Who's supporting Clinton?

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby TheVat on September 30th, 2016, 10:23 am 

Ahh. Thanks, I have heard that phrase. Never with such a snarl, though. Silly me, I thought social justice was a basic and longterm plank of the Democratic party, not some looming threat to our precious bodily fluids. Or genderfluids.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7294
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby TheVat on September 30th, 2016, 12:26 pm 

This is the recent post from Hyksos that I thought deserved more of a response (I was on a tablet earlier, so couldn't type at length) and some serious questioning. I trimmed off the youtube links, to reduce the "wall," but you can link them on the previous page if you're curious.

hyksos » September 30th, 2016, 6:07 am wrote:The DNC opened its first day with what? It opened with the entire stage full of black women singing Gospel music. I'm not even exaggerating. (I mean, multiculturalism is fine. But this was laying it on thick.)

Months ago, perhaps even in 2015, I was saying that the Hillary presidential election was going to be the apotheosis of the SJW movement. I was mostly ignored, or in some cases booed. Just this year, the word "genderfluid" first appeared on television, I believe I first saw it spoken on "All in with Chris Hayes". Just last night, the phrase "fat shaming" was used several times on CNN during Anderson Cooper's show. That made it the first time I had personally heard it used on TV. These words and phrases used to only exist in some foresaken corners of the internet -- places acting as watering holes for radical feminists, such as tumblr.

Some of the arguments that I had made up until now were based around (now defunct) DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. I tried to explain to people that Wasserman-Shultz is a rabid SJW. She represents a person who wants a female in the White House, any female. Because this is how (in their minds) we will combat and defeat "the patriarchy". Literally, they want her in the White House because she is female, because they are sick of the political dominance by men seen through American history.

Now six weeks prior to voting day, Rodham-Clinton is latching onto the SJW party train and riding it full throttle. During her first debate with Trump, Hillary specifically mentioned Alicia Machado. This was clearly meant to drag up an event from decades past in which Trump interacted with a beauty pageant contestant in a way that would (today) paint him as a male chauvinist. But these interactions took place long before the SJW culture had solidified. In my opinion, mentioning Machado at all was a tactical mistake on Hillary's part.

The Clinton campaign has now doubled down their SJW pandering with the following TV ad, which appears to show young girls acting sad in front of a mirror (apparently depicting girls suffering from "low body image" , or whatever catchphrase they use now.) This ad has been played in my state.

[x]

This next ad has not been played in my state. It is easily the thickest , soupiest pandering to LGBT I have ever seen in any political election in my life.

[x]

The evidence is now in. 2016 is the Year of the SJW. It will reach its climax with the first woman president. This cultural epoch may explain, for example, why Bernie Sanders lost California during the primaries.


First, as I asked before, how does the DNC opening with a black gospel choir seem to be "laying it on thick" ? This genre seems very much part of our nation's musical heritage and much appreciated by many people, many not from the ethnic group. As a pianist and music arranger, I like it myself. People like gospel, it's very rousing, gets people in an upbeat mood, and seems quite appropriate to the occasion. If they had played Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" would this be too much, since Gershwin was Jewish? Would that be excessive pandering to multiculturalism? What about jazz, another American musical genre dominated by composers and players of African heritage?

More to the point, what specifically do you find problematic in a political party stressing its inclusiveness, that it is a party that welcomes all races, creeds, and ethnicities, and values their participation in America? I am truly baffled, especially in light of your many sharp and intelligent postings in both the philosophy and science forums here.

You go on to say, "Months ago, perhaps even in 2015, I was saying that the Hillary presidential election was going to be the apotheosis of the SJW movement....." What precisely do you mean by this? It was my impression that fighting for social justice, for groups which have been subjected to considerable discrimination and bigotry (and too often, physical violence), is something the Democratic Party has been about for many decades. You pick on DW-S as a "rabid" SJW, but fail to make clear why this is so pejorative or somehow at odds with our country's values. (You can certainly criticize her for other reasons, but that's another thread)

You write, "She represents a person who wants a female in the White House, any female. Because this is how (in their minds) we will combat and defeat "the patriarchy". Literally, they want her in the White House because she is female, because they are sick of the political dominance by men seen through American history."

Aside from the fact that she was fired (which somewhat reduces the thrust of your argument here), you speculate as to her state of mind concerning the need for a female in the WH. On what facts is this speculation based? Any female will do? She has said this? Lastly, if any of this speculation as to her thoughts and intentions is true, why is it a bad thing that she and others are sick of the political dominance of men? This might be a whole other thread, as well, you've got a lot of implied opinions here.

And again, what kind of case are you making, so far as women seeking social justice? It's bad? Too soon, let's wait another century to give men a chance to prepare themselves? Women can't run things? They're only 51% of the population, it's no big deal? I have no idea what your actual position is here, bro.

You write, "Now six weeks prior to voting day, Rodham-Clinton is latching onto the SJW party train and riding it full throttle. During her first debate with Trump, Hillary specifically mentioned Alicia Machado...."

Well, yes, candidates usually do ride their important issues full throttle when it gets close to election day. Strange, but true. What makes you say she is "latching onto" social justice issues - wasn't she, earlier, as well? Trump has lambasted Hillary for all sorts of misdoings, decades past, why would it be unusual for her or any candidate to point out that Donald also has past peccadillos and that some of them are grossly offensive to 51% of the population. (more than that, really, as many men were also disgusted, myself included) Trump's behavior wasn't acceptable back in the day, so it's not like opposing the insulting and demeaning of women is some new fad and we should just ignore Trump's rather long rapsheet of putdowns to various groups including women. They are part of a longterm pattern, and no sensible opposition candidate would ignore it. If that's social justice "war," then where do I sign up for duty?

You also mention that "fat shaming" was used several times on CNN. So what? It's hardly some obscure radical feminist concept known only to a few. If aging white guys like me have heard it, then it's not at all obscure. Further, I'm not sure how it's specifically a feminist concept. Don't most people try to treat others with respect and make that learning part of their lives? Men are also subjected to rudeness and shame regarding weight issues. And how does the phrase's entry into common parlance indicate, as you seem to imply, some sinister intrusion of political correctness? Maybe they're just saying be nice to fat people and let them work out their own body image issues without you being a d-ck? Please consider that possibility.

A favorite satirical headline of mine is "Racism Over, White People Declare." Perhaps it would help your philosophic ruminations to put yourself empathically in others' shoes, and imagine what it would be like to go places in this country and know, at a deep gut level, that your presence is not welcome and that you are not perceived as part of the larger community.
Last edited by TheVat on September 30th, 2016, 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: typos, as usual
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7294
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 1:41 pm 

kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:58 am wrote:
Braininvat » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:46 am wrote:Not to be dense, but have not encountered the acronym SJW.

Also curious as to how women singing gospel is "laying it on thick."


"Social Justice Warrior". It's a snarl phrase when used in this context. The implication throughout his post is that gay people, women, African Americans and transgendered folk should not have their voices heard on the national stage. People that disagree with this implication are summarily mocked.


Trump is attacked for not caring about these people. Hillary's campaign tactics suggest she doesn't care about anyone but these people. Both candidates have divided us.

When will we have the chance to elect a President who will care about all of us?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby d30 on September 30th, 2016, 6:27 pm 

Who's supporting Clinton? Everyone needs to support Clinton. Yes, after 20+ years immersed in the corrupting milieu of Washington, D.C., she's gone like most from left to center if not right of center, but she is still the default choice for any sane, informed person.

I've seen no one point out the double-jeopardy of a Trump victory. He's unpredictably disturbing enough, but look at what happens if anything removes him from office, from bad health to impeachment: we'll have a completely Tea Party federal government.

The president is then his running mate, Mike Pence, a neo-liberal, neo-con, economic disaster, ecological disaster, social disaster with a rubber-stamp Tea Party House and probably Senate. They will slash if not end funding of the federal agencies like FDA, FTC, FCC, EPA, etc., infrastructure, the social safety net including Social Security and Medicare, and regulations on corporate greed and crime, all of which spell economic holocaust.

The effect will be the end of the balanced Keynesian economics that prevented Depression for the last 70 years. Only a big government able to bail out the banks and us all avoided cataclysm in 2008-09. But under Tea Party rule, that government will be too poor to pour big money into the economy anymore, for equipment, supplies and projects. Further cuts of taxes on the rich will worsen that. Tea Party slashing of money to the needy - Social Security, SNAP and many other such programs means those scores of millions of recipients have no money to spend anymore either.

Businesses small to mid-size fall over like dominoes as the economy shrivels up, bringing massive layoffs as never before, meaning both those businesses and jobless people spending no money anymore. Consumer spending, too, plunges. With a dying marketplace, risk-averse capitalists will invest in no new ventures. The economy goes indefinitely comatose.

In other words, currency circulation, the blood of the economy's body, stops. Millions begin dying and scores of millions suffering. What we're facing is an economic cataclysm that will make the 1930s Great Depression look like the good ol' days.

That is, all three spending sectors - business, government and consumers - stop spending and the economy crashes. This is what John Maynard Keynes discovered, and taught the world, in 1937, showing how a healthy economy works. He called it "aggregate demand" (all three sectors spending). That's Keynesian economics.

After hostile takeover by the billionaires, the House and Senate have increasingly eroded it for decades. With one of their own in the White House too, a la Bush Admin. 2001-09 that led us to the precipice, we will quickly be back in the days of unregulated robber barons with a now near totally destitute populace with no hope. Desperation spreads and America turns into an every-man-for-himself jungle of mayhem and bloodshed.

The tragedy is that while we wait for the next election when a perhaps finally awakened public sees the truth about the reptile right wing and votes them out of power, we go through years of widespread death, violent chaos and mass misery we already see the beginnings of. This is all probably the case if Trump wins, but definitely the case if his running mate replaces him.

All better keep fingers crossed, pray, warn friends and relatives, whatever. A Clinton victory prevents the above that would be one of the most, if not the most, destructive, deadly, chaotic, mass miserable times in America's history. She is a long way from what America needs but should keep America going a while longer, buying critical time in which we might identify and develop a way out of this TV-stupefied, far-too-little-read, uninformed rut our people are in.
d30
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: San Diego area


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 7:22 pm 

d-30,

My first thought was to ask how much the DNC paid you to write that, but then I realized you probably believe everything you wrote.

The bubbles and busts have all occurred while Keynesian economists have been in control, yet you claim Keynesian economics is the only thing that can save us. That defies logic.

You are right that a Clinton Presidency will keep things going as they are, but what on Earth makes you think that would be a good thing?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 8:02 pm 

Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:41 am wrote:
kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:58 am wrote:
Braininvat » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:46 am wrote:Not to be dense, but have not encountered the acronym SJW.

Also curious as to how women singing gospel is "laying it on thick."


"Social Justice Warrior". It's a snarl phrase when used in this context. The implication throughout his post is that gay people, women, African Americans and transgendered folk should not have their voices heard on the national stage. People that disagree with this implication are summarily mocked.


Trump is attacked for not caring about these people. Hillary's campaign tactics suggest she doesn't care about anyone but these people. Both candidates have divided us.

When will we have the chance to elect a President who will care about all of us?


That's simply not true though Paul. Hillary has campaigned throughout the Rust Belt making appeals to white male, blue collar workers. She's already got the white male white collar workers in her pocket. She is losing the white male demographic overall though. But that demographic is no longer necessary to win the Presidency, so she might as well target her campaign strategically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 8:11 pm 

Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:22 pm wrote:You are right that a Clinton Presidency will keep things going as they are, but what on Earth makes you think that would be a good thing?


If I may answer for him:

Dow Jones.PNG


That's the last 10 years of the Dow.

Image

That's the unemployment rate and jobs lost vs created.

And here's a bipartisan one:

Image

Yeah, I think we're doing a good job overall. No need for a nativist uprising.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 8:17 pm 

kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:02 pm wrote:

That's simply not true though Paul. Hillary has campaigned throughout the Rust Belt making appeals to white male, blue collar workers. She's already got the white male white collar workers in her pocket. She is losing the white male demographic overall though. But that demographic is no longer necessary to win the Presidency, so she might as well target her campaign strategically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0


She may have campaigned there, but to no avail. Trump has the blue collar segment. Both are struggling with younger voters, though. Bernie's supporters seem to be leaning toward Klein and Johnson, although it may just be a protest vote for now. There's the polls, and then there's the actual voting. We'll see in November.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby wolfhnd on September 30th, 2016, 8:19 pm 

Forget immigration, racism, misogyny, global warming, and all the issues that motivate the left. This election as was the case with brexit is about changing the narrative that everything that is wrong with the world is a result of western European cultural. Liberal democracy as well as the concept of human rights is a Western invention. Does anyone seriously doubt that Britain was the only country in the world that would actively suppress slavery in the middle of the 19th century. In Saudi Arabia as recently as the 1950 there was a slave population estimated at 450,000? If we don't commit ourselves to classical liberalism things are going to be much worse than most people can imagine.

We have been spending the capital built up by previous generations both economically and politically for decades without any respect for the blood and sweat expended by those who went before us. If western civilization collapses we have only ourselves to blame.
wolfhnd
 


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 8:29 pm 

Statistics can be used to prove just about anything, depending upon how you interpret them. The dow chart is not a good sign for the average man-on-the-street. Quite the opposite. It is evidence of the disparity between the wealthy who are getting wealthier and the rest of us who aren't.

The unemployment stats are considered a joke by most economists. A better number to consider is the percentage of working age people who have jobs. It's also worthy to note that of the jobs created, too many are low-wage jobs, temp jobs and part-time jobs. That's why, despite the rosy unemployment numbers the administration likes to point to, wages are stagnant or down, adjusted for inflation.

But then, the inflation numbers are also a farce.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 8:42 pm 

Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:17 pm wrote:
kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:02 pm wrote:

That's simply not true though Paul. Hillary has campaigned throughout the Rust Belt making appeals to white male, blue collar workers. She's already got the white male white collar workers in her pocket. She is losing the white male demographic overall though. But that demographic is no longer necessary to win the Presidency, so she might as well target her campaign strategically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0


She may have campaigned there, but to no avail. Trump has the blue collar segment. Both are struggling with younger voters, though. Bernie's supporters seem to be leaning toward Klein and Johnson, although it may just be a protest vote for now. There's the polls, and then there's the actual voting. We'll see in November.


You're moving the goal posts now. Initially you stated that Clinton's campaign tactics suggested she didn't care about white males at all. Now it's Trump has won them. Well, ok, but she isn't ignoring white males.

The Bernie supporters seem to be supporting Clinton, to the tune of about 66% (and that was an article in fivethirtyeight.com almost two months ago, I can't find recent polling on that question). You can also see here for a breakdown of demographics from last week at the earliest. Definitely shows Millennial support strongly in favor Clinton.

As for the polls vs what happens on election day: Look, an analysis of the aggregate of polling data is by far and away the most accurate method we have for predicting how an election will turn out. You're sounding like Kerry supporters in October of 2004.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 8:49 pm 

kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:42 pm wrote:

The Bernie supporters seem to be supporting Clinton, to the tune of about 66% (and that was an article in fivethirtyeight.com almost two months ago, I can't find recent polling on that question). You can also see here for a breakdown of demographics from last week at the earliest. Definitely shows Millennial support strongly in favor Clinton.



Most of the polls include all 4 candidates as well as asking about a 2-candidate race. Hillary does better in a 2-candidate race. So, Johnson and Klein are pulling more votes from Hillary than from Trump. Those polls that break things down by age indicate Johnson, Klein and Trump capturing greater percentages of millennials than Clinton.

Not surprising. Young people are usually more in favor of change. That's what helped Obama in his first election.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 8:53 pm 

wolfhnd » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:19 pm wrote:Forget immigration, racism, misogyny, global warming, and all the issues that motivate the left.


No. Those are important issues that need to be addressed, and won't be ignored just because you don't want to spend money on things that might actually improve people's lives.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 8:59 pm 

Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:49 pm wrote:
kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:42 pm wrote:

The Bernie supporters seem to be supporting Clinton, to the tune of about 66% (and that was an article in fivethirtyeight.com almost two months ago, I can't find recent polling on that question). You can also see here for a breakdown of demographics from last week at the earliest. Definitely shows Millennial support strongly in favor Clinton.



Most of the polls include all 4 candidates as well as asking about a 2-candidate race. Hillary does better in a 2-candidate race. So, Johnson and Klein are pulling more votes from Hillary than from Trump. Those polls that break things down by age indicate Johnson, Klein and Trump capturing greater percentages of millennials than Clinton.

Not surprising. Young people are usually more in favor of change. That's what helped Obama in his first election.


Well, I've provided you with a lot of resources that indicate what the election really looks like. You've chosen to ignore that data. I get it man, you don't like Clinton. You desperately don't want her to be the President. But you're gonna have to do more to get your ideas turned into public policy than simply playing the contrarian. My guys learned that in 2000 and 2004. You should take note. For example:

You've said "Klein" a few times now, as a candidate for President. Did you mean Stein?
Kinda hard to take you seriously if you can't even get the names of the candidates right.


Details matter man. You're a smart guy, and I know this is just an internet forum. But details still matter.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on September 30th, 2016, 9:12 pm 

kudayta » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:59 pm wrote:
You've said "Klein" a few times now, as a candidate for President. Did you mean Stein?
Kinda hard to take you seriously if you can't even get the names of the candidates right.


Details matter man. You're a smart guy, and I know this is just an internet forum. But details still matter.


Ouch! Yes, I meant Jill Stein.

With all that's going on here right now, I have no business posting at all. I'd better quit while I'm behind and take care of other matters.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on September 30th, 2016, 9:18 pm 

Ok, take care Paul.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby hyksos on September 30th, 2016, 11:58 pm 

braininavat,

You are woefully out of the loop here. You admitted above that you had not even heard of "SJW" until now, yet despite this you believe your ignorance qualified you to lecture me about this topic for 11 paragraphs.

As far as the Gospel music goes, you must recognize gratuitous pandering when it presents itself as such. As far the "year of the SJW movement" goes, you need to know some basic things.

1. "There are only two genders." <-- Does this sentence seem contentious to you? (ask yourself). Now, understand you live in a time in which a professor in a university could get fired, if they make that claim to the student body.

2. Universities now have designated "safe spaces" for LGBTs and genderfluids who feel harassed or slighted. The locations of the "safe spaces" are given on maps of the campus, and spaced out for easy access.

3. It is now considered uncouth on campus to ask a clearly foreign professor or Asian student where they were born -- because asking about a foreign persons' nationality is considered a "micro-aggression".

4. There are now radical feminists who contend that merely assuming someone's gender from how they outwardly look is a "micro-aggression".

5. In roughly the last two or three years, a new social movement is underway roughly called the "Fat acceptance movement". Sounds nice when stated that way, but what does this movement really boil down to? At base, it's mostly people on social media spinning tales about how they cannot "physically lose weight" due to {insert convenient excuse here}. Convenient excuses range from "its genetics" to "my body doesn't tell me when I'm full" to "women naturally store more bodyfat" and so on --- to even more baseless and completely imagined nonsensical excuses.

6. There was a huge backlash to the Fat Acceptance movement nearly all over the internet. In fact, reddit recently lost its CEO due to how she attempted to make reddit a "safe space" for obese people to feel "accepted" without "harassment". She did not, however, declare this out loud, but engaged in this manipulation of the website clandestinely. It only came out later that she was an SJW, and that her inner circle was a cluster of SJWs.

7. The Gender Studies departments on campus have latched onto and attempted to integrate Fat Acceptance into an entire project called "Body shaming". So you will see the numerous variations of motivational posts on social networking about how women are "beautiful at every size" and so forth.

8. Just briefly, a "genderfluid" is not a person who is suffering from gender dismorphia. Dismorphia is characterized by constantly feeling that you are the other gender all the time, incompatible with your actual biological sex. A Genderfluid is not someone who is suffering. Rather they are people who think they can flow 'both ways' depending on their mood or the day of the week.

9. This list could go on an on -- and so I'm not going to touch on the crazy guidance counselors in middle schools who cajole boys to "come out as gay" when they are like 12 years old and younger. Or the fact that 12 year old boys are being picked up in Mom's minivan, where they ride to the clinic, to get shot up with the latest Brazilian cocktail of HRT.

Anyways, I could go on an on : for the time being, please google some of the terms above and educate yourself about these things. The SJW movement is as big and widespread as the cultural movement in the 1960s variously "hippies" or the "Flower Power movement" .
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby d30 on October 1st, 2016, 12:07 am 

Paul Anthony » September 30th, 2016, 3:22 pm wrote:d-30,

My first thought was to ask how much the DNC paid you to write that, but then I realized you probably believe everything you wrote.


(1) I'm no fan of the DNC, nor what the Democratic Party has become. But Trump-Pence is far worse. (2) I stand by what I wrote as factual and historically corroborated (as in next reply below).

The bubbles and busts have all occurred while Keynesian economists have been in control, yet you claim Keynesian economics is the only thing that can save us. That defies logic.


(1) You defy history. Wikipedia article, "Depression (economics)", under the heading "Occurrence": "...the economic cycle [boom and bust] – both in the United States and in most OECD countries – though not in all – has been more moderate since 1945." The Keynesian era.

Also, the 1873 'long depression" and pre-Keynsian 1930s Great Depression refute your claim that "all" such came in the Keynsian era (1945 - 2008). How did you come to make such an inaccurate claim? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)]

(2) I don't claim Keynesian economics is "the only thing that can save us." It will destroy us, being a hyper-production, hyper-consumptive system in a resources-finite world. But as Clinton is far better than Trump-Pence, so is Keynesian economics far better than neo-liberal, i.e., "classic" economics, buying us some more time without socio-economic disruption in which to possibly develop a new economic way ecologically and socially sane.

You are right that a Clinton Presidency will keep things going as they are, but what on Earth makes you think that would be a good thing?


Already explained in the post to which you replied here (4th post on this 7th page of thread), suggesting you didn't read it all. You've done that before - raise questions already answered and raise points already refuted. Also, Paul, please don't make flippant comments about others positions that don't fit your narrative without explaining how it doesn't fit your narrative. If you know better, then teach us. Don't just mock.
Last edited by d30 on October 1st, 2016, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
d30
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: San Diego area


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby hyksos on October 1st, 2016, 12:16 am 

d30 » October 1st, 2016, 2:27 am wrote:The president is then his running mate, Mike Pence, a neo-liberal, neo-con, economic disaster, ecological disaster, social disaster with a rubber-stamp Tea Party House and probably Senate. They will slash if not end funding of the federal agencies like FDA, FTC, FCC, EPA, etc., infrastructure, the social safety net including Social Security and Medicare, and regulations on corporate greed and crime, all of which spell economic holocaust.


Mike Pence -- Let's not mince words here. Mike Pence was a an AM radio talkshow host for over 10 years throughout the 1990s. He's probably a Christian Millennialist. That's bad. Like really bad. How bad? Millennialists will blow the world up in a nuclear war, because they believe that Jesus is going to descend from the sky once Israel completes the Third Temple in Jerusalem. You might think I'm joking or being 'facetious'. Do some googling and read up on it --- you will soon be as afraid of Mike Pence as I am.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby TheVat on October 1st, 2016, 9:56 am 

Hyksos, you seem to be arguing more that there is a new glut of PC, rather than making any substantive argument against HRC's platform. Few would disagree on the absurdities of "microaggression" regulations (which I've posted on elsewhere) or overzealous guidance counselors. I was not pretending to be knowledgeable about all the latest kinks in political correctness, but rather asking how HRC's specific social justice positions were off base. You didn't address any of my points, except to reassert that you felt a gospel choir was excessively pandering to minorities. And you still seem to be making a large, vague leap from Democrat attempts to be inclusive, to Democrat-as-fascist-SJW.

You seem to be complaining about culture wars more than HRC's actual fitness to be POTUS.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7294
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on October 1st, 2016, 1:16 pm 

vaccines.jpg


If for no other reason, this is why you should vote for Clinton.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
LomaxTheVathyksos liked this post


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on October 1st, 2016, 2:19 pm 

(My grandkids have gone home and I'm almost able to think clearly again).

Kudayta,

Each politician is reciting what they think their followers want to hear. I often wonder if politicians believe any of the things they say. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on October 1st, 2016, 2:22 pm 

Paul,

And anyone that says that vaccinations are somehow controversial or ineffective should not be running a country the size of Luxembourg, much less the USA. Regardless of what they may actually think.

And really, don't you think that telling lies for political gain should be discouraged? We'll probably never completely eradicate such behavior, but we should at least try right?
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on October 1st, 2016, 2:41 pm 

kudayta » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:22 am wrote:Paul,

And anyone that says that vaccinations are somehow controversial or ineffective should not be running a country the size of Luxembourg, much less the USA. Regardless of what they may actually think.

And really, don't you think that telling lies for political gain should be discouraged? We'll probably never completely eradicate such behavior, but we should at least try right?


Try? How? I agree it is a practice that is abhorrent, but we are unlikely to change it. US politicians have been throwing mud at their opponents since the nation began. Intelligent people know not to believe everything that is said. We may not be able to change the behavior of politicians, but we could make an effort to improve the electorate.

And, since we can't judge what politicians think by what they say, it is also possible that Hillary's statement is in support of Big Pharma rather than a trust in Science.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on October 1st, 2016, 2:51 pm 

Paul Anthony » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:41 am wrote:
kudayta » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:22 am wrote:Paul,

And anyone that says that vaccinations are somehow controversial or ineffective should not be running a country the size of Luxembourg, much less the USA. Regardless of what they may actually think.

And really, don't you think that telling lies for political gain should be discouraged? We'll probably never completely eradicate such behavior, but we should at least try right?


Try? How? I agree it is a practice that is abhorrent, but we are unlikely to change it. US politicians have been throwing mud at their opponents since the nation began. Intelligent people know not to believe everything that is said. We may not be able to change the behavior of politicians, but we could make an effort to improve the electorate.

And, since we can't judge what politicians think by what they say, it is also possible that Hillary's statement is in support of Big Pharma rather than a trust in Science.


Well, in that case, Big Pharma is right. I mean, the science is clear. If Big Pharma wants to make money off of being right, then I say more power to'em. This is America after all.

With regards to regulating the behavior of lies, it's just as you said. Informed electorate. Now, in order to get an informed electorate we need to educate them. On things like critical scrutiny, science, economics, epistemology. And it needs to be available to everyone, not just those that can afford it. So it would have to be a government program. We could set up a branch of the federal government to oversee it. We could call it the Dept of Education maybe?
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on October 1st, 2016, 3:16 pm 

kudayta » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:51 am wrote:

With regards to regulating the behavior of lies, it's just as you said. Informed electorate. Now, in order to get an informed electorate we need to educate them. On things like critical scrutiny, science, economics, epistemology. And it needs to be available to everyone, not just those that can afford it. So it would have to be a government program. We could set up a branch of the federal government to oversee it. We could call it the Dept of Education maybe?


I would have no problem with the federal Dept of Education if it limited it's involvement to outlining the areas of study as requirements for all schools, but not insist on the methods of instruction. Common Core being the most obvious example of a department exceeding its usefulness.

But more important even than what subjects should be taught would be to include courses in critical thinking.

It is not enough to teach facts. An informed electorate would be one that can evaluate what it hears. Otherwise, politicians lies will continue to be accepted as truths by too many "educated" people.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby hyksos on October 1st, 2016, 3:21 pm 

And you still seem to be making a large, vague leap from Democrat attempts to be inclusive, to Democrat-as-fascist-SJW.

The only claim I will make is that Wasserman-Shultz is probably some shade of fascist SJW.

You seem to be complaining about culture wars more than HRC's actual fitness to be POTUS.

I have made no statements about HRC's fitness as POTUS. I have only pointed out that the campaigning of Democratic party is openly pandering to certain left-of-leftfield counter cultures.

(HRC is the most qualified candidate in the race by far.)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby kudayta on October 1st, 2016, 3:23 pm 

Paul,

I hear a lot of right wing guys like you criticizing Common Core. What exactly is the problem with that? It does exactly what you request (outlines areas of study and set goals for content) without insisting on methods of instruction.

And mods, feel free to split this discussion off, if Paul's interested in discussing it.
User avatar
kudayta
Active Member
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby TheVat on October 1st, 2016, 3:51 pm 

Hyksos, very much appreciate your clarification. (Darn, all those 11 paragraphs wasted!) I don't disagree that Dems pander to certain niches, but I don't see it going so far "left of left field" as you do. I think your culture war input is valuable, but I do land a bit to the left on letting people use whatever self description they choose....or restroom. But I too find it irritating when everything is codified in some PC corset that restricts open dialogues and loose talk. I, for one, enjoy asking people where they are originally from. It's not bigotry, it's just that old fashioned manifestation of human warmth called "taking an interest. "
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7294
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Paul Anthony liked this post


Re: Who's supporting Clinton?

Postby Paul Anthony on October 1st, 2016, 4:22 pm 

kudayta » Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:23 pm wrote:Paul,

I hear a lot of right wing guys like you criticizing Common Core. What exactly is the problem with that? It does exactly what you request (outlines areas of study and set goals for content) without insisting on methods of instruction.

And mods, feel free to split this discussion off, if Paul's interested in discussing it.


"right-wing guys like you". I can't be sure, but I think there is an insult in there somewhere. :)

I try to help my grandchildren with their homework. They are ages 7, 8 and 11. Math was always my best subject and I am appalled by common core math. It most definitely includes methods of instruction - very illogical and overly complicated methods. At a time when kids are failing to learn math, this is a step backwards.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests