↪Frank Apisa The Democratic field is obviously weak. The economy is ok. The impeachment trial will be forgotten. Trump has fairly decent chance of winning a second term.

It's a good time to get philosophical about things. Deflate your passions and look at the situation as if from outer space. — frank

I think the Democratic field is not weak at all. And when compared with the Republican "field"...it looks positively powerful.

I do agree that Trump has a fairly decent chance of winning a second term...but that is faint praise indeed. Any president running for re-election with an "ok" economy...should be a prohibitive favorite for re-election...not just someone with a fairly decent chance.

I am being philosophical...but I also am being passionate. My feelings about Trump being our president are extremely negative...and I want very much for him to be out of office. I suspect I would feel that same way if I were on a space station.

I am being philosophical...but I also am being passionate. My feelings about Trump being our president are extremely negative...and I want very much for him to be out of office. I suspect I would feel that same way if I were on a space station. — Frank Apisa

Frank, if you're on a space station, take in the view, don't worry about American politics.

I am NOT on a space station...which is the reason I used the conditional subjunctive mood "if I were" in my statement.

I am here on Earth...seeing the Republic (temporarily in our custody) being violated...and speaking out against the violation.

Why not join me.

Tally ho. Get that fox!

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted). :wink:

None of my posts get deleted, because I don't name-call. As far as expressing myself too strongly -- perhaps. Others certainly have pointed that out. But it's because these issues are important.

But I think you missed the point.

What is interesting is that Trump's approval (and disapproval) has stayed quite the same. I think that people have just gotten numb.



Although the Presidential election polls put the Democrat candidates either winning or in a tie with Trump, it's not really clear how the elections will go and anything with Trump can (and will) happen. But how it's going, Trump can easily lose.

It's noteworthy that pre-election polls in 2016 put Trump losing to ANYBODY ELSE than Hillary Clinton, with whom he had a chance of winning. Biden and the group don't anger Republicans as much as the Clintons, but then again the real mud throwing hasn't begun.

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. — ssu

An oft repeated mantra with startlingly little by way of empirical support.

↪Frank Apisa Tally ho. Get that fox! — frank

It is not a fox...it is a pig.

Yeah...there's been lots of lipstick applied to that pig...

...but it is still a pig.

An oft repeated mantra with startlingly little by way of empirical support. — Isaac

Still, a mantra of this forum, actually.

Interesting to note that Hillary still thinks she's running or has a say in the election.

I hope Sanders and Warren team up, or Warren and Booker would be good... I'm pretty sure the DNC will push for more representation in the form of a male/female combo, ideally with some color thrown in. I guess that means Sanders might run with Harris.

I've loved seeing Gabbard and Wang in the race. They've brought up issues no one else has the guts to mention. I also can't wait to see Gabbard win her lawsuit against Hillary.

Biden needs to go far far away from this campaign.

One barrier to a socialist agenda in the US is that it would require drastic fiscal restructuring: a progressive property tax probably. No president can do that. Think about how far to the left all three branches of govt would have to be.

Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory.

↪Frank Apisa One barrier to a socialist agenda in the US is that it would require drastic fiscal restructuring: a progressive property tax probably. No president can do that. Think about how far to the left all three branches of govt would have to be.

Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory. — frank

Actually, I can (and do) agree with that.

My position on the issue you raise is: There are defects in the kind of capitalism that now is the norm in America...and I think adjustments can be made to improve it. Socialist countries borrow from capitalistic countries in order to make their system better. China has done that to the point where, more than likely, it will surpass the US as the most robust economy during the next couple of decades. (Maybe sooner.)

We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system.

I wish we would do it.

I think we are indebted to the Chinese. If they initiated a run on the dollar, we'd be in bad shape.

↪Frank Apisa I think we are indebted to the Chinese. If they initiated a run on the dollar, we'd be in bad shape. — frank

We would, indeed.

I suspect they own a lot more of us...than appears publicly to be the case. And what "appears publicly to be the case"...is already a hell of a lot.

Given that Sanders and Biden are the top two Democratic candidates, and my expectations that Biden would lose against Trump while Sanders would win, I'm predicting that Bernie's success in the Democratic primaries is pretty much equivalent to Democratic success in the general election. And since Biden is leading the primary polls... I'm sadly expecting a Trump victory in the general.

We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system. — Frank Apisa

It would help if we had a capitalist system to begin with, but we don't. In any meaningful sense. It's a corporate nanny state economy. Friedman and others loved to use Hong Kong and the Asian tigers as examples of capitalism improving lives, but it's a complete joke.

This is purely anecdotal, but I don't know ONE person voting for Biden. I don't see anyone online, on radio or on television who's "excited" by Biden's running, either. It's a lot like Clinton in '16. I remember all the celebrities coming out trying to stoke the crowds, pushing the "first woman president" thing, and from what I saw it nearly always fell flat or else looked so contrived as to be embarrassing.

That's why it's shocking to me that he's leading in the polls, and does very well in key swing states. Fine, so be it -- I go with the polls over my own extremely limited sample size, but yet I wonder where these people are, how enthused they are, and why they aren't more vocal.

Here in New Hampshire, I'm seeing lots of signs for Bernie, for example. A few for Pete, Yang, plenty of Tulsi, a couple for Warren...I have yet to see ONE for Joe Biden. Here or in Massachusetts, where I work. Again, not going to claim there's some conspiracy out there -- I believe the polls -- but it does leave me wondering. Anyone else relate to this?

It would help if we had a capitalist system to begin with, but we don't. In any meaningful sense. It's a corporate nanny state economy. — Xtrix

That's a kind of capitalism, it's just state capitalism, which is the worst of both worlds.

It's a lot like Clinton in '16. I remember all the celebrities coming out trying to stoke the crowds, pushing the "first woman president" thing, and from what I saw it nearly always fell flat or else looked so contrived as to be embarrassing. — Xtrix

And it seems like he should have even worse odds than Clinton in '16, because women I know who were excited about Clinton despite her not being very exciting for policy reasons, just because she was the possible first women president, are all rolling their eyes and sighing about the possibility of Biden, yet another old white man. Of course, they're also equally unenthusiastic about Bernie, yet another old white man, despite the drastic policy differences between them. Sigh. Tribalism makes me sad.

That's a kind of capitalism, it's just state capitalism, which is the worst of both worlds. — Pfhorrest

Why not call it state socialism? You see my point -- "capitalism" and "socialism" are almost completely devoid of meaning at this point. The reality is that our economy is designed to favor concentrations of power -- whatever you call it, it's not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Of course, they're also equally unenthusiastic about Bernie, yet another old white man, despite the drastic policy differences between them. Sigh. Tribalism makes me sad. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. My thing is -- it's so early, let Bernie ride his enthusiastic core of supporters and then win over the rest once they learn a LITTLE more than "he's a socialist." I think many will like the policies.

Why not call it state socialism? — Xtrix

Because it’s not at all socialist? Where in any of this corporatism is ownership of the means of the production, or even the proceeds from it, being distributed to the people? Instead wealth is being concentrated in the hands of those who already have more of it, which is the opposite of socialism: capitalism.

You see my point -- "capitalism" and "socialism" are almost completely devoid of meaning at this point. — Xtrix

If so, that’s a product of Cold War era propaganda conflating them with command economies and free markets, respectively. Socialism is not opposed to free markets, just capitalism. Free markets are not opposed to socialism, just command economies. You can have state capitalism, and libertarian socialism, and it’s just the statists and capitalists who want you to believe otherwise.

The reality is that our economy is designed to favor concentrations of power -- whatever you call it, it's not what Adam Smith had in mind. — Xtrix

That’s true. Adam Smith never advocated capitalism, just free markets. He probably would have been a libertarian socialist if he had lived to see socialism become a thing. Capitalism seems the opposite of what he expected free markets to create.

:up: :up:

Because it’s not at all socialist? — Pfhorrest

It is if you listen to Fox News. It's a welfare system. What they leave out is that it's mainly welfare for the corporate world, not the welfare queens.

Instead wealth is being concentrated in the hands of those who already have more of it, which is the opposite of socialism: capitalism. — Pfhorrest

That's not even fair to capitalism, either.

f so, that’s a product of Cold War era propaganda conflating them with command economies and free markets, respectively. — Pfhorrest

Absolutely right.

Adam Smith never advocated capitalism, just free markets. — Pfhorrest

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at.

It's a welfare system. What they leave out is that it's mainly welfare for the corporate world, not the welfare queens. — Xtrix

That may be so, but that doesn't make it socialism. States protecting the welfare of the wealthy is the opposite of socialist. (And the commonness of that happening is one of the main complaints libertarian socialist have, who is against state socialism because, among other reasons, the state part just gets co-opted by the powerful and undos the socialism part; just like they're against libertarian capitalism because the capitalism part leads to de facto states and undoes the libertarian part).

That's not even fair to capitalism, either. — Xtrix

It's the definition of capitalism: where those who have greater wealth than others (specifically in the form of capital) use that difference to extract further wealth from those who have less than them (with which to acquire further capital and accelerate the process). It's not the definition of a free market, sure, but you seem to accept that "free market" is not a synonym for "capitalism".

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. — Xtrix

Correct, which is why I think he would have been a libertarian socialist, had he lived to see socialism become a thing at all. The libertarian socialists who came after him have long been proposing solutions to the problem of why markets in practice haven't lived up to that theoretical ideal. (Spoiler warning: it's because states, including private armies bought by capitalist robber-barons, enforcing unlimited claims to property and power to contract, undermines the actual freedom of the market, so the solution is to stop the enforcement of those illegitimate claims and powers and let the market be truly free).

I'm not going by polls...but rather by the inference of just one man...Trump.

There is one person in the Democratic Party campaign contingent who obviously scares Trump...Joe Biden. He is the one Trump most fears as an opponent.

Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.

I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term.

Why not call it state socialism? — Xtrix

The US?

Would a system controlled by the rich make that obvious (that it isn't socialism)?

It's the definition of capitalism: where those who have greater wealth than others (specifically in the form of capital) use that difference to extract further wealth from those who have less than them (with which to acquire further capital and accelerate the process). — Pfhorrest

You're getting hung up on definitions, which is the point I was making: no one in this country has any idea about these terms. Regarding your definitions, yes I roughly agree with interpreting socialism that way, but your presentation of capitalism (while true) is a minority view. Most say something about a profit-based system and private ownership. But it's all hair-splitting anyway, and really wasn't my point.

Correct, which is why I think he would have been a libertarian socialist, had he lived to see socialism become a thing at all. The libertarian socialists who came after him have long been proposing solutions to the problem of why markets in practice haven't lived up to that theoretical ideal. (Spoiler warning: it's because states, including private armies bought by capitalist robber-barons, enforcing unlimited claims to property and power to contract, undermines the actual freedom of the market, so the solution is to stop the enforcement of those illegitimate claims and powers and let the market be truly free). — Pfhorrest

I'm skeptical about the concept of "free markets" as well. A lot of fantasies about them, but very little evidence that they exist, have existed, or can exist.

Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.

I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term. — Frank Apisa

Very likely? I don't see strong evidence for this. I'd say he has a 50/50 shot.

The rich want a very strong welfare state -- for themselves. Thus they can take huge risks and have the taxpayers bail them out, get huge subsidies at taxpayer expense, tax breaks, favorable trade legislation, etc.

Of course that isn't socialism. My point is that the people who decry "socialism" as just giving money away to poor people who don't work (the "welfare queen"), all at taxpayer expense, never seem to turn around and accuse the government of being a "welfare state" for the rich -- which in reality is what it is. So if we're calling social welfare programs for the poor "socialist", why not for the rich? That's the point. I'm not confused about the US: it's a state capitalist system.

Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory. — frank

There are no socialists running.