie etc. to move the US to an entirely socialist system. They are proposing Universal Health Care, which practically every Western Nation already has. So are they all Marxist regimes? If they aren't, then how is the US moving towards being more like them "Marxist"? Again, I do not trust you or really any right-winger to accurately use the word "marxism" in debate. If you want to criticize Universal Health Care or any particular proposal that Bernie etc. is forwarding, then tell me exactly what you find worrisome about it (like what bad thing do you think will happen). Vaguely referring to Marxism is a non-starter. If they are bad, you should be able to describe actual harm that should occur.

    And beyond that "More divisive" is a relative term. The argument is not that Democrats are divisive but that they are more divisive than Republicans and such an argument is completely unsupportable. I mean I can argue that Republicans are more divisive and point to a bunch of Trump's speeches and connect the El Paso shooting to his speeches and pull out some other examples and then you can point to whatever you think might make your case regarding the Democrats but how on Earth are we going to judge who provided "more" than the other person? The number of things you and I can point to is virtually endless and then how do we score each event for how divisive it is? And whose to judge to determine that one of us did a better job than the other?

    Really, I was here to point out that socialism, in theory, is not divisive and has no out-groups. That, I believe, I have done. Trying to argue which side is more divisive and possibly win a debate on the matter is a fool's errand.
    No, I get it, you are making this semantic argument which is really a waste of time. Why? First, because the U.S. is not a socialist society. Therefore, any attempt to make it socialist would require a transition. Therefore, any presupposition that a Utopian socialist society could occur is not applicable. Since the horse has already left the barn, we have an existing society with an existing economy, then we must utilize a definition and theory of socialism which takes this into account. Your definition does not and the idea of Utopian socialism does not apply. What we have left is scientific socialism which is a Marxist claim. As from my source, transitioning from capitalism to socialism, this is a process which very much uses in-groups and out-groups. I am not moving the goal posts. This has been my claim the entire time. You have attempted to move the field to an imaginary place where your single-sentence definition of socialism somehow fits. When Democratic politicians are demanding socialism, they are doing so in a capitalist nation. Therefore, the only definition and theory of socialism which matters is one which takes this into account. That happens to be Marxist (or an offshoot of Marxism) which we can generally call neo-Marxism. After all, I have never claimed Democrats are making strictly class based claims as Marx did. They have added all sorts of oppressed groups under their umbrella. If you have an oppressed group, then you must have someone or something doing the oppressing. This is the very foundation of dialecticism.

    Now, as to your second point, whether the Dems are more divisive than the GOP, you have a point which I do not entirely disagree with you about. However, under the current climate I look at it like this. The GOP, at its most right, tends towards nationalism and fascism. But, at the current time, the GOP isn't claiming some Americans don't belong here. They have placed decent limits on themselves. I know certain members will hollar about Trump's comments, but 1) he isn't the entire GOP and 2) nothing in the GOP platform suggests they'd follow anything close to the kind of nationalism which Americans need to fear. Consider true nationalist regimes where those who were deemed unpatriotic were exiled, jailed, or executed. Nothing the GOP has done suggests policies anywhere near this. They are not running on policies which demonize groups of Americans. At least I am not seeing it. The Dems, though, are doing this. Evil bankers. Evil pharma. They need to be locked up. THeir businesses need to be nationalized. This is the basis for my claim right now.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No, I get it, you are making this semantic argument which is really a waste of time.
    No, it's not a semantic argument. It has been directly stated in this debate that socialism inherently contains in-groups and out-groups as if socialism is inherently divisive. And you yourself have attempted to support that position with the article from that Marxism book. So this was a very relevant aspect to the debate and I have SUPPORTED that the original argument is incorrect - that socialism is not inherently divisive.

    So you are moving of from what we were arguing and saying, in essence, "Okay, you were right that socialism is not inherently divisive but Democrats are trying to transition us from Capitalism to Socialism so let's move on to that".

    So I will proceed as if that's our understanding.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, because the U.S. is not a socialist society. Therefore, any attempt to make it socialist would require a transition.
    And you seem to be forwarding the premise that Democratic party is trying to make the US a socialist country. I disagree with that premise and therefore reject all arguments that have that as a premise.

    More on that below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Since the horse has already left the barn, we have an existing society with an existing economy, then we must utilize a definition and theory of socialism which takes this into account. Your definition does not and the idea of Utopian socialism does not apply. What we have left is scientific socialism which is a Marxist claim. As from my source, transitioning from capitalism to socialism, this is a process which very much uses in-groups and out-groups. I am not moving the goal posts. This has been my claim the entire time. You have attempted to move the field to an imaginary place where your single-sentence definition of socialism somehow fits.
    No I was directly rebutting an argument that MT forwarded and you attempted to support.

    And I agree that we aren't discussing a utopian socialist state but then your argument is not accurate either as we are not transitioning from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society. I dot not think that that is Democratic agenda nor have you supported that it is.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When Democratic politicians are demanding socialism, they are doing so in a capitalist nation.
    I disagree on both accounts. I disagree that we are a entirely Capitalist nation (some aspects of our society is paid for with tax dollars, which seem to be how we are defining socialism so we aren't entirely Capitalist) nor do I agree that any Democrat is proposing that we go full socialist.

    I see the Progressive Democrats moving a society with some socialism already intertwined to a society with more socialism (such as having healthcare taxpayer funded instead of privately funded). A fully socialist society would, by definition, be one where ALL industry is government-owned. That has not be proposed and therefore I disagree that Democrats are trying to move us from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

    I also don't see how any of the actual proposals that the Democrats propose, if implemented would create "out-groups".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Therefore, the only definition and theory of socialism which matters is one which takes this into account. That happens to be Marxist (or an offshoot of Marxism) which we can generally call neo-Marxism. After all, I have never claimed Democrats are making strictly class based claims as Marx did. They have added all sorts of oppressed groups under their umbrella. If you have an oppressed group, then you must have someone or something doing the oppressing. This is the very foundation of dialecticism.
    And as I said in my last post and you entirely ignored, I don't trust your understanding of Marxism and therefore reject all arguments that forward Marxism by you.

    And as I said, I don't see the US becoming a socialist state even if we elect the most progressive Democratic Candidate we have. Bernie isn't suggesting that we give all private industry to the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now, as to your second point, whether the Dems are more divisive than the GOP, you have a point which I do not entirely disagree with you about. However, under the current climate I look at it like this. The GOP, at its most right, tends towards nationalism and fascism. But, at the current time, the GOP isn't claiming some Americans don't belong here. They have placed decent limits on themselves. I know certain members will hollar about Trump's comments, but 1) he isn't the entire GOP and 2) nothing in the GOP platform suggests they'd follow anything close to the kind of nationalism which Americans need to fear. Consider true nationalist regimes where those who were deemed unpatriotic were exiled, jailed, or executed. Nothing the GOP has done suggests policies anywhere near this. They are not running on policies which demonize groups of Americans. At least I am not seeing it. The Dems, though, are doing this. Evil bankers. Evil pharma. They need to be locked up. THeir businesses need to be nationalized. This is the basis for my claim right now.
    First off, you are subjectively explaining away very divisive language from The President and his base ("Send her back!). I consider this very divisive and don't choose to not count that as very divisive.

    And what you are contributing to he Dems, I have not heard. They may complain about specific things that bankers and pharma are doing but I've not heard the narrative that they are all evil and I've certainly never heard any prominent Democrat forward that businesses should be nationalized.

    So your basis, from my perspective, it to downplay things that the Republicans ARE saying and forwarding tings that Democrats generally aren't saying as their platform.

    In short, it appears your judgement is heavily influenced by political bias. And I won't say it's any different for me, BTW.

    But since political bias is subjective, then our respective arguments are likewise subjective and therefore primarily opinion.

    Okay, so I have your OPINION that Democrats are more divisive. But do you know of any way that we can objectively determine who is more divisive? No? Okay then, so all we have is opinion-based criteria and that's not valid criteria.

    So again, there is no way for either side to win the debate so my ultimate response to your opinion is "Your opinion is noted". And you may say the same for my opinion. If you have any way to provide a supported argument, let me know.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2019 at 12:58 PM.

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it's not a semantic argument. It has been directly stated in this debate that socialism inherently contains in-groups and out-groups as if socialism is inherently divisive. And you yourself have attempted to support that position with the article from that Marxism book. So this was a very relevant aspect to the debate and I have SUPPORTED that the original argument is incorrect - that socialism is not inherently divisive.

    So you are moving of from what we were arguing and saying, in essence, "Okay, you were right that socialism is not inherently divisive but Democrats are trying to transition us from Capitalism to Socialism so let's move on to that".

    So I will proceed as if that's our understanding.






    And you seem to be forwarding the premise that Democratic party is trying to make the US a socialist country. I disagree with that premise and therefore reject all arguments that have that as a premise.

    More on that below.



    No I was directly rebutting an argument that MT forwarded and you attempted to support.

    And I agree that we aren't discussing a utopian socialist state but then your argument is not accurate either as we are not transitioning from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society. I dot not think that that is Democratic agenda nor have you supported that it is.






    I disagree on both accounts. I disagree that we are a entirely Capitalist nation (some aspects of our society is paid for with tax dollars, which seem to be how we are defining socialism so we aren't entirely Capitalist) nor do I agree that any Democrat is proposing that we go full socialist.

    I see the Progressive Democrats moving a society with some socialism already intertwined to a society with more socialism (such as having healthcare taxpayer funded instead of privately funded). A fully socialist society would, by definition, be one where ALL industry is government-owned. That has not be proposed and therefore I disagree that Democrats are trying to move us from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

    I also don't see how any of the actual proposals that the Democrats propose, if implemented would create "out-groups".



    And as I said in my last post and you entirely ignored, I don't trust your understanding of Marxism and therefore reject all arguments that forward Marxism by you.

    And as I said, I don't see the US becoming a socialist state even if we elect the most progressive Democratic Candidate we have. Bernie isn't suggesting that we give all private industry to the government.



    And your view is apparently based on heavy political bias and, it seems, ignoring certain things.

    You said Republicans aren't saying that some Americans don't belong here. Trump made a tweet telling four American women (the Squad) to go back to the countries they came from. And his crowd yelled "Send her back" over and over again while Trump just smiled. And I've seen plenty of videos of MAGA folk telling hispanic people to leave the country even though some of the people are American Citizens.

    And I don't see Democrats saying that bankers and pharma execs need to be locked up (beyond those who actually committed crimes like Skreli) and there certainly has not been any wide-spread call to nationalize all of their businesses. So the basis of your claim seems to be pretty fictional.

    And again, THERE IS NO WAY for this portion of the debate to be settled. There is no objective, or agreed-upon, standard for judging the quantity or quality of whatever "evidence" that we may forward.

    I could subjectively say that what I forwarded is worth a million points and what you forwarded pretty much doesn't count and whatever do you forward in the future will count, like, single digit points so there is no way you will reach a million points so I win. And of course you can do the same and give yourself a million points and me ten point and then you win. And of course both of our respective "victories" mean absolutely nothing since our scoring is subjective.

    So until a system is created for scoring that we both agree upon, there is no way for either of us to win the debate.

    So I'll just say it's my opinion that Republicans are more divisive and it's your opinion that Republicans are more divisive and if you want to state your opinion some more, I will note that you voiced your opinion.
    That's cute I guess. Perhaps cute by half as they say. I specifically explained how Trump's rhetoric isn't emblematic of the entire party. For instance, did Trump propose a policy whereby the 'Squad' should be forced to relocate? Obviously, his rhetoric can be divisive. I am certainly not arguing the GOP (nor Trump) is divisiveness free. Their platform and policies, though, aren't doing anything remotely suggesting the rhetoric you described. On the other hand, the Dems put forth legislation, the Green New Deal, which is outright soclialism. Per Chakrabarti:
    “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

    Change it into what? Well, his vision is apparently
    The proposal also
    calls for
    “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”

    This is the very thing you are claiming Democrats are not attempting to achieve. This legislation is backed by every single Democratic nominee.
    https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-2020-candidates-support-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-1325775

    In other words, every Democratic Presidential nominee is back legislation which is aimed at creating a socialist society. And just going back to the GND noted above, their motivation is based on the concept/idea that under capitalism, various groups are oppressed. I think the nomenclature for this is social/economic justice. And this brings about ideas such as that healthcare should be run by the government. That pharma companies should be controlled by the government. That various industries are immoral (see those that the GND wishes to eliminate). And this isn't a new story in the world. We have seen this sort of thing play out all over the world and it always produces violence and that violence is always justified by blaming the oppression on various others. It is no different than nationalism which points foreigners as impure or undeserving of citizenship. And I'm not referring to mere immigration laws, but to laws which seek to import those who are already citizens based on various immutable characteristics. This is something you have hinted Trump is guilty of and a long time ago, I was very candid in saying we should be absolutely on-guard against Trump's rhetoric as it could lead to very bad things. However, outside of Trump, the GOP is still relatively restrained and seemingly has limits it isn't willing to cross. For example, just about every noteworthy member of the GOP has denounced white supremist movements. However, do we see the Democratic party denounce Marxists, socialists, or anyone associated with those groups? I don't think so. And that is why the dems are simply more decisive right now than the GOP.


    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's cute I guess. Perhaps cute by half as they say. I specifically explained how Trump's rhetoric isn't emblematic of the entire party. For instance, did Trump propose a policy whereby the 'Squad' should be forced to relocate? Obviously, his rhetoric can be divisive. I am certainly not arguing the GOP (nor Trump) is divisiveness free. Their platform and policies, though, aren't doing anything remotely suggesting the rhetoric you described. On the other hand, the Dems put forth legislation, the Green New Deal, which is outright soclialism. Per Chakrabarti:
    “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

    Change it into what? Well, his vision is apparently
    The proposal also
    calls for
    “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”

    This is the very thing you are claiming Democrats are not attempting to achieve. This legislation is backed by every single Democratic nominee.
    https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-2020-candidates-support-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-1325775

    In other words, every Democratic Presidential nominee is back legislation which is aimed at creating a socialist society. And just going back to the GND noted above, their motivation is based on the concept/idea that under capitalism, various groups are oppressed. I think the nomenclature for this is social/economic justice. And this brings about ideas such as that healthcare should be run by the government. That pharma companies should be controlled by the government. That various industries are immoral (see those that the GND wishes to eliminate). And this isn't a new story in the world. We have seen this sort of thing play out all over the world and it always produces violence and that violence is always justified by blaming the oppression on various others. It is no different than nationalism which points foreigners as impure or undeserving of citizenship. And I'm not referring to mere immigration laws, but to laws which seek to import those who are already citizens based on various immutable characteristics.


    Well, that's an interesting theory but I'm not buying it.

    I disagree that the GND is aimed a creating a socialist society (can you point to the part of the part of the document which states that the government should control ALL US industries?) nor do I find any of the proposals to be inherently divisive. If you want to slippery-slope theory what is proposed to a future of violence and oppression, you may but I'm not buying into it.

    I don't think it proposes that government run healthcare but that government fund healthcare. And I don't think there's a proposal to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.

    Also from the article you used regarding candidate support of the GND

    "And, in fact, the majority of Republicans and Democratic voters support the proposal, according to a December poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The survey showed that 64 percent of Republicans backed the Green New Deal, as did the overwhelming majority – 92 percent – of Democrats."

    And a majority of the public supports a government health care plan.

    Proposing policies that people generally support is not "divisive".




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is something you have hinted Trump is guilty of and a long time ago, I was very candid in saying we should be absolutely on-guard against Trump's rhetoric as it could lead to very bad things. However, outside of Trump, the GOP is still relatively restrained and seemingly has limits it isn't willing to cross. For example, just about every noteworthy member of the GOP has denounced white supremist movements. However, do we see the Democratic party denounce Marxists, socialists, or anyone associated with those groups? I don't think so. And that is why the dems are simply more decisive right now than the GOP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's because Marxism and Socialism are not divisive forces in our country. I agree that Marxism, by definition, is conflict-oriented but there's not a bunch of Marxists causing problems in the US so there's no need to address them. But we definitely have a White Nationalist problem.

    And I find the denunciation of Trump's rhetortic from Republicans to be tepid at best. The only ones who really stand up to him and let him have it are those who are leaving office. Nor does the fact still remove the fact that Trump, the party leader, IS engaging in divisive rhetoric and many of his supporters cheer him on. Again, he told fellow congresswomen to leave the country and his rallygoers chanted "Send her back" about one of them. If you want to try to explain it away with "Well, others in his party don't agree" doesn't change the fact that this happened and is part of Republican divisiveness. Your decision to downplay it is subjective. Okay, that's the way you see it but I am under no obligation to see it your way and therefore I can, and do, hold that this is a very bid deal.

    And likewise I see little wrong with the GND.

    QUESTION - Do you understand that we will always having to end up agreeing to disagree here and that this debate on who is more divisive is unwinnable by either of us?

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, that's an interesting theory but I'm not buying it.

    I disagree that the GND is aimed a creating a socialist society (can you point to the part of the part of the document which states that the government should control ALL US industries?) nor do I find any of the proposals to be inherently divisive. If you want to slippery-slope theory what is proposed to a future of violence and oppression, you may but I'm not buying into it.

    I don't think it proposes that government run healthcare but that government fund healthcare. And I don't think there's a proposal to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.

    Also from the article you used regarding candidate support of the GND

    "And, in fact, the majority of Republicans and Democratic voters support the proposal, according to a December poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The survey showed that 64 percent of Republicans backed the Green New Deal, as did the overwhelming majority – 92 percent – of Democrats."

    And a majority of the public supports a government health care plan.

    Proposing policies that people generally support is not "divisive".






    That's because Marxism and Socialism are not divisive forces in our country. I agree that Marxism, by definition, is conflict-oriented but there's not a bunch of Marxists causing problems in the US so there's no need to address them. But we definitely have a White Nationalist problem.

    And I find the denunciation of Trump's rhetortic from Republicans to be tepid at best. The only ones who really stand up to him and let him have it are those who are leaving office. Nor does the fact still remove the fact that Trump, the party leader, IS engaging in divisive rhetoric and many of his supporters cheer him on. Again, he told fellow congresswomen to leave the country and his rallygoers chanted "Send her back" about one of them. If you want to try to explain it away with "Well, others in his party don't agree" doesn't change the fact that this happened and is part of Republican divisiveness. Your decision to downplay it is subjective. Okay, that's the way you see it but I am under no obligation to see it your way and therefore I can, and do, hold that this is a very bid deal.

    And likewise I see little wrong with the GND.

    QUESTION - Do you understand that we will always having to end up agreeing to disagree here and that this debate on who is more divisive is unwinnable by either of us?
    You can disagree with me about the GND all you want. One of the principle authors of it, and that I quoted in the previous post, basically said as much.
    "Chakrabarti led the Ocasio-Cortez staff and several progressive groups in writing the
    Green New Deal
    resolution"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikat_Chakrabarti

    I am not asking for your personal opinion of the GND. Whether you love it or hate, it was not written with environmentalism in mind. It was written with socialism in mind.


    I'd like to point out this quote from AOC (short for the least intelligent member of the U.S. Congress)
    "I can't name a single issue with roots in race that doesn't have economic implications, and I cannot think of a single economic issue that doesn't have racial implications. The idea that we have to separate them out and choose one is a con.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes"

    Now, while nearly braindead, she is influential. I want to point something out here. She makes it very clear that her economic views are tied to her racial views. This is on par with the dialectic argument I have described. No serious politician is going to come out and say they are a Marxist (or neo-Marxist). However, their rhetoric is very much in line with Marxism. Meaning her motivation for socialism is based on the strongly held belief that under capitalism, various people are being oppressed. Now, it is one thing to claim that under capitalism, there are people who are winners and losers. I think we can all agree on that to some extent. It is certainly an argument that another type of economic system could provide fewer losers. However, this isn't exactly AOC's argument. Nor is it the argument we typically hear from progressives today. Rather, we are hearing that under capitalism, the losers are being oppressed by the winners. The system is there to lock the winners and losers in their place. Furthermore, the losers are such because of various immutable characteristics such as color and gender (among other things). This is the dangerous part. This is where the in-groups and out-groups form. And, as best as I can tell, the Democratic party has no idea where to draw any sort of line. It was not Al Sharpton and his race baiting. It was Hugo Chavez who is still admired by progressives. It wasn't even Castro. For instance, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, after learning of Fidel Castro's death said the following:
    "
    “I was very sad for the Cuban people.
    He led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/congresswoman-barbara-lee-castro-should-be-mourned/

    It is estimated that Castro killed about 15000 of his own people. Pelosi had no issue with inviting Lee to a campaign event. Meaning, to the Dems, Castro isn't too far left. Isn't too extreme or horrific. So, where do Dems draw the line?

    I could give more examples, but there is no threshold which will leave you convinced or which will even give you pause to think. Yes, I am biased. I believe in capitalism, especially when contrasted with socialism. If you can tell me where Dems draw the line, that'd be a great start. However, simply claiming not all socialism is Marxism when the Dems are making absolutely Marxist arguments in regards to why we need socialism is silly.

    And, yeah, no one wins arguments on the internet. I don't really care. It is the conversation. If you don't want it, not sure why you jumped in to begin with.



    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You can disagree with me about the GND all you want. One of the principle authors of it, and that I quoted in the previous post, basically said as much.
    "Chakrabarti led the Ocasio-Cortez staff and several progressive groups in writing the
    Green New Deal
    resolution"
    [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikat_Chakrabarti

    I am not asking for your personal opinion of the GND. Whether you love it or hate, it was not written with environmentalism in mind. It was written with socialism in mind.
    I agree that the progressive wing of the DNC want to move more towards socialism. Universal Health Care is more socialistic than our current system so moving towards that makes the US more socialist. But so what? If you are saying that this will eventually lead to something horrific, like a completely socialist society, or dragging insurance executives into the streets to be slaughtered or imprisoned, then I hold that you just engaging in a slippery-slope fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'd like to point out this quote from AOC (short for the least intelligent member of the U.S. Congress)
    "I can't name a single issue with roots in race that doesn't have economic implications, and I cannot think of a single economic issue that doesn't have racial implications. The idea that we have to separate them out and choose one is a con.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes"

    Now, while nearly braindead, she is influential. I want to point something out here. She makes it very clear that her economic views are tied to her racial views. This is on par with the dialectic argument I have described. No serious politician is going to come out and say they are a Marxist (or neo-Marxist). However, their rhetoric is very much in line with Marxism. Meaning her motivation for socialism is based on the strongly held belief that under capitalism, various people are being oppressed. Now, it is one thing to claim that under capitalism, there are people who are winners and losers. I think we can all agree on that to some extent. It is certainly an argument that another type of economic system could provide fewer losers. However, this isn't exactly AOC's argument. Nor is it the argument we typically hear from progressives today. Rather, we are hearing that under capitalism, the losers are being oppressed by the winners. The system is there to lock the winners and losers in their place. Furthermore, the losers are such because of various immutable characteristics such as color and gender (among other things). This is the dangerous part. This is where the in-groups and out-groups form. And, as best as I can tell, the Democratic party has no idea where to draw any sort of line. It was not Al Sharpton and his race baiting. It was Hugo Chavez who is still admired by progressives. It wasn't even Castro. For instance, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, after learning of Fidel Castro's death said the following:
    "
    “I was very sad for the Cuban people.
    He led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”
    [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/congresswoman-barbara-lee-castro-should-be-mourned/

    [LEFT][COLOR=#333333][FONT=helvetica neue]It is estimated that Castro killed about 15000 of his own people. Pelosi had no issue with inviting Lee to a campaign event. Meaning, to the Dems, Castro isn't too far left. Isn't too extreme or horrific. So, where do Dems draw the line?

    I could give more examples, but there is no threshold which will leave you convinced or which will even give you pause to think. Yes, I am biased. I believe in capitalism, especially when contrasted with socialism. If you can tell me where Dems draw the line, that'd be a great start. However, simply claiming not all socialism is Marxism when the Dems are making absolutely Marxist arguments in regards to why we need socialism is silly.
    I don't claim that not all socialism is Marxism. But I don't accept that all socialism IS Marxism nor do I trust that you have a particularly good grasp of the definition of Socialism or Marxism as IMO right-wingers tend to equivocate when they use those terms and they end up meaning whatever they need to mean in order to back up a particular argument at a particular time.

    It's sort of like this exchange (which isn't real but makes my point)

    Conservative: Socialism is evil and destructive
    Liberal: What about Norway? That's a socialist country and they are doing alright
    C: Technically, Norway isn't Socialistic
    L: Okay, but they have Universal Health Care and we should do the same.
    C: No! Universal Health Care is socialist!


    As far as where Dems draw the line, I do have an answer. They will draw it somewhere. I don't know exactly where (but I would guess it's when we resemble most other Western Countries and/or have similar policies that existed in America's past such as a higher tax rate of the wealthy) but then neither do you. So the notion that they will not draw the line until it reaches something truly disastrous is classic slippery-slope fallacy. If you are going to support that the line will not be drawn until we've crossed a horrible threshold, you will need to support that with something other than just ominously hinting that they will take it too far.

    And it seems that "who speaks for the party" is just based on political bias. Trump says "Go back ro your country" and you essentially say "Meh, he's not speaking for all Republicans" and when AOC says something and you essentially say "THAT'S WHERE THE PARTY IS HEADED" despite the fact that Trump CLEARLY has more power within his party than AOC.

    But here's the real difference between our two arguments. You are implying that Democrats are being divisive with "connect the dots" logic (this indicates socialism which indicates racial animosity which indicates...) while I pointed out something that was specifically said that was divisive (Go back to your own country and Send her back). We don't need to read between the lines to see Republican divisiveness.

    So while we can debate what you are forwarding there is no debate that Trump said what he said and that it was divisive. I mean if we want to play connect the dots, I will connect the shooter in El Paso to what Trump said (which is not an unreasonable connection considering his manifesto apparently contained Trump talking points).

    So you do need to provide something more concrete than unconvincing slippery-slope and connect the dots arguments.
    Last edited by mican333; August 17th, 2019 at 06:27 AM.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats HR 1 (2019)
    By CowboyX in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 24th, 2019, 08:41 AM
  2. Yay Democrats!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 13th, 2018, 09:35 PM
  3. Who are the Democrats?
    By LagerHead in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  4. Democrats Take The Senate!
    By Yuruusan in forum Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
  5. Cats are democrats
    By tinkerbell in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 15th, 2005, 02:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •