(07-02-2020 12:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As an FYI, I did not put forth the 5th Avenue premise - Donald Trump put forth a premise of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and still having supporters.

Lol - high comedy right there.

I'd rather be funny than to continue to appear stupid.

Donald put forth the premise 3 years ago... You have put it forth here as a litmus test by which you hold others in judgement. Donald Trump does not post on here (I don't think).

OldOwl?

Not enough couches.

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

First, as I understand it, there is still some question as to whether there is any real thing that Trump is "sitting idly by" about.

Second, I don't think those of you on the left truly comprehend just how distasteful the democrat issue positions are to us. There are several democrat issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, and for many of my fellow libertarians or conservatives. No matter who is the democrat or republican standard-bearer, as long as those items are on the standard, we aren't going there. Perhaps this will help you visualize it. We hate things like single-payer health care and wealth taxes and strict gun controls more than you hate Donald Trump.

So democrats are absolutely off the table as far as any consideration at all. That leaves a choice between Donald Trump, warts and all, or a libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. So regardless of whether we are okay with Trump or not, we are definitely not okay with any democrat. I personally am not okay with Trump, and for that reason will almost certainly vote for libertarian Jo Jorgensen, even though her VP running mate is a severe nutcase. But issues matter to me far more than personalities. And democrats are totally disqualified on issues.

I don't think you people on the left fully understand just how strongly we disagree with virtually every issue position taken by democrats.

Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's odious things. Am I wrong?

When candidate A's stack of odious things, both done and proposed, do not measure up to the stack of odious things done and proposed by candidate B and his party, vote A.

I guess the assumption here is that candidate B(Biden) is lily pure, and candidate A(make a wild guess) is coal dirty. But there is a long list of odious things done and proposed by Biden.

he has sold his influence, and/or allowed it to be marketed by his son. (As much evidence for this as for trump sitting "idly by")

He has made racist statements.

He wants to confiscate wealth (wealth tax) and redistribute it (socialism).

he wants to discourage investment in america (raise/eliminate capital gain taxes)(anti capitalist)

He want to cozy up to Iran. (weak, submissive foreign policy - very odious)

He participated in the Benghazi cover up. (Lies)

He sat on the side while Russia took over Crimea.

He sat on the side when there was an uprising in Iran.

He is antiSemitic, like some other Democrats.

He is erratic, and we don't know who his handlers will be. (Am I supposed to vote for a Shadow Administration I know nothing of?)

But, I reiterate, when all the odious things are stacked up, I will vote for the shortest stack, and many here will vote for the tallest. The ones who vote for the tallest are the blindest.

(07-02-2020 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

First, as I understand it, there is still some question as to whether there is any real thing that Trump is "sitting idly by" about.

Second, I don't think those of you on the left truly comprehend just how distasteful the democrat issue positions are to us. There are several democrat issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, and for many of my fellow libertarians or conservatives. No matter who is the democrat or republican standard-bearer, as long as those items are on the standard, we aren't going there. Perhaps this will help you visualize it. We hate things like single-payer health care and wealth taxes and strict gun controls more than you hate Donald Trump.

So democrats are absolutely off the table as far as any consideration at all. That leaves a choice between Donald Trump, warts and all, or a libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. So regardless of whether we are okay with Trump or not, we are definitely not okay with any democrat. I personally am not okay with Trump, and for that reason will almost certainly vote for libertarian Jo Jorgensen, even though her VP running mate is a severe nutcase. But issues matter to me far more than personalities. And democrats are totally disqualified on issues.

I don't think you people on the left fully understand just how strongly we disagree with virtually every issue position taken by democrats.

Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's odious things. Am I wrong?

When candidate A's stack of odious things, both done and proposed, do not measure up to the stack of odious things done and proposed by candidate B and his party, vote A.

I guess the assumption here is that candidate B(Biden) is lily pure, and candidate A(make a wild guess) is coal dirty. But there is a long list of odious things done and proposed by Biden.

he has sold his influence, and/or allowed it to be marketed by his son. (As much evidence for this as for trump sitting "idly by")

He has made racist statements.

He wants to confiscate wealth (wealth tax) and redistribute it (socialism).

he wants to discourage investment in america (raise/eliminate capital gain taxes)(anti capitalist)

He want to cozy up to Iran. (weak, submissive foreign policy - very odious)

He participated in the Benghazi cover up. (Lies)

He sat on the side while Russia took over Crimea.

He sat on the side when there was an uprising in Iran.

He is antiSemitic, like some other Democrats.

He is erratic, and we don't know who his handlers will be. (Am I supposed to vote for a Shadow Administration I know nothing of?)

But, I reiterate, when all the odious things are stacked up, I will vote for the shortest stack, and many here will vote for the tallest.

Based on your previous answer, your reason to vote for Trump was to keep a Democrat out of the WH - not because you found Biden to be more or less "odious" than Trump.

And note that a number of the issues above are political - I used the term odious because we had been talking about personal decisions, and whether those could sway someone to not vote for Trump, as opposed to political platforms. The general response was that the personal decisions were not enough to keep some from voting for Trump to keep Democrats out of the WH.

(07-02-2020 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What a ride this has been.

A relevant hypothetical was put forth by Big, based on news that has broken recently - the very real potential that Trump ignored the Russian bounties.

A comparison to voters being OK with Trump sitting idly by (if that turns out to be true) with voters being OK with Trump shooting someone on 5th Ave, after a poster here responded to Big's timely and VERY potentially real premise, that he would still vote for Trump if it turns out he did sit idly by.

You got really uppity about that comparison, even though others have backed up the idea that they would be more than willing to vote for Trump if that was true, if it meant that vote was against a Democrat winning the presidency.

Uppity? Check your privilege.

I have said almost nothing about this particular comparison, other than what others have said... and that is... 'as compared to what Biden has done'? I'd point out that Big did the exact same thing, when he noted that comparing Biden in Ukraine to Trump, that he feels Trump has profited from his election, so he's okay with it.

This whole 'more than willing to vote for Trump' is a vastly different conclusion from 'supporting Trump'.... and that has been made abundantly clear, and yet you keep ignoring what people say, and focusing on what you choose to believe....

which of course still makes you a hypocrite, since I'm fairly certain that Biden isn't your first choice... yet you're 'more than willing to vote for Biden', just as you have been instructed by your Democrat overlords... OR are you doing precisely the same thing you chastise others for? Regardless of your personal position (since nobody has really made much of a fuss about your vote) your party of preference has certainly advocated for precisely what you chastise others for doing. They've actually done worse, because they don't even allow for 3rd party votes, whether the vote matters in your state or not.

Things that have been said numerous times that you conveniently ignore so as to continue to attack people who disagree with you politically.

Quote:Again, you're putting lipstick on the pig here (the pig being voting for Trump, which many have said they don't really want to do), by trying to make a big distinction between voting for Trump and against a Democrat, when it doesn't matter - a vote for Trump would still be happening.

Meanwhile you're taking your pig for a walk, and telling everyone it's a new breed of dog.

Quote:This has nothing to do with 2016 (which you keep bringing up) and has everything to do with the upcoming election. OO has already said he would vote for Trump, regardless of if Big's scenarios were true. Owl#s has talked about voting libertarian unless the race in Texas was close. And I think Tanq is in a similar vote.

Also, please point out where i ever made the explicit statement, or even an insinuation, that I've "been arguing for days that there is no difference between supporting Trump and voting against Biden, even if that vote ends up for someone other than Trump..."

If you can't find that, please delete the statement, because that appears to be a bald-faced lie. And a really bad one at that.

(preemptively - sorry to Tanq for using the lipstick on the pig analogy again. I think he must raise pigs, since it seems to offend him so much).

You're not this dumb... I don't think...

You brought up a 2016 comment. Unfortunately, we haven't had a vote since 2016 so it's certainly as valid a comparison as how someone responds to a ridiculous (or poorly formed) hypothetical about 2020. The fact that I didn't vote for him in 2016 and don't intend to in 2020 is absolutely pertinent to your repeated implications that I 'support' Trump.

It's real simple...

You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

You are EXPLICITLY saying that arguing that someone is voting 'against' the democrat is merely putting lipstick on the pig of 'supporting Trump'. You admonish me for even trying to make that very clear distinction. You do this so that you can assign support for any and all of Trump's baggage, even your hypothetical baggage to those people.... ignoring that your side isn't only doing it, but has been openly soliciting that sort of support for years now.

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote:I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

There is one big difference. We have routinely denied racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote:I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

There is one big difference. We have routinely denied racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote:I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

There is one big difference. We have routinely decried racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

(07-02-2020 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What a ride this has been.

A relevant hypothetical was put forth by Big, based on news that has broken recently - the very real potential that Trump ignored the Russian bounties.

A comparison to voters being OK with Trump sitting idly by (if that turns out to be true) with voters being OK with Trump shooting someone on 5th Ave, after a poster here responded to Big's timely and VERY potentially real premise, that he would still vote for Trump if it turns out he did sit idly by.

You got really uppity about that comparison, even though others have backed up the idea that they would be more than willing to vote for Trump if that was true, if it meant that vote was against a Democrat winning the presidency.

Uppity? Check your privilege.

I have said almost nothing about this particular comparison, other than what others have said... and that is... 'as compared to what Biden has done'?

This whole 'more than willing to vote for Trump' is a vastly different conclusion from 'supporting Trump'.... and that has been made abundantly clear, and yet you keep ignoring what people say, and focusing on what you choose to believe....

which of course still makes you a hypocrite, since I'm fairly certain that Biden isn't your first choice... yet you're 'more than willing to vote for Biden', just as you have been instructed by your Democrat overlords... OR are you doing precisely the same thing you chastise others for? Regardless of your personal position (since nobody has really made much of a fuss about your vote) your party of preference has certainly advocated for precisely what you chastise others for doing. They've actually done worse, because they don't even allow for 3rd party votes, whether the vote matters in your state or not.

Things that have been said numerous times that you conveniently ignore so as to continue to attack people who disagree with you politically.

(07-02-2020 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, you're putting lipstick on the pig here (the pig being voting for Trump, which many have said they don't really want to do), by trying to make a big distinction between voting for Trump and against a Democrat, when it doesn't matter - a vote for Trump would still be happening.

Meanwhile you're taking your pig for a walk, and telling everyone it's a new breed of dog.

This has nothing to do with 2016 (which you keep bringing up) and has everything to do with the upcoming election. OO has already said he would vote for Trump, regardless of if Big's scenarios were true. Owl#s has talked about voting libertarian unless the race in Texas was close. And I think Tanq is in a similar vote.

Quote:Also, please point out where i ever made the explicit statement, or even an insinuation, that I've "been arguing for days that there is no difference between supporting Trump and voting against Biden, even if that vote ends up for someone other than Trump..."

If you can't find that, please delete the statement, because that appears to be a bald-faced lie. And a really bad one at that.

(preemptively - sorry to Tanq for using the lipstick on the pig analogy again. I think he must raise pigs, since it seems to offend him so much).

You're not this dumb... I don't think...

You brought up a 2016 comment. Unfortunately, we haven't had a vote since 2016 so it's certainly as valid a comparison as how someone responds to a ridiculous (or poorly formed) hypothetical about 2020. The fact that I didn't vote for him in 2016 and don't intend to in 2020 is absolutely pertinent to your repeated implications that I 'support' Trump.

It's real simple...

Easy...
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

You are EXPLICITLY saying that arguing that someone is voting 'against' the democrat is merely putting lipstick on the pig of 'supporting Trump'. You admonish me for even trying to make that very clear distinction. You do this so that you can assign support for any and all of Trump's baggage, even your hypothetical baggage to those people.... ignoring that your side isn't only doing it, but has been openly soliciting that sort of support for years now.
[/quote]

I think I see the issue here - you're jumping to conclusions over a number of things, but the end of the post gets one thing kind of right; see bold for clarification:

Quote:You are EXPLICITLY saying that arguing that someone is voting 'against' the democrat by voting for Trump is merely putting lipstick on the pig of 'supporting Trump'.

My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

And you keep saying I'm implying you support Trump - I haven't made that implication. Stop saying I have.

(07-02-2020 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote:I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

There is one big difference. We have routinely decried racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

Let's dig into the practicalities.

What makes a wealth tax socialist and a graduated income tax not socialist? If you can explain the distinction clearly, that would be very helpful.

And the GND is REALLY broad - there are a lot of things packed into the road map it lays out (it's not legislation, just some goals that are outlined). What specifically makes it socialist?

(07-02-2020 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's dig into the practicalities.
What makes a wealth tax socialist and a graduated income tax not socialist? If you can explain the distinction clearly, that would be very helpful.

What makes a wealth tax socialist is that it is focused directly on wealth redistribution. What makes a graduated income tax not socialist is I don't know, do you? I think it is a matter of degree. The kind of graduated tax that most of Europe has, where the top rate is something like 1.5 times the minimum rate (1.7 in Sweden), or not graduated at all in many countries, is very different from one where the top rate is 3 or 4 times the lowest rate (3.7 in the USA today). Plus remember that all of Europe has some form of "regressive" consumption tax that levels out the effective tax structure even more.

Quote:And the GND is REALLY broad - there are a lot of things packed into the road map it lays out (it's not legislation, just some goals that are outlined). What specifically makes it socialist?

Yes, the GND is really broad, but income and wealth redistribution is a significant component.

Socialism is not providing basic services (like defense and public safety and roads and bridges) but it starts by paying for those things in ways that seek to accomplish significant income and wealth redistribution. That is the big difference between European social democracy and the democrats' idea of democratic socialism. And don't say that some democrats like Biden are "centrists" or "moderates" that don't agree with those things. They all clearly support movement in that direction, just tempered by how far they think they can get away with. Pure socialism is government ownership of the means of production. But massive redistribution of income and wealth is a major step on the way to getting there.

My approach to provide a safety net including universal private health care/insurance using the Bismarck model and a universal basic income, all paid for by broad and relatively flat taxes (including a consumption tax) is not socialist because the focus and method is a safety net, not massive redistribution. It is "every benefits and everyone pays," like Eurpean social democracy. "We're going to give you free this and free that, and make the rich and corporations pay for it," is socialistic because it is more income redistribution than safety net..

Again, I go back to my basic question.

Nazi supports conservatives somehow means that conservatives support Nazis, no matter how strongly they deny it.

On the other hand, leftists support, or at least excuse and rationalize, Antifa or communist organizations, but that somehow does not mean that leftists support communists.

I don't understand. Can you explain?

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But, haven't you acted as if the alleged (but unproved) Trump "irregularities" are an absolute bar? So are you saying that unproved irregularities are an absolute bar but proved irregularities (the OO hypo) aren't?

I don't think I have ever said anything about "absolute bar". There are hundreds of reasons why I think Trump is basically the worst possible President. Him personally profiting and his family profiting from his presidency in unorthodox ways is merely one of hundreds.

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you know what the answer has to be, but you don't want that answer, so feign criticism of the form of the question in order to evade answering?

No ... it is exactly as I wrote. What does he mean by "spying"? Counter-intelligence, criminal investigation, or something more nefarious? Is it something that went through normal levels of review and approval (whether intelligence or criminal) that Biden became aware of an approved of? Or was it something purely political done by political operatives? In the scenario, did Biden just essentially rubber stamp something that was already happening for a while, or did he direct it from an early time? The scenario constructed with each of those affects my opinion.

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Is this specific enough for you? If it were proved that the FBI 1) spied illegally on the Trump campaign, and 2) falsified evidence as part of that effort, and that VP Biden knew and approved of both 1) and 2), would that be sufficient to cause you not to vote for him?

Yes, that would be sufficient and I would not vote for him. But its an easier decision for me since I live in Louisiana and Louisiana isn't voting for Biden as a state anyway. I would certainly join any effort to pressure Biden to step down from the ticket or to remove him from office if he won the election.

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that you have no great enthusiasm for Biden. Am I correct on presuming that is because he is not far enough left for you? Don't worry. He is plenty far left, and he will pick a VP running mate who is far enough left to suit Che Guevara, and he will be 25th Amendmented within 12 months to make her president.

Not at all. I'm an ageist and I think Biden is too old. To me he is clearly a little mentally slower than he was 10 years ago, but I certainly don't think he is senile or anything. I just think the Presidency is a really exhausting job and having 70+ year old presidents is not ideal. That is why I wish Biden, Bernie, and Warren had all stayed out of the race. It had nothing to do with him not being far enough left, as my top choice (Buttigieg) was not that far to the left of Biden. I also liked Booker and Klobuchar and neither of them were the furthest to the left.

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Biden is the perfect candidate for those of your ilk. He is the Trojan horse.

Times number 69, 70, and 75 that one of the conservatives on here have incorrectly described me.

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Then you're not paying attention to the specifics, just as before. You hold 'me' to this standard, but not yourself.

I said 'stupid' and you claimed you never used the word... and I said that I had chosen a single word to sum up your position on those people, and I stand by the usage. You yourself admitted that had you written it 6 months earlier, I would have been 'close enough' for conversation. You NEVER denied that 'not thinking highly' of them was incorrect... or that you meant whatever words you used to imply admiration or respect.

YOU used the word 'indistinguishable'. That's the specific word you used. It means, 'not able to be identified as different or distinct'.

If you are not able to identify the difference or distinction between voting FOR someone, and voting AGAINST someone else... then to plagiarize you again, I wonder if you guys are as smart as I think you are. The DNC certainly recognizes the difference and distinction.

So again, you're using specific words and then not holding yourself to the specific meaning of those specific words, and then taking me to task for using words that YOU ADMITTED (at least at some point) fairly summed up your position, and even now... is close enough. I never said it was indistinguishable... I just said it was close enough... and invited you to replace my words with yours... and you danced around that offer.

At Ease's summary paints a picture of blind support for Trump that clearly doesn't exist.... and he continues to insist that such support exists. Blind distaste for the Democratic alternative, perhaps. FTR, In addition to numbers and I actually voting 3rd party, I've said I'd vote Bernie over Trump. That sort of flies in the face of 'blind support' doesn't it.


Let me help you all....

A vote for Trump, whether it is because you support Trump or whether you simply hate Democrats is still a vote for Trump.... just as some/many of you are voting for Biden, but really support someone else. Unlike you, I submit that this much is true. Calling us 'indistinguishable from bots, maga-hat wearers etc etc' says more about your inability to discern obvious details. I can certainly tell the difference between Bernie and Biden supporters... even though both will likely vote for Biden.... especially when they tell me that they're Bernie supporters, but voting for Biden because Bernie lost the nomination.

The most interesting thing to me is that I've yet to hear any of you say that you're voting for someone else (your preferred candidate)... and yet I know at least two of us on the right here are likely to do just that.

Three lefts puts you at the same place as a single right, but clearly they aren't indistinguishable from each other to someone with average, much less above average intelligence. If you don't care about those details and merely want to cast aspersions at those who disagree with you on a fundamental basis politically, that's a little beneath the discourse we've come to expect on here.

[insert pithy yet humorous response about your use of hyper technical readings here]

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Whether AE's original comments were spot on is a matter of opinion. You believe they are, he doesn't.

What I understood OO to say is that he is less disturbed by Trumps's baggage than by the democrats' policy proposals.

Quote:Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

At least you acknowledge that Trump is not the only candidate with substantial negative baggage. I don't think that voting for Biden means that someone is particularly supportive of, say, senile presidents, and I don't see the point in implying that they are voting for senility.

Bottom line is we have two really, really flawed candidates. So it comes down to issues, which is where I start, and issues are why those such as Tanq, OO, and myself cannot support Biden under any circumstances. What we plan to do instead may vary, but none of us can live with the. democrats on issues.

(07-02-2020 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote:I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

There is one big difference. We have routinely decried racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

This. It would be different if ANY of them were on here saying that they intended to vote 3rd party for a party that doesn't support these things, but would vote for the Dem if they thought it would make a difference, but NONE of them are doing that.

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think I see the issue here - you're jumping to conclusions over a number of things, but the end of the post gets one thing kind of right; see bold for clarification:

Quote:You are EXPLICITLY saying that arguing that someone is voting 'against' the democrat by voting for Trump is merely putting lipstick on the pig of 'supporting Trump'.

My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Swing, pivot and deflect again.

That's a ridiculously simplistic and selective view of what he said. Mostly it seems he rejected the hypotheticals and prioritized his position against the left on economic and international issues. Sorry, but we're all a little 'conspiracied out' by you guys.

Big asked me if anything could make me not vote for Trump. Well, in 2016, I did not vote for Trump, so I guess the answer is hopelessness. I thought Hillary was a lock. So, as my own little miniprotest to his personality, I withheld my vote. But nothing can happen that would make me vote FOR Biden.

In response to the shooting hypothetical, he made a joke.

In response to Big's hypothetical, he said he would vote against Democrats.

No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.
He also said:
I would probably go ahead and vote against the encroachment of anticapitalsim.

Again, against Democrats.

THIS is what he did say, but he wasn't talking about your hypotheticals, but 'what we know now'.

As I have said, I will vote for Trump in 2020 after sitting out 2016. But that is based on Trump's results, not some cult like following of the man, as it seems people mean when they refer to his "base'.

So it's clear what he thinks and what he means... to everyone except people like you trying to find some way to not only label him, but then to assign that to everyone around them.

Even if I ignore what he said and accept your self-serving interpretation of it... I'm not OO and neither is Tanq nor numbers... yet you all feel just fine continuing to paint us all with a single brush.

That's nice.

Quote:Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

And you keep saying I'm implying you support Trump - I haven't made that implication. Stop saying I have.

LIKELY? I can show you probably a dozen leaders, including Biden, Pelosi and Bernie all advocating for it. I have yet to see you say one word critical of that.... or that you intend to vote for your preferred candidate, even though they're not representing 'Democrats'.

As to what you implied, I quoted you. You know very well that this was what you were implying. The entire conversation came about from an 'indistinguishable' comment..... and you're still making that same inference.

(07-02-2020 02:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Whether AE's original comments were spot on is a matter of opinion. You believe they are, he doesn't.

What I understood OO to say is that he is less disturbed by Trumps's baggage than by the democrats' policy proposals.

Quote:Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

At least you acknowledge that Trump is not the only candidate with substantial negative baggage. I don't think that voting for Biden means that someone is particularly supportive of, say, senile presidents, and I don't see the point in implying that they are voting for senility.

Bottom line is we have two really, really flawed candidates. So it comes down to issues, which is where I start, and issues are why those such as Tanq, OO, and myself cannot support Biden under any circumstances. What we plan to do instead may vary, but none of us can live with the. democrats on issues.

Why do you think that it is not issues for those of us on the left?

I think Trump is a total dumpster fire of a human being, however if I liked the direction that he was steering the country I would not have a problem voting for him (assuming that I believed that he would steer the country in a better direction than the opposing candidate).

You guys seem to be of the opinion that it is simply OMB for all of us (sort of like the "blind" Trump voter who can't use evidence to make a decision. You guys take great offense at this portrayal.). We can hate the man AND hate his policies. I have enough hate for both!

(07-02-2020 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look 93, I know that you and lad will vote Biden. I know that you all know he is borderline dementia.

For the record, I completely disagree that Biden has borderline dementia or is senile or anything like that. So thank you for excluding me from your characterization.

(07-02-2020 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's dig into the practicalities.
What makes a wealth tax socialist and a graduated income tax not socialist? If you can explain the distinction clearly, that would be very helpful.

What makes a wealth tax socialist is that it is focused directly on wealth redistribution. What makes a graduated income tax not socialist is I don't know, do you? I think it is a matter of degree. The kind of graduated tax that most of Europe has, where the top rate is something like 1.5 times the minimum rate (1.7 in Sweden), or not graduated at all in many countries, is very different from one where the top rate is 3 or 4 times the lowest rate (3.7 in the USA today). Plus remember that all of Europe has some form of "regressive" consumption tax that levels out the effective tax structure even more.

I think this perfectly illustrates my point with how the word "socialist" is bandied about so frequently that it has lost its meaning.

You've basically boiled socialism down to pornography - you know if when you see it. And that means you get to define what it means.

See, i don't see a wealth tax as any more or less socialist than a progressive income tax, an estate tax, or any other sort of tax. Inherently, all taxes are about redistributing wealth, because they allow the government to collect revenue and spend it on things they deem fit. And those things (for lack of a better word) do not benefit every citizen exactly equally.

Quote:

Quote:And the GND is REALLY broad - there are a lot of things packed into the road map it lays out (it's not legislation, just some goals that are outlined). What specifically makes it socialist?

Yes, the GND is really broad, but income and wealth redistribution is a significant component.

Socialism is not providing basic services (like defense and public safety and roads and bridges) but it starts by paying for those things in ways that seek to accomplish significant income and wealth redistribution. That is the big difference between European social democracy and the democrats' idea of democratic socialism. And don't say that some democrats like Biden are "centrists" or "moderates" that don't agree with those things. They all clearly support movement in that direction, just tempered by how far they think they can get away with. Pure socialism is government ownership of the means of production. But massive redistribution of income and wealth is a major step on the way to getting there.

My approach to provide a safety net including universal private health care/insurance using the Bismarck model and a universal basic income, all paid for by broad and relatively flat taxes (including a consumption tax) is not socialist because the focus and method is a safety net, not massive redistribution. It is "every benefits and everyone pays," like Eurpean social democracy. "We're going to give you free this and free that, and make the rich and corporations pay for it," is socialistic because it is more income redistribution than safety net..

This also touches on the pornography concept - one person's redistribution could be another person's safety net.

(07-02-2020 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look 93, I know that you and lad will vote Biden. I know that you all know he is borderline dementia.

For the record, I completely disagree that Biden has borderline dementia or is senile or anything like that. So thank you for excluding me from your characterization.

If Word Salad *isnt* borderline dementia I would hate to be the old person in *your* house when you make a decision to send them alone to the grocery store.

(07-02-2020 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd point out that Big did the exact same thing, when he noted that comparing Biden in Ukraine to Trump, that he feels Trump has profited from his election, so he's okay with it.

That is not remotely what I said. I'm not OK with it in the way the Trump family has obviously done it (Trump staying at Trump properties and forcing other government employees like Secret Service to stay at his properties is the easiest example). I'm not OK with it in the way that OO asked in his hypothetical (and I said as much). What I said was that even if Trump and Biden were equally bad in that way (and for the record, I do not think they are), that issue would merely cancel out in my mind but I would still have other reasons to vote for Biden.