Why the Democratic Party is deeply disappointing and useless in fixing the real problems of the country.

[Moonbeam]

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

Like what Republicans call socialism is what the kind of socialism the US needs or what progressives are aiming for.

But to explain all that would require an explanation that would take a capacity to think to follow so let’s vote with Republicans and help them fuck the American people.

How would you have voted?

 

[Indus]

AOC is ten football fields to the right of me, so I'm voting that I"m supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

 

[woolfe9998]

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

Like what Republicans call socialism is what the kind of socialism the US needs or what progressives are aiming for.

But to explain all that would require an explanation that would take a capacity to think to follow so let’s vote with Republicans and help them fuck the American people.

How would you have voted?

I would have abstained from such an idiotic performative display of unmitigated bullshit. Any democrat voting either way on it is a fool. Don't play their stupid games and you won't end up with any stupid prizes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Roll Call 106 Roll Call 106, Bill Number: H. Con. Res. 9, 118th Congress, 1st Session

VOTE QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution, DESCRIPTION: Denouncing the horrors of socialism, VOTE TYPE: Yea-And-Nay, STATUS: Passed

clerk.house.gov

 

[Moonbeam]

I would have abstained from such an idiotic performative display of unmitigated bullshit. Any democrat voting either way on it is a fool. Don't play their stupid games and you won't end up with any stupid prizes.

14 voted present, all Democrats. My guess is not for the reason you suggested but because of fear of consequence.

Another way to handle this in my opinion, would be for every Democrat to have voted no and to have made it clear the reasons were that the bill was put to a vote by Republicans as a means to end provide any kind of social security.

 

[MrSquished]

14 voted present, all Democrats. My guess is not for the reason you suggested but because of fear of consequence.

Another way to handle this in my opinion, would be for every Democrat to have voted no and to have made it clear the reasons were that the bill was put to a vote by Republicans as a means to end provide any kind of social security.

Democrats can't control messaging or the narrative, they suck at it. They let the fascist scum that is the GQP do it. I understand it's harder for Dems because they actually deal in an intellectual reality, where MAGATS deal with their appeal to evil and shittiness, and that's easier, but yes, that would have been the perfect way to frame it. SOCIAL securitiy.

 

[woolfe9998]

14 voted present, all Democrats. My guess is not for the reason you suggested but because of fear of consequence.

Another way to handle this in my opinion, would be for every Democrat to have voted no and to have made it clear the reasons were that the bill was put to a vote by Republicans as a means to end provide any kind of social security.

This may be just me, but I object to the entire exercise of putting ideological labels on everything. I support a set of policies, not an ideology. And I support the policies I support because they fix problems and make people's lives better, not because they're ideologically correct.

It's also the case that governments vary by degrees to which they involve themselves in their nation's economies. On one extreme is total government ownership of the means of production, a centrally planned economy, and no private businesses. On the other is the kind of laissez-faire capitalism of the 1880's that modern libertarians pine for. Where government does nothing at all except enforce criminal codes and provide for defense of borders.

The truth is, the US and every other developed country is somewhere in between those extremes, and we're actually nowhere near either extreme. Socialism isn't a static concept of you have it or you don't. We're less socialist than Europe and Canada but more socialist than conservatives want us to be. That socialism v. capitalism is a spectrum is absolutely correct: it aligns with objective reality.

But conservatives have never been much about objective reality. If they were, they'd attack the policies on reasonable grounds and avoid the labels. This crap is just a political game where they slap a categorical label on a bunch of policies or just policy ideas because they know the label has a negative connotation for conservatives and some swing voters.

I wouldn't play that game with them at all. It's smart not to. Sanders should never have self-identified as socialist. All he had to do was state what policies he supports and why. It's just as honest, less confusing, and way smarter.

 

[Jaskalas]

I vote no, these labels are for morons who cannot argue objective policy pros and cons.

 

[Muse]

WTF is a socialist policy? I'm seeing nothing of substance there other than to throw shit at the words socialist and socialism. The resolution is bullshit.

 

[Bitek]

Well the McCarthy Congress is off to a productive start.

Where would the nation be without their bloviating and posturing?

Brave Patriots.

 

[Vic]

I am far far from a socialist, but at the same time I am strongly opposed to the House voting to denounce ideas. Any ideas. Or next they'll be outlawing ideas.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am far far from a socialist, but at the same time I am strongly opposed to the House voting to denounce ideas. Any ideas. Or next they'll be outlawing ideas.

Hehe, my favorite puzzle. I also oppose denouncing ideas and I recommend that others do the same. But the denouncing of ideas goes right along in total indifference to what I think. So a part of me is never at peace and keeps asking if there is a limit to tolerance.

 

[HomerJS]

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

Like what Republicans call socialism is what the kind of socialism the US needs or what progressives are aiming for.

But to explain all that would require an explanation that would take a capacity to think to follow so let’s vote with Republicans and help them fuck the American people.

How would you have voted?

I would have offered up an amendment denouncing racism and all who support it. I would have listed all the white nationalist groups. On the floor remind everyone members of the Republican Party support these group and no Democrats support them. I believe Republicans changed the rules that allows amendments

If amendment not added and if I’m in a purple district I would have voted present. I would have also used time at my next town hall explaining present vote.

 

[Ajay]

Lolo - STILL trying to undo the New Deal. Dog with a bone.

 

[Perknose]

Feels like the 1950's.

Although actually, ignorance is timeless:

 

[senseamp]

You mean the Republican party? They are passing meaningless resolutions that are going nowhere while the Democrats have expanded Medicaid.

 

[Moonbeam]

You mean the Republican party? They are passing meaningless resolutions that are going nowhere while the Democrats have expanded Medicaid.

I suppose that self hate make sense of the fact that it just could be that Republican actually know they are better off under Democrat rather than Republican rule but are so reduced in their capacity to enjoy life the only pleasure they have left is to hope to make everyone else as miserable as they feel.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would have offered up an amendment denouncing racism and all who support it. I would have listed all the white nationalist groups. On the floor remind everyone members of the Republican Party support these group and no Democrats support them. I believe Republicans changed the rules that allows amendments

If amendment not added and if I’m in a purple district I would have voted present. I would have also used time at my next town hall explaining present vote.

I think Democrat platforms are socialistic, that they are people oriented, and that because of that, the word itself needs to be defended. Republicans practice 1984 war is peace branding to destroy the meaning of truth and of words. Truth becomes false and false truth, news becomes fake news. In my opinion, this needs to be fought at every level possible. We are where we are today because truth has no meaning, and for too many Democrats as well as most Republicans.

 

[dank69]

Lolo - STILL trying to undo the New Deal. Dog with a bone.

Doesn't matter as long as they keep voting to make abortion illegal as it should be.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think Democrat platforms are socialistic, that they are people oriented, and that because of that, the word itself needs to be defended. Republicans practice 1984 war is peace branding to destroy the meaning of truth and of words. Truth becomes false and false truth, news becomes fake news. In my opinion, this needs to be fought at every level possible. We are where we are today because truth has no meaning, and for too many Democrats as well as most Republicans.

Since you didn't reply to my prior post, let me put it more succinctly. If we suddenly had universal healthcare, aggressive action on climate change, and everything else you wanted, but no one called it socialism, and most people still thought they didn't like whatever they think "socialism" is, would that be bad? Can you explain why it is important to defend a word? Do you imagine that to convince people of the policies, they must first like this word?

 

[Vic]

Since you didn't reply to my prior post, let me put it more succinctly. If we suddenly had universal healthcare, aggressive action on climate change, and everything else you wanted, but no one called it socialism, and most people still thought they didn't like whatever they think "socialism" is, would that be bad? Can you explain why it is important to defend a word? Do you imagine that to convince people of the policies, they must first like this word?

IMO the greater problem is the rampant misuse of the word. Socialism is defined as govt ownership of production and industry.
Universal healthcare doesn't require that the govt own any part of the healthcare industry, and could actually take a capitalist form wherein the industry remains in private ownership while govt subsidizes the individual cost as a positive right.
While aggressive action on climate change could be as simple as regulation to prevent corporations for externalizing their environmental costs, and as such be entirely capitalist to all but the "libertarian" wingnuts who fail to understand basic economic principles like externality, depreciation, and depletion.

So no one needs to like the word socialism. More to the point IMO what most Republicans denounce as socialism is not actually socialism, but liberalism. As nationalists, they oppose the liberal ideal of political equality. And seek to falsely portray political equality as economic equality in order to distract the public from their nationalist extremism.

 

[hal2kilo]

I would have offered up an amendment denouncing racism and all who support it. I would have listed all the white nationalist groups. On the floor remind everyone members of the Republican Party support these group and no Democrats support them. I believe Republicans changed the rules that allows amendments

If amendment not added and if I’m in a purple district I would have voted present. I would have also used time at my next town hall explaining present vote.

Dems aren't running the show, so they can't. It's the way it works when you are in the minority.

 

[Perknose]

Since you didn't reply to my prior post, let me put it more succinctly. If we suddenly had universal healthcare, aggressive action on climate change, and everything else you wanted, but no one called it socialism, and most people still thought they didn't like whatever they think "socialism" is, would that be bad? Can you explain why it is important to defend a word? Do you imagine that to convince people of the policies, they must first like this word?

Your reply made me think of The Inflation Reduction Act.

 

[woolfe9998]

IMO the greater problem is the rampant misuse of the word. Socialism is defined as govt ownership of production and industry.
Universal healthcare doesn't require that the govt own any part of the healthcare industry, and could actually take a capitalist form wherein the industry remains in private ownership while govt subsidizes the individual cost as a positive right.
While aggressive action on climate change could be as simple as regulation to prevent corporations for externalizing their environmental costs, and as such be entirely capitalist to all but the "libertarian" wingnuts who fail to understand basic economic principles like externality, depreciation, and depletion.

So no one needs to like the word socialism. More to the point IMO what most Republicans denounce as socialism is not actually socialism, but liberalism. As nationalists, they oppose the liberal ideal of political equality. And seek to falsely portray political equality as economic equality in order to distract the public from their nationalist extremism.

Yeah, I don't think most people know the dictionary definition of socialism. And I think you'll find it varies somewhat from one definition to the next. I know, I just checked again. What is important in the here and now is not what is the correct definition but what is the connotation for the typical voter. And it turns out lots of people on the right, and a decent number at or near political center, have a negative association with the word.

"Medicare For All" as proposed by Sanders and others would socialize all of health insurance, and would exercise significant control over healhcare itself, as the government being the sole payer gets to decide how much doctors, pharma and medical device manufacturers get paid. So it would be an entirely price controlled industry.

Now, who is to say whether we would suddenly be a "socialist" country if we were to adopt it but leave everything else as is, which is mostly private enterprise. One could, however, call the policy itself socialist, but why is it preferred to call it that instead of just Medicare For All?

Democrats need to be smarter in their messaging.

 

[Perknose]

Democrats need to be smarter in their messaging.

Well, THIS, yeah.