Yet Comey is still correct. If the Dems decide to counter Trump kooks with left-wing kooks, the middle will stay at home on election night, and the result will be four more years of Old Man Rantypants. Count on it. Seeing this start to unfold is incredibly frustrating.
Define left wing kooks, Jib. You see, these so-called “socialists” are really just ordinary run of the mill liberals. Yes, there was a socialist elected, but in reality, even Bernie Sanders is a pretty tame socialist, as socialists go. It’s really bad when people proposing equality for all Americans have become “left wing kooks”.
Perhaps the reason the Republicans are getting elected is that the Dems are too moderate? Maybe if we gave people a clear choice, they might choose someone who would actually pave the way to a better world? If we’re too scared to try, then the right wing wins even if they lose, because no one on the left will be willing to really challenge them, just sort of be a traditional Eisenhower conservative. And that is what the Republicans like Comey would like…an Eisenhower conservative, whether Democrat or Republican. So convince the Dems that people don’t actually want health care or equality or rights or anything else but low, low taxes, and elect people who will focus on low, low taxes while rights get shoved aside as “socialist” and health care continues to be set up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It’s a win-win for them, and a no-win for the public.
The USA became frankly unhinged about socialists in the 1950’s and never recovered from it. I put it down to a form of contagious societal paranoia. You guys wouldn’t recognise a socialist if they turned up and started taking your shit.
New Zealand is broadly speaking a socialist country, not that we especially think of ourselves that way. We have state run education and health systems. Much of our transport infrastructure is owned and controlled by Government agencies or companies. The government owns shares in electricity generators and the national airline. Local government (city and county) tend to own electricity distribution, water, sewer, sea and air ports etc etc. When we have an accident we don’t sue each other, because we have a state run accident compensation corporation, funded through levies on both companies and individuals. It is a ‘no fault’ scheme. For pharmaceuticals and medical devices we have a single buying agency, which holds our costs down to a fraction of the price paid in the USA, but does limit access to bleeding edge treatment for a period. Yet we have better measurable health outcomes than the US.
Alongside this we have a thriving capitalist economy that is one of the easiest places in the world to set up a business. A very simple tax structure very few tariffs or trade barriers (as an exporting nation free trade is very much in our interests). We have one of the strongest and most robust systems of respect for personal property rights anywhere in the world.
I have yet to have someone make any credible argument that our balance of socialist and capitalist approaches leads to a demonstrably worse outcome than the US. Not that we’re perfect by a very long shot, but socialism when suitably approached actually makes for a great society (go figure).
The situation here in Oz was very similar when I was young. As far as I can remember each state had a publically owned bank in competition with private banks and there was a national publically owned bank. Utilities were also owned by the people. Then the great wave of privatisation occurred, the banks and utilities were sold off. Because of incompetent ‘regulation’ the result was soaring power prices and criminal behavior by bank employees. Naturally conservative governments blame renewables for the massive increase in electricity prices and pimped for more coal-fired generation. One aspect of this entire debacle that makes me very angry, is that often, surveys indicated majority opposition to privatisation, unfortunately the voters didn’t object loudly enough.
Luckily our socialized health system has survived repeated attempts by neo-liberal ideologues to destroy it. We also have a single pharmaceutical buying agency, the PBS, which has saved me many thousands of dollars.
The US is an outlier, most socialized systems produce far better health outcomes. In my experience conservative Americans just ‘know’ their system is better, they have no curiosity about the rest of the world.
It doesn’t matter how I define “left-wing kook”. The great mass of voters in the centre will do it for themselves on election night — and stay home. If your desire for a social justice unicorn is more important than putting an end to the criminal conspiracy in the White House, then prepare yourself for a second Trump term.
I will echo iknklast’s call for you to define left wing kooks, and I will remind you that in making your answer, try to bear in mind the various things that are considered ordinary in every developed nation outside USA. How can asking for single payer health care be kooky, when literally every other developed nation has it?
In fact, can you name even a single view held by those you call kooks that is not considered standard in say, Canada?
What? “Don’t vote for left-wing kooks if you don’t want more Trump forever, but it doesn’t matter what ‘left-wing kooks’ means because voters will decide that on election night, but definitely don’t vote for them.” That’s what you’re telling us? Seriously? You’re warning us off supporting left-wing kooks while saying we can’t know who the left-wing kooks are?
That’s a pretty worthless definition of kook, and a trivial basis to dismiss someone. Again, bearing in mind that these supposed kooks are proposing things that the rest of the developed world adopted years ago and takes for granted, please define what makes these political candidates kooky and not worthy of a vote.
Not to mention the fact that – as I said in the earlier post on which Jib warned us not to go all crazy here – there is all of one socialist candidate. (How many wack versions of Republicans are there?) One. One socialist is an absurd pretext for people to wag their fingers and tell the Democrats to quit being so flaky.
I wish the Dems were a lot more socialist than they are, but the reality is they’re not remotely socialist.
Also, Jib, could you stop with the one liners? They come across as rude.
Holms, dammit, New Zealand! But still, in this context, ‘no’ (it can mean otherwise in other, somewhat murky contexts – I wont get started on Nah, yeah).
As you should know well by now Rob, anything that can be attributed to both Au and NZ will be attributed solely to Au. Along with all of your famous people.
That about says it all!
Yet Comey is still correct. If the Dems decide to counter Trump kooks with left-wing kooks, the middle will stay at home on election night, and the result will be four more years of Old Man Rantypants. Count on it. Seeing this start to unfold is incredibly frustrating.
No, he’s not, and nobody asked him anyway.
Define left wing kooks, Jib. You see, these so-called “socialists” are really just ordinary run of the mill liberals. Yes, there was a socialist elected, but in reality, even Bernie Sanders is a pretty tame socialist, as socialists go. It’s really bad when people proposing equality for all Americans have become “left wing kooks”.
Perhaps the reason the Republicans are getting elected is that the Dems are too moderate? Maybe if we gave people a clear choice, they might choose someone who would actually pave the way to a better world? If we’re too scared to try, then the right wing wins even if they lose, because no one on the left will be willing to really challenge them, just sort of be a traditional Eisenhower conservative. And that is what the Republicans like Comey would like…an Eisenhower conservative, whether Democrat or Republican. So convince the Dems that people don’t actually want health care or equality or rights or anything else but low, low taxes, and elect people who will focus on low, low taxes while rights get shoved aside as “socialist” and health care continues to be set up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It’s a win-win for them, and a no-win for the public.
The USA became frankly unhinged about socialists in the 1950’s and never recovered from it. I put it down to a form of contagious societal paranoia. You guys wouldn’t recognise a socialist if they turned up and started taking your shit.
New Zealand is broadly speaking a socialist country, not that we especially think of ourselves that way. We have state run education and health systems. Much of our transport infrastructure is owned and controlled by Government agencies or companies. The government owns shares in electricity generators and the national airline. Local government (city and county) tend to own electricity distribution, water, sewer, sea and air ports etc etc. When we have an accident we don’t sue each other, because we have a state run accident compensation corporation, funded through levies on both companies and individuals. It is a ‘no fault’ scheme. For pharmaceuticals and medical devices we have a single buying agency, which holds our costs down to a fraction of the price paid in the USA, but does limit access to bleeding edge treatment for a period. Yet we have better measurable health outcomes than the US.
Alongside this we have a thriving capitalist economy that is one of the easiest places in the world to set up a business. A very simple tax structure very few tariffs or trade barriers (as an exporting nation free trade is very much in our interests). We have one of the strongest and most robust systems of respect for personal property rights anywhere in the world.
I have yet to have someone make any credible argument that our balance of socialist and capitalist approaches leads to a demonstrably worse outcome than the US. Not that we’re perfect by a very long shot, but socialism when suitably approached actually makes for a great society (go figure).
People with politics that wouldn’t have been out of place when the New Deal was a thing are hardly kooks…
Rob, @5
Seems like paradise.
The situation here in Oz was very similar when I was young. As far as I can remember each state had a publically owned bank in competition with private banks and there was a national publically owned bank. Utilities were also owned by the people. Then the great wave of privatisation occurred, the banks and utilities were sold off. Because of incompetent ‘regulation’ the result was soaring power prices and criminal behavior by bank employees. Naturally conservative governments blame renewables for the massive increase in electricity prices and pimped for more coal-fired generation. One aspect of this entire debacle that makes me very angry, is that often, surveys indicated majority opposition to privatisation, unfortunately the voters didn’t object loudly enough.
Luckily our socialized health system has survived repeated attempts by neo-liberal ideologues to destroy it. We also have a single pharmaceutical buying agency, the PBS, which has saved me many thousands of dollars.
The US is an outlier, most socialized systems produce far better health outcomes. In my experience conservative Americans just ‘know’ their system is better, they have no curiosity about the rest of the world.
It doesn’t matter how I define “left-wing kook”. The great mass of voters in the centre will do it for themselves on election night — and stay home. If your desire for a social justice unicorn is more important than putting an end to the criminal conspiracy in the White House, then prepare yourself for a second Trump term.
#2
I will echo iknklast’s call for you to define left wing kooks, and I will remind you that in making your answer, try to bear in mind the various things that are considered ordinary in every developed nation outside USA. How can asking for single payer health care be kooky, when literally every other developed nation has it?
In fact, can you name even a single view held by those you call kooks that is not considered standard in say, Canada?
So, no problem then. Just hold the midterms in Canada.
I notice Jib replied without defining which political issues are kooky and which are not.
What? “Don’t vote for left-wing kooks if you don’t want more Trump forever, but it doesn’t matter what ‘left-wing kooks’ means because voters will decide that on election night, but definitely don’t vote for them.” That’s what you’re telling us? Seriously? You’re warning us off supporting left-wing kooks while saying we can’t know who the left-wing kooks are?
You do see the problem there, right?
For starters, anyone who literally refers to themselves as “socialist”. That really goes over well.
Jib, yeah, nah.
That’s a pretty worthless definition of kook, and a trivial basis to dismiss someone. Again, bearing in mind that these supposed kooks are proposing things that the rest of the developed world adopted years ago and takes for granted, please define what makes these political candidates kooky and not worthy of a vote.
n.b. “yeah nah” is Australian for “no.”
Not to mention the fact that – as I said in the earlier post on which Jib warned us not to go all crazy here – there is all of one socialist candidate. (How many wack versions of Republicans are there?) One. One socialist is an absurd pretext for people to wag their fingers and tell the Democrats to quit being so flaky.
I wish the Dems were a lot more socialist than they are, but the reality is they’re not remotely socialist.
Also, Jib, could you stop with the one liners? They come across as rude.
Holms, dammit, New Zealand! But still, in this context, ‘no’ (it can mean otherwise in other, somewhat murky contexts – I wont get started on Nah, yeah).
#19
As you should know well by now Rob, anything that can be attributed to both Au and NZ will be attributed solely to Au. Along with all of your famous people.
Grumble mumble….
Ok, they can keep Russell Crow. Pavalova is ours, so is Phar Lap.