Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Hickenlooper booed for saying, "Socialism is not the answer"

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

This is not a good look, Dems

All the other candidates need to say and feel the same way.  Those boos just give more fuel to the Republican fire and will scare away independents.    

This really has hit critical mass. The Democratic Party needs to tack as far away from this as possible. The question is, is there a Clinton? Is there someone who will placate the base while governing from the left-center? And doubling down on the culture wars is not the answer. The only thing that might appease the left while appealing to the center as a signature proposal is something like the ERA. People are just not ready for LGBTQ overreach, but they are ready for (in my argument, explainable) alleviating discrimination against women in the workplace. Most women work. They can all relate. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

And doubling down on the culture wars is not the answer.

I think this election is all about the culture wars. This country is divided by culture issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mile High said:

I think this election is all about the culture wars. This country is divided by culture issues. 

That's the thing. If the Democrats keep it mild, they'll win because of the blustering figurehead of the Republican Party. If they start throwing in socialism mixed with a radical LGBTQ agenda, they'll lose. The question I have is whether they have a candidate that can placate the radicalism of its newfound base, if they can be placated at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

That's the thing. If the Democrats keep it mild, they'll win because of the blustering figurehead of the Republican Party. If they start throwing in socialism mixed with a radical LGBTQ agenda, they'll lose. The question I have is whether they have a candidate that can placate the radicalism of its newfound base, if they can be placated at all. 

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking the loudest among them equals the base.  The base isn't radical.  If it was, Biden wouldn't be leading.

That said, I agree that they need to distance themselves far away from this socialism/SJW stuff.  The Dems are akin to having a 3 shot leading going into the final 2 holes.  Just make your pars and get off the course. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking the loudest among them equals the base.  The base isn't radical.  If it was, Biden wouldn't be leading.

That said, I agree that they need to distance themselves far away from this socialism/SJW stuff.  The Dems are akin to having a 3 shot leading going into the final 2 holes.  Just make your pars and get off the course. 

I think you're right. I should have qualified that and said, "that part of the base." That part of the base, however, seems to be growing in numbers, at least from where I sit and the media narrative sits, a narrative that often becomes reality through perception alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is that, among the actual candidates, the idea that socialism might be the answer is limited to Bernie Sanders plus a few fringe people (maybe Gabbard, Williamson, Gravel ... I don’t know).

The main candidates would agree with Hickenlooper.

Biden is not ideological enough to be a socialist. He’s a centrist by nature.

Buttigieg, capitalist. Warren, capitalist. Harris, capitalist. Klobuchar, capitalist. Booker, capitalist. O’Rourke, capitalist. Yang, capitalist.

Hockenlooper just seems to have ended up in front of a pro-Bernie crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

This really has hit critical mass. The Democratic Party needs to tack as far away from this as possible. The question is, is there a Clinton? Is there someone who will placate the base while governing from the left-center? And doubling down on the culture wars is not the answer. The only thing that might appease the left while appealing to the center as a signature proposal is something like the ERA. People are just not ready for LGBTQ overreach, but they are ready for (in my argument, explainable) alleviating discrimination against women in the workplace. Most women work. They can all relate. 

Hickenlooper is a Clinton - pro-growth, pro-business Democrat. His record in Colorado speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ffldrew said:

Hickenlooper is a Clinton - pro-growth, pro-business Democrat. His record in Colorado speaks for itself.

Yeah, I'm aware. The question was one of galvanization. Who can both energize that element of the left that is somewhat more radical in outlook while at the same time govern from the left-center? That's the question. It's not really an ignorance of Hickenlooper but based on a presumption that he's not polling incredibly well right now, which seems to be borne out by a quick Google search. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

This really has hit critical mass. 

No it hasn’t. You keep saying this and Trump and the Republicans would like nothing more than for the public to believe it. But there are almost no socialists in the Democratic Party. There are a minority of strident progressives, some of whom call themselves Democratic Socialists, but that’s not the same thing and they are a minority anyhow; loud for sure, but without any real power. 

And incidentally, did it ever occur to anyone that Hickenlooper got booed, not because the crowd wants socialism (they don’t) but because they strongly object to progressive proposals like Medicaid for All and the Green New Deal being labeled as socialism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

No it hasn’t. You keep saying this and Trump and the Republicans would like nothing more than for the public to believe it. But there are almost no socialists in the Democratic Party. There are a minority of strident progressives, some of whom call themselves Democratic Socialists, but that’s not the same thing and they are a minority anyhow; loud for sure, but without any real power. 

And incidentally, did it ever occur to anyone that Hickenlooper got booed, not because the crowd wants socialism (they don’t) but because they strongly object to progressive proposals like Medicaid for All and the Green New Deal being labeled as socialism

You misspelled Capitalism PLUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

 

You misspelled Capitalism PLUS

Yeah this whole thing grates on me. I’m not much of a fan of the Bernie-Warren-AOC wing of the party; Ive been clear about that. I much prefer the Hickenlooper wing. I like pro-business Democrats, I especially think they understand the importance of trade better and I think their ideas about foreign policy are FAR better. 

But the main proposals of the Bernie-Warren-AOC wing are: 

1. Medicare for All

2. Green New Deal 

3. Pay off student loans and free college 

4. Tax the very rich to pay for it 

This is not socialism!! It’s an extension of the New Deal and the Great Society. While it certainly represents an expansion of government, it does not represent an assault on our essential free market society. Branding these ideas as socialism is not only wrong, it’s simplistic and an attempt to destroy any real reasonable debate or discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

No it hasn’t. You keep saying this and Trump and the Republicans would like nothing more than for the public to believe it. But there are almost no socialists in the Democratic Party. There are a minority of strident progressives, some of whom call themselves Democratic Socialists, but that’s not the same thing and they are a minority anyhow; loud for sure, but without any real power. 

And incidentally, did it ever occur to anyone that Hickenlooper got booed, not because the crowd wants socialism (they don’t) but because they strongly object to progressive proposals like Medicaid for All and the Green New Deal being labeled as socialism? 

I think there may be an argument about how Trump distorts everything and ends up hurting whatever it is he thinks he's standing for. I don't think 'socialism' was a thing in US politics as an actual issue until Trump came out and claimed he was defending America against it. Well what that does is make some people who are against Trump automatically gravitate towards what they see him attacking. It gave socialism a kind of cache. Disputational and dialectical arguments about capitalism vs socialism don't really play a role there. If Trump is fer it they're agin it.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Branding these ideas as socialism is not only wrong, it’s simplistic and an attempt to destroy any real reasonable debate or discussion. 

I agree, but that kind of thinking is a critical component of Republican strategy. One thing the Democrats have consistently gotten wrong for decades is thinking being correct is what matters most. For the past 40 years Rs have consistently shown sloganeering is the critical path, & actual policy or execution is largely irrelevant. They are masterful at distilling issues down to bite size appetizers, leaving Ds flummoxed & mystified as they stand by their carefully prepared smorgasbord of wonkiness. Americans would prefer to mostly not be bothered, and the GOP gets that in a way that the moderate left has never grasped.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 ...progressive proposals like Medicaid for All and the Green New Deal

And you keep redefining what capitalism and socialism means to your liking. Have away at it, but don't come for my definitions. Medicaid for All is a rebranding of Universal Health Care or Single-Payer. That's it. It's health care paid for by other taxpayers and the federal printing press. Simple as that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, I'm aware. The question was one of galvanization. Who can both energize that element of the left that is somewhat more radical in outlook while at the same time govern from the left-center? That's the question. It's not really an ignorance of Hickenlooper but based on a presumption that he's not polling incredibly well right now, which seems to be borne out by a quick Google search. 

Using energize to describe Hickenlooper is a difficult thing to do - he's a quiet pragmatist who navigated the extreme sides of the Colorado Democratic Party(Boulder) and was able to build coalitions to include center Republicans on business issues. He pissed off the wackadoo right with gun control laws - really it was only one law and that was magazine limits. He pissed off the Boulder crowd with the oil/gas business laws he fought for.  It's just a bad time for him right now unless we start to see a massive number of voters who want someone that knows how to GOVERN - which would be nice. He's been governing a state that has been at the forefront of progressive progress on healthcare, tech jobs, taxation, marijuana and many other areas. Honestly he's the best answer out there right now in my opinion as the antithesis to the crap that is going on currently - and would be a great choice. I've seen up close as a Mayor and as Governor - like I said the record in Denver and Colorado speaks for itself. Just not sure anyone wants to listen. 

Edited by ffldrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

I agree, but that kind of thinking is a critical component of Republican strategy. One thing the Democrats have consistently gotten wrong for decades is thinking being correct is what matters most. For the past 40 years Rs have consistently shown sloganeering is the critical path, & actual policy or execution is largely irrelevant. They are masterful at distilling issues down to bite size appetizers, leaving Ds flummoxed & mystified as they stand by their carefully prepared smorgasbord of wonkiness. Americans would prefer to mostly not be bothered, and the GOP gets that in a way that the moderate left has never grasped.

Each side thinks this of the other and uses slogans and words accordingly. Each side thinks the other has a monopoly on it and that the public is duped. Every time this is said, it is simply wrong. The moderate left clearly has grasped this in its use of bumper sticker slogans and readjustment of terminology. See the movement from " government programs" to "public services," see my comment above, etc. It's all a sloganeering and rebranding game. The public sees through it and votes accordingly. You think a public where even the dumbest of males can figure out a batting average or yards-to-go for a first down can't grasp the obvious when it comes to public policy?

Think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

But the main proposals of the Bernie-Warren-AOC wing are: 

1. Medicare for All

2. Green New Deal

These would both require nationalization of entire industries, hallmarks of socialism.

I think you need to go back and read what socialism is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Each side thinks this of the other and uses slogans and words accordingly. Each side thinks the other has a monopoly on it and that the public is duped. Every time this is said, it is simply wrong. The moderate left clearly has grasped this in its use of bumper sticker slogans and readjustment of terminology. See the movement from " government programs" to "public services," see my comment above, etc. It's all a sloganeering and rebranding game. The public sees through it and votes accordingly. You think a public where even the dumbest of males can figure out a batting average or yards-to-go for a first down can't grasp the obvious when it comes to public policy?

Think again.

No, I think they enjoying figuring out how to calculate ERA or Passer Rating, and largely have no interest in taking a similar deeper dive into how government functions. But they def are clear about one thing: leave me alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobbyLayne said:

But they def are clear about one thing: leave me alone.

Which is probably why your average male generally votes the way they do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ffldrew said:

Using energize to describe Hickenlooper is a difficult thing to do - he's a quiet pragmatist who navigated the extreme sides of the Colorado Democratic Party(Boulder) and was able to build coalitions to include center Republicans on business issues.

It would be interesting to see if the public is ready for a quiet pragmatist when everybody seems to want the pop star. I don't discount the vagaries of the public, and we'll only see what Hickenlooper can do when put to the national test.  Right now, it looks like he's having a tough time polling well enough to get into the debates in Iowa. 

This is, again, the most cursory of Google searches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Smith capitalism is 250 years old. Karl Marx Socialism is over 150 years old. There have been 18 iphones, but we're still stuck with 2 financial systems to choose from?

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Adam Smith capitalism is 250 years old. Karl Marx Socialism is over 150 years old. There have been 18 iphones, but we're still stuck with 2 financial systems to choose from?

The iterations of the iPhone do very little differently than the last, only they do it more effectively. Bad analogy or lament.

There have been a million hybrids of capitalism and socialism, even down to one modern, recent, domestic one actually being called "The Third Way" (hint: think the Democrats in 1992) but the two you mention are essentially the two theoretical, systematic economic poles of the industrialized world. That ain't changing no matter how much you might like. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Adam Smith capitalism is 250 years old. Karl Marx Socialism is over 150 years old. There have been 18 iphones, but we're still stuck with 2 financial systems to choose from?

This is a fantastic point as well. These terms are outdated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

This is a fantastic point as well. These terms are outdated. 

Yes, let's invent shiny new ones to hide what the means of action and the attendant result actually is. If we shift the terminology, then we shift the actual meaning or result...

Where have I heard that before...

I think it was in 1948...

It was by a Breton...

It wasn't a "fantastic" development.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rockaction said:

These would both require nationalization of entire industries, hallmarks of socialism.

I think you need to go back and read what socialism is. 

It’s not this rockaction. An electric guitar is a hallmark of heavy metal, but that doesn’t mean that if I buy one I can play it. 

Medicare isn’t socialism. Expanding Medicare isn’t socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The iterations of the iPhone do very little differently than the last, only they do it more effectively. Bad analogy or lament.

There have been a million hybrids of capitalism and socialism, even down to one modern, recent, domestic one actually being called "The Third Way" (hint: think the Democrats in 1992) but the two you mention are essentially the two theoretical, systematic economic poles of the industrialized world. That ain't changing no matter how much you might like. 

 

think i'll wait til your depressive phase to argue this with you

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Yes, let's invent shiny new ones to hide what the means of action and the attendant result actually is. If we shift the terminology, then we shift the actual meaning or result...

Where have I heard that before...

I think it was in 1948...

It was by a Breton...

It wasn't a "fantastic" development.

Your analogies are awful. Mine are great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

It’s not this rockaction. An electric guitar is a hallmark of heavy metal, but that doesn’t mean that if I buy one I can play it. 

Medicare isn’t socialism. Expanding Medicare isn’t socialism. 

Socialism starts with the nationalization of industries through the control of prices and wages and the means of production.

Medicare For All is certainly that, only rebranded to give it a pleasant-sounding name. Call it what you want, but that's what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wikkidpissah said:

think i'll wait til your depressive phase to argue this with you

Ah, I see. I won't get personal.

Your analogy and subsequent wish to rewrite political economy is not dependent on my mood, though. That's sort of on yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is a fantastic point as well. These terms are outdated. 

and economics is a femaledog science licking the hand of finance, so don't let your cigarette burn you fingers waiting for innovation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Ah, I see. I won't get personal.

Your analogy and subsequent wish to rewrite political economy is not dependent on my mood, though. That's sort of on yours. 

and i will get to it, and you, as soon as you're reasonable again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

and economics is a femaledog science licking the hand of finance, so don't let your cigarette burn you fingers waiting for innovation

This vastly misunderstands economics, political theory, political economy, and finance in one fell swoop.

There's a congratulations in there somewhere, I'm just not sure where. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Socialism starts with the nationalization of industries through the control of prices and wages and the means of production.

Medicare For All is certainly that, only rebranded to give it a pleasant-sounding name. Call it what you want, but that's what it is. 

Socialism doesn’t “start”; that is a misnomer. It doesn’t creep up on us. The only socialist counties the world has ever had were revolutions that took over everything. If the government starts providing medical care, that is not socialism, nor will it lead to socialism. Actually it may very well improve capitalism, as it will effectively serve as a major tax cut for most corporations. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

and i will get to it, and you, as soon as you're reasonable again

It's odd that you would attack me personally, make declarations going against the basics of political economy, commit fallacies of bad analogy, and then shun me for being unreasonable, but I guess that's par for some courses. 

If par is an eight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Socialism starts with the nationalization of industries through the control of prices and wages and the means of production.

Medicare For All is certainly that, only rebranded to give it a pleasant-sounding name. Call it what you want, but that's what it is. 

Appreciate you being transparent about how full of baloney you are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobbyLayne said:

Appreciate you being transparent about how full of baloney you are.

Medicare For All is lovingly full of all the renaming and rebranding baloney I can stomach, therefore I must regurgitate some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

It's odd that you would attack me personally, make declarations going against the basics of political economy, commit fallacies of bad analogy, and then shun me for being unreasonable, but I guess that's par for some courses. 

If par is an eight.

okeydokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare-for-all (Senate and House): Both the Medicare-for-all plans would make the biggest change and eliminate employer-sponsored coverage completely. Under these options, all Americans who currently get insurance at work would transition to one big government health care plan. - Vox, March 20, 2019

Therefore, prices, wages, and distribution of services would be controlled by the government. A socialized industry, to be sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Socialism starts with the nationalization of industries through the control of prices and wages and the means of production.

Medicare For All is certainly that, only rebranded to give it a pleasant-sounding name. Call it what you want, but that's what it is. 

Completely agree. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The good news is that, among the actual candidates, the idea that socialism might be the answer is limited to Bernie Sanders plus a few fringe people (maybe Gabbard, Williamson, Gravel ... I don’t know).

The main candidates would agree with Hickenlooper.

Biden is not ideological enough to be a socialist. He’s a centrist by nature.

Buttigieg, capitalist. Warren, capitalist. Harris, capitalist. Klobuchar, capitalist. Booker, capitalist. O’Rourke, capitalist. Yang, capitalist.

Hockenlooper just seems to have ended up in front of a pro-Bernie crowd.

Her student loan idea is pretty socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Medicare-for-all (Senate and House): Both the Medicare-for-all plans would make the biggest change and eliminate employer-sponsored coverage completely. Under these options, all Americans who currently get insurance at work would transition to one big government health care plan. - Vox, March 20, 2019

Therefore, prices, wages, and distribution of services would be controlled by the government. A socialized industry, to be sure. 

How is this different than public education, utilities, roads/infrastructure, law enforcement, national defense, etc?

There are certain things best run by the gov't.  I'm not sure that is debatable, although you can certainly debate what those things are.  I don't believe moving healthcare into that bin takes us over the slippery slope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, moleculo said:

How is this different than public education, utilities, roads/infrastructure, law enforcement, national defense, etc?

There are certain things best run by the gov't.  I'm not sure that is debatable, although you can certainly debate what those things are.  I don't believe moving healthcare into that bin takes us over the slippery slope.

Furthermore, based on rockaction’s argument, the creation of public education in this country should have led to the “nationalization” of private education. Obviously it didn’t. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, moleculo said:

How is this different than public education, utilities, roads/infrastructure, law enforcement, national defense, etc?

There are certain things best run by the gov't.  I'm not sure that is debatable, although you can certainly debate what those things are.  I don't believe moving healthcare into that bin takes us over the slippery slope.

I find it amazing this needs to be explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Medicare For All, including plans to "completely eliminate private insurance." From none other than Vox, so it's not a right-wing source. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal

Correct. That is the objective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all makes total sense to me now.

Hickenlooper was booed almost off the stage not because he was calling out socialistic policies...but really only because the audience objected to his imprecise usage of the term Socialism.

Clearly he should have known that such sloppy diction would elicit that type of reaction.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Correct. That is the objective.

I imagine there will still be above&beyond policies like many seniors have supplementing Medicare now, so the insurance industry wont be out in the cold (much as they may deserve it) and that will be the choice end for those who want and can afford it

Edited by wikkidpissah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.