Author Topic: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Socialist, Beats 10-Term Congressman  (Read 1216 times)

Offline Shiranu

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Democratic Socialist? 

Think about that for a moment.

Okay, lets...

Democracy = a system of government where the people exercise power over the government through the act of voting, and is generally regarded as "rule by the majority" (though the constitution helps, and is intended, to protect any given minority from being oppressed by the majority).

Socialism = a system where a given means of production is owned by the majority rather than individual parties.

Quote
"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.

Not even remotely. Socialism means that the majority has power over an enterprise, meaning it is by it's nature more akin to democracy than capitalism is. If anything, Democratic Capitalist would be closer to an oxymoron because the core tenant of capitalism is that the individual has control of the means of production.

Of course, neither are oxymorons because there is no such thing as a pure capitalist or a pure socialist, and neither of them are actually inherently tied to the concept of Democracy or Authoritarian, but by their nature socialism is more fit for democracy and capitalism more for authoritarianism.

Quote
Tell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.

That would probably be a good idea, considering essentially every Western country (and most Eastern) practice various degrees of socialism and do so perfectly fine.

Quote
I am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
I've Got Love, Fuck Your Money.

Don't feed the douche-trolls.

Offline Baruch

Everyone practices mortality ... but the degree of it is not insignificant.
שלום

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is Sean Hannity's list of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's evil agenda.



Why the man sounds like maniacal tyrant.  Now there's one mean sonofabitch.

Offline Cavebear

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Democratic socialist" is an oxymoron.

Tell Venezuela they are doing it wrong.
I am sure Bernie Sanders will do it much better if you let him.

No, both are rooted in the idea of benefits to all citizens rather than an elite.  There ARE differences, but one can logically be between the 2 ideas.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, both are rooted in the idea of benefits to all citizens rather than an elite.  There ARE differences, but one can logically be between the 2 ideas.

Correct.  Oligarchy for example is partly democratic and party autocratic.  Our representative system is oligarchic.  But some people think that the WH is a monarchy or dictatorship, that SCOTUS and Congress don't exist.  So then it becomes vitally important to control who is in the WH.  And it does matter, the Dark State has been in control of the WH since 1963.  The People don't control anything, the peasants never do.

A voice from the past ...

"THE GULF BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYED IS CONSTANTLY WIDENING, AND CLASSES ARE RAPIDLY FORMING, ONE COMPRISING THE VERY RICH AND POWERFUL, WHILE IN ANOTHER ARE FOUND THE TOILING POOR. AS WE VIEW THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGGREGATED CAPITAL, WE DISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES, WHILE THE CITIZEN IS STRUGGLING FAR IN THE REAR OR IS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BENEATH AN IRON HEEL." GROVER CLEVELAND, STATE OF THE UNION, DECEMBER 3, 1888

« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 06:58:01 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A voice from the past ...

"THE GULF BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYED IS CONSTANTLY WIDENING, AND CLASSES ARE RAPIDLY FORMING, ONE COMPRISING THE VERY RICH AND POWERFUL, WHILE IN ANOTHER ARE FOUND THE TOILING POOR. AS WE VIEW THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGGREGATED CAPITAL, WE DISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES, WHILE THE CITIZEN IS STRUGGLING FAR IN THE REAR OR IS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BENEATH AN IRON HEEL." GROVER CLEVELAND, STATE OF THE UNION, DECEMBER 3, 1888
It may have been worse in 1888-1910.  It seems like things got better for a while, but I think it was only swing of the pendulum, which is now heading back toward gloomier times for the unwealthy.

Offline Hydra009

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is Sean Hannity's list of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's evil agenda.
Reminds me a lot of some pinko commie old fart with bad hair that the media said didn't have a snowball's chance in hell (I'm pretty sure I just encapsulated the full extent of their coverage)

Yet the platform seems to be a large part of Cortez's success.  Hmm, I wonder what lessons we could draw from that...

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It may have been worse in 1888-1910.  It seems like things got better for a while, but I think it was only swing of the pendulum, which is now heading back toward gloomier times for the unwealthy.

Correct, Teddy Roosevelt wasn't to become President, they made him VP to end his career, then an assassin killed McKinley.  Oops!  Without that assassin there would be no national parks and Standard Oil and US Steel would own us as slaves.
שלום

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A win over a Party Boss suggests a lot about how the general electorate is reacting.
Pretty much.  I know I want the Democrats to actually be Democrats again, not just some sort of Republican Lite in cheaper suits, and I think that a number of my brother and sister Dems are finally feeling the same way.  I hate what the DLC did to the party, whose answer to the losses of the '80s was not to find a way to better deliver our message, but to instead move in the direction of the Republicans—the one major thing I hold against Bill and Hillary, although they're still a damn sight better than the alternative.

It's left us with a center/center-right party and a far-right party and no options on the left.  Obama would not be entirely out of place in the centrist, EU-friendly end of Theresa May's Conservatives (although more likely a LibDem), or in the German FDP, or even on the more centrist end of Angela Merkel's CDU.

The Republicans, on the other hand, rather than seize the opportunity of having Democrats moving their way and getting a whole bunch of their more moderate ideas enacted, have run even further to the right and wouldn't be out of place in Germany's AfP, in Marine Le Pen's National Front, in UKIP, and many teabaggers sound like they've come from the British National Party.

If I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point, someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party.  That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty much.  I know I want the Democrats to actually be Democrats again, not just some sort of Republican Lite in cheaper suits, and I think that a number of my brother and sister Dems are finally feeling the same way.  I hate what the DLC did to the party, whose answer to the losses of the '80s was not to find a way to better deliver our message, but to instead move in the direction of the Republicans—the one major thing I hold against Bill and Hillary, although they're still a damn sight better than the alternative.

It's left us with a center/center-right party and a far-right party and no options on the left.  Obama would not be entirely out of place in the centrist, EU-friendly end of Theresa May's Conservatives (although more likely a LibDem), or in the German FDP, or even on the more centrist end of Angela Merkel's CDU.

The Republicans, on the other hand, rather than seize the opportunity of having Democrats moving their way and getting a whole bunch of their more moderate ideas enacted, have run even further to the right and wouldn't be out of place in Germany's AfP, in Marine Le Pen's National Front, in UKIP, and many teabaggers sound like they've come from the British National Party.

If I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point, someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party.  That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
I can't explain the Democratic strategy over the last 30 years, although I can make guesses.  Several members, now gone from the forum, applauded the strategy of following the Republican lead, which would push the Rs so far to the right, they would destroy themselves.  If in fact that was the strategy, it didn't work.  Someone at headquarters didn't read the opposition correctly. 

I doubt that was the strategy, however.  I think they just wanted to capture some moderate Republicans while expecting their loyal constituents to vote Democratic out of habit, or expecting the more astute to at least vote using the principle of the lesser of evils.  I don't think they anticipated the demoralization factor that kept some would be Democrats from going to the polls last election.

I don't hate the Democratic Party the way Baruch does.  It's more like I've just lost interest in what they are selling, and also, I don't trust them the way I used to.  I think they have obligated themselves to corporations, because corporations are people... people with money.  And it's fun to do favors for people with money.  Wining elections might be more about competing for the power to favors for the wealthy.

But I don't see the party doing anything to change either.  I hear them talk about the fact that they are talking about it, but I don't know what they actually talk ABOUT.  My guess is that they are talking about new strategies to win elections, while not worrying so much about what people want.  Things just seem business as usual.  This thing in New York was an anomaly caused by people.  I don't believe for a second that this event was any part of the DNC strategy, and I think the DNC is mostly trying hard to ignore it:  "Oh, that's just some people that don't understand the big picture.  All they think about is themselves.  Their concerns are not of any great importance."

Offline Hydra009

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can't explain the Democratic strategy over the last 30 years, although I can make guesses.  Several members, now gone from the forum, applauded the strategy of following the Republican lead, which would push the Rs so far to the right, they would destroy themselves.  If in fact that was the strategy, it didn't work.  Someone at headquarters didn't read the opposition correctly.
Correct.  Rather than allowing extremism to push the Republicans from power, we now have extremists with power, the worst possible outcome.

Basically, this was like using fire on zombies.  It might sound like a good idea, but believe me, it's not.  Not only does it not kill the zombies, you now have zombies that are much, much more dangerous.

Quote
I doubt that was the strategy, however.  I think they just wanted to capture some moderate Republicans while expecting their loyal constituents to vote Democratic out of habit, or expecting the more astute to at least vote using the principle of the lesser of evils.  I don't think they anticipated the demoralization factor that kept some would be Democrats from going to the polls last election.
Indeed.  They both misunderstood conservatives (who will vote for Republicans no matter what) and misunderstood liberals (whose votes are not a given and who will become deeply unhappy with Democrats who they feel do not present a liberal-enough platform)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 09:38:37 AM by Hydra009 »

Offline Hydra009

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I had to go out on a prognosticatory limb here, I think we're going to see the Democrats move back to the left, the Republicans stay where they are since there's not a whole lot further to the right they can go without actually falling off the face of the Earth and at some point, someone's going to make a play for the center, and we could end up with a viable third party.  That's about the only way I see a third party happening, actually, and I'm not counting on it, but it'd be interesting.
Perhaps.  But parties only exist because of large bases of support.  The political polarization of America has affected both politicians and voters.  Similarly, there's been an erosion of "moderate" positions between Democrats and Republicans.

What would a centrist party platform even look like?  Muslims shouldn't be allowed to enter the country except the ones who know how to make really good falafel?  Gay marriage is immoral and unnatural and sinful in the eyes of God but gays can get hitched in California?  Healthcare for all but only if gay conversion therapy is included?

I'm kidding of course and being wildly sardonic, but surely, you see the problem here.

Offline Shiranu

That's the problem imo ... Americans, even liberals and progressives, have bought into this lie pushed by the super wealthy that any type of sensible economic policy is leftist, and bought into lies from wealthy conservatives and Christian leaders that any sort of social justice, be it towards the LGBT, African American, women or whoever communities is far-left.

I would say it's less American society has become polarised and more that it was made polarised by changing definitions of what is left or right. 30 years ago what passes as a republican now would have been a radical member of society.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 07:16:58 PM by Shiranu »
I've Got Love, Fuck Your Money.

Don't feed the douche-trolls.

Apparently, anyone with compassion is considered "liberal."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”
Miyamoto Musashi

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apparently, anyone with compassion is considered "liberal."

Traditionally true ... but Marxists aren't liberal, they are parasites and revolutionaries.  Like the mob in Paris, 1792.  The American Revolution was liberal, but only for propertied White men.  Should have kept it that way?
שלום

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk