...great! I'm going to add some from my other thread, so if you don't mind there might be a total of 20 questions or so. Is that alright?

Again it's not meant to embarrass you, but only to demonstrate where you're likely inconsistent in your reasoning.

In the meantime if you want to try to tackle those four questions I'd greatly appreciate it! If not that's okay, I'll add them to the running list.

You've only offered me loaded questions. If you could correct that I would be happy to answer them. Is that ok?

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

I think they're right. I don't think someone should be impeached because of partisan differences. I think the bar should be set much higher for impeachment, especially when it comes to democratically-elected officials. What do you think? — NOS4A2

I do not think that impeachment based upon "partisan differences" is what the framers were warning about. To quite the contrary, they were warning about what could happen when and if political parties were established.

It was a warning against the establishment of political parties altogether.

To be clear. The framers were putting forth an unacceptable consequence of forming political parties(factions) themselves. It was a warning not just about some unacceptable kind of one-sided 'partisan' impeachment process, but rather it was a warning about the results of forming political parties altogether.

The prosecution failed to seize on that.

So... I would not call that defense "right" by any reasonable standard of understanding. Misleading is a better description.

What's a loaded question?

I’ve always voted Democratic. I guess that makes me a Democrat. However, I would have been happy under Eisenhower, I think. George H.W. Bush wasn’t bad for a Reaganomics-type president. Obama was a disappointment for me, but I do believe that his and George W. Bush’s policies got us out of the Global Financial Crisis, even though Clinton and Bush, Jr. paved the way into it.

I can totally understand how Trump got elected. I just don’t see any policies of his that I like (to put it mildly).

I don't blame you. I voted twice for Obama and now sort of regret it, though I still like him. I can't stand the Bush dynasty nor its legacy, however.

For me at least, Trump represents a rebuke to the Ivy-League style of politics. I'm done with talkers and the public/private, public relations form of politics, where they promise us one thing and we end up with another. I'm not sure if I would like Trump as a person given that I haven't spent any time with him, but so far I'm with him on policy and general philosophy (if you could call it that). Mostly I just want to see him serve out his terms so we can judge the results.

I do not think that "partisan differences" is what the framers were warning about. To quite the contrary, they were warning about what could happen when and if political parties were established.

To be clear. The framers were putting forth an unacceptable consequence of forming political parties(factions) themselves. It was a warning not about some unacceptable kind of impeachment, but rather it was a warning about the results of forming political parties altogether.

The prosecution failed to seize on that.

You could be right as far as I know. I can't say I've read up on it that much, but I am aware of Hamilton's distaste for parties and factions, though Franklin I think disagreed. I could be wrong.

I dunno. I thought Hamilton was a Federalist. Quick search showed that Adams was the only Federalist. So... I need to research that prior to assenting to much else.

:brow:

What's your take on the votes that Bernie would take from Trump, if Sanders is awarded the nomination?

For me at least, Trump represents a rebuke to the Ivy-League style of politics. I'm done with talkers and the public/private, public relations form of politics, where they promise us one thing and we end up with another. — NOS4A2

And that’s exactly why I understand how Trump got elected. I voted for Sanders then Hillary in 2016. I’m sure the Republican House and Senate in 2017 would have impeached her for something (her emails maybe?) We live in an age where government can’t do anything without the presidency and both chambers solidly in one party.

I disagree with Trump’s proposed budget, the new tax code, the right-wing judges, the environmental deregulation, the immigration policies, and just about everything else he’s done. He really is far right wing on a lot of issues. He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there.

He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there. — Noah Te Stroete

That's just not true, unless 'better' means continued harm against American workers.

That's just not true, unless 'better' means continued harm against American workers. — creativesoul

He wants better deals for our exporters. I didn’t say he actually accomplished anything yet.

What's your take on the votes that Bernie would take from Trump, if Sanders is awarded the nomination?

Sanders poses the biggest threat to Trump, in my opinion. I actually want Sanders to win the primary because I hate the establishment, the DNC, and their tools in the media. But I think there is still massive anti-socialist sentiment in the United States, that the Democrats would lose many voters and go to Trump. Either way it would be an interesting election.

During national debates, the misconception of negativity towards Bernie due to 'socialism' would be rendered null and void to anyone who is reasonable enough to recognize the deep seated 'socialist' institutions that have always been a part of America.

The second hand information has the public quite misinformed.

And that’s exactly why I understand how Trump got elected. I voted for Sanders then Hillary in 2016. I’m sure the Republican House and Senate in 2017 would have impeached her for something (her emails maybe?) We live in an age where government can’t do anything without the presidency and both chambers solidly in one party.

I disagree with Trump’s proposed budget, the new tax code, the right-wing judges, the environmental deregulation, the immigration policies, and just about everything else he’s done. He really is far right wing on a lot of issues. He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there.

See I think he's more left-wing than the typical Republican. Either way, he's certainly an aberration from the party's standards.

He wants better deals for our exporters — Noah Te Stroete

Perhaps. Profit as the motive. The bigger problems with the trade deals are shown by the financial harm they've caused to the American workers, as well as all the issues revolving around inferior quality products... which an entire thread could be based upon.

During nation debates, the misconception of negativity towards Bernie due to 'socialism' would be rendered null and void to anyone who is reasonable enough to recognize the deep seated 'socialist' institutions that have always been a part of America.

Which socialist institutions?

Which socialist institutions? — NOS4A2

Post office. Public education. Fire department. Police department. Department of interior. Land and natural resources. All infrastructure. FDA. EPA. Etc.

Post office. Public education. Fire department. Police department. Department of interior. Land and natural resources. All infrastructure. Etc.

Wait...how are those socialist?

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

All of the financial industry and car manufacturing bailouts were socialism in practice - or at least they were framed as what's best for the public. Congressional members publicly funded healthcare is a socialist measure. Private citizens pay for it, despite not being able to afford their own private health insurance in many cases. Etc.

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist.

For a very long time, when it comes to large corporate and financial interests... it's socialism for them and pure capitalism for everyone else. Government subsidies set aside for private business is socialism in practice.

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist. — NOS4A2

Invented by any socialist?

As if the only thing that counts as socialist is that which is invented by some socialist?

That's part of the problem with the term being bandied about. It's hollow. People do not know what sort of socialism is already deeply embedded in America.

It's kind of sad really. The amount of available literature from the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, and the revolutionary thinkers of the time is overwhelmingly against capitalism and capitalists.

Sad, because people just don't know. A careful perusing through the literature will quickly confirm that all they warned about has actually happened... and yet... "socialism" is bad, and "capitalism" and capitalists are currently held to be admired and defended.

Those who started this country vehemently disagreed.

Invented by any socialist?

As if the only thing that counts as socialist is that which is invented by some socialist?

That's part of the problem with the term being bandied about. People do not know what sort of socialism is already deeply embedded in America.

You just claimed that institutions are socialist when they "place what's best for the overall community at the forefront". Sorry friend, but that's ridiculous.

That's the driving force, one of the underlying principles guiding policy decisions for democratic socialism. If you disagree, then do not call them socialists... they won't mind.

You just claimed that institutions are socialist when they "place what's best for the overall community at the forefront". Sorry friend, but that's ridiculous. — NOS4A2

Don’t take his word for it. Google what conservative scholars think about Social Security and Medicare, as examples. Google “tax is theft” while you’re at it.

Taxes are much better called by another name...

User fees.

If the United States already has “socialist institutions”, I guess we don’t need democratic socialists to run things.

You just claimed that institutions are socialist when they "place what's best for the overall community at the forefront". Sorry friend, but that's ridiculous. — NOS4A2

I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist. — NOS4A2

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


From the Brookings Institution

Competing definitions of socialism

The growing popularity of socialism reflects a change in its image. Viewed in the past under the dark shadow of the Soviet system, it is now seen in light of the achievements of social democratic governments in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe.

In 2018, the Public Religion Research Institute offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as “a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support, and access to free higher education.” The other characterized it as “a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation and communications industries.” The first definition effectively refers to the Scandinavian model—and the ideas popularized by Sanders. Most proponents of social democracy see it as a way of smoothing capitalism’s rough edges, making it more humane, egalitarian, and protective, rather than replacing the market outright. The second definition corresponds to the classic understanding of socialism that dominated public consciousness after World War II, when the challenge from the Soviet Union was at its peak.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/05/13/socialism-a-short-primer/

Don’t take his word for it. Google what conservative scholars think about Social Security and Medicare, as examples. Google “tax is theft” while you’re at it.

I’m well aware of American rhetoric around what “socialism” means. Bernie sanders himself once said Denmark was socialist. But Denmark is a market economy.