political division in america

coachdb18 said:

We already received Cornwallis' sword in surrender... so, been there, got the T-shirt!

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

JackLuis said:

Click to expand...

FDR was a Socialist, a racist, and kept America in the Great Depression years after the rest of the world had recovered, ultimately ensuring the US became engaged in WWII to assuage his failed economic alphabet plans. His expansion of government began the downward slide of American freedom that continues to this day, with such excesses as Socialist Security, only the largest of his unsustainable Progressive entitlement plans

The CBS ranking of presidents this year ranked FDR 3rd best (of 44). Between you and CBS, I'll happily go with CBS. Reagan was ranked 9th this year; Obama 12th. I think most of us can guess where Trump will rank when they get around to adding him into the mix.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/pr...-best-presidential-historians-survey-2017/42/

KimGordon67 said:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Don't worry - I looked it up. So I'm understanding you to mean that the amazingly complex electoral system you have, which seems to not do a particularly fantastic job of representing the people, is 'American' and therefore shouldn't be questioned? If you meant something else, I'd be interested to know.

(Actually, your comment mostly suggested your system is good because it's 'not English'. The UK electoral system isn't based on proportional representation, so I'm not entirely sure how it related to what I said?)

Hypoxia said:

I started noticing US politics around 1964. Can't say I understand much.

Primary elections force extremism. Moderate candidates are purged by the purists / party faithful who turn out to vote. Dums seem willing to negotiate some issues but compromise is fatal for Gups.

How to escape the death spiral? SCOTUS decisions firmly killing gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would be a good start. Right.

Who do I vote for? I'm neither Gup nor Dum. I notice candidate party affiliations when applicable but I'm more taken by their words and deeds. My rural county is mostly run by GOBs (Good Ol' Boyz) who ain't much on the Dum side so it's slim pickens here. And segregated socializing - (R) and (D) folks don't mingle much, only at store checkouts.

Yes, there's a no-man's-land in USA, a great divide. I see no easy mending.

Click to expand...

Hypoxia, you might be interested in systems that operate on a different basis. The American system does seem amazingly complex, but I guess that's in part a legacy of the size of the place? What I've observed with proportional representation systems, though, is that the makeup of government is quite so bilateral - smaller political parties gain representation. I'm not sure how you'd make it work with the complicated system that works there ... but I'm no political scientist.

Yeah, so?

All that's saying is that Ds forced nominees to articulate their views vs. just rubber stamping the President's pick. I don't see a thing wrong with it.

McConnell STOLE a seat on the Supreme Court from a Democratic President.

The Rs also cheated their way to Dubya in 2001 and of course the Orange Goober himself committed treason to squeak in by less than 100,000 votes.

coachdb18 said:

An article from 'The Atlantic'

Click to expand...

Carnal_Flower said:

Yeah, so?

All that's saying is that Ds forced nominees to articulate their views vs. just rubber stamping the President's pick. I don't see a thing wrong with it.

McConnell STOLE a seat on the Supreme Court from a Democratic President.

The Rs also cheated their way to Dubya in 2001 and of course the Orange Goober himself committed treason to squeak in by less than 100,000 votes.

Click to expand...

We have a Constitution, and that Constitution includes the provision for the Electoral College. It really doesn't matter that California let an extra 6 million illegal aliens vote, because it gave all it's electoral votes to Hillary a few million votes earlier. You don't get extra electoral votes for padding the score. Treason? Because Hillary failed to run her campaign accordingly? Democrats want to be able to ignore the 'flyover' states, and think the big city cluster-fucks of liberalism get to make all the rules. Well, it's for that very reason that we have an electoral college, everybody gets represented, both big states and little states.

Trump won... get over it! ... and please, quit whining!

coachdb18 said:

FDR was a Socialist, a racist, and kept America in
the Great Depression years after the rest of the world had recovered, ultimately
ensuring the US became engaged in WWII to assuage his failed economic
alphabet plans. His expansion of government began the downward slide of
American freedom that continues to this day, with such excesses as Socialist
security, only the largest of his unsustainable Progressive entitlement
lans

Click to expand...

Franklin Roosevelt was very popular because he was mildly socialist during a time
when capitalism was not working.

During his first term there was nearly as much economic growth as there had
been during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There
was considerably more job creation.

coachdb18 said:

We have a Constitution, and that Constitution
includes the provision for the Electoral College. It really doesn't matter that
California let an extra 6 million illegal aliens vote, because it gave all it's electoral
votes to Hillary a few million votes earlier. You don't get extra electoral votes for
padding the score. Treason? Because Hillary failed to run her campaign
accordingly? Democrats want to be able to ignore the 'flyover' states, and think
the big city cluster-fucks of liberalism get to make all the rules. Well, it's for that
very reason that we have an electoral college, everybody gets represented, both
big states and little states.

Trump won... get over it! ... and please, quit whining!

Click to expand...

The Constitution demonstrated how obsolete it is during the last election.

We will need to wait to change it until the national consensus moves further to
the left. Political opinion surveys indicate that a growing percentage of
Americans prefer socialism to capitalism.

When the electorate adopts social democracy you will be whining. America
won't be your country any more.

The_Trouvere said:

Franklin Roosevelt was very popular because he was mildly socialist during a time
when capitalism was not working.

During his first term there was nearly as much economic growth as there had
been during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There
was considerably more job creation.

Click to expand...

A government handout is not 'job creation'. Jobs didn't come back until the US began making war materials, first for the British and Allied forces, then for the US's entry into the conflict. During Roosevelt's first term, the economy tanked completely, and it took a full 12 years to begin overcoming the mistakes FDR made with trying to make the government 'the answer' .. his alphabet soup failed, and it wasn't until Industrial growth providing real jobs that American wealth began to rebuild.

The_Trouvere said:

The Constitution demonstrated how obsolete it is during the last election.

We will need to wait to change it until the national consensus moves further to
the left. Political opinion surveys indicate that a growing percentage of
Americans prefer socialism to capitalism.

When the electorate adopts social democracy you will be whining. America
won't be your country any more.

Click to expand...

God help us that America NEVER becomes a socialist country.... millions have died following the false promises of socialism, and there has never been a successful society under its yoke. People have been willing to give up their lives to escape it, it's that bad. I've had the experience of being on the other side of the Berlin Wall, and to have seen socialisms impact. It's not pretty.

coachdb18 said:

A government handout is not 'job creation'. Jobs
didn't come back until the US began making war materials, first for the British and
Allied forces, then for the US's entry into the conflict. During Roosevelt's first term,
the economy tanked completely, and it took a full 12 years to begin overcoming
the mistakes FDR made with trying to make the government 'the answer' .. his
alphabet soup failed, and it wasn't until Industrial growth providing real jobs that
American wealth began to rebuild.

Click to expand...

Reactionaries think of the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin
Coolidge as an economic golden era.

During the eight years Harding and Coolidge were president the per capita
gross domestic product (GDP) grew by $1,681 in 1996 dollars, or 30%.

During Roosevelt's first term the per capita GDP grew by $1,619 in 1996
dollars, or 34%.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

From 1920 to 1928 the unemployment rate declined by 1.0% From 1932 to
1936 unemployment declined by 6.7%.

https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/labor-and-employment/united-states-unemployment-rate

The Civilian Conservation Corps was founded in 1933. It contributed to the
decline in unemployment during Roosevelt's first term.

"A Gallup poll of April 18, 1936 asked "Are you in favor of the CCC camps?";
82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of
Republicans.[36]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment. I
am glad the United States entered World War II. Nevertheless, if the money
spent on the war effort had been spent on the public sector of the economy
the benefits to the economy would have been greater.

People cannot eat bullets or live in tanks.

This is how President Eisenhower described the waste of military spending in
his Cross of Iron Speech:

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more
than 30 cities.

"It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

"It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

"It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

"We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

"We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more
than 8,000 people.

"This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
been taking.

"This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
been taking.

"This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of
threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm

The_Trouvere said:

Reactionaries think of the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin
Coolidge as an economic golden era.

During the eight years Harding and Coolidge were president the per capita
gross domestic product (GDP) grew by $1,681 in 1996 dollars, or 30%.

During Roosevelt's first term the per capita GDP grew by $1,619 in 1996
dollars, or 34%.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

From 1920 to 1928 the unemployment rate declined by 1.0% From 1932 to
1936 unemployment declined by 6.7%.

https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/labor-and-employment/united-states-unemployment-rate

The Civilian Conservation Corps was founded in 1933. It contributed to the
decline in unemployment during Roosevelt's first term.

"A Gallup poll of April 18, 1936 asked "Are you in favor of the CCC camps?";
82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of
Republicans.[36]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment. I
am glad the United States entered World War II. Nevertheless, if the money
spent on the war effort had been spent on the public sector of the economy
the benefits to the economy would have been greater.

People cannot eat bullets or live in tanks.

This is how President Eisenhower described the waste of military spending in
his Cross of Iron Speech:

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more
than 30 cities.

"It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

"It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

"It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

"We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

"We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more
than 8,000 people.

"This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
been taking.

"This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
been taking.

"This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of
threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm

Click to expand...

Left wing statistics will credit government handout programs as 'employment', when in fact it was borrowed money against the federal debt. (FDR's alphabet soup of agencies ... CCC, WPA, etc) were just fancy names for a welfare check, and the government didn't really care if you did anything to get the check). It's where we got the big start toward being $20T in the hole. Government doesn't produce anything, it's the private sector that produces wealth and income. If it weren't true, and government actually produced something, there'd be no reason to tax private sector income, as government would be self funding, instead of overhead on the overall economy.

The_Trouvere said:

The Constitution demonstrated how obsolete it is during the last election.

We will need to wait to change it until the national consensus moves further to
the left. Political opinion surveys indicate that a growing percentage of
Americans prefer socialism to capitalism.

When the electorate adopts social democracy you will be whining. America
won't be your country any more.

Click to expand...

I think it's important to distinguish between socialism and social democracy. Socialism doesn't seem to work out so well. Social democratic states, on the other hand, pretty much are successful by most measures.

I think you're right that, that the backlash against neoliberalism and the ensuring rampant inequality is gaining traction. It seems to me a pity that Clinton won over Sanders in the most recent elections, but I can see why it happened. People do struggle with taking the real risk. However, Corbyn tends to suggest it's worth it.

I'm really interested to see what happens over the next ten years or so.

coachdb18 said:

Left wing statistics will credit government
handout
programs as 'employment', when in fact it was borrowed money against the
federal debt. (FDR's alphabet soup of agencies ... CCC, WPA, etc) were just fancy
names for a welfare check, and the government didn't really care if you did
anything to get the check). It's where we got the big start toward being $20T in
the hole. Government doesn't produce anything, it's the private sector that
produces wealth and income. If it weren't true, and government actually produced
something, there'd be no reason to tax private sector income, as government
would be self funding, instead of overhead on the overall economy.

Click to expand...

This is what the Civilian Conservation Corps did:

"During the time of the CCC, enrollees planted nearly 3 billion trees to help
reforest America, constructed trails, lodges and related facilities in more than
800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire
fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways
in remote areas.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

What is military spending but a government handout? The War in Vietnam was
a tragic mistake and a waste. So was the invasion of Iraq, and probably the
invasion of Afghanistan.

The $20 trillion national debt is due to the Republican love for cutting taxes for
the rich while raising military spending.

By the end of the Second World War the top tax rate was 94%. That is the
difference between Democrat fiscal responsibility and the Voodoo Economics of
the GOP.

During the Roosevelt administration the United States taxed and spent its way
to prosperity. The government raised taxes on the rich. The rich complained.
The voters noticed the complaints, and re elected Roosevelt three times.

By the way, how did the economy collapse during Roosevelt's first term? I
pointed out how and why it was a sucess. That is why Roosevelt was reelected
by a landslide in 1936. The Democrats increased their majorities in both houses
of Congress. This gave Roosevelt the power to continue to fight the
Depression.

coachdb18 said:

...California let an extra 6 million illegal aliens vote...

Click to expand...

Prove it.

KimGordon67 said:

I think it's important to distinguish between socialism and social democracy. Socialism doesn't seem to work out so well. Social democratic states, on the other hand, pretty much are successful by most measures.

I think you're right that, that the backlash against neoliberalism and the ensuring rampant inequality is gaining traction. It seems to me a pity that Clinton won over Sanders in the most recent elections, but I can see why it happened. People do struggle with taking the real risk. However, Corbyn tends to suggest it's worth it.

I'm really interested to see what happens over the next ten years or so.

Click to expand...

Donald Trump is a faux egalitarian. He exploits the resentments of economically stressed whites in order to adopt economic policies that will stress them more.

If 2020 the United States may be ready for a genuine egalitarian.

The_Trouvere said:

Donald Trump is a faux egalitarian. He exploits the resentments of economically stressed whites in order to adopt economic policies that will stress them more.

If 2020 the United States may be ready for a genuine egalitarian.

Click to expand...

I think you could have stopped that first sentence before you got to 'egalitarian'.

The increased disenchantment with neoliberalism is encouraging ... sometimes I'm not sure if it's just in my little echo chamber, but global shifts would suggest maybe not.

Promoting social division has consequences

I think historians will record this period of American history as one in which the right-wing actually hastened the movement toward socialism, after winning power by actively promoting social divisions and xenophobia, promising to solve all economic problems through the deregulation and de-taxation of corporations, and ultimately making things worse for most of the citizens. The strident modern right wing is hastening the advent of the system they fear the most, while simultaneously trying to prove that government is inherently bad through their own incompetence at governing. This right wing includes most Republicans, some Democrats, and a significant portion of independents.

HEALTH CARE: Obama may have been the last chance for a health care system that is facilitated by private insurance companies. By now sabotaging this effort and offering no effective alternative, the right wing has hastened the ultimate adoption of a single payer system.

LONG TERM ECONOMIC HEALTH: Indiscriminate deregulation and tax breaks for corporations may give some people an economic boost in the short term, but in the long term the resulting bubble always bursts, and then the damage to people's lives and to the environment must be addressed. As the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics rightly pointed out, markets are not always rational. How many times will we have to learn and relearn that there are consequences to allowing greed to make all the major decisions? Which economic collapse will be the one that cannot be bailed out and instead turns us toward increased socialism?

FOREIGN POLICY: The bully policy only "worked" for America until other nations got wise to our imperial tendencies, in the same way that colonial subjects of the former British Empire got wise. The right wing tendency to take drastic military action at the expense of the poor (both domestically and in the invaded regions) and to forsake diplomacy and international cooperation, will ultimately result in the poor revolting against their overlords, either in the ballot box or with overt conflict. Things tend to get more socialistic in the aftermath of a successful revolt against corporate interests.

The meek media outlets really miss the point when they try to blame divisions on "both sides". This time, conflict and division in America is a hot fire that has been stoked by an extreme right wing that descended the nation into a chaotic state now led by an extremely immature man with an obvious personality disorder.

Socialism would be better for the United States than what either the Republicans or Trump (since they don't seem to want to do the same thing) want to do. A bunch of other countries doing a whole lot between than we are in serving the needs of their citizens more fairly exist as evidence of this.

JayCuck said:

Folks, Socialism will never take hold in the U.S. In order for that to happen, we'd have to abandon the Constitution. Socialism can't exist alongside capitalism...one strangles the other.

You're also forgetting that people who believe the crap above....are the minority. They're clustered in large cesspools (cities) on the coasts. That 'flyover land'...won't go along with it.

Oh..here's a fun fact. The citizens that are armed...won't let the constitution be abandoned. And if you think you can rely on law enforcement or the military to enforce your 'perfect world'...think again. They're right-wingers. If you think Latte's and Skinny Jeans are enough to move this country to socialism...please...by all means...don't.change.a.thing.

And no amount of cute rhetoric. Ridicule. Ad Hominem. Will change that simple fact.

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists. You don't have the power (physical) to enact the changes you advocate for...deal with it.

Click to expand...

This guy plays the gun card, a threat that mirrors the bully tactics I mentioned. And he conflates the Constitution with capitalism. And he ignores that America often changes its collective mind at the ballot box.

Yes, he is one of the right wingers who is promoting the current state of chaos and division.

The last time I remember a major American political movement that wanted to back up its political views with guns involved extreme leftists in the 1970s. This time it is the extreme right wingers. The armed "revolutionaries" in both instances are pathetic individuals who place more value on imposing their will than on democratic processes. It was obvious that they would end up dead or in jail back in the 1970's. With the aid of the internet, it will be easier to prosecute the current batch of armed bullies.

coati said:

This guy plays the gun card, a threat that mirrors the bully tactics I mentioned. And he conflates the Constitution with capitalism. And he ignores that America often changes its collective mind at the ballot box.
.

Click to expand...

And plays the socialist card whilst having no concept of different paradigms -- Fabian? Lessallean? (Both pre-Marx.) Marxist? DeLeonian? Maoist? SLP or SWP? State socialist or democratic socialist or pretend socialist? Socialized enough for potty training?

"I hate something, whatever it is, I dunno." Right.

JayCuck said:

Folks, Socialism will never take hold in the U.S. In order for that to happen, we'd have to abandon the Constitution. Socialism can't exist alongside capitalism...one strangles the other.

You're also forgetting that people who believe the crap above....are the minority. They're clustered in large cesspools (cities) on the coasts. That 'flyover land'...won't go along with it.

Oh..here's a fun fact. The citizens that are armed...won't let the constitution be abandoned. And if you think you can rely on law enforcement or the military to enforce your 'perfect world'...think again. They're right-wingers. If you think Latte's and Skinny Jeans are enough to move this country to socialism...please...by all means...don't.change.a.thing.

And no amount of cute rhetoric. Ridicule. Ad Hominem. Will change that simple fact.

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists. You don't have the power (physical) to enact the changes you advocate for...deal with it.

Click to expand...

You might be surprised to learn of the 'social democrat' position.

Hypoxia said:

And plays the socialist card whilst having no concept of different paradigms -- Fabian? Lessallean? (Both pre-Marx.) Marxist? DeLeonian? Maoist? SLP or SWP? State socialist or democratic socialist or pretend socialist? Socialized enough for potty training?

"I hate something, whatever it is, I dunno." Right.

Click to expand...

Oh ... sorry, I posted my thing before I saw this. So yeah, ^^^ this.

But, apparently, the only two alternatives are free market capitalism or Soviet Russia.