Are democrats really better than conservatives?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Duh-vert, huh?

GWB led an enormously effective campaign of fear mongering & blood lust in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The media was saturated with it. It was all lies, but it worked to get America's blood up high enough to wage war on false pretenses.

Don't pretend that's not true.
Dubya was a deer in the headlights ivy league frat boy looking to appear decisive and gain daddy's respect in the wake of a terrorist attack he was ill equipped to handle.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
However, if I gave the money to a Church, the red cross or the United way, I can cut out a lot of the middle men. I prefer this method to the government tax method.

It would be interesting to see how funding our military by charity would turn out.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136

bryanl

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2006
1,157
8
81
Not when Democrats have meekly caved in to Republicans, but otherwise there is no longer any question as to the superiority of Democrats vs. Republicans any more; the Republicans have become lunatics.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Obfuscate all you want. The truth is that trickle down Reaganomics has delivered the greatest inequality since 1928 via relentless tax advantaged top down economic warfare.

Not sure that wondering about causes is 'obfuscation'. I mean, it's a given that Reagonomics (aka neo-liberalism aka supply-side economics aka Thatcherism) has done that, that's blindingly obvious. The question I'm curious about is, why neo-liberalism happened?

If one doesn't know why something happened it's hard to undo it or find a workable alternative to it. And it has to be considered in the light of the failures of what came before.

It's not as if things were going fine before Reagan and Thatcher arrived. Keynesianism had stopped working, and growth had stalled. On both sides of the Atlantic there was a sense of stagnation and failure as those in charge floundered around pulling Keynesian levers that no longer seemed to be attached to anything.

That's how the neo-liberals were able to take power.

Of course neo-liberalism turned into a kind of hidden Keynesianism, one based increasingly on private debt (and in the US on a massive budget deficit and inflated defense spending). For a while it was kept going via creative-accounting and house price inflation.

But then that all fell apart with the financial crisis. And no-one seems to know quite what to do now. And in the absence of anything sensible to do, people seem to have decided to do something deeply stupid and elect Trump and May.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Dubya was a deer in the headlights ivy league frat boy looking to appear decisive and gain daddy's respect in the wake of a terrorist attack he was ill equipped to handle.

There was an interesting synchronicity in the rise of the Islamists giving the neo-cons, who had gained influence almost exactly in parallel, exactly the pretext they wanted for a new 'crusade'.

I don't for an instant hold with any of the insane 'inside job' conspiracy theories, but I think there were deeper, parallel, socio-economic trends at work that meant it wasn't entirely random chance that Islamism and neo-conservatism came to prominance around the same time. The collapse of communism being one common factor.

There also seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that Blair and Dubya decided on attacking Iraq long before the manufactured WMD 'crisis'.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,876
136
Not sure that wondering about causes is 'obfuscation'. I mean, it's a given that Reagonomics (aka neo-liberalism aka supply-side economics aka Thatcherism) has done that, that's blindingly obvious. The question I'm curious about is, why neo-liberalism happened?

If one doesn't know why something happened it's hard to undo it or find a workable alternative to it. And it has to be considered in the light of the failures of what came before.

It's not as if things were going fine before Reagan and Thatcher arrived. Keynesianism had stopped working, and growth had stalled. On both sides of the Atlantic there was a sense of stagnation and failure as those in charge floundered around pulling Keynesian levers that no longer seemed to be attached to anything.

That's how the neo-liberals were able to take power.

Of course neo-liberalism turned into a kind of hidden Keynesianism, one based increasingly on private debt (and in the US on a massive budget deficit and inflated defense spending). For a while it was kept going via creative-accounting and house price inflation.

But then that all fell apart with the financial crisis. And no-one seems to know quite what to do now. And in the absence of anything sensible to do, people seem to have decided to do something deeply stupid and elect Trump and May.

I think you are misattributing past economic policies to Keynesianism.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
He mis-attributes the results of economic shocks (oil) during the 70's to Keynesian policy, as well.

Yeah, the oil shock was a notable turning point. Though I don't see there was any natural entitlement to cheap oil forever - it's availabiity was itself partly a result of an era of imperialism that was always going to end at some point.

The fact remains that Keynesianism was supposed to solve the problems that led to economic failure the last time round, but instead we got stagflation, as the further we got from the immediate rebuilding post-WW2, the less it seemed to work. So then we got neo-liberalism and monetarism etc, which turned out not to be sustainable either.

It just seems as if each attempt to find a solution works for a while before running into it's own problems.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,876
136
Are you saying that Keynesianism _wasn't_ the dominant economic paradigm of the post-war boom era? What was, then?

You'll have to show me that Keynesian economics was actually being used during that time. Claiming that because budgets and deficits went up meant that Keynesian economic theory was being used is incorrect.
 

Younigue

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2017
5,888
1,446
106
Maybe some people are blinded with moon beams in their eyes and speak nothing but nonsense... at exhaustive lengths. I only read his most recent post but I feel confident his constant droning on about nothing continues uninterrupted/undeterred. How has he not bored himself in to a blissful oblivion yet?

To be clear: Not you @dank69.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yeah, the oil shock was a notable turning point. Though I don't see there was any natural entitlement to cheap oil forever - it's availabiity was itself partly a result of an era of imperialism that was always going to end at some point.

The fact remains that Keynesianism was supposed to solve the problems that led to economic failure the last time round, but instead we got stagflation, as the further we got from the immediate rebuilding post-WW2, the less it seemed to work. So then we got neo-liberalism and monetarism etc, which turned out not to be sustainable either.

It just seems as if each attempt to find a solution works for a while before running into it's own problems.

Highly inaccurate. Stagflation was the result of everything else catching up to massive increases in the price of oil.

https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/historical-oil-prices-in-2011-dollars.png
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,219
136
It looks like telling dank that anger doesn't help and he should get a job made him angry. Maybe telling people that anger doesn't help doesn't help.
No, that isn't what made me angry. What made me angry in this case is his belief that liberals don't work.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
No, that isn't what made me angry. What made me angry in this case is his belief that liberals don't work.
The work issue is tricky. It used to be that humans lived in small groups where nobody had a job but everybody had a place and contributed to group survival, probably why conservatives are so big on tribalism. Then, with the advent of agriculture and settlements, people specialized and differentiated. What you were to do in life even became hereditary, with some born to be kings or gods with work becoming a sacred duty.. now we have all the remnants of a culture programmed full of the lure of ego satisfaction that is attributed to earning ones own living and not enough jobs for all who want them.

Liberals, having a thing, more about justice and equality, and less about authority, respect for culture, and group identity, are more aware of the plight of the unemploye. This concern for the less advantaged, the jobless, gets turned into the notion that liberals love people who don't support themselves, because conservatives who do have jobs still think they work for God. They are conditioned to be proud of the sacred sacrifice they make called work. They are not aware that being proud of how miserably they are willing to suffer isn't a good idea.

Perhaps the robots will save us from this if they don't decide they are supporting worthless sponges, and put us out of our misery.

Anyway, no point in being angry with hin. He is full of unexamined sacred cows and they lead him around like he has the nose ring. He acquired his morality by being humiliated for being lazy and memory of that pain would have to awaken before his capacity to empathize with the humiliated could return. He reflexively avoids that pain. It wont help you not to feel any for him. Don't let the heartless, and the pain they will not feel harden your own heart. They live an emotionally dulled life., to joy as well as suffering. Suffer and you will not suffer. Love you.
 
Last edited:

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
From 2003:
https://www.cfr.org/interview/arms-expert-says-bush-administration-exaggerated-claims-iraqs-wmd

From south African experts whose own government helped Iraq with chemical weapons in the 80's.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-in-iraq-despite-south-africas-wmd-assurances

Memo given to Condoleezza rice in August 2001.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

So fuck you dumbass.
Even disregarding the UN weapon's inspectors etc, _everyone_ not blinded by ulterior motives knew Iraq didn't have WMDs. It was quite obvious. That's why there was so much opposition to going to war. A country that had been a colonial football for most of its history, then crushed by sanctions for years, had _suddenly_ become a global threat on a par with Nazi Germany, just when the end of the Cold War had freed up the US to throw its weight around without constraint? Just by some amazing coincidence?

I didn't know anyone at the time who believed that. The 'security services' produce a torrent of both real information and complete drivel as part of their normal operation - it's the job of the politicians to decide what makes sense in the light of all the available information, including the bleeding obvious not-secret stuff. Not to get those security services to put together bits of the drivel (in this case apparently involving chats to a fantasist taxi-driver) to construct a case for what they've already decided to do for entirely different reasons.
You're right leadership does matter, which is why Clinton first lost to Obama and then to a reality star closet Nazi.

Also, W wasn't leading much of anything.


Seems another noteworthy difference between democrats and conservatives. The party of personal responsibility can never take any responsibility whatsoever for anything they do that turns out poorly. This is why it's such a terrible choice for any workplace to hire any.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I was too vague. I referenced the period from 1945 until Ronnie Rayguns first suckered us with trickle down economics.

Sure, that period when american white male labor for any decent work was in relative short supply. Really terrible what happened to their status and earning power when women and minorities were allowed to compete for the good jobs, which is rather why white male republicans supported concentrating wealth within a group they can call their own. You know, political colleagues gotta look out for each other.

The work issue is tricky. It used to be that humans lived in small groups where nobody had a job but everybody had a place and contributed to group survival, probably why conservatives are so big on tribalism. Then, with the advent of agriculture and settlements, people specialized and differentiated. What you were to do in life even became hereditary, with some born to be kings or gods with work becoming a sacred duty.. now we have all the remnants of a culture programmed full of the lure of ego satisfaction that is attributed to earning ones own living and not enough jobs for all who want them.

Liberals, having a thing, more about justice and equality, and less about authority, respect for culture, and group identity, are more aware of the plight of the unemploye. This concern for the less advantaged, the jobless, gets turned into the notion that liberals love people who don't support themselves, because conservatives who do have jobs still think they work for God. They are conditioned to be proud of the sacred sacrifice they make called work. They are not aware that being proud of how miserably they are willing to suffer isn't a good idea.

Perhaps the robots will save us from this if they don't decide they are supporting worthless sponges, and put us out of our misery.

Anyway, no point in being angry with hin. He is full of unexamined sacred cows and they lead him around like he has the nose ring. He acquired his morality by being humiliated for being lazy and memory of that pain would have to awaken before his capacity to empathize with the humiliated could return. He reflexively avoids that pain. It wont help you not to feel any for him. Don't let the heartless, and the pain they will not feel harden your own heart. They live an emotionally dulled life., to joy as well as suffering. Suffer and you will not suffer. Love you.

Conservative water load sure heavy these days.

Dubya was a deer in the headlights ivy league frat boy looking to appear decisive and gain daddy's respect in the wake of a terrorist attack he was ill equipped to handle.

A real mystery why these guys keep voting for conservatives shitheads they have to contantly distance themselves from publicly.
 

Guurn

Senior member
Dec 29, 2012
319
30
91
Are Democrats really better than conservatives?

If we are talking about what that means in regards to politics then no. They are doing a horrible job at getting elected which is how success would be measured.
 

jmagg

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2001
1,998
348
126
The work issue is tricky. It used to be that humans lived in small groups where nobody had a job but everybody had a place and contributed to group survival, probably why conservatives are so big on tribalism. Then, with the advent of agriculture and settlements, people specialized and differentiated. What you were to do in life even became hereditary, with some born to be kings or gods with work becoming a sacred duty.. now we have all the remnants of a culture programmed full of the lure of ego satisfaction that is attributed to earning ones own living and not enough jobs for all who want them.

Liberals, having a thing, more about justice and equality, and less about authority, respect for culture, and group identity, are more aware of the plight of the unemploye. This concern for the less advantaged, the jobless, gets turned into the notion that liberals love people who don't support themselves, because conservatives who do have jobs still think they work for God. They are conditioned to be proud of the sacred sacrifice they make called work. They are not aware that being proud of how miserably they are willing to suffer isn't a good idea.

Perhaps the robots will save us from this if they don't decide they are supporting worthless sponges, and put us out of our misery.

Anyway, no point in being angry with hin. He is full of unexamined sacred cows and they lead him around like he has the nose ring. He acquired his morality by being humiliated for being lazy and memory of that pain would have to awaken before his capacity to empathize with the humiliated could return. He reflexively avoids that pain. It wont help you not to feel any for him. Don't let the heartless, and the pain they will not feel harden your own heart. They live an emotionally dulled life., to joy as well as suffering. Suffer and you will not suffer. Love you.

I'm not sure about all of that, but do remember that when I chose to procreate it bore personal responsibility to feed and keep warm my children. That feeling of responsibility remains even though their grown and doing well on their own. I don't really remember anyone calling me lazy but someone probably has along the line. I do however believe that in order for humans to be content they need to produce.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
After 9/11, Bush was a politically popular President given our seemingly decisive victory in Afghanistan, and the decision by Democrats to support the invasion of Iraq was one of political survival, particularly for the Senators from NY.

Bush, an incompetent President enabled by a bunch of politically opportunistic hypocrites.

Decisive victory in Afghanistan indeed. I am betting that Trump ups the ante on Afghanistan tonight and the press and the Republicans and the Democrats suck his dick for the effort. Nothing like some good old fashioned warmongering to make everybody happy. Our longest war is Afghanistan and it is now about half controlled Al Qaeda. Well done. They aren't even bothering to give us a long term strategy anymore. Nobody apparently cares.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
I'm not sure about all of that, but do remember that when I chose to procreate it bore personal responsibility to feed and keep warm my children. That feeling of responsibility remains even though their grown and doing well on their own. I don't really remember anyone calling me lazy but someone probably has along the line. I do however believe that in order for humans to be content they need to produce.
Yes, well there is one form of productivity that beats all others and that is doing what you love to do. And just because we were all subjected to some degree or another to the guilt trip of being lazy doesn't mean that there are natural drives that counter negativity. Some are damaged much worse than others and one of the worst forms of that damage is the perpetration of it to the next generation.

These things are always accompanied by some sort of contempt for others.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
I do however believe that in order for humans to be content they need to produce.

Say what?! Produce what, with what?

That's such a narrow perspective that I have to imagine you're projecting your own ritual onto others. I might even refer to it as the Stockholm syndrome of the industrial revolution. But to be clear, you would slave over a production line if it paid nothing? Because you need it "to be content"?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
So why are you & Jaskalas always reminiscing about the good ol' pre-civil rights days as the golden age of that party?

To be fair it's more understand with him, but why for you?

Because the economic policies forged in the New Deal ushered in the broad middle class as we've known it. It tore down the extreme concentration of wealth & power that existed in 1928. The further we've deviated from that the more unstable & astoundingly unequal the system has become. None of that is good for near median families & below at all, regardless of their political inclinations.

And when that wealth slips away from the lower half, the difficulty of that loss leads people into blaming others. A main theme against illegals is the notion that "they" are "taking" from "us". Bitter divisiveness grows under our present conditions, starved from the wealth of America. To be clear, if wealth was redistributed at 100%, EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD would live in a household with a net worth well over a million dollars. Every single household would have 6 figures, annually. Just a quarter of that wealth would universally END mortgages and rent payments, pay for college loans, and provide safe transport and security for all.

The gap between a quarter and where we stand now is nearly unimaginable. But I will fight to make that dream a reality.

@agent00f , I'd almost mistake that string of conversation as a stand against fixing income inequality. Throw those lines in with your apparent disdain for us speaking economic policy... The parts of the Democratic party that bother me are the ones that embrace tribalism, who surrender to hatred and madness and seek to burn the world down rather than build it up. Whose chief concern is hurting "others" and not helping all men, created equal. The American motto was once E Pluribus Unum, the True American Dream.

Maybe someday more of us will remember that. And honor it not with hollow words, but with resolute action.