Will Democrats lose for a decade or go far-right?

Post Reply New Topic

Republicans will continue to use the word socialist to attack their opponents.

Which ticks me off, because "socialist" is a word used to describe opponents. It is not inherently negative. If they're going to call Obama a socialist then they'd better actually give a cohesive argument as to why socialism is bad. They rarely bother to do this and instead just rely on the word's shock factor.

I don't think that we generally hold people to that standard when they criticize marginal beliefs. I mean, most people in general don't have a cohesive worldview, and this probably includes most politicians. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that on the smarter areas of the right-wing, lots of criticism of socialism occurs, and that this criticism is informed, so your concern strikes me as odd. Particularly given that I don't know what you actually mean by "socialism", as the term has often been applied to welfare states, but it's also applies to more radical non-capitalist economic organizing structures. The latter is utterly unlike the former, but the latter is the one that originally had the title, and for efficiency sake, we are actually better off describing the latter as "socialist" and the former as "welfare state" or some other similar word. The latter also has a lot of academic-level criticisms against it.

I don't doubt that there is some intelligent criticism of socialism. What I'm complaining about are the sound-bytes that make it into the news. And actually the vagueness you're talking about is part of what bugs me. I think that it is kind of exploited to create the impression that a welfare state is anti-capitalist. I guess a second reason why I dislike the use of "socialist" as an insult is because most people don't seem to have a good idea of what the word means.

That sounds just like it's politics.


I agree with you on this. I simply hate the terminological confusion. I can see you hating this because of the conflation between different concepts that occurs.

That's not exactly true Dox47, Obamacare doesn't benefit insurance companies one bit, it's actually cheaper for companies to simply pay the fine instead of continuing to carry insurance for their employees.

Coupled with the requirement to have to pay for pre-existing conditions, and all the hoops many smaller insurance companies may end up closing their doors permanently...



Hate to break it to you Dox47, but the left actually would endorse that kind of behavior. In fact a lot of people on the left honestly want to make it so the FCC can shut down Fox News...

Why do you think the left wants to bring back the "fairness doctrine..." That's a rhetorical question.



Didn't think you'd fall for that Dox...


Washington Times



There was a CBS News article I've been posting on multiple topics that may be of interest to you Dox47.



Yes and no Dox47, when the leak makes the Obama White House look bad, he tends to go ballistic, but all these other leaks like the most recent ones, were probably deliberate.



I didn't bring up illegal drugs...



It took some time but after doing some serious digging online, I managed to find some information to debunk a fair bit of what you assert is true. I seriously hope you don't believe the unemployment numbers from this administration, which are the result of accounting gimmecks.

Watch me take my own advice and ignore baseless criticism...

If that was a cheap shot directed at me, I will point out that I actually provided some sources to debunk what you stated when you tried to slam me...

I seriously suggest you read The Great Destroyer by David Limbaugh.

The Limbaugh name carries serious weight amongst the credible

At least he's honest about the fact he has a bias, unlike the dishonest left-wing trolls that you listen to whom call themselves reporters... So he certainly has more credibility than the sources you get your news from on the left.

You actually have no idea what my sources are so I would appreciate it if you don't try to speak for me
Limbaugh is not a credible source, no matter how you put it. He is an entertainer. Your entire paradigm is based off of an entertainment industry. When I see you and your ilk who listen to Fox talking "politics", what I really feel I am watching is people discussing their favorite soap opera

The author of that article makes a logical fallacy in assuming that the effect of Walker outspending Barrett by 7:1 rather than 2:1 only added a single percentage point to his lead. He cannot make that claim without knowing the null hypothesis, i.e. how would the rematch election have turned out had Walker only outspent Barret 2:1 the second time around rather than 7:1. I can't claim to know precisely how much effect money had on that particular election result, but this author's argument is a blatant fallacy. Plenty of polls seem to show that Walker's clear lead didn't develop until rather late in the run up to the recall election. I can't claim to know how much effect the advertising had in widening the gap, as there could have been other factors as well, but to claim it only effected the results by 1% is just outright baloney.

The argument that campaign finance is ineffective in changing election results doesn't hold water in general either. It's like claiming internet phishing scams are ineffective because only a small number of people fall for the scam. It only takes a few to fall for it and you've hit the jackpot. It's the exact same principle with close elections. If people who are loaded with money are desperate enough for a particular candidate to win in a close election they might as well outspend their opponent 100:1 in order to tip the balance in their favor. Considering what these people might have to gain in terms of a more "business friendly" government, the return on their investment is still well worth it, provided they have the money on hand. If advertizing didn't largely work there wouldn't be this kind of money involved in politics. Nobody would ever spend that kind of money if there were no results to come from it.

Last edited by marshall on 22 Jun 2012, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Debatable. You're not the ones who get invaded.

And you're wrong here as you can't prove that he only gained one percent unless you knew what the election results would have been had both candidates spent the same amount as they did in the first election. I'm not seeing any "harder" evidence here.

True. And considering the president is referred to as "the leader of the free world," you'd think that the rest of the free world would actually have a say. I think most of Europe would not choose to be represented by Obama (and certainly not by a Republican).

Hey if I don't get to vote in their elections, so they have no business voting in my country's elections. Furthermore, I would go so far as considering an attempt by a foreign country to rig a US election to be an act of war.