Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez is a result of Trump

Pure speculation. What's your point in asking?

 

6

Don’t you see that the problem is with you - not others?

As has been explained to you many times there are many different forms of socialism just as there are many forms of ‘conservative’ from the rational and compassionate types to those that are very much not.

It is usually very easy to quickly work out what kind of ‘conservative’ is speaking.

Now there are right wingers (like you) that wish to try and portray any left winger as some type of swivel eyed drooling Stalinist.

You have been told so often (it seems like thousands of times and may actually be so) not to think in such absolutist terms but since you still do it, it is clear you do this as a ploy (just as say the Nazis always portrayed Jews as evil).

I mean I always find it funny that some right wingers like to put forward some of the works of George Orwell as what happens under socialism but without realising George Orwell (Eric Blair) was actually a socialist, a democratic socialist.

 

6

AGAIN with the black and white thinking – either some form of fat shaming or it must be some form of thin-shaming.

We have been through this at length before and it seemed everyone but you thought it was about health only you seemed obsessed by thin bikini wearing supermodels.

[your joke]I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from

LOL and I’d have no say in it, this gives me another insight into how you think – in this regard how you think about consensual sex. It’s the kind of statement that would make me worried for anybody go on a date with you.

This also indicates a ridged mind-set, someone that bases their views on their bias rather than on rational thought.

Again with the black and white mind-set dipped in bias – either someone has not to be left wing or they are a left winger that supports racists. I mean come on man how irrational can you be.

And as I’ve explained you defined the alt-right in a certain way - One thing most of them have in common is their utter disgust in corporate globalism, global governance, and wasteful interventionism. They despise identity politics, censorship, and language policing – and you self-identified with that, you accepted at that time you were part of the alt-right.

Now as I’ve said I don’t know if you are a racist (although you seem to be a bigot) yes and I know some from the alt-right have become the alt-lite to disassociate themselves from the image of the alt-right that has become associated with overt racism but as I asked before have you changed your view from those you quoted?

 

6

Once again you seem to be led by your bias rather than your brain – you need to read what is said and try and understand it before replying – I have explained that Nazis and right wing libertarians have exactly the same policies especially in economic but that they have similarities in the way they spread their message (aggressive evasion of rational debate) and in some fundamental ideology (Social Darwinism).

I mean this reply is just another example of your aggressive evasion, you know you cannot defend your ideas from the criticisms levelled at them (regarding the methodology and the social Darwinism) so you attack in the hope that no one notices you haven’t actually countered the criticisms.

 

6

But I’m happy to defend my ideas and have done if there is anything you want me to go over and I’ll do my best to help – although you will have to be a bit more clear over what you want to discuss that just Good Governance I mean good governance is good governance are you saying you want something other than good governance?

 

Rat me old mate

Is that the new world order that you think is run by Satan worshipers it’s been such a long time since we last chatted I’m not sure what conspiracy theory you have bought into at the moment.

Is this in the same way that you believed Hitler was secretly a Jew and implied that WWII (and holocaust) was all a plot by Zionists to further the Zionists cause?

 

Dice

You would need to explain by balanced budget and responsible government spending?

You see there are differing views on what these things mean depending on which economic theory and model they are following.

Now putting it in simplistic terms some see government as a household it’s about not getting into debt so it comes down to not spending more than you take in. So say you get $1000 coming in you don’t spend more than that amount and you cut out things so as not to spend more. But what this comes down to is what things do you spend on and what not? What is important?

This model doesn’t work for me because governments don’t seem like households, household usually have a regular income, a set amount coming in and out and often the debt thing doesn’t work for example if a mortgage is involved then that household is already in debt and that debt is serviced with the wish to have a owned house at the end of it, so debts can often be good things. So sticking to only spending what you bring in and never going into debt doesn’t work.

There is also the problem of the business cycle – it’s harder to have a strict in out spending model if you don’t have a regular income where cutting back during lean times can damage your position (and health) and mean you are unable to take advantage during the upturn, so it might be better to go into debt in the bad times and pay that debt off in the good times.

Here is a simple explanation of the Keynesian approach.

This is about ‘taming’ the business cycle, planning for the dips and working to lessen them.

In an up period the government pays off its debts incurred in the low period and possibly its stakes in some industries and business it nationalised or bought in the low period.

This means that in a low period the government is then in a position to put money into the system and nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble.

In low periods the interest rate would be set low to simulate growth and in the up periods set higher to curtail the possibility of a runaway market.

Same with taxes in low periods it would be set low for most people and businesses to stimulate growth and in up periods set higher to pay off state debt and help to get such things as businesses to pay for those infrastructural requirements they might need to conduct their business (e.g. roads, public transport, education etc). In low periods infrastructural needs might be paid for directly and fully by government to increase employment (keeping wages in the system) and to have such structures in place for recovery.

Also taxes in the up period on wealth can be used to curtail excessive risk, if people at the top are so well cushioned against any fall they are likely to take risk because they know that if things go wrong they will not really suffer but if they go right they get even greater wealth.

It is also a means of distributing the gains of an up period more equitably.

At the same time regulation is used to try and keep any crisis contained, such as putting up firewalls between various parts of the financial sector, so that a failure in one can bring down another (look at the Glass-Steagall Act in the US)

 

Dice

Then elect people that are not going to indulge in ‘undeclared wars, graft and pork barrel spending’ and for strong regulations that put checks and balances in place that make those things less likely to happen. The problem is that for many years many Americans have voted with their hearts rather than their heads, they got bamboozled into voting for policies that were contrary to their countries and own best interests. The ant-communist policies of the cold war and the neoliberalism of more resent times were popular with voters (often due to wealth sponsored propaganda) they for example they brought about the military-industrial complex that turned into the crony capitalism of neoliberalism.

I mean one of the propaganda threads pumped out by right wing think tanks was based on the whole idea of ‘Why would I want to fund any of that’ small government ideas., that was really about getting people to vote for politicians that talked about tax cuts which turned out to be tax cuts for the rich.

(Just as earlier right wing propaganda said Americans should send money on the military to counter communism (deterrent and fighting wars) and not spend money on ‘communist’ style healthcare and welfare like ‘socialist’ Europe)

I think more people have woken up to that now but such propaganda is still working with a lot of people.

 

Panic

Where have you noticed this?

I understand that many here that have what I think of as right wing views are not Trump supporters, I’d even say that I think some supporters of Trump are not right wingers, I’ve heard some say they voted for Trump because he promised them better healthcare covering everyone and would interfere in the market to create more US jobs.

Is Trump a right winger?

So why did you watch the superbowl if you don’t like sport?

And above all - What in your view is ‘hard left’, what views make someone into a 'hard' leftist?

 

Wanna add my 2 cents. I actually thought of it before when unfocusedanakin did the same but couldn't be bothered.
Unfocusedanakin, I think you seriously throw in your own proverbial windows here if you want to be taken seriously in convos like these.

Just because someone has similar opinions as a particular group doesn't mean they're affiliating or identifying themselves in any way with it. In this instance I know you're wrong because:

Which is clear. You can verify it.

Anyway, there are constructive independents, but I think PR is not one of them at this point. He basically has given up. It's his right, and I can even understand regarding how this shitty system is functioning these days, don't get me wrong. But the right of voting, in a society that gives it merit, is a greater right imo.
Btw: a country can not function if one big side is excluded, so no matter what you want or think you have to listen to and work together with people you thoroughly disagree with. Nagging on the right or conservatives, or republicans as if they should be excluded from important decisions because it might not get libtards what they find important is the same approach a certain amount of them take in order to simply get their way. You act the same way. It's not constructive, regardless if it comes from good intent

PR is doing the exact same thing you did with him. Only he does it to make clear how easy it could be falsely projected on someone (regardless which side/party) and you did it in a serious attempt.

I agree. Quite hopeless as long as a majority of voters keep going with either the douchebag or turd sandwich. And another big amount who doesn't vote at all. In theory its more than a 2 party system but that's irrelevant if most voters are convinced voting 3rd party (or independent) is not an option.

But he's a pawn nevertheless right? Put in his position by others who are in charge behind the scenes.

 

Asmo

Is that what you think or are you asking if that is what Rat thinks?

I’ve known Rat for a long time – and although he has expressed many differing views behind all of them has been one big anti-leftist message.

I mean who is in charge behind the scenes?

Well for Rat it always seem to be some left wing bogeyman

 

I quite agree. But most of the problems I see with our system are racism or homophobia; things the left has been against. In that way I don't really agree with what PR is saying sometimes and sometimes feel like it's an attack on liberal positions.

 

I was asking if that's still Rats conviction.

I'm not sure if the people in charge are leftleaning according to Rat. It may very well be an apolitical bunch opportunisticly using this left right bogus.
But if PR has overall a stronger dislike for the american left than the right, I don't mind or care. Shouldn't be an issue

 

I dont think PR or 6's views are important enough to spend pages dissecting them

So back to the topic at hand - did anyone catch AOC call out campaign finance laws in a room full of people who benefit from current campaign finance laws? I posted a video a few pages back

I hope she keeps pushing her criticism because I dont think the US will ever be able to progress without a reform of campaign finance laws.

 

I tend to evaluate deep conspiracy theories the way I do claims that we're really just brains in a jar in some alien science lab or that our reality is (as Professor Nick Bostrom assures us) just a virtual reality computer simulation. It might be true, but if it is we'll probably never know for sure because competent conspirators are good at covering their tracks. Of course, we can rely on Breitbart, the National Inquirer, The Sun, our guts, etc., to tell us the real truth. Then we can knowingly dismiss the various posts on forums like this as products of ignorance by the poor fools who aren't really "in the know".

 

The big obstacle to effective campaign finance reform is the Supreme Court. As long as Citizens United v. FEC and the string of precedents that money talks (i.e., is a form of protected speech) remain active, campaign finance reform laws are a non-starter. To change those, we need: (1) a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass and three-quarters of the states to ratify; or (2) a liberal majority on the Court, which could be done by winning both the presidency and the Senate. The latter seems more feasible.

 

Point taken. But I was actually criticizing unfocusedanakin. It seemed UA projected rubbish on PR, who at least possesses some original thought. Unlike 6-eyed, who's arguments and points seem to stand in and under every alt-right youtube vid. But... point taken

 

Yeah asmo stfu!

Jk you made some good points in your post, I wasnt directing that at anyone specifically. I was guilty of getting drawn into it with 6 just a few pages back lol

It's just part of a greater frustration I have in that I think progressives spend waaaay too much time arguing against people who really have nothing to contribute except "socialism bad." And it's completely pointless to even bother with people like that

 

Actually neither seem that feasible lol..but it's a sad state of affair when the option we have the least control over (waiting for supreme court justices to retire or kick the bucket and hope it concides with a Democratic congressional majority and Democratic president versus electing representatives who run citizen funded campaigns) seems the most feasible. But thats probably accurate

 

You do nothing but bitch and moan about my criticism of the steady rise of worldwide obesity, especially in the western world. But you offer NO solutions yourself.

Do you actually think the Body Positivity movement is a good idea? I've taken a step back on my stance for anti-obesity ads that shame the overweight. I think it will motivate some, but make it worse for others. My previous stance on it comes from my contempt of the political propaganda that tells people that "Fat is beautiful, and you're a bigot if you think otherwise." The worst part is that the political left sees the obese as a focus group that is steadily rising in numbers. So they whisper sweet nothings to those with weight problems, and drag them over to left wing causes. This is just a common everyday leftist tactic: find a focus group, tell that focus group that they are a victim, then do absolutely nothing for that group. The Body Positivity movement needs to die for the sake of public health.

So what's your solutions? Keep the body positivity movement alive and do nothing? Or find a way to stop the rising rates of obesity?

What are you talking about?

Social Justice Warrioring is all about finding something to be offended by. Decrying it. Then demand and threaten the other party apologize for it.

Giving SJWs the apology they demand only emboldens them to be more destructive. So no, I will not apologize for saying that.

And as I've explained before, that was the old alt-right of 2015-16. I don't identify as Alt-Lite either. It's only a matter of time before the goalpost gets moved for the definition of alt-lite. I'm against wasteful government spending, corporate global domination, censorship, neo-con military interventionism, identity politics, and more. How about you?

You keep saying you "don't know if I'm a racist" which is your sneaky method of convincing others that I am a racist. I am not. But your racist accusations have no impact on me, as they are just common everyday buzzwords that mean nothing. For far too long, that word has been grossly misused by the left to fight strawmen. In a way it's a damn shame, because the more the R-word is used, the less the public is going to take it seriously when a REAL occurrence of racism takes place.

Just like the little boy who cried wolf.