Johnson or Corby...

[Blackandstrong]

... Trump or a Turnip?

Why has politics become such a farce these days? Is the ‘democratic world’ functioning as it ought to when you have ill-informed electorates being asked to chose between barely credible political leaders?

 

[YDB95]

There always have been - and regrettably there likely always will be - people who will respond favourably to politicians who aim at the lowest common denominator, who give people a convenient scapegoat for their troubles (in the US, it's not 40 years of regressive taxation and policies favouring the ultra-rich that have so many people barely out of poverty - it's the Mexicans and the Muslims!). But if the rest of us get off our asses and vote (and crucially, if we don't hold out for perfection when there's only one plausible option to stop the extremists and she is merely pretty good), they lose.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There always have been - and regrettably there likely always will be - people who will respond favourably to politicians who aim at the lowest common denominator, who give people a convenient scapegoat for their troubles (in the US, it's not 40 years of regressive taxation and policies favouring the ultra-rich that have so many people barely out of poverty - it's the Mexicans and the Muslims!). But if the rest of us get off our asses and vote (and crucially, if we don't hold out for perfection when there's only one plausible option to stop the extremists and she is merely pretty good), they lose.

Freedom doesn't favor the ultra rich, it favors everyone who knows what to do with it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Freedom doesn't favor the ultra rich, it favors everyone who knows what to do with it.

Chuckles, you don't know what freedom is, until you lose it. Would be such a better answer.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Chuckles, you don't know what freedom is, until you lose it. Would be such a better answer.

How so??

Doesn't seem to make really any sense as a response to that post.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How so??

Doesn't seem to make really any sense as a response to that post.

I think it does.

Yet I do not link Freedom to money (or any other tangible asset). Freedom is Freedom, yet none of us are truly free, which from a society point of view is good for us all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think it does.

Yet I do not link Freedom to money (or any other tangible asset). Freedom is Freedom, yet none of us are truly free, which from a society point of view is good for us all.

That's because if you did you would have to admit that your policy stances, along with things like slavery, are anti-freedom or illiberal.

But since you don't see taking peoples time and labor away from them by force, like with slavery, as having anything to do with freedom there isn't much left to discuss with you. Slavery is freedom!!!

Personally I see my money and property as a representation of my time and my labor......when that is forcibly taken from me, I see that as being less free.

 

[oggbashan]

That's because if you thought being free meant you got to keep your time, effort, production, your wealth generation, property and thus money.....you'd have to admit the government sticking a gun to your head and taking it from you (essentially making you a slave to the state) would be illiberal, and you're policy stances anti-freedom.


My money represents my time and my labor......when that is forcibly taken from me, I see that as being less free.

Do not vote for Corbyn then, he would take most of it. The UK's superrich are making plans to quit the UK if he wins.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That's because if you did you would have to admit that your policy stances, along with things like slavery, are anti-freedom or illiberal.

Freedom has no link to money. At any level, just ask any POW.

Too imply I have any history of slavery is well, I don't even know how you can aim that at me, nice try I guess. As for the rest, were you smoking something and mix me up with a fellow American?

Personally I see my money and property as a representation of my time and my labor......when that is forcibly taken from me, I see that as being less free.

I'd say it might make one less rich, but I do understand how you feel.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Freedom has no link to money. At any level, just ask any POW.

Just because the exchange medium isn't involved doesn't change what it is.

Money, private property or "wealth" is a representation of your time, money, labor, effort.

Too imply I have any history of slavery is well, I don't even know how you can aim that at me,

You don't associate an individual right to private property or money with freedom.

If that's true then you have no issue with slavery....forcing people to give you their time and labor by force. Money/time/labor/property have nothing to do with freedom right??

Back to your POW analogy, you know what the only difference between a prisoner and a slave is? State vs private ownership.

I'd say it might make one less rich, but I do understand how you feel.

Yea less rich because I'm having my time and labor from taken from me by force....that's call robbery when it's an instance and slavery when it's a state of being, neither of which really scream "freedom" when you say them out loud and think a second on what they mean.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do not vote for Corbyn then, he would take most of it. The UK's superrich are making plans to quit the UK if he wins.

Everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage in the US is threatening to throw money and votes at Trump if (D)'s decide to run Warren, a seriously socialist candidate....who is Corbyns US counterpart it seems.

 

[YDB95]

Everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage in the US is threatening to throw money and votes at Trump if (D)'s decide to run Warren, a seriously socialist candidate....who is Corbyns US counterpart it seems.

True enough, if by "everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage", you mean a bunch of Wall Street fat cats. That would certainly explain a lot about your perspective anyway.

 

[BotanyBoy]

True enough, if by "everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage", you mean a bunch of Wall Street fat cats. That would certainly explain a lot about your perspective anyway.

Not a bunch of Wall Street fat cats.

Anyone that makes enough to own real property, have investments, small business owners, all the people with something to lose should she get what she wants.

 

[YDB95]

Not a bunch of Wall Street fat cats.

Anyone that makes enough to own real property, have investments, small business owners, all the people with something to lose should she get what she wants.

That's still very, very different from "everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage". Besides, most (possibly even all, depending on how you define the term) small business owners would in fact not pay a dime more in taxes under Warren. Those who think they would be subject to her policies are mostly just engaging in wishful thinking as to how likely their businesses are to grow that much that quickly.

 

[seeshelly]

Ill informed with massive egos

Democracy, like socialism, can sound so good. But they both have fatal flaws. The current political nightmare would not be happening if people were smart enough to see through the fake news. So "people rule" can never be better than the people that are ruled by it. Currently there is a crop of really ill informed people that probably, as a class, have the most massive ego problem of any American generation. So, we are watching the shit hit the fan. These libtards are literally voting away their own freedom. Wow! How dumb is that?

 

[YDB95]

These libtards are literally voting away their own freedom. Wow! How dumb is that?

What freedom? The freedom to work for sub-poverty wages? The freedom to buy overpriced health insurance that won't cover anything to speak of? The freedom to further line the pockets of the already ultrarich?

 

[magicalmoments]

#15 above
I can't make this posting out. It reads like it was written by a non English speaker who has a really good technical understanding of the language.
I can't imagine that the Russians would be bothered with seeding the inconsequential literotica politics board with their pro trump rubbish but... By golly!

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's still very, very different from "everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage".

If you're not fucking retarded with your money it's not.

Besides, most (possibly even all, depending on how you define the term) small business owners would in fact not pay a dime more in taxes under Warren.

Really? So where is she going to get all this money for all the free shit (50 some TRILLION dollars worth last I checked) she's promising??

Oh mind you she wants to nationalize some 2/3 of the economy out of existence....so you can't tax the HC, housing, education, energy, agriculture or banking anymore because they are all the state now.

So where is all that money going to come from???

Those who think they would be subject to her policies are mostly just engaging in wishful thinking as to how likely their businesses are to grow that much that quickly.

No...they just aren't economically illiterate.

To do what she's talking about would require some rather hefty taxation increases across the board.

No population of significance actually believes she can nationalize 2/3 of the economy out of existence, spend all that money with free shit for everyone programs and not charge what's left over not one penny more than they pay right now.


At least Bernie Sandaz was honest enough to say everyone's taxes would be going up and the top 20% significantly so....and he just wants to spread the wealth around, he's not even trying to nationalize any of the economy out of existence.

 

[suckonsimon]

I've come round to suspecting that the crass immaturity of our politics is one consequence of the UK's failure to move into proportional representation. 'First past the Post' is a simplistic expression of democracy which denies the large majority of the electorate any impact of their individual vote. It breeds disillusion with the political process, and the delusion that political choices are simple for the electorate and for those elected. imho. Bring on a coalition of Lib Dems, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists and the Greens and we can begin again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I've come round to suspecting that the crass immaturity of our politics is one consequence of the UK's failure to move into proportional representation. 'First past the Post' is a simplistic expression of democracy which denies the large majority of the electorate any impact of their individual vote. It breeds disillusion with the political process, and the delusion that political choices are simple for the electorate and for those elected. imho. Bring on a coalition of Lib Dems, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists and the Greens and we can begin again.

Canada here, with first past the post. Majority government with around 38% of the electorate.

Trouble with any attempts to alter the basic model is to establish a representational model. Look at the US, with the electoral college, as one example. Hard to implement in a Parliamentary system like ours, and people still complain about it being unfair in the US.

FPTP is not great, but it is simple.

The way I look at it is, 50% of the sports players will like a referee's call and 50% won't, no matter the call...

People will still complain even with proportional representation, if 'their" team is not "winning.

 

[suckonsimon]

Canada here, with first past the post. Majority government with around 38% of the electorate. … The way I look at it is, 50% of the sports players will like a referee's call and 50% won't, no matter the call...

People will still complain even with proportional representation, if 'their" team is not "winning.

Thanks for your response. To stay with your sports parallel, my issue is that 'my' team has a near impossible job even getting onto the field of play with first past the post. A maturing of political debate has to involve the range of perspectives at least having a voice. Here in the UK we have just one - ONE! - Green Party member of parliament. OK at last some politicians of the main parties have begun to wake up to the climate emergency; but if we had had a strong voice for the concerned environmentalists of our nation long before now, so many things would have panned out differently. Yes even the Brexit debate! How futile to be imagining more trade globally and less trade with our immediate neighbours at the very time when food-miles and goods-miles will HAVE to be slashed for our very survival. But who was there in politics to give voice to that simple essential argument?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Thanks for your response. To stay with your sports parallel, my issue is that 'my' team has a near impossible job even getting onto the field of play with first past the post. A maturing of political debate has to involve the range of perspectives at least having a voice. Here in the UK we have just one - ONE! - Green Party member of parliament. OK at last some politicians of the main parties have begun to wake up to the climate emergency; but if we had had a strong voice for the concerned environmentalists of our nation long before now, so many things would have panned out differently. Yes even the Brexit debate! How futile to be imagining more trade globally and less trade with our immediate neighbours at the very time when food-miles and goods-miles will HAVE to be slashed for our very survival. But who was there in politics to give voice to that simple essential argument?

While I hear and understand what you are saying ( in Canada our Green Party gets about 10% of the total votes cast, coast to coast, and have a couple seats, ( less than 10% of the total seats), we still hit the hurdle of what constitutes proportional representation? Who or how is it decided? Do the Green party just put in enough people to make up those 10%? Were do I get my say then in the representation mix?

Canada just went through this, and no one could come up with a truly simple mechanism that was "sellable".

AS to the voice of one person not mattering: Tommy Douglas introduced Free healthcare to Canada, ONE voice. Mahatma Gandhi, indepence to ONE country...one voice is a start, and CAN make a difference.

BTW I am in complete agreement on climate change as the #1 pressing issue, but it will not be dealt with, up and until it is too late, we are doomed, but like so may say "I'll be dead by then anyhow"!!!

 

[suckonsimon]

While I hear and understand what you are saying ( in Canada our Green Party gets about 10% of the total votes cast, coast to coast, and have a couple seats, ( less than 10% of the total seats), we still hit the hurdle of what constitutes proportional representation? Who or how is it decided? Do the Green party just put in enough people to make up those 10%? Were do I get my say then in the representation mix?

Canada just went through this, and no one could come up with a truly simple mechanism that was "sellable".

AS to the voice of one person not mattering: Tommy Douglas introduced Free healthcare to Canada, ONE voice. Mahatma Gandhi, indepence to ONE country...one voice is a start, and CAN make a difference.

BTW I am in complete agreement on climate change as the #1 pressing issue, but it will not be dealt with, up and until it is too late, we are doomed, but like so may say "I'll be dead by then anyhow"!!!

Cheers especially for the reminder of what one voice can achieve!
I need to look up which form of PR will be pressed by our Liberal Democrats and other smaller UK parties if and when they are in a position to bargain for it from a minority government needing their support. Likewise which form is already in place for the Scottish Parliament - where it seems to be working. Our election to the European Parliament is of course already by proportional representation, but the constituency areas are huge necessarily, so that model may not be the best for national parliament.

My hope is that with rapid technological advances for CO2 removal from the air among many other developments, we may come out the other end of the approaching hell and high water with a planet on which the human species together with a multitude of others can live well again.

 

[YDB95]

If you're not fucking retarded with your money it's not.

So when study after study shows there's no plausible way to live even remotely comfortably on minimum wage, that just means the experts are "fucking retarded with their money". Good to know!
Besides, you started out by saying "everyone with a job that pays better than minimum wage" and then immediately switched gears to "anyone that makes enough to own real property, have investments, small business owners". Those are already two very different things. Shift managers at fast food joints make more than minimum wage (at least they did in my fast food days), and I guarantee you they weren't making enough to invest or buy "real property".

I've also been a partner in a small business, and only in my wildest dreams did I or my partner (who did own the company) make anywhere near enough money to even have to think about Warren's wealth tax. Mind you, if our business had ever taken off and I'd ended up that rich, I'd have paid it without complaining, because I'm not a selfish bastard.

Really? So where is she going to get all this money for all the free shit (50 some TRILLION dollars worth last I checked) she's promising??

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. And it isn't "free" any more than public education, clean air, safe and well-maintained streets, etc. are free. The real world isn't an Ayn Rand novel. Get over it.

To do what she's talking about would require some rather hefty taxation increases across the board.

Maybe - just maybe - 40 years of cutting taxes on the rich is going to come back to bite us in the ass sooner or later?

No population of significance actually believes she can nationalize 2/3 of the economy out of existence, spend all that money with free shit for everyone programs and not charge what's left over not one penny more than they pay right now.

If true, that is probably because most people don't understand that the cost of health care has nothing to do with the price. The only real reason why health care is so outrageously expensive in the US is because it's a matter of what the insurance companies and big Pharma can get away with charging. Remove that from the equation and the cost drops precipitously.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So when study after study shows there's no plausible way to live even remotely comfortably on minimum wage,

Define "live even remotely comfortably" on minimum wage?

Minimum wage isn't meant to be comfortable.

And I didn't say minimum wage, I said above minimum wage.

I've also been a partner in a small business, and only in my wildest dreams did I or my partner (who did own the company) make anywhere near enough money to even have to think about Warren's wealth tax.

Doesn't have to, once the policy is in place it can be used to take everything from everyone....like good comrades who aren't SELFISH do.

Mind you, if our business had ever taken off and I'd ended up that rich, I'd have paid it without complaining, because I'm not a selfish bastard.

Supporting wealth redistribution doesn't make you virtuous nor does it mean you're not selfish. It means you're authoritarian in nature.

Charity does....but that's because it's voluntary.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

Her lies aren't answers, the numbers don't add up, there isn't enough money in the whole economy to do what she's talking about much less in the top 20%.

Especially after she nationalizes most of the economy out of existence.

Maybe - just maybe - 40 years of cutting taxes on the rich is going to come back to bite us in the ass sooner or later?

How do you figure not oppressing people is going to bite us in the ass?

Why does not getting to stick your hand in others pockets bit you in the ass??

If true, that is probably because most people don't understand that the cost of health care has nothing to do with the price. The only real reason why health care is so outrageously expensive in the US is because it's a matter of what the insurance companies and big Pharma can get away with charging. Remove that from the equation and the cost drops precipitously.

Because that's what people are willing to pay.

And nationalizing shit is still un-American.

So the proper alternative would be a liberal one public option and forgo the whole authoritarian leftist bit leaving such vile things for places like Venezuela and Cuba.