Democracy for a Socialist?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Gary S
Posts: 239
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Greta

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Gary S »

LuckyR wrote:Well, anyone with an opinion about an issue in a jurisdiction that is not their own would be subject to the strawman that is your last sentence.
Apparently I made an incorrect assumption that you were implying that the winning side of the brexit vote had been fooled by their leaders and that you believe their vote was actually against their own self-interest. If that was not your meaning, then you have my apologies. So, do you have an opinion on whether or not the "Leave" voters actually voted against their self-interest? If so, what is it?

I am thinking your answer should be "Since I don't live in that jurisdiction, I am really not in a position to determine what is in those people's best interest."

And back to the OP, would you have any issues with denying the vote to people who voted to leave the EU? I am guessing that you would be against it denying them the vote?

Sorry I lumped you in with the apparently omniscient, all-knowing mind-readers who can determine, without a doubt, the reasons why an individual voted the way he did and can see into the future to determine that said reason will actually be against the person's best interest at some point in the future - which would entail being all-knowing about what the individual voter deems his self-interests to be.

Although, some on this forum would actually take exception to the last phrase there - some would simply believe that the masses are so ignorant that they (the masses) do not even have the capacity to know what is in their own best interest. And that being the belief, some on this forum believe that the masses should not even be voting - that the masses should be ruled by the elite.

(I am certain you will find several more of them darned strawmans up in their somewhere. :x )

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:48 am to add the following --
Wilson wrote:Gary, I have to say, with affection, you're not thinking clearly.

:oops:
Wilson wrote:You'd elect a narcissistic, unstable, not very smart bully and braggart just to send a message?
Hillary Clinton? No, I am not voting for Hillary.
Wilson wrote:Yes, I can factually say (as sure as one can be of something like that from a distance) that Trump is pretty much devoid of the capacity for empathy.
Just because his empathy does not align with yours does not mean he has no empathy. It could be said he has empathy tempered by prudency. It is fine that some think immigration is the solution to the world's problems. It is also fine that some think immigration is not that. Unless one has a crystal ball, it is impossible to predict. My empathy lies with my countrymen first. And if even one of my countrymen is killed or raped by a non-citizen, that is too many. Others may not see it that way - they may be willing to sacrifice their countrymen in exchange for immigration. Wilson, are the murders and rapes acceptable to you? Are the murders and rapes a good exchange for letting immigrants into the country? Because in fact, it is an exchange. Trading citizen's lives for immigration.

I need to get some obligatory references to Brexit in here so we can stay on topic of the OP. I imagine many of the Brexit voters feel the same way. Have any British citizens been killed or raped by immigrants? I would imagine so. If some of the Brexit voters felt this was a reason to get out of the EU, then so be it. And it is a legitimate reason. It was important to that voter.

Where is it written that immigration is necessary in today's world? Any scientific studies that show beyond a doubt that the U.S. or the U.K. is better off with immigration than without it? You can invoke "America was built by immigrants." Yep, but America also had slavery. Just because something was done in the past does not mean it should continue forever.
Wilson wrote:Personally I'd rather not die a "quick and spectacular death". That sounds like the attitude of a suicide bomber.
Hmmm... reckon I will get a pass from the liberals? Maybe they will just claim I am gay? :? Seriously, there is no similarity in the attitudes.
Wilson wrote:I do wonder why you think things are so terrible in America now.


I don't. Things are good, but could be even better. No place else I would rather live, not even the UK, although the exodus from the EU certainly sweetens the deal!
Wilson wrote:We sure won't make America great again by electing a total weirdo.
Well, get ready for it, because Hillary will win. Oh... you were talking about Trump. I saw a protest sign the other day - it said "Love Will Defeat Hate! F**k Trump! He can suck my d**k! Funny how love and tolerance evaporate when there are differences of opinion. The so-called "Love" people are just as big of haters as the so-called "Hate" people. And vice versa.

And some of the so-called "Love and Tolerance" people in the UK are ready to strip the Brexit working class and Brexit old people of their right to vote? That is not LoVe, that is HaTe!

Tolerance and diversity, Wilson, tolerance and diversity. Go count to 10 and think tolerance and diversity. And please, have some empathy for Trump.

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:58 am to add the following --
Gary wrote:Sending a message that we are tired of the dem/rep bullcrap - and willing to suffer the consequences for sending the message. Sort of like the Brexit voters I suppose.
Steve3007 wrote:I agree with you in suspecting that a large proportion of the people in the UK who voted for Brexit did so as a general protest against government and politics and the state of their lives. That, to me, is a pity, because it was supposed to be a vote about membership of the EU.
Sorry I was unclear. I wasn't saying that the "tired of dem/rep bullcrap applied to the Brexit voters. I was saying that whatever their reasons were, they are willing to suffer the consequences for sending whatever message they are sending. The second part of my sentence is what I was comparing to the UK Brexit voters.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Gary:
I was saying that whatever their reasons were, they are willing to suffer the consequences for sending whatever message they are sending.
It's impossible to know what the consequences will be and it's difficult to get a sense of what most Brexit voters think the consequences will be. Opinions no doubt vary widely, but quite a few do seem to think that the immediate consequences will be that new hospitals will be built, heavy industries such as steel making will be revived from the dead and all Polish people will vanish. If those were the consequences, then I'd guess they would be willing to suffer them.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Gary S wrote:
Where is it written that immigration is necessary in today's world? Any scientific studies that show beyond a doubt that the U.S. or the U.K. is better off with immigration than without it? You can invoke "America was built by immigrants." Yep, but America also had slavery. Just because something was done in the past does not mean it should continue forever.

Gary, your concerns about unruly immigrants might, for all I know, be invalid according to other statistics which include the proportion of crimes committed by people other than immigrants. I refer to crimes of those people who take more than their fair share from America's prosperity such that some Americans are left in life-destroying poverty.

My main point of contention with your point of view concerns your "where is it written------?"

It is written large for all to see who want to see, that national boundaries are as old-time as the Mason Dixon line. National boundaries are due to disappear whether nationalists like this or not. This is because the threats that face all of us, even Americans, are infections, soil depletion, disappearance of pollinating insects, and water shortage. Generally, climate change and environmental degradation will cause more rapes and murders than could a million times the numbers of unruly immigrants.

National boundaries have already disappeared from cyberspace which has become influential.True, China is making heroic efforts to control cyberspace within its own national borders; the success of this effort relates to the amount of oppression that the regime can use to control cyberspace.

I note that the USA is huge, powerful, and spacious with wonderful national parks, wild beauty and freedom. Perhaps due to these and maybe other factors maybe some Americans don't feel threatened by environmental degradation but this perception is unreasoning, apathetic, and drugged.
Socialist
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Gary S wrote:
Wilson wrote:Yes, I can factually say (as sure as one can be of something like that from a distance) that Trump is pretty much devoid of the capacity for empathy.
Just because his empathy does not align with yours does not mean he has no empathy. It could be said he has empathy tempered by prudency. It is fine that some think immigration is the solution to the world's problems. It is also fine that some think immigration is not that. Unless one has a crystal ball, it is impossible to predict. My empathy lies with my countrymen first. And if even one of my countrymen is killed or raped by a non-citizen, that is too many. Others may not see it that way - they may be willing to sacrifice their countrymen in exchange for immigration. Wilson, are the murders and rapes acceptable to you? Are the murders and rapes a good exchange for letting immigrants into the country? Because in fact, it is an exchange. Trading citizen's lives for immigration.
Gary, you must not have much insight into the human psyche if you don't recognize that Trump is a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder. From Mayo Clinic, "Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others." That's as obvious as anything can be. Look it up. And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that Hillary Clinton is the one with that condition. She's has more of the usual politician's personality, not a clinical disorder.

Sorry if I don't fit into your image of a textbook Trump hater. I'm not a proponent of unchecked immigration, either. I'd only let immigrants become citizens if they had skills which would benefit the country. As I said, I'd favor a guest worker program for those jobs - mostly agricultural - that you simply couldn't find Americans willing to do. I also worry about our country changing its character for the worse if we don't get a handle on immigration. My empathy also lies with my countrymen first - but I also can put myself in the shoes of someone in another country who wants to better himself, so I don't blame them for wanting to come here. We just need to change our policies, as I've outlined before, so there's no incentive for them to do so.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Has the USA a foreign aid programme directed at Mexico, and the economic development of Mexico? I line with my contention that national borders is an outdated concept, for the reasons I stated(and more) it's in the interest of the powerful to help the weaker ones.
Socialist
Gary S
Posts: 239
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Greta

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Gary S »

Belinda wrote:Gary, your concerns about unruly immigrants might, for all I know, be invalid according to other statistics which include the proportion of crimes committed by people other than immigrants. I refer to crimes of those people who take more than their fair share from America's prosperity such that some Americans are left in life-destroying poverty.
You realize there are 3 billion people in the world who live on less than $2.50 per day? That 3 billion just may think that Belinda is a criminal taking more than her fair share too. After all, you live quite an extravagant lifestyle compared to the 3 billion. You Belinda, have more in common with the rich than you do with the poor. Talk is cheap. Makes one feel good about themselves though, to be a champion of the downtrodden while typing on a computer in an air conditioned residence with a full belly surrounded by all manner of wasteful luxuries. Funny, but I am sure that you feel your level of consumption is the fair amount, but anyone who consumes more than you is a criminal, and anyone who consumes less than you is being cheated. But that is an arbitrary line. I am putting the line at $2.50 a day. We are all a bunch of criminal SOBs. Welcome to the club.
Americans don't feel threatened by environmental degradation but this perception is unreasoning, apathetic, and drugged.
Drugged? You are part of the problem, Belinda. To squawk on about the environment while burning through it is hypocrisy. The energy expenditure necessary for your computer usage is a total waste. (Please note that I am not insinuating that your contributions to this website are a waste. You often have real good points. I am saying that everyone on this website, including me, is wasting resources that could be used for better things.)

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:47 pm to add the following --
Belinda wrote:Has the USA a foreign aid programme directed at Mexico, and the economic development of Mexico?
Megabucks flow across the border on a daily basis. Lack of support from the USA is not Mexico's problem. Mexico's problem is weak leadership, corruption, and crime. Nothing short of a people's revolution will save Mexico.

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:01 pm to add the following --
Wilson wrote:Gary, you must not have much insight into the human psyche
Probably about the same as yours.
And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that Hillary Clinton is the one with that condition. She's has more of the usual politician's personality, not a clinical disorder.
Goggle "hillary clinton narcissist" It simply depends on where one is looking from.
Sorry if I don't fit into your image of a textbook Trump hater.
Not sure what that means. I am not expecting you to be anything. Actually, in my opinion you are one of the more moderate and sensible on this website. You are typically reasonable and rational. I appreciate reading your thoughts on the various subjects. You are generally articulate and polite. Thank you. You simply see Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. I am on the other side. That's okay. Trump is a conman. Hillary is a conwoman. Er... they are both "conpersons."
but I also can put myself in the shoes of someone in another country who wants to better himself, so I don't blame them for wanting to come here.
If a person's country is so bad that they feel they need to flee from it, what they really need to do is stay there and fight the good fight. Revolution. Don't like your country? Don't run away - FIX IT.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

You realize there are 3 billion people in the world who live on less than $2.50 per day?
That's an excellent point, which should reveal to you why building a wall has no chance of working. Ok, maybe a wall slows some border crossing traffic for a bit, but in the end we in the rich north are going to be over run by the poor south, like it or not, and of course we don't like it much at all.

The reason we will be over run is that the poor are hungry in every sense of the word, and we are fat and lazy from all our horded wealth. As example one of the poorest nations of Earth, North Vietnam, defeated the world's leading superpower for the simple reason that they wanted victory more than we did. They needed a victory, we just wanted one.

The old order, where 5% of the world's population (USA) can consume 25% of the world's resources, is coming to an end. In the long run big picture this is just and good, in the shorter run for we the lucky, it's gonna hurt.

I voted for Sanders personally, and will be sorry to see him go, though like me he can be a tad annoying. Imho, he was the only real leader in the race, as defined by having a bold leadership scale vision married to specific intelligent credible solutions to at least some of the problems we face.

If I was a bold voter I would go for Trump in the fall because if elected Trump will destroy the Republican Party for at least the next generation, paving the way for more Sanders style solutions. Assuming of course that Trump doesn't get us all killed first. Nah, I'm not that bold...
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Ormond wrote: I voted for Sanders personally, and will be sorry to see him go, though like me he can be a tad annoying. Imho, he was the only real leader in the race, as defined by having a bold leadership scale vision married to specific intelligent credible solutions to at least some of the problems we face.

If I was a bold voter I would go for Trump in the fall because if elected Trump will destroy the Republican Party for at least the next generation, paving the way for more Sanders style solutions. Assuming of course that Trump doesn't get us all killed first. Nah, I'm not that bold...
Sanders had some appealing ideas but we wouldn't like having to pay for them. He and Hillary are not all that far apart on the issues, although she'd be a lot more rational. He has always liked being a maverick, like John McCain, never actually accomplished much in Congress, and probably wouldn't accomplish much as president.

Big issues for most of us are controlling Wall Street, trying to get the corporate world to act responsibly, reining in the abuses of the financial markets, and reducing the wealth disparity. Bernie would have been great at that, but I truly believe that Hillary will do what she can. I doubt that the speaking fees and donations to their charity will cause her to go easy on those guys. I don't think that she'll appoint Pocahontas, who would probably be a lot more effective than Bernie, but I can see Warren having a role in her administration, and making a difference. And Bernie would be a disaster with respect to the deficit. The big question is whether he could even beat Trump - because since the Republicans didn't take him seriously, nobody was delving into his past, finding little scandals, exaggerating everything questionable he's ever done (as they've done with Hillary), hitting hard his "socialism", and with a media campaign against him, his poll numbers would have fallen, maybe disastrously.

Trump as president wouldn't destroy the Republican party, he'd just damage it, just as he's damaged it as the nominee. I'd point out to you that not voting for Hillary in this election might be equivalent to voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 - whose campaign probably siphoned off enough votes to give us George W. Bush as commander in chief. Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader should have that outcome on their consciences.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Hi Wilson,
Sanders had some appealing ideas but we wouldn't like having to pay for them.
Well, that's what so many of us didn't seem to get about Sander's agenda. Which is, we wouldn't have to pay for them. The upper crust would do the paying. They wouldn't feel much if any pain (what's the difference between having 10 million dollars or 9 millions dollars) and very many people would benefit.
He has always liked being a maverick, like John McCain, never actually accomplished much in Congress, and probably wouldn't accomplish much as president.
This is a good point, a good reason not to vote for Sanders. Sanders is laying the groundwork, educating the coming generation, inspiring them, showing them an alternative. That is, he is leading. But unless young people are willing to vote in far greater numbers, the political revolution Sanders is aiming for isn't here yet.

Clinton is more an insider and can probably get more done, but the problem with her is she really doesn't have much of a vision of what to do, nor the charisma necessary to do anything big even if she did have a vision. More tinkering around the edges is probably what we can expect from her.
Big issues for most of us are controlling Wall Street, trying to get the corporate world to act responsibly, reining in the abuses of the financial markets, and reducing the wealth disparity. Bernie would have been great at that, but I truly believe that Hillary will do what she can.
I agree her heart is in the right place, and that she does have useful skills. But what she can do will probably be very limited, because she's just not a leader by nature.
I doubt that the speaking fees and donations to their charity will cause her to go easy on those guys.
Hmm... So you're saying the savvy Wall Street guys who care only about money were stupid and threw their money away?
And Bernie would be a disaster with respect to the deficit.
Again, you don't seem to understand Bernie. There's no deficit problem if you tax the rich sufficiently.
The big question is whether he could even beat Trump -
I'm no expert here, but Sanders repeatedly claimed the polls showed him beating Trump better than Clinton, and I never saw anybody refute it.
Trump as president wouldn't destroy the Republican party, he'd just damage it, just as he's damaged it as the nominee.
As we go forward, it will be increasingly difficult to win anywhere without Hispanics, and Trump is doing everything he can think of to alienate Hispanics. He doesn't care about the Republican Party at all, it's just a vehicle for his own ambitions.
I'd point out to you that not voting for Hillary in this election might be equivalent to voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 - whose campaign probably siphoned off enough votes to give us George W. Bush as commander in chief. Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader should have that outcome on their consciences.
I hear you, I'm voting Hilary for sure, she's just not my first choice. I'd like to give Trump a chance to sink the Repubs, but he might sink the country while doing so, so that's too big a risk to take.

Hey, check this out. Does Trump even want to be President??

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =5&t=14013
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

The polls did show him beating Trump by a greater margin than Hillary would, but again, that's with the Republicans throwing the kitchen sink at her for years and ignoring him. Might be different if he was the nominee and the Republicans went after him.

Oh, I think the Wall Street guys thought it was a good investment, but if they threw $250,000 at me for a speaking engagement, I'd take the money and then raise their taxes.

-- Updated July 2nd, 2016, 2:09 am to add the following --

Oh, and I'm not sure that the math allows for raising taxes only on the rich, cutting them for everybody else, and doling out all those goodies.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Gary S, indeed and you and I are among the richer people by a long shot, according to the plain evidence that here we are sitting typing on our keyboards.

So where to from here?

Do you want moral leadership or not? Bernie Sanders represents the bigger morality which includes all men and women not just the more fortunate ones. You really need to have faith that not only is inclusiveness more moral it's also more expedient. I understand your point of view about some criminals hailing from Mexico however there are bigger problems such as worldwide environmental depletion which are immeasurably more dangerous than local murders and rapes, and which will give rise to more unrest than Mexican criminality.

The moral leadership in the USA us Bernie Sanders. There's not reason that a political leader not also be a moral leader.. This holds for Britain as well where the moral leadership pertains to Jeremy Corbyn the leader of thr Labour party..

As for Mexico, would it be better that Mexico become a US state, or better still a Canadian one?
Socialist
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Wilson wrote:The polls did show him beating Trump by a greater margin than Hillary would, but again, that's with the Republicans throwing the kitchen sink at her for years and ignoring him. Might be different if he was the nominee and the Republicans went after him.
Yes, that's true, might be different. They would however have to find some dirt to throw. Or, they would have to explain why the average person doesn't benefit from getting important new benefits that they don't have to pay for.
Oh, I think the Wall Street guys thought it was a good investment, but if they threw $250,000 at me for a speaking engagement, I'd take the money and then raise their taxes.
And then they'd never give you money ever again. Is that what Hillary has in mind?
Oh, and I'm not sure that the math allows for raising taxes only on the rich, cutting them for everybody else, and doling out all those goodies.
Sure it does. It's simple, we just have to raise taxes on the rich to a sufficient degree. 400 families in the U.S. own half the wealth of the entire country. We could take half of these family's wealth and they'd still be doing great, really great.

Thus, every poor and middle class kid in the country could go to college (or technical training) for free and nobody would be hurt, nobody would suffer to make this happen.

This is exactly what we need because it is increasingly the case that the only way to have a decent life in America is to have education beyond high school. College costs are crushing the middle class, burying the next generation in a mountain of debt they may never escape from.

This is what we'll be missing out on with Hillary, vision, leadership, a political revolution. She hasn't gotten to the top by leading, but by being a determined very expert political operator.

What we missed out on with Sanders is Kennedy or Reagan or Roosevelt style charm, which seems an important asset. Sanders is all business all the time without pause, and I expect that would have worn thin before long.

BTW, did you hear that Gingrich and Christi are supposedly the leading candidates for Trump's VP? Ha, Trump and Gingrich on the same ticket. They'll have to rename it the Blowhard Party, and I'll then have a shot for a high ranking position in the administration. :lol:
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Taxing wealth would indeed allow raising all the funds needed - but we've never taxed wealth, only income.

I like to think that once someone becomes president, if he or she is normal, he or she recognizes the awesome responsibility and makes decisions mostly based on what's best for the citizenry. Of course that wouldn't be the case with Trump, and it isn't the case for most dictators - but for normal people - like Hillary, Obama, and even George W. it would apply. (George just screwed up, but I think he was trying.) So personal wealth was a goal for the Clintons after Bill left office, as it would be for most of us (but not the only goal), but most presidents are very concerned about history's view of their term in office.

I'm a little reluctant to grant sainthood to Bernie, because I sense a large dose of self-aggrandizement. He loves being the center of attention, tilting at windmills. Maybe more sympathetic to "the poor" in the abstract than to real live human beings. I don't feel a lot of warmth in him. That's not to say that he's wrong on certain issues, just that his motives aren't purely moral. A considerable ego is also involved.

-- Updated July 2nd, 2016, 3:19 pm to add the following --

Gingrich is a smart guy, but one incident that could turn off the country's voters is that he discussed divorce and argued with his wife while she was in the hospital getting treatment for ovarian cancer. The details have apparently been exaggerated ever since, but that story would follow his campaign.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Taxing wealth would indeed allow raising all the funds needed - but we've never taxed wealth, only income.
Sigh.... So tax the big incomes if that's the way you want to go. The point is, however we do it, to limit the extremes of both wealth and poverty, and build a stable prosperous middle class nation.
(George just screwed up, but I think he was trying.)
So personal wealth was a goal for the Clintons after Bill left office, as it would be for most of us (but not the only goal), but most presidents are very concerned about history's view of their term in office.
Most presidents clearly does not include Bill Clinton, given the flagrant way he abused that office. Ok, personal wealth up to a point is great. But wealth derived from giving ridiculously over priced speeches to those clearly trying to buy influence from you?
I'm a little reluctant to grant sainthood to Bernie,
Agreed, and nobody claims he's a saint. He's a skilled political leader with a bold clear specific positive vision, that's all.
I don't feel a lot of warmth in him.
Like I said, he's not charming, and that's a liability. Your candidate is not charming either, and that's a liability too. So we had a choice between two uncharming candidates, Sanders and Clinton, only one of which demonstrates leadership qualities.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Oh, I'm definitely for taxing the big incomes. If that's enough, great, but I doubt it. Let's assume that the liberals take over because Republicans don't vote in their usual numbers because of Trump. (I don't think that will happen, unfortunately.) What I don't want to happen is raise the taxes on the rich, drop them on the middle class, increase government spending, and make the deficit much worse. I could see that happening. At some point we need a balanced budget or a surplus so that so much of our taxes don't go to paying off our debt. I favor going through the budget and eliminating waste, duplication, and those functions the government shouldn't be involved in. Raise taxes on the rich, keep them the same for everybody else, and reduce government spending. If and when we subsequently have a surplus, reduce the taxes on the middle and lower classes.

Just because Bill had a roving .. uh, eye doesn't mean that he wasn't doing his best for the country. Same for JFK. Great economy during Bill's terms. My point was that Trump, a total narcissist, would be an outlier - somebody who literally doesn't care about anyone but himself.

I'm not sure what a "leader" is in politics. His ability to lead Congress was as close to zero as any Senator.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021