American Politics the 2016 edition

Why is no one calling what Trump said earlier today for what it was? It was plain and simply, treason.

A person wrote: rogerthat wrote: All that is beside the point, which was that they can and do co-exist in the real world, contrary to your claim. It's not really beside the point because they can't ever their full potential. A society in which you have to work for a wage is inherently exploitative. Whether it is chattel slavery, feudalism, or capitalism, whether you have a boss, a lord, a king, a landlord, etc, you have to sell your time to survive.

This is definitely dogma. Working for a wage is not inherently exploitive. I am also concerned about wage slavery, however, wage slavery occurs when one cannot sell enough time to survive, or when one is locked into a job without any realistic alternatives. Employer-employee relationships can be professionally satisfying.   The difference between this and wage slavery is a difference in degree not in kind; there is no systemic change to be made. It is the same for many other circumstances throughout history. Sharecropping, for instance, can be a very fruitful arrangement, or it can be akin to slavery depending on what's in the agreement. Fines for minor violations can be a reasonable way of enforcing avoidance of uncivil behaviors, or it can be unjustly targeting and unduly burdensome for a whole population, as with the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. Debt can be a fine long-term or short-term financial tactic, or it can be highly exploitive, as seen with some housing loans, pay day loans, and predatory credit card practices. Many ethics codes for clinical psychology allow for alternative methods of payment through barter, which can provide a way for poor clients to pursue therapy. The same codes also caution that bartering of items of excessive value can be highly exploitive. Navigating these issues and many others requires a philosophy that includes a sense of proportion, good will, and vigilance, not a restrictive dogma or ideology.

The Dark Elf wrote: As a gun owner (hunting rifle, Remington 12 gauge to be exact), I am getting more and more irate at the limp dick congressmen with their brown noses so far up the gun lobby's ass that it would take a crowbar and a gallon of KY Jelly to extricate their nostrils.  It should be harder to get a gun. Any gun. You shouldn't be allowed to simply buy one without a background check and register it (many states allow private sales of guns without background checks). You can't simply sell a car privately or otherwise without registration, title-searches, etc.  And the Republicans letting the assault rifle ban lapse in 2004 was unconscionable (spearheaded by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay - is he still in prison, by the way?). If its hard to describe a handgun other than a human killing machine, what then assault rifles? With large capacity magazines? With barrel extender and flash suppressor? And a damn barrel shroud that protects the shooter from being burned while rattling off unlimited rounds? Asinine, simply asinine.

A Person wrote: It's not really beside the point because they can't ever their full potential. A society in which you have to work for a wage is inherently exploitative. Whether it is chattel slavery, feudalism, or capitalism, whether you have a boss, a lord, a king, a landlord, etc, you have to sell your time to survive.

Yeah, the New Deal may have saved capitalism (so if you are opposed to capitalism guess you must hate the New Deal too) but it's quite a different beast from neo liberalism and indeed, the latter has slowly chipped away at the former by yelling socialism a lot. I still feel given no other moderate option more and more people will look to real socialism as an option, which currently is happening. Luckily in the US what is social democracy, is what we think of as socialism. 

Strong words from the president right now. Too bad it's just going to push Trump to be even more extreme and dangerous. I'm sure his fat little fingers are cracking the glass on his phone angrily tweeting about it at this moment.

JJLehto wrote: While the racist and disturbing comments Trump makes are deserving of coverage, as discussed he has little to no chance of implementing them, what is very disturbing to me is his relationship with the media.  In the past he's claimed he would make it easier to, basically, sue the media for saying anything negative about him.  Now he's actually revoked the Washington Post's credentials to access his campaign. This is someone running for President who has denied a, major, media source to his campaign. These are the actions of a dictator, and besides being deeply disturbing on its own right, this is something he can control. And people are eating it up.  Some very disturbing things about the minds of a shocking number of Americans are being revealed here.

Oh that'll be good--  I can see Lord Trump that night onstage draped in velvet and holding a scepter as he grimaces and gives his best Mussolini impersonation.  

rogerthat wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yeah, the New Deal may have saved capitalism (so if you are opposed to capitalism guess you must hate the New Deal too) but it's quite a different beast from neo liberalism and indeed, the latter has slowly chipped away at the former by yelling socialism a lot. I still feel given no other moderate option more and more people will look to real socialism as an option, which currently is happening. Luckily in the US what is social democracy, is what we think of as socialism.  Obstinately clinging onto laissez faire capitalism is arguably what birthed communism and socialism.  And it looks like history is all set to repeat.  Yeah, US seems to have moved so far to the right that Sanders is a socialist for USA so a moderate option like Hilary is still somewhat in the Reagan mould.  Reagan's actual policy was less potent/malignant than his rhetoric.  It has been the other way around with his successors from the Republican as well as Democratic parties.

It moved further right than this a long time ago, and it has made a leftward return of late. I remember a time when 'liberal' was a naughty 'L' word, and Michael Dukakis lost the election because of it (he wasn't particularly liberal, but he got labeled that way). Later things changed and it was not derogatory to be liberal, so republicans started using the term, socialism/socialist, as its derogatory accusation. Now things have shifted toward a comfort level with the 'S' word too. So yeah, we have a ways to go, but the direction is indeed leftward.




Edited by HackettFan - June 15 2016 at 00:01

^ He lost big.  But he was also a bit of a dope and was politically deaf.  I wouldn't want him as president.