Quantcast
Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Shadow1980 said:
o_O.Q said:

so for you policies can only be socialist when all means of production are publicly owned and the state is abolished?

You and I are clearly operating under a different definition of "socialism." Socialism, properly defined, has always means "public ownership of the means of production." It can be by the state seizing private firms, or by the workers directly controlling the means of production through co-ops and similar entities (meaning your local credit union is an example of socialism).

But you've made it abundantly clear that you define socialism as "whatever the government does" (a few steps beyond the typical right-wing red-baiting where "socialism" is "whatever specific policies and programs I don't like."). It's clear not just from your comments in this thread, but your comments in other threads. You just plain don't like governments in general, and appear to ascribe to some sort of minarchist or right-libertarian worldview where taxation is theft (which I guess makes the Founding Fathers thieves vis a vis Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution) and that spending those tax dollars on anything is "socialism." It's a worldview that's ironically the flipside of doctrinaire Marxism, wishing for an ideal world that never was and never will be. And I've found that people that ascribe to such views are impossible to argue with because they operate on a wavelength completely alien to more mainstream political viewpoints (not even the Republicans think taxes are theft, and are find with the government spending money on fighter jets, wars of choice, and border walls even if they're against spending on social programs). If you want to live in fear of Stalinist boogeymen hiding behind every bush waiting to oppress you with the "totalitarian horrors" like single-payer health insurance, anti-trust legislation, and having to pay your taxes, be my guest, but I'm done wasting my time trying to convince you that "socialism" doesn't mean "anything the government does." Next time we talk, it'll be about video games.

"socialism, properly defined, has always means "public ownership of the means of production." It can be by the state seizing private firms..."

like in venezuela(but you don't consider that to be an example of course) or like with the proposal to end private insurance(which even though i posted it multiple times you just flat out ignored)''

"But you've made it abundantly clear that you define socialism as "whatever the government does""

you made this claim in the last post and I replied with a clarification and an example - bernie calling to end private insurance... but why address anything i've actually said when you can just make up a strawman to pretend i haven't proven you wrong 

I've said numerous times in the past that I do think there is a need for a pooling of resources in a community to some extent because obviously basic necessities like water are much easier to obtain for everyone if they work collectively

"You just plain don't like governments in general"

lol what a bizarre thing to say

"where taxation is theft (which I guess makes the Founding Fathers thieves vis a vis Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution) and that spending those tax dollars on anything is "socialism.""

your whole post is essentially a repeat of this assertion about 5 times, for one I never said that and secondly the only response I ever get from people like you whenever examples are brought up is

i'll ask again can you give me any example of soclalism since you appear to reject every example i've raised or is it just a myth like the unicorn or the fairy?

and what's wrong with socialism anyway? why are you so scared of being associated with it?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 27 June 2019

Around the Network

@Torillian
That's supply and demand. Only way to really avoid the things happening there is to reduce the population. They just can't handle it.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

@Shadow1980
You seem to bring up racism as the real excuse for the EC to be establish. Could be. But even if they where racist they gave the vote to black people. And it still doesn't take away that they did it cuz they felt under represented.

You also got to admit that the US is huge. What applies in one state won't necessarily work on another. As much as you think is outdated its the only thing smaller states got.

Got to admit. Did not read the entire reply. I'm at work so I skimped over it. Maybe later.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

@Bofferbrauer
Now you said it. It docent matter what polices get implemented. If the ones at the top keep getting their way and screwing us it will just get worst and worst.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:
@Bofferbrauer
Now you said it. It docent matter what polices get implemented. If the ones at the top keep getting their way and screwing us it will just get worst and worst.

Not sure if got the point: Norway (and pretty much any European country) has laws that prevent those people that their way, a thing that the US doesn't have. In fact, the way the election system is, it actually favors them big time. The democrats not accepting their money to finance their campaigns is a way of showing that they don't want that influence, that they don't accept becoming pawns of big corporations or billionaires.

Also guess who implemented those laws in Europe? Those were Social Democrats or Socialists in 99.99% of the cases. The more left-wing democrats like Sanders and Warren are trying to emulate these laws.

Just FYI, don't forget the 2 and the end. @Bofferbrauer links to my old account.



Around the Network

@Bofferbrauer2
I don't care who ends the corruption as long as it ends. But that's what I argued before. Gets those laws in place first cuz increasing social programs without stoping the the corrupt elite will just make things worst.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

gamingsoul said:

Funny how Norway has become the point of mesure for everyone, Norway happens to be one of the riches countries in the world, it’s also very small and homogenous, but yeah if they get socialism right anybody can.

i am not even sure if Norway qualifies as a socialist country

Norway isn't socialist.  

Most countries on the planet already have many of the proposals in action that current Democrats are proposing.  

>Funny how Norway has become the point of mesure for everyone

Funny how Venezuela becomes the point of criticism, despite being less similar in policy than Norway.  

>it’s also very small and homogenous

How about the UK, Canada, etc.  

>homogenous 

Because diversity totally changes everything.  



eva01beserk said:

You seem to bring up racism as the real excuse for the EC to be establish. Could be. But even if they where racist they gave the vote to black people. And it still doesn't take away that they did it cuz they felt under represented.

You also got to admit that the US is huge. What applies in one state won't necessarily work on another. As much as you think is outdated its the only thing smaller states got.

Got to admit. Did not read the entire reply. I'm at work so I skimped over it. Maybe later.

The interests of slave states was a factor, but not the sole factor, for the eventual creation of the EC. It was the primary reason why proposals for a national popular vote never got any traction at the Convention. The author of the paper I linked to stated to PBS Newshour that "None of this is about slaves voting. The debates are in part about political power and also the fundamental immorality of counting slaves for the purpose of giving political power to the master class." In Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, we have the following commentary quoted from Gouverneur Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania and author of the Constitution's preamble:

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert “free” before the word “inhabitants.” Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this,—that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes, in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack and the difficulty of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of having their votes in the national government increased in proportion; and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the general government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

So, it was noted even at the Convention that the desire of slave states to have slaves counted towards the population in determining apportionment of Representatives was a mere political calculation by those slave states to inflate their political power. In the 1790 Census, the seven states that remained slave states after 1804 (and would remain so until the abolition of slavery in 1865) had a significant portion of their population comprised of slaves, ranging from 15% for Delaware to 39% for Virginia and 43% for South Carolina. The delegates from those states felt that even though their slaves by definition were property, not citizens, and thus possessed no political or civil rights whatsoever, that they should nevertheless still count when it came time to have a census and therefore when it came to congressional apportionment. Likewise, they felt that under a national popular vote, their votes would be overwhelmed by those of citizens from Northern states (in the aforementioned 1790 Census, the seven states that were still slave states after 1804 had their free white male population aged 16 and older amount to 312,455 men, only 38.7% of the national total). Unfortunately, the Convention needed everyone on board or the entire attempt to create a new Constitution would likely have failed, so we had the first of many compromises with the slave states: the Three-Fifths Compromise. And for the next 70+ years, the rest of the country bent over backwards to accommodate the desires of those who sought to maintain and perpetuate a thoroughly evil institution, lest the American experiment end up a failure (not that any of that was good enough for them, seeing as in 1861 they decided to engage in outright insurrection).

Make no mistake: certain aspects of our Constitution, as originally written, came about largely because of the interests of slaveholders. The basic attitude of those slaveholders regarding black people, namely that they were inferior and thus not deserving of the same rights and privileges of white men, was perpetuated generation to generation, carrying on from the Antebellum Era to the Civil War and on through the Jim Crow Era that produced despicable men like Strom Thurmond (who as I mentioned was one of the masterminds behind the demise of the Bayh—Celler Amendment that would have abolished the Electoral College) and all the way up to today. There is still significant overlap between those people and people who are clearly skeptical of representative democracy writ large and disdainful of the principle of "one person, one vote." There are many who at least tacitly ascribe to the notion that only certain people should vote, going out of their way to make voting difficult for poor and other disadvantaged people (who are disproportionately non-white) and supporting institutions and practices that inflate their political power (e.g., gerrymandering and the EC). At every step of the way, there have been attempts to stymie the progress of democracy and the extension of the franchise, to undermine the ability of many people (esp. non-whites) to vote, and to game the system.

If you think racism still isn't pervasive and influential in our politics, you haven't spent enough time around some of the "Good Ol' Boys" here in the Deep South... or spent enough time reading some of the drivel that oozes out of certain corners of the internet. You'd be surprised by how many people want Jim Crow Era concepts like poll taxes and literacy tests and even early antebellum policies like property requirements to return as prerequisites for voting, and a lot of that comes from the types of people who put Confederate flag stickers on the backs of their pickup trucks. There are still many in my grandparents' generation who are still sore over the end of Jim Crow, just as their great-great-grandparents were sore over the South losing the Civil War. And unfortunately their racism still got carried over to many in my generation and now to many Millennials and Gen Z kids.

In regards to your comment "You also got to admit that the US is huge. What applies in one state won't necessarily work on another. As much as you think is outdated its the only thing smaller states got," I have to say that first off it's not the only thing small states got. They have the Senate, which gives each state two seats regardless of population. A Senator from Wyoming has the same voting power as a Senator from California despite the 70-fold difference in population between the states. It allows Senators representing 21 red states amounting to less than a quarter of the U.S. population to completely block just about anything.

Second, I already mentioned that federalism is a poor excuse for justifying the continued existence of the EC. The U.S. is the only federal republic with an executive president to use a system of indirect election of said president. Granted, nations with that very specific form of government are rare (there are only 27 nations that are federations, and most use a parliamentary system), but most nations that did have an electoral college have abandoned the system. Germany, India, and Pakistan are the only other federations that have electoral colleges for selecting their presidents, but since those nations use a parliamentary system their presidents are ceremonial in nature, possessing no real governing power.

The EC is an inherently flawed system. It violates the principle of "one person, one vote." The fact that electoral votes are not allocated proportionally by population (due to the two bonus votes every state gets) makes the Electoral College an unrepresentative system where some people's votes count for more than others (one Wyomingite's vote is worth over three times more than one Texan's vote). In a national election where the whole of the American electorate is voting for a single official (i.e., the President), no citizen's vote should count for more simply because of geographical flukes and historical accidents. Yet this is exactly what happens. Furthermore, the winner-take-all system produces results that are even more unrepresentative, as voters in a non-competitive state are effectively disenfranchised if they don't vote for the dominant party. WTA rules make every Republican vote in California and New York and every Democratic vote in Tennessee and Indiana completely meaningless. CA & NY made up 37% of Hillary's total electoral votes, but only 20% of her popular votes. In a national popular vote system, Republican voters in blue states and Democratic voters in red states would actually count. Trump (who, to reiterate, once called the Electoral College "a disaster for democracy") said he'd have campaigned in those states in a popular vote system to try to increase Republican turnout, and it stands to reason that a Democratic candidate would likewise campaign in states like Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee. Every vote would count, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Speaking of swing states, the idea that the EC protects small states from big states is again unfounded. Not only are states are divided among partisan lines and not population size (as I mentioned before, small Hawaii has more in common politically with large California than it does with small West Virginia), but small states are mostly ignored by presidential candidates in the general election (of the 25 least-populated states, only Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire get any attention). Rather, candidates focus on the dozen or so states deemed competitive enough to worry about campaigning in. And of those swing states, the largest ones get the most attention because they're worth more. The four most populous swing states—Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina—represented two-thirds of all presidential campaign events in 2016.

The EC fails at the goals ascribed to it by its defenders, and the criticisms of a national popular vote simply don't hold up under scrutiny. The EC is an unrepresentative system that only existed in the first because of political expediency and the political realities of the 1780s. It wouldn't exist today were it not for the efforts of segregationist senators from the South in the 1970s. Its most vociferous defenders are frequently those who have a poor opinion of representative democracy and want to make it difficult to vote. But the trajectory of representative democracy in America has been one of greater democratization and the removal of arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to voting. Property requirements to vote were gradually abolished and haven't been a thing since 1856. We saw the expansion of the franchise to black men in 1870 with the passage of the 15th Amendment (something that was still fought against and circumvented by white racists, esp. in the South). In response to concerns over corruption, Senators became directly accountable to the people of their state in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. By 1920, women in all states could vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment. The 23rd Amendment gave DC residents the right to vote for president. The 24th Amendment abolished poll taxes and other tax requirements for voting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, giving all adults the right to vote.

It's time to abolish the Electoral College as well and make every American's vote for president count, and count equally.



Shadow1980 said:

It's time to abolish the Electoral College as well and make every American's vote for president count, and count equally.

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.


The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly.

I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes.

I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote.