Cinga
-
Posts
2,376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cinga
-
-
On 10/13/2020 at 6:15 PM, RealKayAdams said:
Cinga, I highlighted the text where I believe you went wrong in your thinking. A lot of important nuances are lost when you try to force the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum onto a one-dimensional line. Consider splitting public policy issues into two dimensions: all of the economic freedom ones and then all of the personal freedom ones. A common mistake people make when thinking along the traditional left-right 1-D spectrum is that they place too much weight on the economic freedom issues and overlook the civil liberties stuff. It’s a very understandable mistake because we Americans now take for granted the full list of civil rights victories that have been achieved for women, minorities, non-Christians, and LGBTQ over the past generation. But we can’t forget the unresolved left-wing libertarian issues like police brutality, protest/civil disobedience rights, immigrant human rights, drug legalization, animal rights, capital punishment, euthanasia, and whistleblower protections…or right-wing libertarian ones like gun rights and internet neutrality/censorship/first amendment stuff…or poorly defined ones like abortion and affirmative action.
So once we move from a 1-D line to a 2-D square, I hope the distinctions between socialism and fascism become a bit more clear. Socialism doesn’t technically address the personal freedoms, but it’s traditionally associated with a generally more libertarian perspective on these matters. Fascism is authoritarian on both the economic and personal freedoms, although the government’s economic intrusion is different in nature from that of socialism with respect to how ownership of the means of production is organized. When you apply these distinctions to Hitler’s historical “accomplishments” as a political leader, you will see that he ruled as a quintessential fascist and not at all like a socialist. In fact, Hitler thought of workers as inherently inferior to business owners and not to be trusted with large shares of responsibility. The use of the “socialist” label in the “Nazi” title was hollow, done solely for political strategic gain in Germany between 1918-1933. “Actions speak louder than words” is the apt maxim here. Hitler can say to historians that he is a socialist…just like I can say to TSW posters that I am everyone’s favorite GMFB host!!
My biggest frustration with modern American political discourse is how sloppy we all tend to be with political labels, including “socialism” and “fascism.” I’m guilty of this, too, from time to time! Words should have specific meanings and political labels should have specific definitions. Political labels should be applied with historical context in mind. Is Trump actually a fascist? Well he certainly dabbles in strongly worded law-and-order rhetoric and nebulous racial dog whistling, but compared to early twentieth century European politics? In practice, I’d say of course not! Political labels should also have well-understood demarcations among policy gradations. Much of what gets called “socialism” these days can be more accurately described as “mixed economies.” Referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer as “socialists” is cringeworthy to me (they are “liberals”). Referring to AOC or Bernie as “socialists” is still problematic because they are proponents of mixed economies, but it’s acceptable enough to me because a nationalized health care industry would represent a significant chunk of our total economy.
For my final point before turning my attention to the Bills game, I encourage everyone to challenge the common association of authoritarianism with tyranny and libertarianism with freedom. With either authoritarianism or statism or totalitarianism, I’m referring to a simple definition of more government control, while with libertarianism I mean less government control. When you take that 1-D line of yours and keep moving from authoritarianism toward libertarianism, you will escape government tyranny but will then approach another type of tyrannical dystopia called “corporate tyranny.” The American libertarian movement (and therefore most of the PPP forum) aggressively denies the manifold losses of economic freedom under corporate tyranny (dissolution of unions, no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, monopolies, crony capitalism, all types of market failures, etc.), so let’s focus on another type of freedom that is near and dear to my heart. Let’s try expanding that 1-D line into a 5-D hyperdimensional public policy cube (lol…all my wonderful readers are hating on me now…) featuring economic issues, personal/cultural freedom issues, foreign policy, political rights, and environmental issues. I’m very libertarian on the middle three, but the devilish little eco-socialist in me wants everyone to focus on that environmental “dimension.” More government control in this domain can irrationally limit economic growth, but it can also INCREASE our individual ENVIRONMENTAL freedoms from corporate tyranny by protecting our health and property and financial resources from all the negative economic externalities (i.e. pollution) that companies otherwise get away with under free-market capitalism. There are other types of tyranny besides the corporate one, of course, with which government can help rectify. Religious tyranny played a dominant role for much of recorded human history, but its effect has (mostly) receded for the West with the help of government (and scientific reasoning). I would also generalize the word “tyranny” a bit to include genetic tyranny, biological/physical limit tyranny, random life misfortune tyranny…government CAN have a positive role in some aspects of these domains, but yeah…it’s complicated…
Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's from government or from the corporate world and belongs on the end along with your statism or totalitarianism. After al, aren't you just handing control over to another entity in both? And that entity is still taking away your freedoms, whether it is control over you directly, or control over your life through your work life. If to the extreme right you have anarchy, how in the world can there by corporate tyranny since anarchy is by definition the lack of government, ie and overseer of any kind. I'm with you in that also to that extreme, something or someone will greedily take over, probably by force. But you can also argue that in the other extreme, pure utopia will never happen either, because some will refuse to labor for the good of the many...
So I am still going to argue to the left is control, to the right is liberty. Each extreme is wrong, be it total communal control, or total anarchy.
-
1 hour ago, SoTier said:
The choice is not between "shutting down the world" and pretending the pandemic is inconsequential, which is simply untrue. Nobody is even asking much less demanding that. Taking reasonable precautions -- wearing masks, staying socially distanced, not gathering indoors in large groups -- is not a left or right "thing". It's the responsible thing -- like making sure that your kids are strapped into car seats or booster seats in the rear seat of the car rather than riding on Mom's lap in the front because "it's Mom's choice" to put her kids at significant risk of death and/or serious injury in even a relatively minor accident.
Explain Sweden please
-
7 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:
Is there any hard evidence to back up the untested, asymptomatic numbers other than estimates? If not, it's really not proper to throw those in.
Here:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/health/who-coronavirus-world-population-intl/index.html
if 10% of the world population has been infected that is about 750 million. 1.1 million (rounded up a lot) divided by 750 million comes to about .14% deaths
-
Klobachar, repeating the same Lincoln claim Harris tried doesn't make it a truth. Congress was not in session so nominating someone would have been fruitless. He did however on the first day they returned to session.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, ALF said:
Sen Whitehouse presented the most compelling and thorough argument that I have ever seen. He is one heck of a lawyer, follow the money.
And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions
-
3
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, SoTier said:
As long as you and yours aren't among the dead, it's all good, right?
As long as you and yours aren't among those who spend months in the hospital recovering and incurring massive medical bills that health insurance doesn't cover, it's all good, right?
As long as you and yours aren't among those "long haulers" who suffer physical and psychological symptoms that prevent them from returning to work, it's all good, right?
As long as you and yours aren't among those who suffer what might be permanent health conditions that limit their quality of life, it's all good, right?
Where the **** did I say any of that? But since you bring it up, the WHO estimates now that over 750 MILLION people have had the virus. That would knock the fatality rate down to .13% - yes, that is point one three percent right about what the flu is and we have a vaccine for the flu!
I'm with virtually everyone else on this planet, that 1 death was too many. But shutting down the world for this was utter bullschiff when we could have protected the elderly and those with pre-existing as I did my own wife! And gone about our lives!
-
Whitehouse with the conspiracy theory of the century!
Holy crapola!
Koch Industries? They've become DEMOCRAT donors of late you idiot! Because they want that cheap labor to come across an open border! But at least he admitted that politicians taking dark money is the norm smdh...
-
1
-
-
All due respect to the other Justices on the Supreme Court and the Senators in this hearing, but I've heard said that often ACB is referred to as the smartest person in the room and she is proving it today, as I suspect she will as well once seating.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, unbillievable said:
Not to Mention Sotomayer stating that she will use RACE as the basis for all her decisions.
Which in and of itself is admitting purely racist intent.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Gary M said:
96% recovery rate, stop spreading fear.
That recovery rate is deceptive in itself though since it only count those who have been tested. If you throw in asymptomatic the recovery rate jumps to 99 and change percent recovery rate.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, unbillievable said:
What makes it worse is that Republican nominees to the court are following the intent of the judiciary Branch by enforcing the laws and the Constitution. They routinely swing the vote right or left depending on the laws passed by Congress.
On the other hand, the Democrat Justice nominees are ACTIVISTS. They ignore their jobs in favor of Social Justice initiatives popular at the time.
Obama already tried destroying the Executive branch by setting the precedent that the President can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Now the Dems want to do it again to 2nd branch of government.
Let me also throw in there the fact that GInsburg, and now Kagen have actually cited international law in opinions they have handed down which in my humble opinion SHOULD have gotten them impeached from the bench!
-
1
-
1
-
-
She did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She used the Ginsburg Rule!
-
11 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:
The Republicans should fill this seat. It's in the Constitution that they can.
However, it also was that Garland should have been brought to the Senate. Republicans betrayed that. They're going back on their word now. Lindsey Grahams spine looks worse than Daks foot.
I didn't say how the amendment process works, I just said start the process. Give those.700,000 US citizens taxation with representation.
10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:As with "court packing," there would be nothing unconstitutional about creating a state out of most of the District of Columbia. The constitution establishes a federal district, which initially included Arlington, Virginia, which was ceded back to the State of Virginia later on. My favored solution to enfranchise DC residents would be to cede much of the District to Maryland. But that won't happen -- it would disrupt political interests within Maryland, and -- let's be honest -- wouldn't accomplish the goal of getting 2 more Democratic senators.
But the plans do not run afoul of the Constitution. It's a political issue, and it will be settled at the ballot box next month.
First, I don't buy into the narrative of no representation. DC is most certainly represented by 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators. 30% of their revenue is provided by that Congress as Federal Funds as well. It must even be noted that over half that DC population of 700 thousand are actually there as federal employees and not necessarily native residents.
At the writing of the Constitution, land was carved out of Virginia and Maryland to create the District of Columbia. Since that time, their portion has been given back to Virginia. So if they indeed want their own representation instead of sharing with the 50 states then return that portion the the state of Maryland since it would only be fair.
-
1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:
And making DC a state would change the Constitution. So let's get the process started already.
That's not how the amendment process works but nice try
-
13 minutes ago, ALF said:
In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.
Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold
The worst part of this was the cabinet officials however only leaving the high court positions alone I think was only done as a bone. Don't even think if the shoe were on the other foot the Democrats wouldn't have done away with that too. Same with this election year nomination. Don't think for a second that the Dems, if they has the Potus and the Senate wouldn't fill this seat.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:
Yea but imagine what the founding fathers would think if you told them you could fit 700,000 people in 10 square miles!
That's irrelevant. The Constitution can be changed, but not ignored.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
It's not my party.
I think this is all way overblown: Dems harp on voter suppression every election (I can't wait till the stories of "long lines waiting to vote" and "misdirected to the wrong polling place" on the afternoon of November 3), and now we have Repubs joining in with "voter fraud" (watch for the "more ballots cast than people living in [Dem] precinct" stories).
Joining in???????????? Where the **** have you been the last 20 plus years?
47 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:Not to go off topic but on your points:
I lived in DC. It's crazy it's not a state. The only reason it's not a state is politics at this point. Republicans don't want it because it adds two more Dem senators.
Not adding DC does keep more of a competitive balance to the Senate where either party has a shot to win.
If you support keeping the Senate the way it is, why not support keeping the Supreme Court similar in structure? Let the Dems add 4 judges of Barrett passes. 3 liberal and 1 moderate. The court will then have a similar make up and no one party is in control.
First, DC is not a state because it was set up under the Constitution as a neutral seat of the federal government and it should stay that way. Don't like it, change the Constitution.
As I said earlier, I don't particularly care the politics of a justice, but either should they because their job is to rule on the law, not make the law vis legislate from the bench.
edit to add, the Dems also want to add PR and possibly Guam too, meaning the Senate would be Dem into perpetuity....
-
7 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
Can you expand into this? What is single party control in this scenario?
Read my response to Alf a few posts above
-
9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Or they could be voted out again if they overreach. Maybe this time by a Republican Party that builds a new coalition.
Obviously you either don't understand what your party is trying to do, or you're compliant with it. As @spartacus says above, what good is an election under single party control?
-
15 minutes ago, ALF said:
What if the Democrats win the WH , Senate , keep the House and pack the SC . Whatever law they pass the SC could say it is Constitutional. That is why I hate partisan politics it could get to that point.
And when that happens, along with the idea of adding DC and PR as states and banning the EC, we sadly become a totalitarian state because they would cement this nation as a one party state under only Democrat Party control.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Tiberius said:
You should be prepared to be hearing from her for years and years now
As a Senator I know, cause I doubt CA will vote her out anytime soon 🤣
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it
nevermind THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL huh?
-
Harris is up and I'm already tied of her campaign speech
-
Anyone else notice each Dem Senator is reading story of someone with health issues, but NONE OF THEM are from their own states? Hirona now is reading about someone in NC but she is Hawaii smdh
Talk about out of touch!
-
1
-
Molly Ivans Would Be Smiling About A Democratic Texas
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The only way Democrats can win Texas is by cheating, and they are certainly trying...
https://www.katychristianmagazine.com/2020/10/01/alleged-voter-ballot-harvesting-goes-all-the-way-to-the-top-in-harris-county/