2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
The point is that you no longer even appreciate the extent to which you have incorporated authoritarian rhetoric with dark connotations into your daily discussion of politics.
Or maybe you just don't care.
The point is that you no longer even appreciate the extent to which you have incorporated authoritarian rhetoric with dark connotations into your daily discussion of politics.
Or maybe you just don't care.
Don't mean to blow your mind here, Roc, but have you considered that the dude turboposting Nazi **** knows he's a Nazi?
Who thinks that domestic threats don't exist? Who thinks that no steps should be taken to address domestic threats?
You guys that attack me because I define a domestic threat and solutions for it on the topic itself rather than trying just to claim the specific threat I identify isn't , for you, a threat.
You aren't contesting my threat assessment, you are saying I am fascist because I identify a domestic threat and I want the state to fix that with legal state violence.
So, if you accept domestic threats can exist and they should be dealt with by state violence, why don't you just discuss whether radical environmentalists are such a threat or not instead of calling me a fascist?
So why am I being called a fascist to generalize the idea that democracies need to have those solutions in place to deal with threats in general?
If your claim is that millions of people whose ideas would.utrerly destroy society and make us live like animals aren't a threat to be dealt with on par as neonazis, claim that, the hell has this to do with fascism?
In general why are you ok with dealing with neonazism as an existential threat to society and not neomarxists which are at least as bad and much much much more numerous?
So why am I being called a fascist to generalize the idea that democracies need to have those solutions in place to deal with threats in general?
If your claim is that millions of people whose ideas would.utrerly destroy society and make us live like animals aren't a threat to be dealt with on par as neonazis, claim that, the hell has this to do with fascism?
In general why are you ok with dealing with neonazism as an existential threat to society and not neomarxists which are at least as bad and
Whoosh.
On the off-chance that you are not just acting obtuse:
.
Hey guys, stop calling me a fascist just because I’m a fascist. It hurts my feels :(
Jailing and killing all political opponents doesn’t meet the definition of fascism in Luciomtopia because the leader says it doesn’t.
To be clear, I don't agree with your assessment of the threats either. Abrupt abandonment of fossil fuels isn't practical or a good idea for many reasons, some of which you mentioned. But people who want to push the world in the direction of more environmentally friendly sources of energy are directionally correct, even if some of them are unrealistic about the timeline.
To be clear, I don't agree with your assessment of the threats either. Abrupt abandonment of fossil fuels isn't practical or a good idea for many reasons, some of which you mentioned. But people who want to push the world in the direction of more environmentally friendly sources of energy are directionally correct, even if some of them are unrealistic about the timeline.
ye the "comrades with the heart in the right place" who just "slightly err in assessment", they simply request us to fully suicide economically causing more destruction and human suffering than a nuclear war, but think of the biodiversity they would preserve, they aren't a threat.
btw they don't want nuclear and hydro
Luciom, do you understand that you are being called a fascist at least in part because of the rhetoric you employ? I explained this to you at the time of the "Sieg Heil" post months ago, actually, so I expect the answer is "yes", but would be good of you to confirm.
If you want people to quit calling you a fascist, then you probably should avoid banging on about "enemies of the people."
Trump also uses it for the media when they exercise their first amendment rights and cover his corruption, incompetence and all around poor performance.
Trump also uses it for the media when they exercise their first amendment rights and cover his corruption, incompetence and all around poor performance.
Yep, when I expressed outage at that about 8 years ago, I was reliably assured by the likes of bahbah that he is just stupid and doesn't know what he's saying or he is just being quoted out of context or something something stop calling him a fascist.
If I'm running the Trump campaign, I think I'm pretty tempted to backtrack and agree the 2nd debate. Trump was so bad in the first one, expectations for him will be so low. I know he's the master of not meeting the lowest of expectations, but I;m not sure what else they can do.
I am not sure why you call that a rant, you haven't addresses any of the claims.
But take Dem controlled states, states where Dem own politics completely.
There are some insane things like Hawaii, perma-dem controlled by a trifecta (state wise) with less than 20 cent of gasoline state tax per gallon.
How do you square that with democrats being even comparable to rightwing European parties which, when they manage, attempt to decrease taxes on gasoline 5 cent per liter from the 80 we are at in Italy
The gas taxes are because Americans are allergic to paying higher taxes on gas consumption. I mean I don't mind paying more in CA and would pay even more if it was asked, but it's a political thing. Also once again I would point out it's just easier for you guys to pass stuff because of your parliamentary systems. Governments are installed only with a mandate. I would say that California is seeking to ban the sale of vehicles with tailpipe emissions by 2035, which is one of those crazy genocidal policies you complain about.
State M4A is a red herring. The vast majority of taxation comes at the federal level, and state taxes are some of the easiest ways to drive businesses out of your state. Hawaii already has a competitive disadvantage in the sense that they are a tiny state with not a lot of industry that mostly relies on tourism. However, they do have a really low rate for those without health insurance (private or public) at around 3.5% in 2022.
The feasibility of state M4A has a lot of challenges. First of all, many of the healthcare programs within a given state are subsidized by the federal government through ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. In order to get the full benefit of those grants and appropriations, you have to follow certain guidelines. Another barrier to implementation is employer healthcare, which is generally exempt from state control if the benefits are self-funded. It would require some kind of tax to redirect those funds into a medicare for all style system.
My preferred method for universal coverage would be a public option that becomes mandatory for those that are uninsured, which can have means testing for exemptions of payment.
Also I feel you're conflating universal healthcare with a medicare for all style system. Medicare for all has never had the backing of the federal democratic party. It had been a popular policy of Bernie Sanders that something like 30-50% of the party at one point supported. So in that sense you have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is lying by saying they support a policy that isn't supported by the majority of the party. They just support a policy that is not popular.
So in conclusion there isn't a medicare for all system at the state level due to feasibility of losing access to federal funds as well as employer-funded health insurance programs. In order to make it feasible there would have to be some kind of federal legislation, which is not widely supported. That doesn't mean that democrats don't support universal healthcare, it will just have to be done at the federal level.
Lastly, I just want to point out that there has been a shift to the left in the party since Obama, and Obama only left office 8 years ago (although it feels like an eternity). It will take some time for the Democrats to actually implement the policies they want to, and they will need the support of the people which they might not have. It remains to be seen.
Btw I am also claiming that actual "good faith" extreme environmentalism is genocidal, criminal, and should be outlawed.
People who want ONLY renewables and nuclear doesn't count, plenty of them in Europe, are criminals. Are enemies of the people, are a threat worse than the worst racist could ever be
After legislation is passed to criminalize their actions, and due time is given for them to decide whether they want to be criminals or not, you start by dissolving their associations as criminal ones and arresting their leaders and biggest donors.
Then you move from there depending on whether they keep existing underground or not, and doing what.
Same as you would deal with neo Nazis with plans to gas the Jews, except there are far many more green fanatics and they are worse for societies with al
You want to arrest people Stalinist-style for wanting to protect the climate? And we're the authoritarians? lol You're a parody of yourself.
Speaking of domestic threats.
Over 700 high-ranking national security officials endorse Harris
https://www.nsl4a.org/nsl4a-announcement...
Do you think even one would endorse Trump?
Substitute medicare for all with whatever you want to do to cover the uninsured of you think it's so important.
Just insure them at taxpayers expenses right? If you wanted you could do it at the state level everywhere you govern.
I am not sure why you think it's easier to pass that in Italy than in California, because of the parlamentarian system.
Democrats have super majorities in the legislature, they always have the governor, they can pass anything they want that doesn't violate the state and federal constitutions, and every time they don't they are telling you what they actually believe in.
Every resident of every state governed by a democrat trifecta could have health insurance, and they don't exclusively because the democrats don't want to cover them with local taxpayers money.
Every state could have European level gasoline taxes, they don't because residents wouldn't agree with paying so much "for the climate" ("or "because of Pigou").
So,you aren't (yet?) facing anything of the sort of what we face around here, which is why you don't understand the severity of the situation here nor you believe the slope is absurdly dangerous.
Maybe the USA won't ever shift to the left to reach where we are today in Europe, but point is, if it does, it's a tragedy of epic proportions.
Which is why every move to the left however small should be fought with full strength the endgame if they actually win is too horrible to even contemplate.
They aren't "directionally right", their direction is horror
You want to arrest people Stalinist-style for wanting to protect the climate? And we're the authoritarians? lol You're a parody of yourself.
Man they are being arrested already for blocking infrastructure and so on.
I want those associations whose members block roads, airports, bridges and so on to be labeled terrorist organizations, and longer jail sentences and criminal responsibility for donors and organizers and fund raisers and so on as well, as it is NORMAL for terrorist organizations.
They are already committing politically motivated serious crimes against society at large, that is political terrorism.
Let's start from that which shouldn't be controversial
Posting 700 names in a single post (or quoting such a post) should be an automatic one-day temp ban.
Substitute medicare for all with whatever you want to do to cover the uninsured of you think it's so important.
Just insure them at taxpayers expenses right? If you wanted you could do it at the state level everywhere you govern.
I am not sure why you think it's easier to pass that in Italy than in California, because of the parlamentarian system.
Democrats have super majorities in the legislature, they always have the governor, they can pass anything they want that doesn't violate the state and fe
We're talking about a different thing now than when we started this conversation. The original question I was discussing with E2 was about whether the Dems can be considered left wing. My point isn't that they are far leftist, my point is that they are pretty standard social liberals which are considered center-left in most countries, and a lot of the claims about how far right they are economically doesn't really make sense. Now you want to come in and talk about Italian leftist politics being insane compared to American leftist politics, I mean I'm not an expert on your system so I have no idea. I also won't take your word for it because of the crazy stuff you have said in this thread and others.
Again I explained to you that there are federal funds that are allocated for states to implement certain programs. It's sort of silly to compare the salaries of teachers to implementing a state program to mandate coverage to the uninsured. There are logistical, legal, and political battles that need to be won there in order to make it feasible. I mean we already have a sort of "public option" through medical for instance, but then there's the question of whether we can force people to pay for medical. I think it would be possible to implement a CA medicare for all, but then we're basically gambling that hospitals won't just up and leave under the new system.
I'm open to discussing healthcare systems more in depth but I have the feeling that you don't really care and are just driving at something else.
If you want me to say "ok fine Dems are not left, they are a right-wing party" then sure... I guess I don't care about labels that much. But then I just have no idea what left and right even means, because within the context of the United States and even when you don't just isolate on other OECD nations and look at the entire world, the Dems are pretty socially liberal and economically they advocate for strong safety nets and labor unions.
Man they are being arrested already for blocking infrastructure and so on.
I want those associations whose members block roads, airports, bridges and so on to be labeled terrorist organizations, and longer jail sentences and criminal responsibility for donors and organizers and fund raisers and so on as well, as it is NORMAL for terrorist organizations.
They are already committing politically motivated serious crimes against society at large, that is political terrorism.
Let's start from that which
You are lying about what you said or just using motte and baily. Here is what you said Luciom:
Btw I am also claiming that actual "good faith" extreme environmentalism is genocidal, criminal, and should be outlawed.
People who want ONLY renewables and nuclear doesn't count, plenty of them in Europe, are criminals. Are enemies of the people, are a threat worse than the worst racist could ever be
There is absolutely nothing in here about their tactics. You are talking about their beliefs and that they are genocidal and should be thrown in jail. That's disgusting stalinist behavior.
Lastly, I just want to point out that there has been a shift to the left in the party since Obama, and Obama only left office 8 years ago (although it feels like an eternity). It will take some time for the Democrats to actually implement the policies they want to, and they will need the support of the people which they might not have. It remains to be seen.
More than the party, I would say the country has really shifted towards Obama on healthcare as a whole, as many predicted. I don't think medicaid expansion under the ACA has lost in even the reddest states where voters have been allowed to decide directly. And not being able to talk about healthcare at all because their opposition to Obamacare has always been performative is dragging on the right.
quoting word bombs like that, especially from people i've taken the time to ignore so i don't have to see that kind of ****, should also be a ban
It is not just beliefs they are voting on that.
Their representatives in parliament are voting on that.
it is not stalinist to ban parties which monstrous policy ideas inimical to core elements of society, the country with second biggest military in the NATO did it for decades with our collective agreement for example.
and when it stopped things started going bad there.
and yes the "tactics" they have been employing for years here in Europe are part and parcel of my take, I mean they are already showing us they are willing to commit acts of terror for their "cause".
as I wrote let's start from there , maybe it could even be enough.
//
example of a vote that should show you how crazy the people I am talking about are:
278 members of the EU Parliament (majority 353, it didn't pass), voted to *exclude nuclear and natgas from green electricity sources* (gas was already only considered green as a substitute for coal/oil, not as an additional source).
278, 40%+ of European representatives. they wanted to stop counting nuclear as a clean source and not to count closing a coal plant using a gas one as improvement wrt emissions.
they want 100% solar/wind, and ofc they also have many objections on those (poor birds killed by turbines, pristine landscape ruined by turbines and panels and so on).
and mind that we are already talking inside a framework that already mandates insane emission reductions, ie a framework that is already to the far left of the American one.
it is NEVER enough for them, the goal isn't "only" net zero (which is already crazy and destructive enough by itself), it's total control of all aspects of society.
that's 40% of the EU Parliaments basically with ideas fully incompatible with human life and civilization as we are living it currently.
maybe you don't agree on my "rethoric" about it but do you see how those people and people voting for them are an existential threat to society?
