Split Thread Conservative Voices (Split from Muller Investigation)

[Upchurch]

On that note: how do you feel about a nationalized universal basic income program?

Sorry if this has been defined in the thread and I just missed it, but what is this exactly?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It is entirely socialist, but companies make bids based on the market price of the product. Only the distribution is State controlled and even that is motivated by the will of the voters.

Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism in harmony

ETA: Or else you hate the troops ��

This is most certainly inaccurate: the price is determined by what the Appropriations Committee will accept - after all, the members know that they support inefficient sub-factories in all their constituencies.
The US defense industry is not operating according to market principles.

 

[autumn1971]

<kick>











You didn't say anything about not kicking you if you were right.

( couldn’t find a fist-bump emoji)

 

[lomiller]

I seems like it might be tied up in how a lot of these people are Christians who give 10% of their income to pay the mortgage on their pastor's McMansion, believing it's really an "investment" and god will make it up to them somewhere down the line. Also there's the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mentality so many in the working/middle class have.

IMO the more telling feature is how among white voters Republicans support increases as you move DOWN the socio-economic ladder. There is also relative low amount of movement up-down that ladder in the US (as compared to most other wealthy developed countries), and the fact Republican polices seem to be partly or mostly responsible for this. To me this suggests that what’s there is a large degree of scapegoating and promoting easy answers to difficult questions going on.

 

[autumn1971]

This is most certainly inaccurate: the price is determined by what the Appropriations Committee will accept - after all, the members know that they support inefficient sub-factories in all their constituencies.
The US defense industry is not operating according to market principles.

So major American corporations are forced to bid on these project at gun point? And they lose money in this obligation?

 

[kellyb]

Kick me if I’m wrong, but most modern Socialists are about certain segments of the economy being vital enough at the State level that distribution of resources should be community controlled, but well within a capitalist market economy.

It’s not late nineteenth century Europe. Once command-economies start being mentioned modern socialism is not in play.

Exactly. A "mixed economy" is what I'd guess 90% of the self-identifying socialists in the western world favor (it's also what I'd guess 90% of the people who think of themselves as "moderates" favor. The only real difference is that "socialists like me" want a few things like UHC and tuition free college added to the tax-funded side. But we're not, like, secretly dreaming of nationalizing Pizza Hut. LOL)

 

[acbytesla]

To be clear on my perception, it would appear that the shift went from critical thinking to more of an SJW feel here over the years.

What does that mean? I think there are critical thinkers and not so critical thinkers that participate in this forum.

IMV a core component of critical thinking is an interest, perhaps even a desire to find out that one is wrong. A willingness to not only entertain an alternative viewpoint, but to concede one's own.

 

[River]

Really the only prominent "voices" there are Shapiro and Elder. Shapiro is the columnist/speechifier, while Elder is the columnist/radio guy. I hear Elder's radio show quite often on the way home from my moonlighting job. Solid guy, solid takes. Not real familiar with Shapiro, but I know he was considered the young hotshot at Townhall about 12 years ago.

Columnists that I like to read include Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn, Robert Samuelson, Tim Worstall and quite a few others. Don't listen to the Yakkers as much as I used to, but still find Rush and Medved interesting and entertaining.

Yeah, the politics around here is somewhere between European Left and Upper East Side Left.

A couple of other new names to me, I'll do some more listening and reading tonight.

 

[kellyb]

For merely stating that a trans woman is a biological male and is thereofre factually wrong in their perception, I was told that I was in favour of bullying trans people to suicide.

Yeah, those people are extremists, and not representative of "the left".

Ok then, I misunderstood. How do you define "solidly left"?

Firmly on the left on economic issues and not hyper-focused on the strictly social issues (aka "identity politics".)
FWIW, over in the "social issues" forum, there's a...lively debate where numerous members are discussing that stuff from multiple angles. It's really not an echo chamber.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, those people are extremists, and not representative of "the left".

That's awfully close to "My extremists don't count because I say so, your extremists still count because I say so."

It might not be dictionary perfect According to Hoyle "No true Scotsman" but it's close.

 

[kellyb]

I would argue that the US Defense Industry is basically State-Controlled from start to finish.

And this is a thing, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

 

[River]

I keep saying this: there are many, many conservative voters among most minority groups. They, particularly as you look to younger groups, groups that didn't recently immigrate from totalitarian communist countries, and *especially* black communities, vote almost entirely for democrats.

Meanwhile, we just keep seeing white supremacists dressing like Dolt 45 and donning MAGA hats while shouting Neo-Nazi slogans, a GOP president who made his political start through a brazenly racist conspiracy theory, and who kicked off his campaign with a racist smear of "Mexicans", and we keep seeing GOP candidates who run as neo-confederates (while also carpetbagging - how does this even work!?), who have major contributors who freely post racial slurs on social media, and so forth.

Anyone who wants to insist that the GOP is totally non-racist needs to ask a very simply question: why do neo-nazis keep flocking to them, and the groups at the forefront of civil rights absolutely despise them?

Somehow, there's always time to complain about hurt feelings of those poor poor white republicans, but no time to consider this very simple question - except to insist that the vast majority of black people are slaves on some metaphorical "democrat plantation", which is basically no different than calling us Sambos.

Also, I've spoken to black people from Cali. And Florida.and the midwest. They all hate the GOP. The only variation is how they feel about the democrats - that seems to vary almost from person to person.

ETA:, I'd also like to express my amusement at the idea of Cali as some singularly important spot for of black American political expression. Nah, that's the south, obviously, even most of us from outside there will agree. So, how about you check your own mouth?

Despite some opinions, some of the black and hispanic vote seems to be supporting the GOP candidates in other areas. Traditionally you may be correct, but things can change with time and policy agendas. Are GOP or Dems gaining more ethnic minority voters? (not sure, so im asking those that would be informed)

You may not have read about this GOP victory, because the liberal national media is not exactly excited to report that Republicans reclaimed a seat they had not held in 139 years. The liberal media is especially shy about reporting on a Republican victory in a district that Hillary Clinton carried by nearly 12 points in the 2016 presidential election.

From the left’s standpoint, this victory is even more frightening because the district is 73 percent African-American and Hispanic.

Furthermore, at a time when people are touting gigantic Democratic voter turnout and lagging Republican participation, this special election runoff had twice as many voters as the last Texas state Senate special election runoff in February 2015.

In fact, the turnout for this race went up from 26,207 in the first round of the election to 44,487 in the runoff, according to Sam Taylor with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office. The Republican candidate received 23,576 votes to the Democrat’s 20,911.

 

[kellyb]

That's awfully close to "My extremists don't count because I say so, your extremists still count because I say so."

It might not be dictionary perfect According to Hoyle "No true Scotsman" but it's close.

When the democratic party starts electing those people to congress, and some leftwing version of Trump as the POTUS nom, there will be valid equivalency.

I don't think those 18 yo extreme SJW types even know what a UBI even is. Or the history of labor rights nationally or internationally.

They really are kind of their own thing divorced from the left wing of the democratic party.

 

[acbytesla]

Kick me if I’m wrong, but most modern Socialists are about certain segments of the economy being vital enough at the State level that distribution of resources should be community controlled, but well within a capitalist market economy.

It’s not late nineteenth century Europe. Once command-economies start being mentioned modern socialism is not in play.

Socialists are like Christians. There are as many different views on both as there are adherents. There isn't a modern society which isn't a mix of market and socialist economics. There are degrees of command economies in all of them including the US. We have for example utilities throughout the US where rates are set not by the provider but by a government board or commission.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So major American corporations are forced to bid on these project at gun point? And they lose money in this obligation?

Have you ever heard of a defense contractor losing money?

 

[lomiller]

This definition seems pretty accurate. Do you agree with it? If not feel free to amend.

It is fairly accurate until it calls it synonymous with “leftism” or “welfareism” which have little to do with social ownership of economic infrastructure.

More importantly it just doesn’t describe Democratic policy which generally seeks to address market failures and optimize market efficiency. Contrary to typical Fox news claims this type of policy falls firmly in free market territory, in fact it can’t be anything else since market failure and market efficiency are outgrowth of free market theory.

On that note: how do you feel about a nationalized universal basic income program?

There are potential advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed against each other and this is impossible without a fully fleshed out description of the program and how it would fit into the current economy. Absolute support or opposition based on such an oversimplified description would be wrong.

On that note: how do you feel about a nationalized universal basic income program? How do you feel about capitalism?

I’m a supporter of free markets but I recognise and accept the reality of market failures. I also recognise and accept the reality of government failures and think the best approach is to balance actions to address market failures with the possibility of government failures as best as possible with the aim of maximizing overall market efficiency.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, those people are extremists, and not representative of "the left".

I'm sure ponderingturtle will be delighted to hear that.

Firmly on the left on economic issues and not hyper-focused on the strictly social issues (aka "identity politics".)
FWIW, over in the "social issues" forum, there's a...lively debate where numerous members are discussing that stuff from multiple angles. It's really not an echo chamber.

Linky?

And thank you for your answer above.

 

[Belz...]

When the democratic party starts electing those people to congress, and some leftwing version of Trump as the POTUS nom, there will be valid equivalency.

Well, we've got one of those SJWs as Prime Minister up here. He seems to think that a 50-50 cabinet is more important than selecting the best people for the job -- which, ironically, might have led to _more_ women than men on that cabinet.

Socialists are like Christians. There are as many different views on both as there are adherents. There isn't a modern society which isn't a mix of market and socialist economics. There are degrees of command economies in all of them including the US.

Economies are therefore like steel. Carbon doesn't make for a good sword, and iron can be brittle and corroded, but mix 'em together and you've got something pretty damned strong. It's now just a matter of how much mixing you do.

 

[kellyb]

IMO the more telling feature is how among white voters Republicans support increases as you move DOWN the socio-economic ladder. There is also relative low amount of movement up-down that ladder in the US (as compared to most other wealthy developed countries), and the fact Republican polices seem to be partly or mostly responsible for this. To me this suggests that what’s there is a large degree of scapegoating and promoting easy answers to difficult questions going on.

That's definitely a huge part of it, but I do kinda blame the democratic party establishment which arose in the 90's, too. I agree with Thomas Frank:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populism

Can liberals please work out how to win back the working class?

But understanding the perversity of rightwing populism only brought me to another mystery: the continuing failure of liberals to defeat this thing, even as its freakishness and destructiveness became apparent to everyone. My brain twirls to think that rightwing populism is still running strong in 2018 – that it’s even worse now than it was in 1988 – that the invective and the journalism and the TV shows and all the mournful books about the decline of the middle class have amounted, basically, to nothing.

I know the excuses: those Republicans were so clever, they wouldn’t vote for Obama’s proposals, etc. But from the long-term perspective, what really mattered was the absence of Democratic will. Instead of doing what the moment required, Democrats chose to help the banks get back on their feet and to stand by as inequality soared; they scolded their base for wanting too much and they extended their hand instead to Silicon Valley and big pharma. The task of capturing public anger was one they regarded with distaste; they left that to Tea Party demagogues and to Donald Trump.

Another article of his that rings true to me:

https://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/

What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between the millions of women at the bottom of the world’s pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its very top. The hardship those Third World women have endured and the entrepreneurial efforts they have undertaken are powerful symbols of the struggle of American professional women to become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (one of the ambitions that was discussed in detail) or of a woman to be elected president, which was the unspoken theme of the entire event.

What the spectacle had to offer ordinary working American women was another story.

This is modern liberalism in action: an unregulated virtue exchange in which representatives of one class of humanity ritually forgive the sins of another class, all of it convened and facilitated by a vast army of well-credentialed American technocrats, while the objects of their high and noble compassion sink slowly back into a preindustrial state.

There was also another act of erasure going on here, but no clever adman will ever be hired to play it up. International Women’s Day, I discovered, began as a socialist holiday, a sort of second Labor Day, on which you were supposed to commemorate the efforts of female workers and the sacrifices of female strikers. It is a vestige of an old form of feminism that didn’t especially focus on the problems experienced by women trying to be corporate officers or the views of some megabillionaire’s wife.

What we were there in New York to consider, among other things, was how unjust it was that women were underrepresented in the C-suites of the Fortune 500—and, by implication, how lamentable it was that the United States had not yet elected a woman president. There was no consideration—I mean, zero—of the situation of women who work on the shop floors of the Fortune 500—for Walmart or Amazon or any of the countless low-wage employers who make that list sparkle. Working-class American women were simply … not there. In this festival of inclusiveness and affirmation, their problems were not considered, their voices were not heard.

For poor and working-class American women, the floor was pulled up and hauled off to the landfill some twenty years ago. There is no State Department somewhere to pay for their cell phones or to pick up their day-care expenses. And one of the people who helped to work this deed was the very woman I watched present herself as the champion of the world’s downtrodden femininity.

Sitting there in gilded Manhattan, I thought of all the abandoned factories and postindustrial desolation in the surrounding regions, and I mused on how, in such places, the Democratic establishment was receding into terminal insignificance. It had virtually nothing to say to the people who inhabit that land of waste and futility.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Socialists are like Christians. There are as many different views on both as there are adherents. There isn't a modern society which isn't a mix of market and socialist economics. There are degrees of command economies in all of them including the US. We have for example utilities throughout the US where rates are set not by the provider but by a government board or commission.

You could make a fair to decent argument that a balanced, vague "Sorta socialist on some of the big things, mostly capitalist on most of the small things" has become the unofficial official way for any country that isn't an extreme isolationist.