|
@Zambrah You can't point to the "Squad" folks as they are in D+20 to D+30 seats. They literally have zero competition in the general. What works for them isn't going to work for 80% of the Dem house seats. I would like to see AOC try and win in my House district (FL - District 12; Gus Bilirakis). In fact his opponent in my district (Kimberly Walker) was pretty progressive - she favored UHC, assault weapons ban, student loan forgiveness, and pretty far left on climate issues (kimberlyforcongress.com).
She got walloped and it wasn't close. It's easy to win as progressives in the most progressive parts of the country. Just like it's easy to win for my candidates (libertarians like Massie, Labrador, etc.) in the most red parts of the country, but harder to win in more contested areas (Freitas against Spanberger for instance). What makes you think Tlaib would beat Freitas or do better than Spanberger in that district?
Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue.
@Neb Austrian Econ are folks like Carl Menger, Eugene von Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, F. Hayek, M. Rothbard, and about 100+ economics professors around the US that you guys have probably not heard of (probably the most prominent is Walter Block). 90% of Austrian Econ is settled economics - they're the progenitors of the subjective theory of value. The biggest area of disagreement comes from business cycle theory, money and currency arguments (Central Banking / Free-Banking / 100% Reserve banking), and epistemology (empiricism vs praxeology).
|
On November 13 2020 10:48 Wegandi wrote:
Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue.
The difference is that they're offering systems where the voice of the people counts more than it currently does in the american system. If doing that ensures that your side can no longer win, maybe that says something about your side's ideas more than it says something about your opponent's autoritarian tendencies.
|
On November 13 2020 10:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 10:48 Wegandi wrote:
Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue. The difference is that they're offering systems where the voice of the people counts more than it currently does in the american system. If doing that ensures that your side can no longer win, maybe that says something about your side's ideas more than it says something about your opponent's autoritarian tendencies.
It says nothing about "my side". What does court packing, abolishing the EC, and packing the senate via statehood have to do with "voice of the people". It's all about power and politics, not some fanciful flight of morality. They're against giving voice to the people of DC through MD or VA because they want 2 senate seats. Why? They want power through edict rather than winning elections because they know their views are not popular in most states in this country.
So, no there's really no practical difference. Frankly, I hope they succeed because it will ensure the fracture of the US. There's no way that the red states voluntarily submit themselves to minority status forever. They'll just say fuck you and leave. So, then the D's will be left with a choice - send the military against the people [again], or let them leave. They choose [1] that will really cement their Maduro status.
|
Oh yeah, Florida hates progressivism, how'd that vote on the 15 dollar minimum wage work out?
Right, it passed.
|
United States43971 Posts
Wegandi, you keep treating the current representation subsidies that prop up your failed ideology as a divinely appointed right. It’s not. If conservatives can’t win a majority based on their ideas they need better ideas, not more subsidies. Let the marketplace of ideas function rather than repressing competition by giving some voters more representation than others.
|
They want power through edict rather than winning elections because they know their views are not popular in most states in this country.
I'm just listening to the scientific consensus telling us that we need radical changes and able to identify their incompatibility with the existing system. If anyone had a remotely convincing case for how we avert catastrophic ecological collapse through lesser evilism and reformism I'd be happy to hear it.
People are far more receptive of reformism than radical changes so if I saw any path there I'd happily hop in line.
|
On November 13 2020 11:05 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 10:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 13 2020 10:48 Wegandi wrote:
Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue. The difference is that they're offering systems where the voice of the people counts more than it currently does in the american system. If doing that ensures that your side can no longer win, maybe that says something about your side's ideas more than it says something about your opponent's autoritarian tendencies. It says nothing about "my side". What does court packing, abolishing the EC, and packing the senate via statehood have to do with "voice of the people". It's all about power and politics, not some fanciful flight of morality. They're against giving voice to the people of DC through MD or VA because they want 2 senate seats. Why? They want power through edict rather than winning elections because they know their views are not popular in most states in this country. So, no there's really no practical difference. Frankly, I hope they succeed because it will ensure the fracture of the US. There's no way that the red states voluntarily submit themselves to minority status forever. They'll just say fuck you and leave. So, then the D's will be left with a choice - send the military against the people [again], or let them leave. They choose [1] that will really cement their Maduro status.
Holy hell the cognitive dissonance in this post hurts my brain.
What does court packing
Not actually mentioned in this conversation at all.
abolishing the EC
It's been pretty conclusively shown that the Electoral College is un-democratic and it suppresses the voices of people in both 1) more populous states and 2) minority political parties that live in a safely Red/Blue state.
and packing the senate via statehood
Hey guys, did you know that giving political representation to nearly 4 million otherwise unrepresented people somehow has nothing to do with "voice of the people"?
Do you even read the shit you post? Giving DC and Puerto Rico (not to mention the other American territories) federal political representation and power is literally the opposite of this Maduro/Chavez analogy you're trying to make. It takes an incredibly willful attempt at warping reality to try to connect the two.
|
On November 13 2020 11:05 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 10:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 13 2020 10:48 Wegandi wrote:
Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue. The difference is that they're offering systems where the voice of the people counts more than it currently does in the american system. If doing that ensures that your side can no longer win, maybe that says something about your side's ideas more than it says something about your opponent's autoritarian tendencies. It says nothing about "my side". What does court packing, abolishing the EC, and packing the senate via statehood have to do with "voice of the people". It's all about power and politics, not some fanciful flight of morality. They're against giving voice to the people of DC through MD or VA because they want 2 senate seats. Why? They want power through edict rather than winning elections because they know their views are not popular in most states in this country. So, no there's really no practical difference. Frankly, I hope they succeed because it will ensure the fracture of the US. There's no way that the red states voluntarily submit themselves to minority status forever. They'll just say fuck you and leave. So, then the D's will be left with a choice - send the military against the people [again], or let them leave. They choose [1] that will really cement their Maduro status.
Court packing - already done by the Republicans. Through quirks in the system and timings of deaths along with Republican abuse of norms, the Republicans have a 6-3 lead in the current court while a system that followed the will of the people would look more like 5-4 in the Democrats favor.
Abolishing the electoral college - Good. States already have disproportionate representation through the senate, which we know wields a ton of power. To turn a huge portion of our country into skippable territory for presidents seems like a bad idea. California is skippable by both parties. New York is skippable by both parties. All the flyover country is skippable by both parties. None are battlegrounds, so candidates don't bother. If you make the popular vote the decider, then they all matter. Working to get 1 more vote in Montana counts for just as much as working to get 1 more vote in California.
And the idea that you're protecting rural areas is nonsense. IL is split between urban Chicago (heavy Democrat) and rural areas (heavy republican). Those republican rural areas have no voice in the presidential election precisely because of the EC. Likewise, a farmer from Indiana or Missouri counts for less than a Rhode Island urbanite. The EC is nonsense that subverts the will of the people and should be gone.
Packing the Senate via statehood = giving voice to the people that make up the area that is not currently being represented. I would be perfectly fine with having DC become a part of MD or VA for presidential elections, but MD and VA don't want DC to dilute their voice. So, the other alternative is to turn DC into a state or abolish the electoral college. I honestly don't care which happens, but I do think one must happen.
And red states are not submitting themselves to minority status for all eternity. There has been significant shifts in states over the history of the United States. In recent years, Ohio and Florida have gone red-shift. Georgia has gone blue-shift and Texas may be next in 4 or 8 years. Parties need to shift to meet the people. The current balance is not something we need to strive to maintain. The changing nature of the voters will force changes in balance anyways. Adding a state only messes with the current nonsensical balance point, but that balance point will shift naturally and is not enshrined anywhere that Republicans shall get exactly some list of states forever.
|
DC and PR are actually about 8 million people (~5 mil in DC and 3.1 mil in PR), so about double the disenfranchisement you stated there of 4 million.
RE: Austrian Economics. 100 professors believing something doesn't mean very much. That's a tiny amount. I'm sure there's a representative poll or something in an academics journal somewhere that I would prefer we use.
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
On November 13 2020 10:48 Wegandi wrote:@Zambrah You can't point to the "Squad" folks as they are in D+20 to D+30 seats. They literally have zero competition in the general. What works for them isn't going to work for 80% of the Dem house seats. I would like to see AOC try and win in my House district (FL - District 12; Gus Bilirakis). In fact his opponent in my district (Kimberly Walker) was pretty progressive - she favored UHC, assault weapons ban, student loan forgiveness, and pretty far left on climate issues ( kimberlyforcongress.com). She got walloped and it wasn't close. It's easy to win as progressives in the most progressive parts of the country. Just like it's easy to win for my candidates (libertarians like Massie, Labrador, etc.) in the most red parts of the country, but harder to win in more contested areas (Freitas against Spanberger for instance). What makes you think Tlaib would beat Freitas or do better than Spanberger in that district? Again, I will reiterate how hilarious it is to hear progressives complain about Trump damaging our institutions when you guys literally want to abolish those institutions and create a system that enshrines your power in perpetuity. What makes that so different than the Maduro and Chavez's of the world that you love to claim you're nothing like? I think some of y'all are projecting a bit much on this issue. @Neb Austrian Econ are folks like Carl Menger, Eugene von Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, F. Hayek, M. Rothbard, and about 100+ economics professors around the US that you guys have probably not heard of (probably the most prominent is Walter Block). 90% of Austrian Econ is settled economics - they're the progenitors of the subjective theory of value. The biggest area of disagreement comes from business cycle theory, money and currency arguments (Central Banking / Free-Banking / 100% Reserve banking), and epistemology (empiricism vs praxeology).
Ridiculous.
How does wanting say, Presidential elections to be based on the popular vote reveal any kind of commonality with Maduro, Chavez or anyone of that ilk whatsoever?
Utterly preposterous. As opposed to the great, totally democratic situation where a minority of people can dictate to the majority and where the highest court in the land’s composition depends on when people die.
I mean that’s grand, so long as institutional sanctity is maintained. Because they were perfectly designed at the time to run in perpetuity.
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
On November 13 2020 11:14 KwarK wrote:
Wegandi, you keep treating the current representation subsidies that prop up your failed ideology as a divinely appointed right. It’s not. If conservatives can’t win a majority based on their ideas they need better ideas, not more subsidies. Let the marketplace of ideas function rather than repressing competition by giving some voters more representation than others.
Ridiculous. The free market should only apply when it suits Conservatives, not across the board. Don’t be silly Kwark
|
Curious on something, AOC has always been preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality etc. Has she ever mentioned how she would grow the economy?
edit: for clarity
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
On November 13 2020 11:52 Dante08 wrote:
Curious on something, AOC has always been preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality etc. Has she ever mentioned how she would progress the economy?
What does that even mean?
|
It means how to grow the economy.
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point?
|
On November 13 2020 11:55 Dante08 wrote:
It means how to grow the economy.
Do you mean GDP or something else?
|
On November 13 2020 11:52 Dante08 wrote:
Curious on something, AOC has always been preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality etc. Has she ever mentioned how she would grow the economy?
edit: for clarity
Define: grow the economy.
|
On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point?
Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time.
I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries?
|
|
|
On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries?
We still don't know what you're asking about. Is it GDP? A lot of the items you've presented have nothing to do with GDP. Is it the stock market? Is it worker's wages? Is it an improvement on a specific index of economic health factors?
On November 13 2020 12:10 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2020 11:52 Dante08 wrote:
Curious on something, AOC has always been preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality etc. Has she ever mentioned how she would grow the economy?
edit: for clarity Define: grow the economy. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicgrowth.asp
So yes, it's GDP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
