All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I've decided there is no point in continuing my discussion of extereism here. I provide evidence to illuminate context and all I get back is name-calling, strawmen arguments, and vague generalizations. I won't waste my time any further trying to penetrate with facts a playpen of such wanton ignorance, blatant disinformation, fueled by a gross inability to face reality.

In closing, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in no way are political extremists. They fall neatly into the classically liberal left of center tradition, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know a liberal from a communist, or a conservative from a fascist, or a rock from a turtle.

There was no name calling or strawmanning. You called someone a communist. You failed to point out a single policy that would be considered communist by any conventional standard. That's a prerequiste for your assertivestatement You then tried to pivot and used cherry picked quotes to make it about extremism without any onjective metrics to back up your opinoons. Stop feeling bad for yourself for saying that you failed to back up and is just blantantly untrue by any.

It's not a good look. Especially when you have to make up lies about the people pointing out the false statements you made because you couldn't back them up.

And no "my friends think I'm smart" isn't a good argument.

[Celgress]

There was no name calling or strawmanning. You called someone a communist. You failed to point out a single policy that would be considered communist by any conventional standard. That's a prerequiste for your assertivestatement You then tried to pivot and used cherry picked quotes to make it about extremism without any onjective metrics to back up your opinoons. Stop feeling bad for yourself for saying that you failed to back up and is just blantantly untrue by any.

It's not a good look. Especially when you have to make up lies about the people pointing out the false statements you made because you couldn't back them up.

And no "my friends think I'm smart" isn't a good argument.

Thanks for reaffirming my decision. I knew you'd take the bait and become angry enough to reply. And, yes, you did question my intelligence in an insulting fashion several times which is the naming call I referenced. Anyone with an open mind can trace over chat and see the other things I mentioned. And you are the one who failed to use any metrics or evidence of any sort, not I.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Thanks for reaffirming my decision. I knew you'd take the bait and become angry enough to reply. And, yes, you did question my intelligence in an insulting fashion several times which is the naming call I referenced. Anyone with an open mind can trace over chat and see the other things I mentioned. And you are the one who failed to use any metrics or evidence of any sort, not I.

I questioned your intelligence because you were adament that someone who doesn't have a single policy that could be described as communist anywhere in the Western world as a communist. So yeah I am going to question your understanding of a word you adamantly mislabled. And if me pointing out you factually are misusing a word (and that's really beyond reasonable debate at this point) is upsetting you, maybe stop being married to a false understanding of that word.

Also there's no anger here. You didn't outsmart anyone. In case you didn't notice, you spent your last few posts whining about unfair treatment because you completely abandoned any hope of actually defending your hypothesis. I'm also not the only person who pointed this out. You have failed to come off well in any of these exchanges. You made an insane statement in one and then spent the next few posts complaining that you were deservedly held to task on it. Not a good look.

[Celgress]

I questioned your intelligence because you were adament that someone who doesn't have a single policy that could be described as communist anywhere in the Western world as a communist. So yeah I am going to question your understanding of a word you adamantly mislabled. And if me pointing out you factually are misusing a word (and that's really beyond reasonable debate at this point) is upsetting you, maybe stop being married to a false understanding of that word.

Also there's no anger here. You didn't outsmart anyone. In case you didn't notice, you spent your last few posts whining about unfair treatment because you completely abandoned any hope of actually defending your hypothesis. I'm also not the only person who pointed this out. You have failed to come off well in any of these exchanges. You made an insane statement in one and then spent the next few posts complaining that you were deservedly held to task on it. Not a good look.

Believe whatever you want. Give yourself a nice pat on the back but Sanders' policies are all based upon the redistribution of wealth on a massive scale to pay for greatly expanded social programs (and even arguably new ones) causing a fundamental societal/political change which is a communist idea at its core. If not outright communist, which I argue he is, Sanders is most certainly communist adjacent at the very least.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Just for posterity

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Brittanica:
Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

Meriam Webster

A: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
B: a theory advocating elimination of private property

This goes beyond the fact that there is a massive difference between socialism and communism. And a Democratic Socialist is far from even a standard socialist.

There's no reasonable way you can go from expanding a government program to provide healthcare, waving away federal debt, and raising taxes as communism. It fails at the best foundational level, let alone when you take a deep dive into the actual theory and practices.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Ah, yes.

The great communist invention that is the welfare state.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Believe whatever you want. Give yourself a nice pat on the back but Sanders' policies are all based upon the redistribution of wealth on a massive scale to pay for greatly expanded social programs (and even arguably new ones) causing a fundamental societal/political change which is a communist idea at its core. If not outright communist, which I argue he is, Sanders is most certainly communist adjacent at the very least.

As long as you understand that nothing you described is communist even in an ancillary sense. If you believe increasing taxes is redistribution of wealth, then you must either believe that is the case across the board OR there is some set threshold for which it crosses the line into communism. Because we already use taxes to pay for social programs. Medicare already exists. Social Security already exists (and that's more comprehensive). The Postal Service exists.

Do you have some set metric for when those venture into communism? Or do you think we are already a communist society.

And that's just giving you the benefit of a stretch from owning the means of production to greatly expanded social programs.

There is no actual communist that would find Sanders to be a communist or even an ally. If you placed Sanders in Europe, on his best day he is left of center in any country that is remotely compatible with out own.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

He's basically a mainstream New Deal Democrat

[Celgress]

Oh hey, look who thinks they should do everything they can to support Sanders, how very interesting -

https://www.cpusa.org/article/agains...hment-in-2020/

And there are different branches of Communism. Some branches belive in a natural evolution towards working-class ownership of the means of production, whereas others believe the process must be guided through direct revolution or smaller steeps to speed up the inevitable historical process. But all at their core feel Capitalism is unfair because it favors the "parasitic" managerial class and the "politician puppets" of that class (sound familiar?). They see a massive redistribution of wealth as the cure for social inequality and political powerlessness. Sanders preaches the credo of political revolution, not political evolution via the manner outlined above which is rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle hence why he is a type of communist, 'nough said.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Oh hey, look who thinks they should do everything they can to support Sanders, how very interesting -

https://www.cpusa.org/article/agains...hment-in-2020/

And there are different branches of Communism. Some branches belive in a natural evolution towards working-class ownership of the means of production, whereas others believe the process must be guided through direct revolution or smaller to speed up the inevitable historical process. But all at their core feel Capitalism is unfair because it favors the "parasitic" managerial class and the "politician puppets" of that class (sound familiar?). They see a massive redistribution of wealth as the cure for social inequality and political powerlessness. Sanders preaches the credo of political revolution, not political evolution via the manner outlined above which is rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle hence why he is a type of communist, 'nough said.

I'm a Democratic Socialist. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist of any kind.

What I, and many on the left believe, is that a Sanders presidency is a necessary step to achieving socialism in the US. Not because he's a socialist of any kind, but because he's the most viable candidate that's closest to the left and he's getting more people to be involved in the political process and organized.

It'd be great if Bernie Sanders actually was a communist or a socialist. I'm not saying he isn't one because I think it's a bad thing, but because he's politics pretty much make him a social democrat.

All this time you have touted your "expertise" on the subject to insist you are correct about Sanders, but I've posted a video of Noam Chomsky, someone is certainly more knowledgeable about politics than any of us here, making it quite clear than Sanders is not a communist of any kind, but you've chosen to gloss over it.

[Celgress]

For anyone who is interested in learning about the theoretical framework used to understand political extremism "The True Believer" By Eric Hoffer is a great starting point. Be advised you'll require Adobe Acrobat Reader if you want to download the file (which is in PDF format). -

https://www.academia.edu/21464682/Th..._-_Eric_Hoffer

[Celgress]

I'm a Democratic Socialist. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist of any kind.

What I, and many on the left believe, is that a Sanders presidency is a necessary step to achieving socialism in the US. Not because he's a socialist of any kind, but because he's the most viable candidate that's closest to the left and he's getting more people to be involved in the political process and organized.

It'd be great if Bernie Sanders actually was a communist or a socialist. I'm not saying he isn't one because I think it's a bad thing, but because he's politics pretty much make him a social democrat.

All this time you have touted your "expertise" on the subject to insist you are correct about Sanders, but I've posted a video of Noam Chomsky, someone is certainly more knowledgeable about politics than any of us here, making it quite clear than Sanders is not a communist of any kind, but you've chosen to gloss over it.

He sure does preaches about revolutionary change and wealth redistribution a lot for someone who is only a "social democrat", huh funny. If it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck, and has feathers like a duck, well, damn it's a duck in my book regardless of if it says it's a snail.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Oh hey, look who thinks they should do everything they can to support Sanders, how very interesting -

https://www.cpusa.org/article/agains...hment-in-2020/

And there are different branches of Communism. Some branches belive in a natural evolution towards working-class ownership of the means of production, whereas others believe the process must be guided through direct revolution or smaller steeps to speed up the inevitable historical process. But all at their core feel Capitalism is unfair because it favors the "parasitic" managerial class and the "politician puppets" of that class (sound familiar?). They see a massive redistribution of wealth as the cure for social inequality and political powerlessness. Sanders preaches the credo of political revolution, not political evolution via the manner outlined above which is rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle hence why he is a type of communist, 'nough said.

Speaking of strawmans.

Listen for the record I don't think you are stupid. I think you don't like Sanders and are married to a bad argument against him and are stretching the nature of political theory beyond recognition to try to make it work.

To your actual point, yes there are many branches of communism, but the core tenant is the government owning the means of production. The key difference between communism and socialism is that socialism allows for the public to own the means of production. The Democratic Party for many years has always been an advocate of placing regulations on capitalism to prevent social inequality. Sanders at his base advocates for an moderate expansion of that plus other Democratic practices like using taxes on the wealthy to fund social safety nets. Those are not new within the Democratic Party. Obama's ACA was established as a tax for instance to get a better healthcare program in place. The Supreme Court ruled and said it could only constiutionally exist as a tax. That being his signature achievement would qualify as communism by the terms you are setting up (oh and he campaigned as an agent of change). It's a typical Democratic play book strategy. The biggest difference between Sanders and more moderate Democrats lies more on the corporate interest side than anything else.

He is not a type of communist. He's at best a soft socialist who belives in minimal socialsitic policies to supplement a mostly capitalist society. And again, you'd have to call nearly all of Europe communist to make your logic work. Which would be news to most Americans that we lost the Cold War.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Let's just piece this piece apart.

Sanders isn't a communist by any stretch. Yeah some communist support him. Some of them supported Obama before him when they thought he was a progressive. There's always going to be a fringe element in any large group. The vast majority of Sander's coalition is simply a young and diverse electorate who want M4A, student loan forgiveness and a reworked tax and regulatory system.

Obama is a progressive, he just isn't socialist. Your cherry picking the nice things in Sanders coalition and ignoring the bad parts, parts which Obama didn't contend with as a politician. That they are well meaning shouldn't be a shield which excuses harassment and abuse to Democratic politicians and DNC officials. They're not purely innocent children that did nothing wrong you're describing them as.

Yeah I know exactly who Rogan is. Sanders was given room in Sander's campaign so far as that Bernie acknowledged an endorsement. He's not campaigning for Sanders. He said that he agreed with him and Sanders' campaign used that as an example of Sanders having appeal outside the Democratic Party. I know who Barney Frank is. You know how I know? He was a Congressmen in my state and I have relatives who worked with him. Sanders is far closer to Frank in ideology than Rogan. It's not even close. You are also referencing comments Frank made in 2016 when he was boosting for Hillary Clinton and trying to get her the nomination.

Rogan needn't campaign for Sanders to affect Sanders, Sanders boosted Rogan himself and his campaign afterward to help him recruit more people. That's the whole point of going to Rogan, Rogan didn't go to him. Rogan's past being he complete antithesis of Sanders ideology didn't stop that.

Barney Frank's been frustrated with Sanders long before Hillary run and why would the fact he sided with Hillary over Sanders discredit what he has to say?

Let me make this very clear to you, Celgrass made his arguments very easy to nonchalantly dismiss when he decided he was going to die on the hill of Sanders being a full blown communist. That's a nonstarter to anybody who has any level of eductation on the term. Go say that to anybody with any post high school education and you will get laughed out of any room. I'm sorry but there are points where people are just flagarantly ignorant that there is no reasonable response to them. If you are going to look at Sander's or any current mainstream politicians body of work and cry communism, you are out of touch. I'd advise you not to join him on that hill because it's just something that makes you look unreasonable and like you don't know what the terms you use mean. And no, linking to a few books out of context don't help his argument. There's about the same amount of evidence that Obama and Clinton who had vast movements where they were propped up as saviors and also wanted to regulate and tax the wealthy while advocating for a public optoon are communists as their is for Sanders. And in Hillary's case the smearing was also there. But I only made the comparison to point out the complete absurdity of it.

I agreed with you Sanders that isn't a Communist.

Yes there is Warren.... who came in 4th in Iowa, is projected to come in 4th in NH the state right above hers that is closely tied to her state, a distant third in Nevada on par with Steyer. The only state she is showing real strength in is her own (mine as well). That's not going to win her the day. I wanted Warren to win. I thought she was the best shot at uniting progressives and centrists and also having strong policies. But her question was whether she could win a national election and maintain a frontrunner status. She was a frontrunner for a few weeks and then couldn't weather attacks. It sucks, but it is what it is. At this point I don't think she is going to win. It's a race between Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg as a spoiler imo. Those are the only people that showed any ability to buld a coalition close to the actual time to vote.

Then vote for her, it's that simple.

To your last point, he's already chastised them. I'd argue that just based on the facts you are overplaying the toxicity on his side, downplaying the toxicity on others (and yes it takes a quick twitter search to see the people who displayed disgusting vitriol towards him the minute he announced) and there's not going to be a level that will be saitisfactory to you because you are already going in with inherently biased presumption.

He hasn't chastised them anywhere near he needs to, and he's certainly not throwing out Nina Turner or Sirota from his campaign. He welcomed Killer Mike back with open arms, despite in '16 where Mike became an anchor for making sexist comments, and last year he made controversial comments involving the NRA.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...mike-explained

You're dismissing how badly Sanders has lead his campaigns and who he associates with.

His campaign in '16 had problems with a toxic atmosphere which has hostile to women staffers.

His "Bernie Bros" rose from the ashes and went after Warren. They're still there, waiting to be a weapon against his rivals again like they were in '16.

I'd be satisfied were Sanders had put in the work he do it, instead he refuses to do so so he won't get any slack from me on his bad decisions.

There was a bad reaction to his announcement, but it's hardly on the same scale as what Bernie's involved with on numerous levels. The media aren't reporting that Sanders himself and his staff are under threat from it, can't say the same for the victims of his supporters in the Democratic party.

[Celgress]

This has been fun, but it is getting late where I am. Have a nice evening everyone.

PS I'm rooting for Sanders because I want it to be a matchup between two extremist groups in the general election, it'll be fascinating like a living laboratory of political insanity.