|
Post by Don on Mar 6, 2019 6:49:53 GMT -5
I think this article speaks to what Opty and others have had to say about the Dems working hard to shoot themselves in the foot in 2020. The Green New Deal and 'Socialist' Democrats Are Normalizing TrumpThe article discusses Trump's current 42% approval rating, gives a fairly even-handed account of the "accomplishments" Trump is getting credit for, and discusses a wide variety of bone-headed dems saying stupid stuff to energize their far left base. Then it throws some facts into the mix. The article then makes the same point that has been made here, repeatedly. If you're gonna peddle fascism 1 in sheep's clothing, "capitalism" is apparently a better buzzword than "socialism." 1Removing the party bias from the definition, fascism is defined as "ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy." Now, if anybody wants to claim that either party doesn't see this as their objective, I'm open to evidence. (Oh, and remember that tariffs and border walls are nationalistic protectionism, whether proposed by democrats, by Bernie or implemented by Trump.)
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 6, 2019 11:42:31 GMT -5
This is a really interesting post, Don. I can't read the article or respond right now due to heading to work soon, but I would like to later after I've read it and mulled a little.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 6, 2019 14:37:20 GMT -5
I don't know, I think the article makes one good point, and that's about it: if the Dems wear the "socialist" label (either tagging themselves or letting Trump do it), that's gonna be a huge problem. Totally agree with that. The problem with the article is that it doesn't really define "normalize." To me, that connotes acceptance of Trump's worst traits and actions, which the article doesn't really address. It's basically saying that by being too extreme, the left makes DT look reasonable. But then it cites the example of various Dems being in favor of some form of Mewdicare for all, which puts them alongside 70 percent of Americans. Or, if you don't like those numbers, roughly half of Americans. Welcome to let me know if I'm missing something important from the article, though.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 6, 2019 15:03:16 GMT -5
Hmmm.
I think the problem I have with the article is that implies there is some kind of coherent ideology beyond Trump that stands in contrast to the socialist-leaning Dems. There isn't. So I don't think the these Dems--and their policy wish list (like the GND)--are normalizing Trump at all.* Rather, they're shoving that portion of the Dem party, the rank and file members, who consider themselves "moderates" (along with some never-Trumpers on the R side) into a corner and forcing them to choose.
As a political strategy, I think this is foolish and is almost certain to fail...which means another four years of Trump and, yes, the potential of another House flip. So I think the article's conclusion is fair, even if the reasoning is less-than-strong.
* Trump as "the obnxious, in your face, full of shit, insult-crazy, populist politician" has been normalized, however, but that's a whole other story.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2019 12:17:27 GMT -5
While Reason is a mostly credible source for information, it plainly has an ideological bias as well as documented ties to the Koch brothers as well as ALEC and other groups with a right-wing tilt.
In 2016 the Reason Foundation was named by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for their participation in climate change denial and slow-walking or blocking legislation to address climate change.
It's possible to get a " fairly even-handed account" from Reason so long as you know going in there is a pronounced political bias and how the account has been created by and slanted toward advancing and protecting the interests of corporations, billionaires and the capitalist class. Reason's specialty of the house is decrying the evils of socialism while denying capitalism is anything but good. Libertarianism is all about concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while pretending to free the many from an onerous and intrusive government.
You're not getting a "fairly even-handed account" about the Green Deal, left-leaning Democrats, socialism, or even Donald Trump from any publication whose hands are being greased by a shadowy cabal of corporations, think tanks, lobbyists, and wealthy elites.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 7, 2019 12:42:51 GMT -5
I'm no fan of ALEC's "corporate libertarianism" either. But acording to your own quote from FactCheck, you're wrong. You could ding every publication for story selection bias. Not failing a fact check, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare for a publication, don't you think? I will note that as is common in this era of left-right divide, FactCheck's myopia and shoehorn are a bit broken. Reason (and the Koch brothers, for that matter) have long been supporters of sentencing reform, blasted Clinton's crack cocaine penalties, and have long supported elimination of victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling and drug use. They have always been pro-choice, including the abortion topic. Now, how do those stories qualify them as Right-Center biased, exactly? Support of individual choice is a horribly difficult stance for some institutions (and people) to process, apparently. ETA: You'll also find scant support for crony crapitolism in Reason, contrary to your claim. They know the difference between today's system, rigged for the rich and the corporations, and their tagline "free minds and free markets." ETA2: Take a scroll on their home page and point out the articles supporting crony crapitolism, if you don't mind. I'd like to read them.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 7, 2019 14:51:44 GMT -5
...a shadowy cabal of corporations, think tanks, lobbyists, and wealthy elites. I.e., the leadership of the Democratic Party...and of the Republican Party.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2019 20:57:13 GMT -5
I'm no fan of ALEC's "corporate libertarianism" either. But acording to your own quote from FactCheck, you're wrong. You could ding every publication for story selection bias. Not failing a fact check, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare for a publication, don't you think? It's not "exceedingly rare" for a publication to pass a fact check. Slate and New York magazine are two of my favorite publications and both stack up very well on that score, but you're missing the mark. It's not whether Reason gets their facts wrong. It's does Reason have a clear partisan bias? Yes, it definitely does, and one of their biases is to pump up the junk science of climate change denialists.
There are stories that push forward an agenda and others that push back against it. There's a case to be made against the Green Deal, but this stuff about "Socialist" Dems normalizing Trump is bullshit and Reason can be very, very good at slinging the bullshit.
Don't you fucking patronize me, Don. I support individual choice, all right, but within reason and when libertarian assholes like Ron & Rand Paul think the 1964 Civil Act was wrong because it curtailed the "individual choice" of White racists to discriminate against Black people, that's highly unreasonable to me. So you can miss me with your "horrible difficult stance for some institutions (and Black people) to process apparently" crapola. I process it just fine. I just don't process it the way some guy on a fucking debate board thinks I should.
Clear?
As far as FactCheck's supposed myopia and shoe horn, you can sing that song about Reason and the Koch Brothers supporting sentencing reform, being pro-choice, and being on the right side of prostitution, gambling and drug use (though we could debate how much of the heroin crisis qualifies as "victimless"), but what will sound off-key is how through the Reason Foundation's ties to ALEC is how they can write articles against voter ID laws while all the while working with right-wing Republicans to introduce voter ID laws and advance an irrational denial of impending environmental disaster.
If you're cashing checks from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, you're in bed with the same right-wingers as those that make up Judicial Watch and the neo-con job that was the Project for the New American Century. Remember those assholes? I'm not talking about crony capitalism. I'm talking about climate change denial and since Reason is your rag, I do mind. Go find your own articles.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 8, 2019 5:45:48 GMT -5
I'm no fan of ALEC's "corporate libertarianism" either. But acording to your own quote from FactCheck, you're wrong. You could ding every publication for story selection bias. Not failing a fact check, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare for a publication, don't you think? It's not "exceedingly rare" for a publication to pass a fact check. Slate and New York magazine are two of my favorite publications and both stack up very well on that score, but you're missing the mark. It's not whether Reason gets their facts wrong. It's does Reason have a clear partisan bias? Yes, it definitely does, and one of their biases is to pump up the junk science of climate change denialists.
There are stories that push forward an agenda and others that push back against it. There's a case to be made against the Green Deal, but this stuff about "Socialist" Dems normalizing Trump is bullshit and Reason can be very, very good at slinging the bullshit.
Don't you fucking patronize me, Don. I support individual choice, all right, but within reason and when libertarian assholes like Ron & Rand Paul think the 1964 Civil Act was wrong because it curtailed the "individual choice" of White racists to discriminate against Black people, that's highly unreasonable to me. So you can miss me with your "horrible difficult stance for some institutions (and Black people) to process apparently" crapola. I process it just fine. I just don't process it the way some guy on a fucking debate board thinks I should.
Clear?
As far as FactCheck's supposed myopia and shoe horn, you can sing that song about Reason and the Koch Brothers supporting sentencing reform, being pro-choice, and being on the right side of prostitution, gambling and drug use (though we could debate how much of the heroin crisis qualifies as "victimless"), but what will sound off-key is how through the Reason Foundation's ties to ALEC is how they can write articles against voter ID laws while all the while working with right-wing Republicans to introduce voter ID laws and advance an irrational denial of impending environmental disaster.
If you're cashing checks from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, you're in bed with the same right-wingers as those that make up Judicial Watch and the neo-con job that was the Project for the New American Century. Remember those assholes? I'm not talking about crony capitalism. I'm talking about climate change denial and since Reason is your rag, I do mind. Go find your own articles.
Well, when you said "Libertarianism is all about concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while pretending to free the many from an onerous and intrusive government." it was apparent you had your definition of libertarianism confused with crony crapitolism. "Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few" is the definition of crony crapitolism. If you like, I can find several definitions of libertarianism, none of which are focused on "concentrating wealth in the hands of the few." So that's where the "crony crapitolism" point came from. Sorry if I was confused. Now, as far as Climate Change Denial? You mean articles like this one? The Market Says Climate Change Is HappeningSo you were wrong about crony crapitolism, so you shifted to Climate Change Denial. And here's an article that not only doesn't deny climate change, but points out that market indicators are in line with those expectations. Hardly denial, heh? I suspect Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is not a regular reader, either. Wanna pick another topic?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 8, 2019 11:10:02 GMT -5
I'm not talking about crony capitalism. I'm talking about climate change denial and since Reason is your rag, I do mind. Go find your own articles.
Insert <shrugging of shoulders> here. Nah. We good here, thanks.
Regulatory precaution, not rising temperatures, is the main driver for the increase in vector-borne disease. Ronald Bailey|May. 8, 2018 12:00 pm
As greens rush to blame Harvey's devastation on global warming, the real culprit - subsidizing coastal development - goes unmentioned.
Ronald Bailey|12.11.2012
When I said Reason was wholly unreasonable on the matter of climate change, what I said I meant.
|
|