Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Do they? I still consider Georgia a red state and if they had sensible Republican candidates they would have 2 Republican Senators. Atlanta definitely leans Democrat but can‘t overcome how the rest of the state votes. The fact that the Senate race is close in any way considering the baggage Walker has proves my point.
The Commish
Footballguy
Pretty sure it was a joke around the absurdity of the argument made by saying that somehow the equal representation that exists in the Senate doesn't/wouldn't exist because of the EC.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Who exactly?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
"The Squad", for starters. And that doesn't include Bernie or Warren either. HTH.
But you already knew that.
We could also get into the details that any Democrat supporting BLM is supporting Marxists, because BLM literally has called themselves that and were trained as such (per the founders), but that might be for another thread.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
They are barely progressive."The Squad", for starters. And that doesn't include Bernie or Warren either. HTH.
But you already knew that.
We could also get into the details that any Democrat supporting BLM is supporting Marxists, because BLM literally has called themselves that and were trained as such (per the founders), but that might be for another thread.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Yeah, okay.They are barely progressive."The Squad", for starters. And that doesn't include Bernie or Warren either. HTH.
But you already knew that.
We could also get into the details that any Democrat supporting BLM is supporting Marxists, because BLM literally has called themselves that and were trained as such (per the founders), but that might be for another thread.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I cant stand Warren, but she isnt a socialist.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This is correct. Warren self identifies as a capitalist. Just like I do, and the overwhelming majority of the Democratic party.
Uh, no. I don’t care what she says, or you say. Warren is the very definition of a Socialist. Do Liberals really believe they can change this reality? Wow.
Last edited:
rockaction
Footballguy
I don't think she is. AOC and Bernie Sanders are self-described "socialists." We should have no problem labeling them as such. Warren believes in a hugely progressive taxation scheme, and a heavy regulatory scheme, but she's not a socialist. Socialists control the means of production, wages, and prices. That means the government provides all the major services in the economy, what you get paid, and how much those services cost. I'm not sure she's for that.
You believe that Elizabeth Warren is more a Capitalist than a Socialist?
rockaction
Footballguy
Technically there seems to be little doubt. Until she wants to control the means of production, fix prices, and set wages, then no. She's probably somewhere around Nixon in her views about the economy, save for the wealth tax. Nixon proposed a national health insurance plan and fixed prices at times. Totally intervened in the economy in the way laissez-faire guys never do. So yeah, if Nixon isn't a socialist, neither is Warren. The wealth tax is a sticky issue, though, and she is really intervening (or interfering) with people's right to property with her proposals. You could make that argument and color it, I guess.
djmich
Footballguy
She’s a socialist working in a capitalist framework.
rockaction
Footballguy
She certainly wants a massive redistribution of wealth, that's for sure.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Not picking on you ek, but this is what happens when people get economic lessons from Tucker Carlson.
The Commish
Footballguy
There's no question about this. It's undeniable. That's not what "socialist" means though. The definitions some people put on these words in lieu of the actual definition is becoming absurd and why it's tough to have a conversation with people insisting on doing it. If we can't agree on a starting point, the conversation isn't worth having.
Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist and even he doesn’t advocate for any of those textbook items.
Herb
Footballguy
By that measuring stick, labeling Donald Trump as a fascist working within a Democratic framework is an even more accurate depiction of intent.
the moops
Footballguy
Sanders describes himself as a "democratic socialist" and an admirer of aspects of social democracy, as practiced in the Scandinavian countries.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Correct. Socialist <> Democratic Socialist. Words have meaning and we can't have productive conversations when certain parties ignore those meanings and make up their own.
Welcome back ekbeats.
rockaction
Footballguy
I cannot believe people are still peddling the Sanders' campaign apologist line.
He knows what democratic socialism means and it means socialism.
I cannot believe you guys are still peddling this claptrap as actual fact.
Democratic socialist-socialist.
Words have meaning. Look up what "democratic socialist" means. Jesus, I can't ****ing believe this, Conway. What the actual ****?
He knows what democratic socialism means and it means socialism.
I cannot believe you guys are still peddling this claptrap as actual fact.
Democratic socialist-socialist.
Words have meaning. Look up what "democratic socialist" means. Jesus, I can't ****ing believe this, Conway. What the actual ****?
rockaction
Footballguy
Sanders, who writes in academic journals about socialism, praising socialism, knows what inverting the order of "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" means. It's not a ****ing accident.
What the actual ****?
Do you guys just parrot what journalists tell you to or what?
What the actual ****?
Do you guys just parrot what journalists tell you to or what?
the moops
Footballguy
Do you think Sanders wants the US to be more like Scandinavian countries or the likes of Cuba and Venezuela?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The two things aren't the same, and of all people, I'd expect you to know that.
rockaction
Footballguy
the moops, if he had his druthers, it would look more like Venezuela. This is a guy that praised Castro in the '80s by talking about literacy rates and health care. He was on the side of the Sandinistas. I'm sorry he's an embarrassment to the Dems. I really am. But those are facts.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, it's under the rubric of socialism. Look it up on Wikipedia or the dictionary, or any political science reference.
You're just wrong. And I'm not arguing it any more because I've been arguing on this board since 2016 to people like you who don't bother to look it up, don't understand, or are arguing in bad faith.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
We're all mix mode'rs. We just disagree on the mix.
rockaction
Footballguy
He wants to move us further left than we are within the capitalist system, as djmich so eloquently put it about Warren upthread. But in his writings, and in his own description of himself, he calls himself a "socialist."
I wrote this once to proninja and he finally came around. He's been an academic since the sixties. He knows what the word order means. For God's sake, how are we having this debate? This is so obtuse.
Him and AOC are democratic socialists, self-described. The seek the public ownership of the economy, including nationalizing almost all sectors of it. They set prices, wages, and control the means of production.
It's socialism.
I wrote this once to proninja and he finally came around. He's been an academic since the sixties. He knows what the word order means. For God's sake, how are we having this debate? This is so obtuse.
Him and AOC are democratic socialists, self-described. The seek the public ownership of the economy, including nationalizing almost all sectors of it. They set prices, wages, and control the means of production.
It's socialism.
rockaction
Footballguy
FFS, it's right on WIkipedia. Just look it up.
en.wikipedia.org
Democratic Socialism, in a series on...
Socialism.
"control of the means of production"
Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[6] democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism.[7] Democratic socialism was popularised by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[8]
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Democratic Socialism, in a series on...
Socialism.
"control of the means of production"
Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[6] democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism.[7] Democratic socialism was popularised by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[8]
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm not cursing out of anger, by the way, I sincerely didn't believe we were still having the Sanders debate.
Democratic socialism is a form of socialism, no matter how many exceptions for low-level private property are made. I studied John Roemer's Free To Lose market socialism in college. It was taught by a communist in Albany, NY. It was damn straight sure as shooting **** socialism.
It's so ironic we're saying words mean things and not bothering with the admitted and self-described taxonomy of those words.
Democratic socialism is a form of socialism, no matter how many exceptions for low-level private property are made. I studied John Roemer's Free To Lose market socialism in college. It was taught by a communist in Albany, NY. It was damn straight sure as shooting **** socialism.
It's so ironic we're saying words mean things and not bothering with the admitted and self-described taxonomy of those words.
rockaction
Footballguy
I mean, I know nothing about monetary economics, but took so many economic theory courses from Marxists and leftists that I'm pretty comfy with the definition of socialism and its offshoots. It all gets very tricky, and there are hybrids all over, but public control over almost all of the economy is the goal of any socialism. Whether that form takes the form of worker cooperatives or public cooperatives or whether it is state planned economic activities, it's socialism or under the academic rubric of such.
rockaction
Footballguy
Anyway, sorry, I'm just surprised by this.
Bernie is a social democrat when he has to be a politician in the United States as a real matter. When it comes to what he wants or what his theory about what economics should be is, he's a socialist.
Bernie is a social democrat when he has to be a politician in the United States as a real matter. When it comes to what he wants or what his theory about what economics should be is, he's a socialist.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
You're doing a bang-up job of not arguing it any more. They aren't the same. I'm sorry, they aren't. If you want me to post dozens of links, I'm happy to dig them up, but I doubt you'd be willing to read them or change your mind, so I'm not going to bother unless you want me to.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You aren’t reading his link. Amazing
djmich
Footballguy
This seems to settle the matter.FFS, it's right on WIkipedia. Just look it up.
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Democratic Socialism, in a series on...
Socialism.
"control of the means of production"
Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[6] democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism.[7] Democratic socialism was popularised by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[8]
rockaction
Footballguy
That's not what I said, really. Or at least what I meant. I said it falls "under the rubric of" at least three times and that, therefore, "democratic socialism" is a form of "socialism." If you want to get technical about wording, I would argue vehemently that "democratic socialism" is a form of "socialism," making it okay to shorthand "democratic socialism" as equalling "socialism," all properly understood. Perhaps that's the hang-up.
Here's what you want to do. You want to differentiate market socialism or hybrid socialism from state socialism. That's fine. We can have that discussion. But they're all a form of socialism and nobody is wrong saying "he's a socialist" when it comes to Sanders. Because he self-describes as one and admits it.
A social democrat, like Warren, is still a capitalist. A democratic socialist is not a capitalist.
rockaction
Footballguy
No. You'd be amazed. Watch them defend Sanders. Or, I should say, the journalist's view of Sanders. Because that's who shaped this whole debate. Back in 2016, when he looked like he might win, the Democratic establishment sent their journo henchmen to the fore to tell everybody that Bernie was just a good ol' social democrat. It worked.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
When Republican candidates for offices running elections talk about tightening up the process, I take it that they believe that Democrats have been cheating instead of outvoting them.
But what we lefties hear and fear is that they will use their power to cast doubt on and overturn results that don't go their way. Because we've already seen them do this. And we have people on this board and elsewhere who will support said actions because they value power and policy over good democracy.
But what we lefties hear and fear is that they will use their power to cast doubt on and overturn results that don't go their way. Because we've already seen them do this. And we have people on this board and elsewhere who will support said actions because they value power and policy over good democracy.
rockaction
Footballguy
What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.
www.dsausa.org
This is straight from the Democratic Socialists of America oganization's website.
Who we are
The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 92,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sorry for the sidetrack. Back on track with this.
Shutout
Footballguy
Re: Election deniers:
Without attempting to cause a backlash, I want to bring @Joe Bryant 's question back to the main point.
He asked if election deniers are bad? I think so because lack of confidence in an election undermines the entire system of the people of the country.
But I also want to caution to not talk about this particular topic in the way it has popularly been termed by the left. The "election denier" term has become a parroted chant from the left, to the point it has been stated ad nauseam about how there are so many republican "election deniers". I think it is unfair to paint this in this way because although it is being used against Republicans right now, it is actually something that was brought largely to the forefront when Hillary lost in 2016 and Abrams in Georgia. So, the accusing side is actually the ones who brought this drink to the party.
Before that, it was not an issue to that degree. Which brings up the obvious. If either or both political parties TRULY want to defeat the issue instead of just complaining about its possible existence, then the simple answer is to stop pushing federal election reform. Understand why , although to those not paying attention, that may sound counter-intuitive, it is the answer.
The states, individually, are in charge of their local and state elections. As it should be. They are there with eyeballs on each particular scenario where one size doesn't fit all and they set the rules to maintain integrity in elections. A sweeping of federal rules would open the door immensely for a fraud that is able to be applied in one area or state to be copy and pasted all across the country, making the situation worse. As it is now, what you MIGHT be able to rig in Wisconsin certainly won't fly under New York or Kentucky's rules. Voter ID as an example. Why is there such an enormous push to allow votes without Id, updated roll logs, signatures, etc? Would it not be simpler to say "i know the vote is legit because I saw the ID matched"? That isn't hindering ANY legitimate voter. You can't argue that it oppresses people in voting, yet they have no problem whatsoever having an ID handy to buy liquor, get a utility turned on, etc.
Truly fixing the issue is as simple as using common sense on what should be required for something as important as it is. And curtailing corruption is as simple as putting as many safeguards in place as reasonable-in this case allowing 50 states, not one fed government to act as overseers. But the conflict of doing the common sense thing is that it flies in the face of what one political party wants-more government control. This is why it is an issue. It is abundantly transparent as to the angle being sought.
Without attempting to cause a backlash, I want to bring @Joe Bryant 's question back to the main point.
He asked if election deniers are bad? I think so because lack of confidence in an election undermines the entire system of the people of the country.
But I also want to caution to not talk about this particular topic in the way it has popularly been termed by the left. The "election denier" term has become a parroted chant from the left, to the point it has been stated ad nauseam about how there are so many republican "election deniers". I think it is unfair to paint this in this way because although it is being used against Republicans right now, it is actually something that was brought largely to the forefront when Hillary lost in 2016 and Abrams in Georgia. So, the accusing side is actually the ones who brought this drink to the party.
Before that, it was not an issue to that degree. Which brings up the obvious. If either or both political parties TRULY want to defeat the issue instead of just complaining about its possible existence, then the simple answer is to stop pushing federal election reform. Understand why , although to those not paying attention, that may sound counter-intuitive, it is the answer.
The states, individually, are in charge of their local and state elections. As it should be. They are there with eyeballs on each particular scenario where one size doesn't fit all and they set the rules to maintain integrity in elections. A sweeping of federal rules would open the door immensely for a fraud that is able to be applied in one area or state to be copy and pasted all across the country, making the situation worse. As it is now, what you MIGHT be able to rig in Wisconsin certainly won't fly under New York or Kentucky's rules. Voter ID as an example. Why is there such an enormous push to allow votes without Id, updated roll logs, signatures, etc? Would it not be simpler to say "i know the vote is legit because I saw the ID matched"? That isn't hindering ANY legitimate voter. You can't argue that it oppresses people in voting, yet they have no problem whatsoever having an ID handy to buy liquor, get a utility turned on, etc.
Truly fixing the issue is as simple as using common sense on what should be required for something as important as it is. And curtailing corruption is as simple as putting as many safeguards in place as reasonable-in this case allowing 50 states, not one fed government to act as overseers. But the conflict of doing the common sense thing is that it flies in the face of what one political party wants-more government control. This is why it is an issue. It is abundantly transparent as to the angle being sought.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I agree, stop pushing election reform. If we want to restore faith in our elections then we have to stop people from baselessly claiming fraud. If there is no evidence of fraud, then stop trying to pass reforms to curtail it.
What I find particularly frightening is the amount of election-denying politicians running for offices that control elections. We can't have politicians threatening to reject election results based on nothing more than "feelings".
I would hope we can all agree on that.
Similar threads
